Acne and Bodybuilding

If you have never suffered from acne before, you should not worry about bodybuilding ruining your complexion. However, if bad luck strikes you with some blemishes here and there, lifting weights might make matters worse for your skin. It is a pretty awful situation, as it leads you to believe that you have to make a choice. A choice between a good body or a good complexion. With a lot of discipline and reliable research, you might eventually work things out and refuse to compromise. 

So, here are the three main areas that you need to pay attention to in order to continue working on your fitness and, at the same time, keep you skin acne-free.

HORMONES

Testosterone is an acne stimulating hormone. Bodybuilding increases testosterone levels for about half an hour after you have finished your workout. This doesn't seem to pose too big of a problem, as testosterone levels quickly return to their default setting after exercising. Nonetheless, testosterone precursors, such as DHEA, are also elevated after lifting weights and it takes them several hours to get back to what they used to be. Acne patients have been found to have elevated levels of DHEA, which have been linked to an increased sebum production.  

What you can do: incorporate anti-androgens in your diet. Anti-androgens act as androgen-receptor blockers and have been used in the treatment of acne for a long time already. Think about oral contraceptives, spironolactone or cycproterone. Luckily, you can also find some plants that naturally contain anti-androgens and whose efficacy has been tested in several trials. The number one option is probably spearmint tea. Try drinking two cups a day and see if you can notice any change. Other anti-androgen plants include red reishi, licorice, Chinese peony, green tea, black cohosh, chaste tree and saw palmetto extract.

INFLAMMATION

According to Giugliano et al., a diet 'high in refined starches, sugar, and saturated and trans-fatty acids and poor in natural antioxidants and fiber from fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and omega-3 fatty acids may cause an activation of the innate immune system, most likely by an excessive production of proinflammatory cytokines associated with a reduced production of anti-inflammatory cytokines.' Now, a bodybuilder's diet is roughly a healthy diet, with an emphasis on lean protein, vegetables and complex carbs. Sugar and refined starches should not really be a problem for a serious weight lifter. It might be the case, nonetheless, that we are ignoring one not so obvious acne promoting food: dairy. Many bodybuilders use whey protein powders or casein products, which are both derived from milk. 

What you can do: give up dairy and mind the glycemic index and load of your meals. You can switch from whey protein powder to isolated whey or vegan protein powders.

SKIN CARE AND TOPICAL TREATMENT

Wash the face no more than twice daily, using a gentle synthetic skin cleanser with a neutral

pH (5.5-7).

Use morning and evening creams that contain benzoyl peroxide, salicylic acid, azelaic acid or tea tree oil.

Keep your pillow cases clean by washing them once or twice a week.

Keep your phone clean by wiping it off with an antibacterial gel or tissue once a day.

Seeing a dermatologist is always a good idea, so please do that if  your acne is severe. Do not forget to tell your doctor that you lift weights, as this might give him/her a better outlook on your condition.

Go Have Some Fun on the Day We Call Easter!

It's nice to take a day off every once in a while and completely disconnect from all your tasks and to-do lists. Certainly, there is no place for fun on a to-do list. Fun just happens, so go ahead and make it happen today! Large scale holidays like Easter or Christmas are an awesome opportunity for relaxing without feeling guilty, because everybody around is basically doing just that. Normally, on such occasions, I have no regrets indulging in my favorite sugary desserts or other high-carb foods that I don't usually eat. This year, however, I really don't feel like it. There is no righteousness or discipline behind this, just the fact that I don't seem to get much pleasure from sugar anymore. 

I'm not going to count calories today, nor my protein or veggie intake. I will still go to the gym because this is something that I enjoy a lot and cannot picture a fun day without it. I will cheat on my diet, but only mildly. You know, there are some foods that are outrageously bad, like sugar. And others, like honey or dried fruit, which are not the optimal health choice but are definitely not the biggest nutritional villains either. So I've prepared the following Easter menu, which contains some sub-optimal, though not disastrously bad choices: Chinese dumplings; udon with dashi, poached eggs and scallions; organic and preservative-free nachos with salsa verde; black sesame pudding with honey and coconut milk; fresh fruit; sangria, Japanese beer and roasted coconut drinks. That's a lot of carbs for one day, but, the good (or bad) part is that this whole thing lasts for one day only.

One of my favorite sayings is that you shouldn't give up what you want most for what you want right now. However, sometimes, it pays off to focus on the now and just do whatever feels good, rather than what should be done.

Have a happy Easter, everyone! :)

Does It Matter If the Chicken You're Eating Was Humanely Raised?

I just don't get it. As long as you are going to eat a chicken, why does it matter how that chicken has been raised? The chicken's life might be a journey, but still...  Is its ultimate destination completely meaningless? It's one thing to die, and another to die and have your body processed into unrecognizable bits that end up on on someone's table and plate. The fact that a chicken might be eaten or not upon its death is an apparently insignificant detail for the supporters of the humanely raised movement. But how could that be? Death is, in a weird way, part of life, and the way in which you die may cast a certain light upon the way in which you have lived. That's why we, humans, have such things as martyrs. Now, when it comes to chickens and our humanity in raising them, it doesn't make much sense to invest a lot of effort and resources in order to make a chicken's life more enjoyable just so that, in the end, you can roast it in the oven. If we are really serious about treating chickens and other animals humanely, then we proceed from certain assumptions that leave no room for picturing them as edible meat. A humane treatment presupposes kindness, compassion, some kind of empathy. Where do killing and eating fit into this scene? When chickens are indeed humanely raised, your very attitude towards them and their life will not allow you to eat them. A humane treatment encompasses attachment and it's hard to believe that most reasonable people would be able to eat the living object of their sincere attachment.

For sure, eating humanely raised chickens will not help anyone other than ourselves. It will deceive us. It will make us feel that we're doing the right thing, whereas, in fact, we're making matters worse. Let me be more specific.This so-called humaneitarianism has been growing so much in the last couple of years up to the point that even big meat producers have decided to embrace it. Look at the Perdue Farms, for instance. Perdue was quick to adapt to the new values and needs of their costumers and, as such, they started labelling their chicken products as being humanely raised. Their chickens, however, are still raised to grow unnaturally fast and large, which makes walking impossible for them. The barns continue to be crowded and exceptionally dirty. Where is the humanity in all of this? 

We have to be honest about our values and expectations. The labor division within the food industry has alienated us from the moral implications that permeate our meals. Perhaps it is easier for us to eat meat that was raised under decent conditions as long as we ourselves are estranged from them and keep on thinking that the animal sacrificed for us had a relatively joyful life. Nonetheless, this does not change the fact that we are eating its meat. Whether it was humanely raised or not, you are still eating that chicken. And that's the only thing that matters, in the end.

What Does It Mean to Really Help Someone?

I'm seeing it everyday and I'm seeing it more than ever: people willing to help other people. This is amazing and it's the pinnacle of human altruism, probably the most precious gem on our moral crowns. Not only that many of us respond to the perceived needs of others when our paths happen to cross, but there is even a trend nowadays to actively search for recipients of help. If you have any doubt that this is happening, just check out the recent story of the Dancing Man. After a 4chan post showed something that resembled the bullying of an overweight man's attempt to dance, a viral Twitter campaign was launched in order to identify the Dancing Man and help him. Help him feel better about himself, help him feel better about the story, help him dance, in the end, and be the dancing man that everybody knew he could be.

It took many hashtags to find the Dancing Man. It took the power of a relatively large group of ladies whose self-declared aim was 'to do something special'. It even took a couple of celebrities on board, who offered their support, blessing and free DJ services. Finally, help could be offered. The Dancing Man was found, a party was organized and our hero had his chance to dance. While there's enough Twitter evidence to safely argue that the helpers were ecstatic about the help they were able to give, we don't really know much about how the Dancing Man himself really felt about all this story. His after-party tweet seems anything but enthusiastic: 'Trying to keep low profile!! Turned down couple interviews yesterday as well. Promise will provide interview when there.' Hangover or something deeper?

I recently googled 'helping others'. I was extremely curious to see what people thought about what helping others really meant. On the first results page, I came across articles with titles such as 10 Ways to Help Others That Will Lead You To Success and How Helping Others Can Reduce Stress and Increase Happiness. So, my intuition, recently fuelled by the whole Dancing Man story, wasn't failing me after all, pointing towards a sad, though realistic, conclusion. Helping has ceased to be something that we do primarily for others. We do it mainly for ourselves. Because it reduces stress. Because research has shown that people who help other people tend to be happier and to live longer. Because it makes us feel good about ourselves.

But is this really what helping others should be really about? In a relationship focused on giving and receiving help, which part should set the ground and parameters for action? The helper? Or the helped? I would say it is within the prerogatives of the helped to define the object of the helping relationship. Otherwise, a helper might very well offer you an extraordinarily tasty chocolate while you are dying of thirst. Or a beautiful pair of shoes that might suit you just wonderfully were they three sizes bigger. You cannot offer a person whatever you are ready to get rid of and label it as help. It just doesn't work this way. Call it 'offering' at most, but definitely not help because it isn't. Helping someone amounts to responding to a well-defined need of a person. Fulfilling this need might come at a greater cost for you, because if it is a real need, chances are that most of us experience it as well, which also includes you. But this is genuinely what help amounts to: the type of action which might leave you missing something (an object, a state of mind) because you took the time and effort to put yourself into someone else's shoes - which is never easy - and fill a gap that made a difference.

Four Things Fitness Taught Me about Life

1. You cannot reinvent the wheel

Whatever method brought the person you admire most in your field to the position that he or she is in right now, is probably going to work for you as well. When it comes to fitness, many of us are looking for shortcuts. We believe the promises of chocolate diets, of potato diets (yes, there is such a thing as a diet relying exclusively on potatoes). We hope that lemon water, green coffee, green tea, raspberry ketones and what not will sculpt our abs to perfection no matter what else we eat. But it’s all an illusion. These ways of approaching fitness and bodybuilding are neatly inferior to what real bodybuilders actually do. They count calories, they rigorously track their macronutrients, they eat every 2 or 3 hours, they prep their meals and carry them around, they exercise according to well-balanced plans, they monitor their gym progress and keep on challenging their body so that their routine does not become too easy. So, next time you are disappointed about your goals in a certain field, try looking at what the best in that field are doing. Chances are you will be able to grow by incorporating some of their activities in your routine.

2. You can adjust the wheel to your personality and needs

The fact that you can’t reinvent the wheel doesn’t mean that you cannot tweak it to your advantage. This wheel that I keep referring to is the broader perspective on how things should be done. Its details, however, are not set in stone and you can have a lot of space for maneuver in this respect. For instance, when it comes to fitness, not everybody should break down macros in the exact same way. Some will eat 1 g of protein per kilogram. Others will eat 1.4 and still others even 2. Also, you can choose your protein from animal or vegan sources. You could have chicken breast and egg whites to fit your macros, but you could equally opt for lentils and beans. In the end, it is up to you on how you decide to implement the method that will help you reach your goals. 

3. You are what you do everyday

You are not what you want to do. You are not what you do every now and then. You are what you do every single day. Consistency is the key for any human enterprise. Getting your weekly exercise from working out for 5 hours in a day will not deliver the same results as working out 1 hour per day for 5 days. Muscles need rest to recuperate and grow. After this small break they need to be stimulated again. The faster this cycle, the bigger your gains. Similarly, learning a foreign language for 5 hours in one day, as opposed to 1 hour per day for 5 days will hinder your learning process. For once, memories are consolidated during sleep. Also, you have more time to think about what you have previously acquired and can practice more, either consciously or not. 

4. Failure is your teacher, while awareness and perseverance your best friends

I once read that those whom we usually call winners are simply the people who have failed the most. In other words, winners are the biggest losers. It sounds a bit counter-intuitive and it might as well be. Not all losers need become winners. But those losers who are aware of their losses, who analyze the roots of their failures and their entire set of reactions surrounding them, those losers are on the way to becoming real winners. They just need one more ingredient: perseverance. So, if you fail at your goal, are aware of it, know why you failed, but try again and again and again until you finally get it right, then respect! You are a winner! 

When in Doubt, Meditate!

I've recently realized why I love meditating and why I try, as much as possible, to include it in my daily routine. It's definitely not the silencing of my thoughts. That rarely happens to me, at this point. It's more about the filtering of my thoughts. As I try to discard all the mental clutter that I constantly carry around, the things that are important to me, my deepest desires, fears and insecurities separate from everything else and stand out in all their clarity. Ultimately, this helps me prioritize my activities and attachments (yes, not zen enough here either) in such a way that, at the end of the day, I feel better about the world, myself and pretty much everything else.

I Love Selfies

It's 3 am and I'm thinking about...selfies. I guess it's hard not to think about selfies when everywhere you look you see articles, blog posts, comments and expert opinions that argue that there's something mentally wrong with you if you decide to take your own picture. Well, of course that there's something wrong if there is no one out there to hold that camera for you and instead you have to do it yourself. But this disorder doesn't have a fancy name. It's called loneliness and it's associated with depression. Also, it can be a real monster for some, though not for everybody. Ultimately, selfies are the loner's pictures. I, for one, like them. And that's mainly because they show that there is still a desire to (re)connect with other people, even if this means posting your smile or lack of on a social network. The fact that we now have such a thing as group selfies doesn't mean that everybody went crazy or that one-person selfies are insignificant. This just shows that the entire practice has acquired a social and cultural dimension as well, which is unfortunately based on irony and public shaming of one of the oldest feelings in the world.

Moral Challenges and Biases

Do numbers count?

Would you kill a chicken for no reason?

If you were forced to choose, would you kill a man or a chicken?

If you were forced to choose, would you kill a man or a pregnant woman?

If you were forced to choose, would you kill a pregnant woman carrying twins or a pregnant woman carrying triplets?

If you were forced to choose, would you kill a pregnant woman or 10 chickens?

If you were forced to choose, would you kill a pregnant woman or 1 million chickens?

If you were forced to choose, would you kill a pregnant woman or 1 billion chickens?

If you were forced to choose, would you kill a pregnant woman or all the existing chickens?

If you were forced to choose, would you kill 2 pregnant women or all the existing chickens?

If you were forced to choose, how many pregnant women would you be willing to kill in order to save all the existing chickens?

Does proximity count?

If two people of two different races were drowning and you could only save one, would you opt for the one who shared your skin color or the other?

If two people of two different nationalities were drowning and you could only save one, would you opt for the one who shared your nationality or the other?

If two people were drowning and you could only save one, would you opt for the one that lived in your state/county or the other, who didn't?

If two people were drowning and you could only save one, would you opt for the one that lived in the same city as you did or for the other, from a neighboring city?

If two people were drowning and you could only save one, would you opt for your lifelong neighbor or for the other, who just moved on your street?

If two people were drowning and you could only save one, would you opt for your best friend or a work colleague that you never really talk to?

If two people were drowning and you could only save one, would you opt for your best friend or your newly born brother?

If two people were drowning and you could only save one, would you opt for your best friend or father?

If two people were drowning and you could only save one, would you opt for your father or mother?

If you were in a sinking boat with the person you care most about and you could only save one, would you save yourself or the other?

Do intentions and character count?

Tom, hating his wife and wanting her dead, puts poison in her coffee, thereby killing her. Jane also hates her husband, and would like him dead. One day her husband accidentally puts poison in his own coffee, thinking it is cream. Jane realizes this, and has the antidote that could save him, but does not hand it over and her husband dies. Is Jane’s failure to act as bad as Tom’s action? (adapted from Judith Jarvis Thomson)

The sheriff of Nottingham has captured Robin Hood and has him imprisoned in the tower. He sends a message to Maid Marion that if she sleeps with him he will release Robin and return him to her. She agrees to this and Robin is released, however he is furious over her infidelity and refuses to have anything to do with her. Little John, Robin’s best friend has long had a crush on Maid Marion and asks her to come away with him, which she does. Rank these participants in order from the most moral to the least moral.

You witness a man rob a bank, but instead of keeping the money for himself, he donates it to a local orphanage. You know this orphanage has been struggling for funding, and this money will allow the children to receive proper food, clothing and medical care. If you report the crime, the money will be taken away from the orphanage and given back to the bank.

What should you do?

Does luck count?

Two people leave a party and drive home well over the legal limit.  One makes it home safely and the other knocks down and kills a pedestrian.  Is one more morally blameworthy than the other?

Do thresholds count?

Mary is in a hospital lounge waiting to visit a sick friend. A young man sitting next to Mary explains that his father is very ill. The doctors believe that he has a week to live at most. He explains further that his father has a substantial life insurance policy that expires at midnight. If his father dies before midnight, this young man will receive a very large sum of money. He says that the money would mean a great deal to him and his family, and that no good will come from his father’s living a few more days. After talking with him Mary can tell this man is in desperate need of the money to feed his family. The man asks Mary to go up to his father’s room and smother his father with a pillow. Should Mary kill this man’s father in order to get money for the man and his family?

Answering these questions might prove to be a good exercise in self-awareness, aimed at unraveling the moral biases behind your thoughts and behavior. It would be interesting and equally helpful to understand why, for instance, you would be willing to kill 10 chickens, but not a billion, or a billion but not all the existing chickens in order to save a human life. All these are hypothetical, over the top dramatic situations, which are most likely absent from what we'd call a normal kind of day. However, they will help you notice those subtler ethical challenges that all of us encounter every now and then and, hopefully, they will reveal the biases behind your moral decisions.

What is the Root of All Evil?

I believe it is love. The love for specific others and for yourself make you love less the rest of the people, make you undermine their worth and create distorted images that can match your view of reality. It's a reality in which shared love fails to mean love. Look at marriages and long-term relationships, for instance. You cannot love your partner and someone else at the same time without being unfaithful to, ultimately, both of them. This is one very special type of love, you might say. It's romantic love, which in most cases demands emotional exclusivity in order to exist. Other types of love are different and will not be diminished through sharing.

I will have to disagree with this thought. You cannot love your friends, for instance, and their enemies at the same time, although you personally find them quite pleasing. Loving the enemies of your friends will mean, in the simplest terms, ceasing to love your friends. We place the people we love on high pedestals and whenever someone threatens to shake those pedestals, we retaliate. We love our children, so we are not going to love those who compete with our children. We love ourselves and, thus, it seems normal not to nurture the same feelings towards people who hurt us, willingly or not, who make us doubt ourselves and our values, who are menacingly striving for the very same thing that we desire as well.

Briefly put, we become mean and willing to perform evil actions when we protect ourselves or our loved ones from the rest. The root of all evil is in the love for particulars, whom we end up appropriating and transforming into parts of our selves. This isn't at all bad news. It shows that human nature, in itself, is not evil. Ultimately, what other known feeling could be more noble and seductive than love? In this specific story, it seems that the road to hell is indeed paved with good intentions. In order to redeem ourselves from our loving mistakes, we should not aim at loving less, but more. Counter-intuitive much? Only when we have managed to find that sparkle which is worth being admired and fostered in every human being, will we have uncovered the most fertile ground for unconditional, unparticular love, which is probably the highest kind of human emotion.

Noncombatant Immunity and Terrorism

The principle of noncombatant immunity, also known as the “principle of discrimination”, emphasizes the idea that there should be a distinction between the participants in war (such as soldiers, for instance) and noncombatants - mainly, the civilian population. The principle encompasses both a permission, as well as a prohibition: the permission to attack enemy combatants and the prohibition to kill noncombatant civilians. Its roots can be traced back to various theoretical structures, such as the principle of punishment, self-defence or the survival of the collective. 

Classical just war theory identifies the soldiers and the military, in general, with the combatants. On the other hand, civilians are perceived as noncombatants, as they are not directly involved in the conflict and do not represent a great danger to their opponents. This constitutes the moral perspective on the issue and it is mainly centered around the idea of threat in war. Conversely and embracing the legal point of view, combatant status is granted to those persons who satisfy a specific set of criteria, such as “distinguishing themselves visibly at a distance by some conventional sign, carrying their arms openly, subordinating themselves to a hierarchy of authority and command, and obeying the laws of war.” (McMahan, Killing in War)

With the advent of terrorism, is the integration of soldiers in the category of combatants and of civilians in that of noncombatants still accurate? Or, better said, has this classification ever been strong and clear enough as to provide a meaningful set of guidelines with respect to the proper conduct in war? Opinions are divided. While there are some that argue for the validity of the distinction in this precise connotation, others tend to be more skeptical. Their main arguments have been synthesized in the two following differentiations regarding the demarcation line between combatants and noncombatants:

1) The intentionality of the participation in war: innocence v. non-innocence v. moral culpability;

2) The justness of the cause of the war, which is applicable to civilians only.

An individual can be considered innocent if she does not represent a threat in war. A non-innocent person is one that “can be engaged in an objectively unjust proceeding while being blamelessly ignorant of its unjust character.” (Arneson, Just Warfare Theory and Noncombatant Immunity). By using “blamelessly ignorant”, negligence and recklessness are ruled out. Conversely, the morally culpable constitutes a threat both objectively, as well as subjectively. In this sense, she is performing an action for the cause of the war and, at the same time, she is also aware of the finality of her acts. 

Civilians may bear responsibility for a war and be transformed into combatants not only through commission (like supporting the war through labor or propaganda), but also through omission. In the latter sense, Jeff McMahan talks about the duty to oppose unjust wars. This duty can come under two forms. We can have, on the one hand, an unjust war if the country which declares the war does not rely on a just cause. In this sense, one would have to oppose the declaration of war itself.

The second possibility refers to the situation when a state is being attacked by another state/organization that has a just cause for going to war. As both belligerents cannot have a just cause, but only one of them, it would follow that the attacked country is fighting an unjust war. In this case, should one add to the duty to oppose the unjust war the duty to oppose the action that constitutes the cause of the war? Probably yes, as failing to oppose the action that triggers the conflict may perpetuate the existing injustices and, thus, provide sufficient grounds for the future outburst of other wars. 

The major problem that one can encounter with respect to the criterion of the justness of the war’s cause is that of the quantity and quality of the information received by the population on this topic. Due to possible information asymmetries between civilians and their government, it is difficult to tell whether the former have the necessary amount of information in order to form a correct judgment regarding the justness of the war’s cause. In this way, it could be possible for people to believe that they are fighting for a just cause, when, in reality, they are not. Consequently, they would fail to comply with the duty to oppose this type of war. Can they be morally blamed for this?

Even if it is hard to identify the ideal type of the combatant and the noncombatant, one irrefutable point that the principle of noncombatant immunity makes is the following: there are some individuals who should not be killed in war in virtue of their noncombatant status. The problem with terrorism is that terrorists aim at making absolutely no discrimination regarding their targets. 

Terrorists consider that all their victims are morally culpable and, hence, in a position to be attacked. This can be deduced from the randomness of their targets. In this sense, they plan attacks in crowded places, such as airports, subways and the like. Although there are divergent opinions on what a combatant is, there is a general consensus that children cannot constitute legitimate targets in war under any circumstance. By setting no limits to the war theater, terrorists disregard this basic moral and military imperative. Similarly, terrorists do not discriminate between the citizens of their targeted country and foreigners. Thus, when engaged in a military conflict with another country/ countries, one should limit one’s attack to the direct opponents and avoid involving third parties. This principle is rooted in the ideas of war accountability and unnecessary harm. Yet, terrorists fail to comply with it. Interestingly enough, many terrorist acts happen in airports, which are, by definition, places of international transit that gather individuals of diverse nationalities and citizenships.

The principle of noncombatant immunity, one of the founding blocks of the just war theory, poses a great problem to the moral permissibility of terrorism as a type of warfare. In the end, I would like to finish this post with a beautiful and more relevant than ever Leo Tolstoy quote:

[There are] men who assert that the contradiction between the striving and love for peace and the necessity of war is terrible, but that such is the fate of men. These for the most part sensitive, gifted men see and comprehend the whole terror and the whole madness and cruelty of war, but by some strange turn of mind do not see and do not look for any issue from this condition.