Actual Freedom ~ Frequently Asked Questions

[Co-Respondent]: ‘Is it good for the body to engage in regular exercise?’
[Richard]: ‘No ... what is good for the body is an absence of stress’. [endquote].

RICHARD: Yes, I replied thusly on the understanding (a) that ‘regular exercise’ referred to a regimen of artificial activity (over and above normal everyday activity) ... and (b) that, given the general thrust of the entire e-mail, it was a personal question (relating to what life is like after the extirpation, in toto, of the progenitor of stress).

Speaking of which: that stressor – the word stress is aphetised from the word distress – has, of course, a vested interest in deflecting attention away from itself.

RICK: Sorry ... What do you mean?

RICHARD: Just by way of example: that progenitor of stress – the stressor within – has persuaded an otherwise intelligent person to downplay the debilitating effect of stress and champion the remedial effect of regular exercise (along with good nutrition) by glossing over the former with the word can – ‘may possibly’ (Oxford Dictionary) – and lending legitimacy to the latter with the word is (‘have place in the realm of fact/be the case or the fact’). Vis.:

• [Rick]: ‘I have read that stress *can* be bad for the body, in that it *can* have a very negative effect (...) the general agreement among health experts across the globe *is* that regular exercise (along with good nutrition) *is* the best thing ...’ [emphasis added].

Moreover, the debilitating effect of stress was further negated by it merely being something read somewhere whilst the remedial effect of regular exercise was further legitimised by the presentation of it as being the general agreement among health experts across the globe.

In case that is still not clear: by making the body partake in a regimen of artificial activity (over and above normal everyday activity) the stressor has successfully eluded attention ... once again.

*

RICK: I have read that stress can be bad for the body, in that it can have a very negative effect on one’s immune system and thus make the body subject to many kinds of illnesses and problems. But the general agreement among health experts across the globe is that regular exercise (along with good nutrition) is the best thing to promote a healthy body.

RICHARD: Hmm ... have you ever considered a career in penning propaganda?

RICK: Nope I haven’t. I don’t think there’s enough money to be made there.

RICHARD: Golly, there are literally billions of dollars made available annually all around the world, both in government grants and commercial funding, for persons with little more than a facility for fine-sounding phrases and some letters after their name ... by way of a neat little primer into the whole pseudo-science industry I will refer you to the following booklet: https://web.archive.org/web/19970412002851/http://www.junkscience.com/sws.html

*

RICK: What evidence do you have that says that regular exercise isn’t good for the body?

RICHARD: Ha ... if your above paragraph is an example of what constitutes evidence in your neck of the woods then the following should be more than sufficient: [example only]: ‘I have read that regular exercise (along with good nutrition) can be good for the body, in that it can have a very positive effect on one’s immune system and thus make the body less subject to many kinds of illnesses and problems. But the general agreement among health experts across the globe is that stress reduction is the best thing to promote a healthy body’. [end example].

RICK: Nope, not sufficient.

RICHARD: Oh? Yet all I did was write the obverse of what you wrote.

RICK: How about some articles and quotes from credible sources? That’s the good stuff.

RICHARD: As far as I have been able to ascertain there is no such good stuff – there have been no articles from credible sources relating to what life is like after the extirpation, in toto, of the progenitor of stress – to quote from.

*

RICK: I’m curious to see where you got that information.

RICHARD: Out of nothing more than idle curiosity I have just now typed <stress number one killer> into an internet search-engine ... the Time Magazine (for example) ran a cover story, on June 6, 1983, in which it was stated that [quote] ‘In the past 30 years, doctors and health officials have come to realize how heavy a toll stress is taking on the nation’s well being. According to the American Academy of Family Physicians, two-thirds of office visits to family doctors are prompted by stress-related symptoms. At the same time, leaders of industry have become alarmed by the huge cost of such symptoms in absenteeism, company medical expenses and lost productivity. Based on national samples, these costs have been estimated at $50 billion to $75 billion a year, more than $750 for every U.S. worker. Stress is now known to be a major contributor, either directly or indirectly, to coronary heart disease, cancer, lung ailments, accidental injuries, cirrhosis of the liver and suicide – six of the leading causes of death in the U.S. Stress also plays a role in aggravating such diverse conditions as multiple sclerosis, diabetes, genital herpes and even trench mouth. It is a sorry sign of the times that the three bestselling drugs in the country are an ulcer medication (Tagamet), a hypertension drug (Inderal) and a tranquilizer (Valium)’. [endquote]. That was, of course, the prevailing wisdom in the ‘eighties ... the current flavour-of-the-month (this decade’s wisdom) is depression.

RICK: Yeah. I found when I typed <importance of exercise> into the search engine of Google one of the links that came up was to an article from Pharmabiz.com (which describes itself as ‘India’s most comprehensive pharma portal’). The article states ‘Medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford universities, who studied the habits and health of 17,000 middle aged and older men, reported the first scientific evidence that even modest exercise helps prolong life. Dr. Ralph S. Paffenbarger, the visiting professor of epidemiology ...’

RICHARD: Bingo!

RICK: ‘... at the Harvard School of Public Health, who is the principal author of the report said, ‘we have found a direct relationship between the level of physical activity and the length of life in the college men we have studied’. He added, ‘This is the first good evidence that people who are active and fit have a longer life span than those who are not’. A strong connection between hard work and healthy heart has also been convincingly demonstrated in the same study. The study showed that the less active persons ran a three times higher risk of suffering a fatal heart attack than did those who worked the hardest. Review of fatal heart attacks revealed that the less active men were also three times more likely to die unexpectedly and rapidly within an hour after the attack. Exercise increases calories output. The body fat can be reduced by regular exercise. It is therefore, useful for weight reduction in conjunction with restricted food intake. According to a study by Dr. Peter Wood of Stanford University Medical School ...’

RICHARD: It only took about three minutes to locate the following list of epidemiological studies he participated in (he has a doctoral degree in science): http://prevention.stanford.edu/facultystaff/detail.asp?22

RICK: ‘... [According to a study by Dr. Peter Wood of Stanford University Medical School], author of ‘California Diet and Exercise Programme’, very active people eat about 600 more calories daily than their sedentary counterparts but weigh about 20 percent less. Up to 15 hours after vigorous exercise, the body continues to burn calories at a higher rate than it should have without exercise. Moderate physical exercise has been found to be accompanied by less obesity and lower cholesterol levels’. [endquote]. Sounds like they are saying that regular exercise IS good in promoting a healthy body.

RICHARD: Of course it sounds like that ... after all, that is the whole point of the exercise (pun intended).

RICK: Why is it you say that it isn’t?

RICHARD: Because there is no stressor whatsoever parasitically inhabiting this flesh and blood body there is no need for a remedial regimen of artificial activity (over and above normal everyday activity).

It is all so simple here in this actual world.

CO-RESPONDENT: Richard, you wrote:

[Co-Respondent]: ‘Is it good for the body to engage in regular exercise?’
[Richard]: ‘No ... what is good for the body is an absence of stress’. [endquote].

RESPONDENT: Just so that we are clear, Rick is asking: Is R.E. good for the body?

RICHARD: No, it was someone else who asked me that question (at 1:22 PM, on Thursday, the sixth of November, 2003 AEDST).

RESPONDENT: It is an inconsequential mistake, but thanks for pointing it out.

RICHARD: Given that you specifically said [quote] ‘just so that we are clear’ [endquote] it is anything but inconsequential.

*

RESPONDENT: (And it is a generic question, he is not asking is R.E. good for a diseased person, a stressed person, for Richard’s body etc. etc.).

RICHARD: I have already explained what understanding my (above) reply was based upon. Vis.:

• [Richard to Rick]: ‘Yes, I replied thusly on the understanding (a) that ‘regular exercise’ referred to a regimen of artificial activity (over and above normal everyday activity) ... and (b) that, given the general thrust of the entire e-mail, it was a personal question (relating to what life is like after the extirpation, in toto, of the progenitor of stress)’.

Speaking of which: that stressor – the word stress is aphetised from the word distress – has, of course, a vested interest in deflecting attention away from itself’.

RESPONDENT: Can you now revise your understanding ...

RICHARD: I have no intention whatsoever of rewriting history.

RESPONDENT: ... or is your understanding set in stone?

RICHARD: Metaphorically speaking (it is actually set in bytes and print) ... yes.

RESPONDENT: The question is not what effect exercise has upon a body free of the identity/soul in toto, but whether exercise (in general) is good for the body (in general) for a normal human being.

RICHARD: Hmm ... by your own acknowledgement you did not even know who asked the question yet now, a scant 45 minutes later, you know that it was not a personal question relating to what life is like after the extirpation, in toto, of the progenitor of stress but a question about whether exercise (in general) is good for the body (in general) for a normal human being.

For your information, that question arose because my co-respondent had read about me riding a bicycle.

*

RESPONDENT: Richard replies: No. Which is in contradiction of the current scientific knowledge.

RICHARD: As far as I have been able to ascertain there is no scientific knowledge, be it current or otherwise, relating to what life is like after the extirpation, in toto, of the progenitor of stress.

RESPONDENT: As nobody but you brought in the topic of how exercise relates to a life after the extirpation ...

RICHARD: No, it was my co-respondent who (having read about me riding a bicycle) brought up the topic ... not me.

RESPONDENT: ... and as science has nil knowledge about such a condition, your ascertainment is quite valid but irrelevant.

RICHARD: If you say so, then it is so (for you, that is): given your error about who asked the question I would rather keep my own counsel on the matter.

*

RESPONDENT: (And I can provide references from reputed journals).

RICHARD: Please ... go ahead and provide them, then.

RESPONDENT: Just so that we are clear: you are asking me to provide references from reputed journals to the effect that exercise (in general) is good for the body (in general)?

RICHARD: I am inviting you to go ahead and provide [quote] ‘scientific knowledge’ [endquote], that a regimen of artificial activity (over and above normal everyday activity) is good for a particular body, as all I have read so far is epidemiological assessments which, being based as they are upon statistical associations, are not scientific.

*

RESPONDENT: (And it is a generic question, he is not asking is R.E. good for a diseased person, a stressed person, for Richard’s body etc. etc.).

RICHARD: So as to bring the discussion back to the point ... would your etceteras include a person with a diagnosis of major or minor depression or dysthymia? If not, and given that the debilitating effect a depressive identity has on the body can be alleviated with medicative measures, would it not be the case that what is good for the body is an absence of depression (if not the depressor himself/ herself)?

Speaking of which: that progenitor of melancholia – ‘melancholia = depression [a pathological state of excessive melancholy]’ (Oxford Dictionary) – has, of course, a vested interest in deflecting attention away from itself.

CO-RESPONDENT: Richard, you wrote:

[Co-Respondent]: ‘Is it good for the body to engage in regular exercise?’
[Richard]: ‘No ... what is good for the body is an absence of stress’. [endquote].

RICHARD: Yes, I replied thusly on the understanding (a) that ‘regular exercise’ referred to a regimen of artificial activity (over and above normal everyday activity) ... and (b) that, given the general thrust of the entire e-mail, it was a personal question (relating to what life is like after the extirpation, in toto, of the progenitor of stress). Speaking of which: that stressor – the word stress is aphetised from the word distress – has, of course, a vested interest in deflecting attention away from itself.

(...)

CO-RESPONDENT: Sounds like they [epidemiologists] are saying that regular exercise IS good in promoting a healthy body.

RICHARD: Of course it sounds like that ... after all, that is the whole point of the exercise (pun intended).

CO-RESPONDENT: Why is it you say that it isn’t?

RICHARD: Because there is no stressor whatsoever parasitically inhabiting this flesh and blood body there is no need for a remedial regimen of artificial activity (over and above normal everyday activity).

RESPONDENT: Richard, are you saying exercise is not needed to reduce emotional stress in the actual world ...

RICHARD: No, I am not saying that.

RESPONDENT: ... or that it is not needed to keep a healthy body?

RICHARD: No, I am not saying that, either.

RESPONDENT: Wow, thanks for the clarification.

RICHARD: You are very welcome.

*

RICHARD (to Co-Respondent): I am inviting you to go ahead and provide [quote] ‘scientific knowledge’ [endquote] that a regimen of artificial activity (over and above normal everyday activity) is good for a particular body ...

RESPONDENT: When you say particular body, you mean no science study has proven that R.E. is good for each and every individual?

RICHARD: As all I have read so far is epidemiological assessments, which statistical associations cannot be used to establish causation in any individual, I was not at all meaning that no [quote] ‘science’ [endquote] study has proven that a regimen of artificial activity (over and above normal everyday activity) is good for each and every individual.

CO-RESPONDENT: Richard, you wrote:

[Co-Respondent]: ‘Is it good for the body to engage in regular exercise?’
[Richard]: ‘No ... what is good for the body is an absence of stress’. [endquote].

RESPONDENT No. 74: Just so that we are clear, Rick is asking: Is R.E. good for the body?

RICHARD: No, it was someone else who asked me that question (at 1:22 PM, on Thursday, the sixth of November, 2003 AEDST).

(...)

RESPONDENT: I can’t speak for a control group trial or a statistical epidemiological trial but I can speak for my own experiential evidence. I have walked 2.5 miles per day above my normal daily activity for almost three months and I have lost 15 lbs.

RICHARD: What you are really saying, by speaking for your own experiential evidence, is that it is good for the body to be fifteen pounds lighter, is it not?

RESPONDENT: Yes, I am saying it is good for my body to be fifteen pounds lighter than it was.

RICHARD: Thank you for your confirmation.

*

RESPONDENT: If so, and given that the same result can be attained simply by not eating so much in the first place, suppose someone on a mailing list set-up for another purpose were to ask you, having read somewhere that you walk to the CBD (because you are retired and on a pension and cannot afford a motor vehicle), whether it is good for the body to engage in regular exercise and you were to answer pithily, ‘No, what is good for the body is an absence of edacity’, then what are the odds that a couple of years after that some other person might miss the point and champion remedial regimens of artificial activity (over and above normal everyday activity) instead?

RESPONDENT: I don’t think I get your point here Richard.

RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to put it this way: an absence of esurience would render any remedial regimen of artificial activity null and void.

RESPONDENT: I was speaking of my own experience in which I was already overweight and my normal everyday activity is low.

RICHARD: I was speaking of my own experience in which there is a total absence of stress and my normal everyday activity is completely carefree.

RESPONDENT: Also, I can’t speak about being without a feeler which effects my bodily condition.

RICHARD: Whereas I can ... and did (whereupon another person missed that point and championed remedial regimens of artificial activity, over and above normal everyday activity, instead).

RESPONDENT: This is hard to admit but just yesterday and today I am dealing with another crisis situation with my mother and have become depressed and tried to make myself feel better by eating more and so I have gained back some of the weight I lost.

RICHARD: Might I suggest you undertake a remedial weight-lifting regimen, three times a week for ten weeks, as a (supposedly) scientific treatment of your depression? Vis.: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9143068&dopt=Abstract

That way you could speak from your own experiential evidence (about what those sixteen geriatrics had to say).

*

RESPONDENT: In summary let me say that I do get your point completely that if one has no stressor/depressor and one lives a lifestyle with normal activity then there would be no need for any extra activity.

RICHARD: Do you also get the point completely that by not eating so much in the first place there would be no need for extra activity?

RESPONDENT: Also, I agree that exercise is not a replacement for dealing with ones psychological issues.

RICHARD: Do you also agree that exercise is not a replacement for dealing with eating so much in the first place?

RESPONDENT: However, in my own situation walking an extra 2.5 miles per day is very beneficial to my physical well being.

RICHARD: Being fifteen pounds lighter is really what is very beneficial to your physical well being, is it not?

If so, and given that the same result can be attained simply by not eating so much in the first place, suppose someone on a mailing list set-up for another purpose were to persist in sanctioning a palliative regime of artificial activity (over and above normal everyday activity), by their continued endorsement of same from their own experiential evidence, would it be a fair comment to say they have completely missed the point ... albeit all the while claiming they get the point completely?

Perhaps if I were to paraphrase the pithy question-and-answer sequence which prompted this entire thread? For example:

• [Question]: ‘Is it good for the body to engage in regular exercise?’
• [Answer]: ‘No ... what is good for the body is to not eat so much in the first place’. [end example].

‘Tis such a simple point, non?

*

RESPONDENT: In summary let me say that I do get your point completely that if one has no stressor/ depressor and one lives a lifestyle with normal activity then there would be no need for any extra activity.

RICHARD: Do you also get the point completely that by not eating so much in the first place there would be no need for extra activity?

RESPONDENT: There would be no need for extra activity if one’s normal activity is sufficient.

RICHARD: I am only too happy to modify my query so as to take your proviso into account: do you also get the point completely that by not eating so much (such as to render one’s normal activity insufficient) in the first place there would be no need for extra activity?

RESPONDENT: Not really because one needs sufficient normal activity even if one has not eaten too much. For example, one’s muscles would atrophy without sufficient normal activity.

RICHARD: Unless a person is physically immobilised (such as being bedridden or quadriplegic for instance) then their normal everyday activity (such as getting out of bed/ making the bed, walking to the bathroom/ performing the necessary ablutions, walking to the kitchen/ preparing breakfast, sitting down and eating/ standing up and clearing away, washing the dishes/ drying the dishes, sweeping the floors/ dusting the furniture and/or going to and from and doing paid work/ remunerative service, and so on, and so forth) is entirely sufficient for the prevention of muscular atrophy.

Therefore, and before I further modify my already modified query so as to accommodate your latest proviso, I will ask you this: are you physically immobilised?

If not, then do you get the point completely that by you not eating so much (such as to render your normal everyday activity insufficient) in the first place there would be no need for you to engage in a remedial regimen of artificial activity?

*

RESPONDENT: Richard, I got it. While eating as I was driving along in my auto this evening it dawned on me that if I did not eat so much in the first place there would be no need for extra activity.

RICHARD: Exactly.

Over the years when I was working for a living – such as when running my own business and working 12-14 hour days 6-7 days a week – I ate three large meals a day (often with second helpings) ... and then some.

Now that I am retired and on a pension – with a lifestyle so far past being sedentary as to be best described as indolent – I eat only one meal a day (with maybe a handful of nuts or a few crackers with a little cheese for supper) ... and sometimes even skip a day.

I would have to be pretty silly to spend my declining years engaged in remedial regimens of artificial activity, day in and day out, just so that I could continue eating the prodigious amounts I consumed in my workaday life ... plus I have far, far better things to do than living a pigging-out/ working-out lifestyle.

Things like sitting back with my feet up watching comedies on television.

RESPONDENT: Richard, what would be the cause for over-eating and obesity in your experience?

RICHARD: As the cause of obesity is (obviously) over-eating then what you are really asking is why eat so much in the first place, is it not? If so, and as you have specifically asked about my experience, I will first draw your attention to the following word:

• ‘hyperphagia: a condition in which somebody compulsively overeats over a long period’. (Encarta Dictionary).
• ‘hyperphagia: gluttony; overeating’. (Stedman’s Medical Dictionary).
• ‘hyperphagia [also called polyphagia]: excessive eating; gluttony’. (Dorland’s Medical Dictionary).

Then to this:

• [Respondent No. 94]: ‘Do you experience hunger?
• [Richard]: ‘No (all appetitive desires are null and void).
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘If you don’t eat for a day or two, there would be certain sensations in your body which are usually classified as hunger by normal humans.
• [Richard]: ‘The bodily sensation of an empty stomach is not what is usually classified as hunger by normal humans – and it does not take a day or two of not eating anyway but only a few hours – as what is usually classified by normal humans as hunger is a feeling of being hungry which arises from that sensation ... which feeling desists (in normal humans) when replaced by a feeling of satiety which arises from the sensation of a full stomach after having eaten.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘This is certainly new to me.
• [Richard]: ‘Laboratory tests have shown that stimulation of the lateral nucleus of the hypothalamus (known as the ‘feeding centre’) activates feeding in animals – whereas lesions of the lateral nucleus abolish all desire to eat (aphagia) – and that stimulation of the ventromedial nucleus of the hypothalamus (aka the ‘satiety centre’) inhibits feeding ... whereas lesions of the ventromedial nucleus can lead to compulsive eating (hyperphagia).
Incidentally, it has been found that opiates also stimulate the ventromedial nucleus (hence the use of amphetamine for control of obesity)’.

RESPONDENT: And why this all-mighty trend to tackle the effects and not the causes when dealing with various problems?

RICHARD: To paraphrase my initial response in the original thread: the progenitor of compulsive eating – the glutton – has, of course, a vested interest in deflecting attention away from itself.

RESPONDENT: Is it because it is easier, they are more obvious or maybe because you’re left with no choice when the unpleasant effects arise?

RICHARD: You are indeed left with a choice (and at each moment again as well) ... to wit: not eating so much.

Actual Freedom Homepage

Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless