There's more to recovery than just not drinking

By Bob Gaydos

       

       You’ve heard it plenty of times. Maybe you’ve even said it yourself: “He/she stopped drinking (weeks/months/years) ago, yet he/she is still (pick your own adjective) an angry, irresponsible, lazy, careless, argumentative, moody, selfish, unpleasant person. Sometimes I wish he’d just drink again.”

No you don’t. 

The truth is, although significant advances have been made in understanding the physical and psychological characteristics of alcoholism and drug addiction and considerable improvement has been made in educating the general public about addiction, there remains plenty of confusion about the word “recovery.”

As the first paragraph suggests, it is not simply putting down the drink or the drug. Drinking or drug use are merely symptoms of a complex disease. Simply stopping the use of alcohol or drugs may result in some improvements in a person’s life, but abstinence is not recovery. It’s merely the necessary first step. 

        It’s true that some people can recognize a problem with their drinking, stop before it gets worse and go on to lead what might be considered “normal” lives. But some can’t. These are the ones who may have stopped because of pressure from loved ones, but who continue to behave as they did when they were drinking. They’re referred to as “dry drunks” by people who work in the field, meaning the only thing missing is the drink. 

        That’s what the various recovery programs and 12-step groups are all about -- giving alcoholics or drug addicts a way to live life without the substance and without feeling sorry for themselves. Recovery is not about trying not to drink or drug; it’s about changing the way you live your life.

         It isn’t surprising that the general public might be unclear about what recovery is. Until recently, there wasn’t a generally recognized definition for people who work in the field of substance abuse. In 2007, a panel formed by the Betty Ford Institute to suggest a definition of recovery came up with this: “Recovery from substance dependence is a voluntarily maintained lifestyle characterized by sobriety, personal health and citizenship.” Note the word “voluntarily.”

         A more detailed “working definition” of recovery was presented in May of 2011 by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, which had been working on the question with others in the behavioral health field for several years. SAMSHA’s definition: “Recovery is a process of change whereby individuals work to improve their own health and wellness and to live a meaningful life in a community of their choice while striving to achieve their full potential.”

          Key words: “work;’’ “wellness;” “change;” “choice.”

SAMSHA also issued what it calls guiding principles of recovery. Again, for anyone who suspects he may have a drinking or drug problem, or for anyone who suspects a loved one may have a substance abuse problem, this is a suggested path beyond mere abstinence.

   

SAMSHA’S Principles of Recovery

• Person-driven
• Occurs via many pathways
• Is holistic
• Is supported by peers
• Is supported through relationships
• Is culturally based and influenced
• Is supported by addressing trauma
• Involves individual, family, and community strengths and responsibility
• Is based on respect
• Emerges from hope

SAMSHA also offers four “domains” that support recovery:

• Health: Overcoming or managing one’s disease(s) as well as living in a physically and emotionally healthy way.
• Home: A stable and safe place to live that supports recovery.
• Purpose: Meaningful daily activities, such as a job, school, volunteerism, family caretaking, or creative endeavors and the independence, income and resources to participate in society.
• Community relationships and social networks that provide support, friendship, love and hope.

       That’s a lot more than, “Hey, I put down the booze, so get off my back.” The professionals agree that recovery is an ongoing process, not a destination. While the journey is different for each individual, it shares common traits: The person has to want to change, not out of resignation to a miserable life without drink, but rather with hope for a more rewarding life, with the support and respect of others.

       Recovery is something to enjoy, not endure.

bobgaydos.blogspot.com

  

  

A husband/father/ballplayer gets it

By Bob Gaydos

Victoria and Daniel Murphy
... proud new parents

        Witnessing the births of my two sons were moving experiences for me. I was a grab bag of emotions, equipped with a camera. Anxiety, impatience, excitement, irritability, awe, relief, exhilaration and happiness played tag at different times in my head. In the end, gratitude won out.
        It still does. I like being a father. I love my two sons and I am proud of them. Witnessing their entrances into the world was, for me, the right way to begin our lifelong relationships. I think being there is  important. Sure, their mother did the hard work, but I never felt my presence at their births was pro forma. You know, show up, look concerned, puff your chest out, then go hand out cigars and leave mother and child alone. Old-school fathering.
        It's not me.
        Daniel Murphy apparently isn't an old-school father either. Murphy plays second base for the New York Mets. He's an average second baseman, but one of the best hitters on the team. Instead of being with the team for Opening Day, Murphy, 29, took three days of paternity leave allowed major league ballplayers to be with his wife, Victoria, when she gave birth to their first child, Noah.
          For this, he was assaulted with a flood of criticism from -- not teammates, not fans, not baseball officials -- but by three egomaniacs on WFAN Radio and one on Fox News. They said Murphy should have checked in to see his first child born, then rushed to be back with his team. One day off tops, they said. None of this three-day paternity leave nonsense.
        Because, of course, missing a couple of games out of 162 is an act of disloyalty or lack of work ethic. Unmanly even. C'mon, Murph, hire a nanny, they said. Where are your priorities? You should be fielding ground balls, never mind being by your wife's side for the first three days of this exciting new chapter of your lives. This  is stupid personified.
       For the record, Murphy appears to be doing just fine in the stereotypical, outdated, macho, male-providing-for-the-family role that seems to underlie much of this criticism. He's getting paid $5.7 million this year by the Mets, which means, as one of his critics suggested, he could hire 20 nannies if he wanted to. The thing is, he apparently doesn't want to. He preferred to be at the hospital when his son woke up crying.
        "We had our first panic session," Murphy recalls. "It was dark. She tried to change a diaper, couldn't do it. I came in. It was just the three of us, 3 o'clock in the morning, all freaking out. He was the only one screaming. I wanted to."
        That's a memory he and his wife will always have and someday share with Noah. Nothing unmanly about it.
        But here's what Mike Francesa, the big name in WFAN Radio's lineup of sports personalities, had to say about Murphy's decision:  "I don't know why you need three days off, I'm going to be honest. You see the birth and you get back. What do you do in the first couple days? Maybe you take care of the other kids. Well, you gotta have someone to do that if you're a Major League Baseball player. I'm sorry, but you do " Your wife doesn't need your help the first couple days, you know that."
         There's more: "One day, I understand. Go see the baby be born and come back. You're a Major League Baseball player, you can hire a nurse to take care of the baby if your wife needs help ... What are you gonna do? Are you gonna sit there and look at your wife in the hospital bed for two days?"
        Well, at least we know what Francesa did when his son was born. Wonder what his wife thought about that.
        Boomer Esiason, who also hosts a show on WFAN, went so far as to suggest that Murphy should have told his wife to have a Caesarean section before the season started so he wouldn't have to miss Opening Day. After all, the former pro football quarterback said, baseball pays Murphy well, so he should make baseball his priority. (Note: Victoria Murphy, in fact, gave birth via Caesarean section and Esiason apologized a day later.)  
        Esiason's partner on the morning radio talk show, Craig Carton, was his usual crass self: "You get your ass back to your team and you play baseball " there's nothing you can do; you're not breastfeeding the kid."
        I stopped listening to WFAN's morning show years ago when Carton was teamed with Esiason because I thought Carton was the most misogynistic, immature excuse for a radio sports host I had ever heard. He was insulting, crude, sexist, arrogant and not especially knowledgeable about sports either. This incident only solidifies my opinion and I think he continues to be an embarrassment for WFAN, but maybe his bosses don't care.
         Let's not let Fox News host Gregg Jarrett of the hook. Here's what he had to say about Murphy's paternity leave. "He's rich. He could have like 20 nannies taking care of his tired wife, and he's got to take off two days? It's absurd. It's preposterous."
          No, Gregg, it's about being a father first, not a baseball player. Talk about priorities. Imagine this scenario: It's Noah's 20th birthday. Mom is recalling that second day in the hospital when, all of a sudden, the infant's temperature started rising. Nurses were rushing around and calling for a doctor. She was trying to stay calm, she says, but was really scared to death. "What about you, Dad?" asks Noah. "I was grounding into a double play in Queens," he replies.
          Fortunately, that didn't happen. Instead, Murphy was there to share the first diaper-changing "emergency" with Victoria.
         Not everyone thought Murphy did the wrong thing. Mets fans, his manager and teammates all supported Murphy's decision to take the full paternity leave. Major League Baseball, in fact, is among the few employers in the United States that allow paid paternity leave -- a situation that begs changing -- and about 100 ballplayers have reportedly taken advantage of it since their union got it written into their contract three years ago.
         It makes sense. Baseball players are undeniably well paid. But they are also away from their families for much of the time for eight months in the year. Half of their games are played away from home. Three days out of a 162-game season is a pittance. And for Murphy to be criticized for missing games is absurd since he played in 161 of the Mets' 162 games last year, often with injuries. He's what they call a "gamer."
         (In my case, paternity leave was not available, but I had an understanding boss who let me spend as much time as needed with my sons and their mother. Besides, my work was a 10-minute drive from home; Murphy's son was born in Florida and the Mets were playing in New York. A tough commute.)
        Taken aback by the harsh criticism, Murphy described his decision simply: "We felt the best thing for our family was for me to stay." That says it all.
         In fact, the Murphys made the best choice possible. When my sons were born, they were handed to me soon after the umbilical cord was cut and tied. In the days that followed, there was a lot of holding, humming and touching. There are scientific studies connecting that early skin-to-skin contact of father and child with the production of oxytocin, a hormone that enhance the bonding process for both.
       Other studies show positive psychological benefits for the mother, knowing she is supported at this critical time and, in turn, for the health of the newborn. Even more studies suggest that having a nurturing father/child relationship from birth has positive results on the child's future emotional development as well as the relationship between father and mother.
       In sum, science and much of society have for some time  abandoned the old-school fathering of Francesa et al in favor of a more involved, more nurturing role for Dad because the whole family benefits from it.
      Meanwhile, while Murphy was being criticized for wanting to be with his wife in the first three days of their son's life, other ballplayers who had taken performance enhancing drugs -- cheated -- were being greeted back from their 50-game suspensions. Pro football and basketball players continue to be arrested for assaulting their wives or girlfriends. The New York Jets recently signed quarterback Michael Vick, who served time in prison for running a dog-fighting enterprise.
          These are the role models professional sports have offered to today's youth for much too long. Rich, macho, spoiled, selfish, arrogant, self-centered, young men.
          Murphy returned to the Mets after three days with his wife and son, was cheered by fans and singled in his first at bat. He'll be able to tell Noah that story some day.
          Way to go, Murph.

bobgaydos.blogspot.com

Socety is still out of touch with the reality of addiction

(My latest Addiction and Recovery column.)

By Bob Gaydos

Philip Seymour Hoffman
 ... on the cover of Rolling Stone

        The congenital disconnect between much of society and the reality of addiction reappeared recently with the death of actor Philip Seymour Hoffman, apparently due to an overdose of heroin.
The Oscar-winning actor was found dead in his Manhattan apartment with a needle in his arm and bags of what was believed to be heroin nearby, according to police. Almost immediately, the familiar reactions were heard: How could he? He was so talented, so  admired, so wealthy, had so much to live for. He had been to rehab and he was sober more than 20 years. How could he risk it all for a fleeting high? And with heroin no less. Who does heroin today?
Apparently, aside from Hoffman and the late Amy Winehouse, a lot of people. And not just the down-and-out addicts who were once the stereotype for what some considered to be “serious” addiction, as opposed to what, one presumes, were considered less serious forms, like addiction to alcohol or cocaine. Addiction pecking order aside, today’s heroin user is just as likely to be your neighbor’s teen-aged son or daughter as a famous actor or singer.
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, which tracks drug use in this country, says a recent survey showed a more than 100 percent increase in the use of heroin in the United States between 2002 and 2012. Slightly less than half a million people were regarded as heroin dependent. How pervasive is it? The states of Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont (so much for stereotypes) report serious problems with heroin addiction and overdoses and deaths as a result of heroin use. Heroin use is up in Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, name a state.
          Much of this increase is tied to the abuse of prescription pain killers, such as Oxycodone, Oxycontin, Vicodin and Percocet, which are opiates, like heroin. Concern over the over-prescription of such drugs and the growing use of them by teenagers who simply took them from their parents’ medicine cabinet, has made it more difficult to get the pills and to crush them for snorting. This makes them more expensive. In comparison, heroin on the street is much cheaper.
        And, quite possibly, much deadlier. Police are examining the many bags of heroin they found in Hoffman’s apartment, among other reasons, to learn if the heroin had been cut with another substance -- a dangerous synthetic heroin” that has emerged -- or if it were too pure. Heroin is not only one of the most addictive drugs, it reacts quickly on the brain, sometimes giving the user insufficient time to react to a bad batch.
Does any of this explain why Hoffman -- famous and sober -- decided to try heroin? No. Relapse, as professionals in the substance abuse field explain, starts in the addict’s brain, with changes in attitudes, behavior, a relaxing of diligence. Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, in commenting on Hoffman’s death, said, “You need continued awareness of the possibility of relapse. No matter how long you’ve been clean, if you take the drug, you’re at high, high risk of relapse.” Meaning, if you think you can take “just one more hit,” you’re probably delusional and definitely risking your life.
Addiction is considered a chronic, incurable disease because once the brain is reintroduced to the addictive substance -- alcohol, heroin, cocaine -- it can quickly return to its old ways. Addicts often say that when they started using their drug of choice after a period of abstinence, they were right back where they left off, or worse. This is why abstinence and continued treatment, be it therapy or a 12-step program, is recommended for recovery. A change in lifestyle and constant awareness are the keys, the experts say. Over time, the approach may gradually change, but as Volkow reminds, an addict can never forget what he is. And society would do well to remember as well.

bobgaydos.blogspot.com

The new 'breakfast of champions'

By Bob Gaydos

The breakfast of champions
                                              IR photography

“Here it is,” she said with a smile, “the breakfast of champions.”

No, it wasn’t a bowl of Wheaties with a banana sliced on top. It was, check it out: A bowl of coconut/vanilla Greek yogurt, two sliced bananas, a big bunch of halved, red globe grapes with seeds, a mound of whole ground flaxseed meal, a healthy serving of blended trail mix (almonds, cranberries, cherries, raisins and pistachios), and a generous topping of chocolate granola (ingredients to come later).

Breakfast was sweet, rich, juicy, crunchy, delicious and filling. My breakfast partner does not skimp on the portions. And, by the way, it was incredibly good for my health.

When I decided for health reasons to move away from a diet centered on meat and fried foods to one focused more on plants, my major concerns were that I would be able to eat enough to feel full and energetic and that I would find enough food that I actually liked.

No problem, thanks again in large measure to my breakfast partner. And it hasn’t been a problem since I made the decision. What it has been is a gradual process of becoming accustomed to, not necessarily foods that are new to me, but a new way of looking at some familiar foods and a new way of making them part of my regular diet.

I now eat lots of rice and beans and greens and baked potatoes and sweet potatoes and fruits and vegetables. Also some pasta. Pizza is still on the menu. I also eat vegetarian versions of meatballs, bacon, sausage, turkey with all the vegetables, etc. No portion control. Again, the tastes are a bit different, but delicious. It’s all in the way the food is prepared. That, to me, is mind over matter. I think we are conditioned from earliest days to think about certain foods in a certain way and, after a while it becomes automatic -- so, lots of red meat is good, vegetables are wussy.

I’ve said it before, but I will repeat myself: I’m not crusading here. I don’t begrudge anybody eating whatever they choose (not entirely true -- horses are not for eating). However, since my dietary changes, I’ve become increasingly aware of the strong contradiction in what many people say about their desire to be healthier (to lose weight, to have more energy, to feel stronger) and the food they actually eat. So I write about what I’m going through to maintain my own awareness and, maybe, let someone who’s contemplating a similar change know that it’s possible and not necessarily painful.

There’s a slowly growing awareness among Americans for the need to eat more healthful foods, foods free of chemicals and so-called “natural” added ingredients. You can see this in expanded organic food sections at supermarkets and half-hearted attempts by some fast-food chains to offer what they regard as healthier choices. When the monied interests -- the corporations that control our food supply -- start offering more choices, even though they may exaggerate their health benefits, I think it’s a good first step. They're starting to pay attention..

It’s also a signal for consumers to start insisting on more such choices and at more reasonable prices. It seems to me that companies should not get rich by offering lots of cheap food that isn’t good for our health (and may actually be bad for our health) while pricing nutritious, tasty food out of the reach of far too many people. History tells us that, greed being what it is, this corporate mindset won’t change unless enough customers insist on it by spending their food money differently. By putting our money where our mouths are and by insisting that elected officials do more to protect the food supply rather than the food suppliers, we might actually be able to help ourselves become healthier.

Back to the breakfast of champions. It satisfies the various food pyramids’ daily recommendations on fruits, nuts, seeds and dairy in one sitting. It is full of super foods:

• Greek yogurt: Loaded with protein, Vitamin B12 and calcium. Also has potassium, B-6 and magnesium.
• Bananas: Good for Vitamin B-6, Vitamin C and potassium. Also magnesium and dietary fiber.
• Red grapes: Source of resveratrol, which helps dilate blood vessels, which can lower blood pressure. Also may help weight loss by reducing cells’ ability to store fat.
• Flaxseed meal: Soluble and insoluble fiber. Studies suggest flaxseed as regular part of a diet lowers bad cholesterol and increases good cholesterol. Has lignans, natural anti-oxidants that protect against unchecked cell growth. Source of alpha-linolenic acid, or omega-3, which can help provide healthy cholesterol levels, reduce cell inflammation (by supporting the integrity of cell membranes of vital organs, thereby protecting the body against disease). Also may lower blood pressure. Studies suggest flaxseed may help protect against some forms of cancer, decrease menopausal symptoms and reduce blood sugar.
• Trail mix: Good source of Vitamin E, manganese, copper and magnesium (important minerals often neglected in many diets). Also a source of potassium and dietary fiber.
• Chocolate granola: Among other things, it contains whole grain oats, ground flax seeds, rice and soy lecithin, an emulsifier that keeps the blood slippery.

Full disclosure, the chocolate granola, being a commercial product, contains sugar and cane juice. But people are free to mix their own granola. Like I said, I’m no purist, just a guy trying to live a longer, healthier life. One spectacular breakfast at a time.

bobgaydos.blogspot.com

R.I.P. Marius, the 'surplus' giraffe

By Bob Gaydos

Marius

        They killed a giraffe in Denmark. Executed him, actually, with a bolt gun, at the Copenhagen Zoo. Then they performed an autopsy and butchered his body while an announcer explained what was happening to a crowd of onlookers that included lots of wide-eyed, young children.
Finally, they fed the carcass to the lions and tigers.
The Romans couldn’t have made more of a spectacle of it.
        The giraffe, Marius, was two years old and, apparently, in the best of health. He posed no known threat to any other living creature. His “crime,” according to the two men responsible for killing him, was that he was too normal. The product of a breeding program at the zoo, Marius was apparently unfortunate enough to possess the type of genes that the scientists said were already well-represented in the zoo’s giraffe population. Allowing him to continue as part of the breeding program would not be good for the giraffe population as a whole, they said. He was surplus material.
         Bam! Bye,bye, Marius.
         There’s more. Copenhagen Zoo officials had an offer from Yorkshire Wildlife Park in Britain to take Marius off their hands. The British zoo is part of the same breeding program as the Copenhagen Zoo and has a state-of-the-art giraffe program. In fact, Marius’ older brother lives there. But Copenhagen Zoo officials didn’t even bother to answer the British zoo’s inquiries, saying they felt Marius and his surplus genes would also be taking up valuable space in the British zoo’s program. The offer of a private individual to buy Marius for $680,000 and place him in a wildlife preserve was also ignored.
          One more thing. When word of Marius’ impending execution was revealed, more than 20,000 people signed online petitions to find him another home rather than kill him. Rather than discuss the matter with animal rights activists who organized the petition, zoo officials moved up the execution without telling anyone.
         There is so much wrong with this story, it’s hard to know where to start.
Let’s go with the arrogance that permeates this entire affair. First of all, giraffes are not considered to be an endangered species and the zoo scientists acknowledge the animals breed well. So why the breeding program in the first place? If the species is taking care of its diversity on its own, why do humans have to meddle in the process? Because we know better what’s good for them?             Breeding a giraffe in captivity and then killing that same giraffe two years later because he possessed no special genetic makeup (Oops! We made a mistake.) hardly suggests a higher order of thinking. Callous disregard for life, yes. Enlightenment, no.
          To then insist that the pubic butchering of the animal and feeding him to the lions was a scientifically and culturally valuable experience for the young children who watched is utter nonsense and reeks of a desperate attempt to justify the act. I have no idea what was going on in the minds of parents who allowed their young children to be subjected to this abuse, but this was not “natural” as zoo officials insisted. This was a man-made spectacle. In nature, Marius would at least have had a chance to evade his predators. Zoo officials lured him with a piece of rye bread before they shot him in the head.
           As for moving up the execution when public protests grew, the haste with which the zoo, not only killed Marius, but got rid of his remains, might suggest to a suspicious person a sense of urgency to get rid of the evidence. Of what, I have no idea, because I’m not schooled in what zoos might do to their animals.
          Which leads me to the bigger point here and perhaps the only good news to come from Marius’ untimely demise: It raises an awareness of the need to find out what exactly does go on in zoos and whether they are really necessary -- in any way -- for the benefit of animals, as opposed to entertainment of humans.
          Copenhagen Zoo officials said such killings are routine in zoos, to preserve and protect the animals. Or perhaps, to balance the zoo’s budget? After all, zoos are limited in space as well as funds. Today’s cute giraffe baby can easily become tomorrow’s surplus mouth to feed in such conditions. How routine is this culling of zoo populations? Who decides? What are the regulations or guidelines?
          Animals also obviously get bored being confined in zoos or even safari parks. And exploitation and abuse of animals is not unknown, especially in zoos lacking oversight by outside agencies. But Marius was killed in a respected zoo in a major European capital in a country with a reputation for progressive thinking. And he was the byproduct of a breeding program to which zoos throughout Europe subscribe and whose scientists endorsed the execution of Marius, the innocent.
           In effect, they decided the world, never mind the Copenhagen Zoo, was too small for one more healthy, two-year-old giraffe
           In the same week Marius was killed, thousands of dogs were poisoned and shot in Sochi, Russia, to “clean up” a sub-tropical city that was chosen to host the Winter Olympics. Apparently, the humans there and in Copenhagen never heard of controlling a population of animals by neutering them instead of killing them.
           Such arrogant disregard for life will ultimately be the downfall of the human race.

bobgaydos.blogspot.com

'The picture of health?" Me? Sonofagun

By Bob Gaydos

The 'new' me.

IR Photography

        “You’re the picture of health.”
(She has to be talking to me. There’s no one else in the room.)
“Thank you, doctor.”
This exchange took place last month at an office in Middletown. The picture was considerably less pleasant, never mind healthy, some 18 months earlier when I first walked into the doctor’s office. I was overweight, with the familiar accompanying physical complications -- high blood pressure, pre-diabetic blood sugar readings, good and bad cholesterol numbers headed in the wrong directions, low B-12 and Vitamin D readings, a lack of energy, flexibility and stamina and swollen ankles.
         If anyone asked, I said I felt “fine.” And I believed it.
Since that time, I have lost 50 pounds and kept it off. I no longer take the blood-pressure and diuretic medications that were originally prescribed. I’m told my numbers in all other areas are “good.” I have more strength and energy and my flexibility is improving as is my stamina. My ankles look great
         And I plan to stay this way.
         I’ve been writing occasionally about my improved health and the lifestyle changes that brought it about for two primary reasons: 1. I know myself well enough to know that when I share my plans publicly I am more likely to stick to them, especially when they involve significant challenges; 2. People have told me that my updates have inspired them to make health-related changes in their own lifestyles.
         Now, I admit it’s a nice ego boost to be told that something I’ve written or done has motivated someone to try to improve his or her lot, and at at the same time I’m humbled to think I can make a difference in someone’s life. But the truth is my motives are purely selfish.
         I’ve been muddling around this planet for 72 years and I’d like to enjoy at least a couple more decades here before moving on to the next station, whatever, wherever and whenever that may be. The key word in that sentence is “enjoy.” I don’t want to hang on as a creaky,  chronically complaining old crank no one wants to be around. I can’t stop the years from adding up, but I sure can do something about the pounds and the blood pressure.
         By way of updating my current condition, I am pleased to report that shoveling snow this winter from hell has not left me panting and praying for sheer survival. I don’t like it, but neither do I dread it. It’s good exercise (up to a point) and evidence of improved stamina.
         Getting to this point has not been a matter of jumping on a stationary bike once in a while or taking an occasional stroll around the block. That used to count as “exercise” and, technically, still does. But that doesn’t take fat off or put muscle on. For me, it has meant changing the way I eat and making workouts, with and without weights, part of my routine. The workouts have been regular and irregular during this transition period, but they have been regular enough that the 50 pounds I lost have not been rediscovered.
         My coach tells me I have a lot of nascent muscles. (I think some have progressed to actual muscles, but it’s not worth quibbling about.) The main point is that the bench presses (with dumbbells), planks, pushups, crunches and squats have shaped a new body (and vocabulary) and, while I don’t look forward to every exercise, I do appreciate the feeling of accomplishment at mastering something new and the emergence of lats, glutes, abs, quads, biceps and triceps.
          I’m really talking about being fit here, not just not being fat. To me, that means combining regular workouts with a nourishing, appetizing, non-punishing diet. I don’t believe in starving myself or limiting portions of foods I enjoy which also happen to be healthful.
          No, it has not been a piece of cake. Not long ago I reveled in the embrace of cheesecake. French fries used to count as a vegetable. Coke or Pepsi? Depended on my mood. Salt and vinegar potato chips, bacon, butter and sour cream on my “healthy” baked potato. Lots of salt, lots of sugar, lots of fat. Lots of XXL shirts and not much energy.
          As I said, I was “fine.” There is, to be sure, a bit of bliss in ignorance. It’s all good … until it’s not. Turns out what I didn’t know was actually hurting me.
          Without going into too much detail, I have stopped eating red meat and almost eliminated salt, processed sugar and saturated fat from my diet. I eat a lot more vegetables and fruit -- as much as I want really -- and try to eat foods that have not been “enhanced” by additives I can’t pronounce and whose chief purpose seems to be creating a long shelf life. That means less packaged goods and more of what used to be called “food.” For some reason, the less we add to our food, the more it costs, but that’s a topic for another time.
          I don’t tell anyone how to eat (although I may still make suggestions to my son), nor do I tell anyone what they should do for exercise. Unless asked. Then, if I tell someone he can eat as much as he wants of different foods and and that it tastes good, but he says he wants to continue eating the same stuff, but smaller portions, I say, “Good luck.”
          If I suggest regular exercise and I hear the occasional-stationary- bike-and-try-to-walk-regularly mantra, I say, “That’s good. Good luck.”
My feeling is that any significant change comes down to motivation, not need. I have my own personal motives to change major areas of my life and I am fortunate to have found someone to help me make those changes. I don’t believe in using “old age” as an excuse for whatever ails me. If I did, I’d still be taking the drugs the doctor prescribed a year-and-a-half ago. I’m not bragging; that’s just the way it is, for me. We make our own choices.
          It’s simple. I like what’s happening to me physically, which is good for me mentally and spiritually. And I feel better than fine. I feel good.

 bobgaydos.blogspot.com

A license to kill ... himself

(My latest Addiction and Recovery column.)

By Bob Gaydos
If James Bond were a real person, he'd be dead.

92 martinis a week, shaken
or stirred, would
 hamper even 007's style,
if he were a real person.

The famed, fictional British double agent, renowned for his ability to handle his fists and his booze, would have either drunk himself to death or been too drunk to find, never mind fire, his gun when some enemy agent intended him bodily harm.

That’s the conclusion of a study published last month in the British Medical Journal. Indeed, the scientists who studied 007’s drinking habits in all 14 of Ian Fleming’s Bond novels say the spy who could do no wrong would be dead at 56 if he were a real person and consumed what they calculated to be an average of 92 martinis per week. Shaken not stirred.

The scientists even offered an opinion on that stylistic choice as well, figuring it was driven by alcohol-induced tremors, which made his hands shake and, of course, would have made it impossible for him to aim his gun, never mind hit his target.

While the study may have been a semi-tongue-in-cheek look at a fictional character’s drinking habits, given the popularity of the Bond films and the profound impact of popular culture on our life styles, it makes a serious point. To wit: There is a limit to how much alcohol anyone can drink, in a day, over a week, or a lifetime, without putting himself or herself at serious risk. And that limit is nowhere near what what the suave Bond character consumes.

According to the Rethinking Drinking website of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, for a healthy male adult, drinking more than four drinks per day or 14 in a week (remember, Bond averaged 92 a week) is considered “at risk” or “heavy drinking.” For women, the numbers are three per day and seven per week.

The site says that one in four people who exceed these limits already has alcoholism or alcohol abuse and the rest are at greater risk for developing them. And the more often someone repeats the pattern, that is, the more heavy-drinking days there are, the more at-risk that person is for alcoholism, alcohol abuse and the many health problems related to alcohol abuse.

The NIAAA, which is part of the National Institutes of Health, says 3 in 10 U.S. adults already drink more than the low-risk limits and 25 percent of them already have alcoholism or alcohol abuse. It also says many of these people may be unaware that their drinking habits are putting them at risk for alcohol-related problems.

This obliviousness is often fed by popular culture. Movies (not just Bond movies) are notorious for depicting alcohol consumption, sometimes in copious amounts, with the characters suffering little to no serious effects. A previous study published in the BMJ pointed to one of the risks inherent in this lackadaisical cultural approach to heavy drinking. It found that young teens who watch a lot of movies depicting drinking are twice as likely to start drinking as their peers and are more likely to progress to binge drinking. This was true for thousands of teens studied in Europe as well as the United States, according to the report.

James Sargent, PhD, of the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth and a co-author of the report, says, “Exposure to movie depictions of alcohol predicts alcohol onset and progression to binge drinking during adolescence.” Sargent says his findings point to the need for more attention to alcohol use in film ratings and for restrictions on the placement of alcohol products in movies.  

That sounds reasonable, especially given that drinking habits are often established at an early age. But movies, TV and other popular forms of entertainment generally reflect what the the public demands. Smoking by characters in movies and on TV only declined when the real people who go to see the movies recognized the health risks and changed their smoking habits. In many ways, society remains uninformed about or seemingly uninterested in learning the many risks of alcohol abuse. This mass denial doesn’t mean it’s not a real problem.  

Drinking is a fact of life. The risk here is in confusing fiction with fact. James Bond is a terrific fictional character. Suave, smart, strong, sexy. But any real man who drank the way he does would likely be a stumbling, bumbling, mumbling, out-of-work loser with a lot of health issues and no lovely ladies on his arm.

Or he’d be dead.

* * *

NIAAA: http://rethinkingdrinking.niaaa.nih.gov/default.asp

James Sargent: http://geiselmed.dartmouth.edu/news/2012/02/23_sargent.shtml

bobgaydos.blogspot.com