Friday, December 30, 2016

Pull Up Progressions for Beginners

In this video I describe, demonstrate and provide progression standards for pull ups for people who are unable to pull their own weight from a full hang.  It covers six steps to master leading up to the ability to perform regular repetitions of full hang chin ups.
  1. Hinge pull ups
  2. Table pull ups
  3. Ground pull ups
  4. Horizontal pull ups
  5. Eccentric chin ups
  6. Chin up static hold

Wednesday, December 14, 2016

British Study: Vegan Mortality Rates Similar to Meat-Eaters

Appleby et al report that in their study of more than 60,000 people including more than 20,000 vegetarians and more than 2000 vegans all-cause mortality did not statistically differ between vegans, vegetarians, pesco-vegetarians, and low-meat eater groups compared to regular meat-eaters.

In this population, they report "Separating the vegetarians and vegans for the 6 most common causes of death did not reveal any statistically significant differences in mortality between vegans and regular meat eaters."

This result is different from the AHS-2 study which suggested that vegetarians of all types (including occasional meat eaters and persons who ate fish but not meat) had a 12% lower all-cause mortality rate than regular meat-eaters.  Appleby et al. suggest that this difference might result from a difference in animal protein intake between British vegetarians and Adventist vegetarians.  The regular meat eaters in this British study consumed only 2.1 times more animal protein than the British vegetarians+vegans, whereas in the Adventist study the regular meat eaters consumed 2.6 times more animal protein than the vegetarian groups. 

 Another possibility not accounted for is the meal timing practices of Adventists.  As I discussed in my book Intermittent Fasting, the Adventist church doctrine recommends consuming only two meals daily in the morning and at noon.  Perhaps Adventist vegetarians (which includes semi-, pesco-, lacto-ovo, and vegan vegetarians) are more likely to use time-restricted feeding schedules than British vegetarians, and this accounts for their small advantage over Adventist regular meat eaters in overall mortality.

However, it is important to note that in the Adventist study the lowest overall mortality in both men and women was found in pesco-vegetarians not vegans or lacto-ovo vegetarians, and among the Adventist women pesco-vegetarians, semi-vegetarians, and lacto-ovo vegetarians all had lower overall mortality rate than vegans (Table 4).

Source:  JAMA Internal Medicine
Another "surprise" was the finding of no significant difference in ischemic heart disease death between groups.  The authors give one possible explanation:  "Incident, nonfatal IHD may also lead to the effective medical management of established risk factors for IHD (e.g., drugs to treat non-HDL cholesterol and high blood pressure), lowering subsequent IHD mortality and partially nullifying the differences between vegetarians and meat eaters found for IHD incidence."  Perhaps the regular meat eaters had a heart disease death rate similar to vegetarians because they used drugs to manage heart disease risk factors.

In this study, risk of death from cancer for vegetarians was only ~10% lower than for regular meat eaters.  The AHS-2 study found no reduced risk of cancer mortality for vegetarians.

Vegetarians including vegans had the highest risk of death from mental and behavioral disorders and cerebrovascular disease (Table 2).

Per Table 1, regular meat eater men in this study consumed 11% of energy as animal protein and 16.5% of energy as total protein (animal+plant).  Regular meat eater women consumed ~12% of energy as animal protein and ~18% as total protein.  Put otherwise, these meat eaters obtained 88-89% of their calories from non-animal protein sources.  Their total meat intake for men was 115 g per day (just about 4 ounces) and for women 106 g per day (just under 4 ounces per day).  For both genders, total and saturated fat intakes were similar for all groups.

Vegetarian (vegans+vegetarian) women consumed on average only 36 g more fruit and 45 g more vegetables than regular meat eater women; vegetarian (vegans+vegetarian) men consumed on average only 56 g more fruit and 55 g more vegetables than regular meat eater men.

In Essential Macrobiotics I discussed how it has been established that ever married individuals have lower disease risks and greater longevity than never married individuals.  I found it interesting that in this study, there was an apparent relationship between meat-eating and marriage.  From Table 1, the percentage of married or cohabiting men was:  regular meat eaters, 76%; low meat eaters, 69%; fish eaters, 66%; vegetarians, 61%; overall, 68%.

For women, the percentage married or cohabiting was:  regular meat eaters, 76%; low meat eaters, 63%; fish eaters, 63%; vegetarians, 58%; overall, 65%.

Thus, there appears to be a positive relationship between meat-eating and marriage, i.e. meat eaters were apparently significantly more likely to be married than non-meat eaters.   Thus, a higher proportion of the regular meat-eaters enjoyed the health benefits of marriage.  I have to wonder if the much elevated risk of death from mental and behavioral disorders among vegetarians and vegans may be linked to their lower rate of participation in marriage.   This concept is discussed thoroughly in the book A Cry Unheard: The Medical Consequences of Loneliness by James Lynch.

Women who ate meat regularly were more likely to have children than those who restricted or avoided meat eating.  Seventy-seven percent of women who were regular meat eaters had children, 65% of low meat eaters, 52% of fish eaters, and 42% of vegetarians.   Women who restricted meat intake were more likely to have used oral contraceptives than regular meat eaters.  Thus, a higher proportion of the women who regularly ate meat enjoyed the health and longevity benefits of having children, which I also discussed in Essential Macrobiotics

A perusal of Table 1 shows also that meat eaters were on average heavier (by BMI), less physically active, and more likely to be on long-term medical treatment than people who restricted meat intake.  Women who were regular meat eaters were also more likely to have ever used hormone therapy.

It makes me wonder whether marriage and childbearing are more important to health and longevity than restricting animal products.  From an evolutionary perspective, if marriage and childbearing made some men and women weak and sick, they would stay away from it, and people of this lineage would die out.  If marriage and childbearing confer health benefits, people will stay married and bear children, and this lineage will thrive.  And it would make sense for biology to favor health in parents, as healthier parents will provide more support to children than unhealthy parents, and hence have more successful offspring; whereas people who got sick from marriage, childbearing and child-care would abandon all three, leaving few or no descendants.   Thus it is no stretch of the imagination to suppose that Nature would confer substantial health benefits to people who love raising children.

As I have previously noted, in The Intelligence Paradox: why the intelligent choice isn't always the smart one, evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa noted that for 1.8 million years, our ancestors did not have the problem of deciding what diet was best for health and longevity.  They simply ate what Nature provided and they could access.  That meant anything edible they could get their hands on, and it is certain that none deliberately chose vegetarian diets:

"Humans are naturally omnivorous, and anyone who eschewed animal protein and ate only vegetables in the ancestral environment, in the face of food scarcity and precariousness of its supply, was not likely to have survived long enough and stayed healthy enough to have left many offspring. So such a person is not likely to have become our ancestor. Anyone who preferentially ate animal protein and fat in the ancestral environment would have been much more likely to live longer and stay healthier. They are therefore much more likely to have become our ancestors."
Hence, it would seem highly unlikely that natural selection would favor strict meat-avoider lineages with greater health than lineages that had a deep love for bearing and caring for children.  In the Darwinian fitness games, any one who avoids eating animals and having children is going to be replaced by those who get married, have children, and invest their time and energy in making those children into economically and reproductively successful adults. 

Even if avoiding animal products prolonged your own life by 10 years, if you don't have children, you don't live as long as some one who dies 10 years younger, but has several children who also have children.  Every child is the irreversible biological marriage of mother and father and if the parents are of the same ethnic stock each child is a virtual reincarnation of the parents.

If you still have time, you might want to avoid your lineage going the way of the Dodo bird.

Saturday, December 10, 2016

Study: Womens' Breast Cancer Rates Lower In Mongolia Than China or U.K.

Mongol women archers during Naadam festival.  By Zoharby - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0,
I came across this study by Troisi et al. accident.  Here's the introduction:

I was surprised by the report that the breast cancer rates in China and the U.K. are 3 and 10 times that in Mongolia.  Mongolian women eat diets very high in red meat and dairy products, much higher than in the U.K. or China.  This data might provide evidence against the idea that plant-based diets are best for prevention of breast cancer for women of Asian and European descent. Let's look at it. 

In this study the authors sought to study the hormonal differences between Mongolian and U.K. women.  The Mongolian women were "the mothers of school children attending two primary schools in Ulaanbaator, the capital of Mongolia."  100% of these women had children, and most likely, all had breast-fed their children extensively, although this is not specified by the report. 

In contrast, the U.K. women were "premenopausal Caucasian women from the U.K. who had been recruited nationally between November 2008 and September 2009 as controls for a case-control study on the genetics of breast cancer."  75% of these women had children, but only 78% of U.K. women had more than one child, whereas 92% of the Mongolians had more than one child.  

"Among parous women, about 22% of the U.K. women had one child and 78% had two or more compared with 8.5% and 92% of the Mongolians."
 Also, "The Mongolian women were younger, and of smaller stature and lower weight than the U.K. women."

 U.K. women have been called 'the world's worst' for breast-feeding rates.

The fact that the Mongolian women were younger and more likely to have done extensive breast feeding of more than one child is very important because earlier age of parity, greater number of children, and more extensive breast feeding are all associated with lower risk of breast cancer:

Source: National Cancer Institute.

 Regarding diet, the Mongolian women ate much more meat and dairy than either U.K. women or Chinese women as the Mongolian diet "consists almost exclusively of meat and dairy products":

Table 2 of the study shows that in comparison to the U.K. women the Mongolian women ate on average 64% more vegetables (excluding potatoes), twice as much meat, one-third as much fish, 3.5 times as much milk, 5 times as much yogurt, 50% more cheese, and almost 2 times as much butter daily. 

This study also surprised me in its report that the Mongolian women had higher levels of both estrogen and progesterone, and lower levels of testosterone, than the U.K. women.

Unfortunately the authors of this report do not discuss the role of early and multiple childbearing and extensive breast-feeding in prevention of breast cancer or, very likely, the differences in hormone levels between the Mongolian and U.K. women.  I suspect that these factors play a much larger role in the low levels of breast cancer in less 'developed' populations than any modern scientist programmed by feminist ideology is willing to even entertain, let alone admit.

Mongol girl performing Bayad dance.  By Tuguldur Sukhbold - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0,

 As noted by the authors, this data adds to a growing body of evidence that elevated estrogen may not be a breast cancer promoter.  This data also contradicts the idea, which I have previously promoted, that all animal-based diets promote breast cancer to a greater degree than more plant-based diets.  The Mongolian women eat meat and dairy products from grass-fed animals.  It is well-established that the meat and dairy products from exclusively grass-fed animals have higher levels of omega-3 fats and conjugated linoleic acid, both of which appear to have anti-cancer effects.  Meat and dairy products from exclusively grass-fed animals also contain higher levels of phytonutrients derived from grasses, compared to grain-fed animal products, which may also protect against breast cancer if not other cancers as well. 

However, it is also important to note that Mongolia reportedly has the 11th highest heart disease death rate (261 per 100,000), about 2.6 times that of China (99 per 100,000) and 8.7 times that of France (about 30 per 100,000) (see rankings here).  One should not imagine that just because Mongolian women have a low rate of breast cancer, the Mongolian diet protects also against other degenerative diseases.

I would further add that this data may suggest that early childbearing, multiple childbearing, and extensive breast feeding may be more important in prevention of breast cancer than dietary factors.   That is not likely a politically correct perspective in this age when 'feminists' seem bent on denying that female biology is geared toward early and multiple childbearing, but it is consistent with human evolution.  It is safer in our culture to talk about diet, than about reproductive activity choices.  Feminists won't attack you for promoting either a plant-based or a grass-fed animal based diet, but they will get "triggered" if you even suggest that women are biologically and psychologically adapted to being mothers.

It is a basic principle of pagan (including Taoist) philosophy that to enjoy life, one should act in harmony with nature, not in opposition to it.  It is a simple fact that women are most fertile in their first 10-15 menstruating years (roughly ages 18-30 years) so they are biologically designed to have children early in life, not after spending 10-15 years going to college and establishing a professional career.   Women who wait to have children until they are in their 30s or later will generally have a harder time conceiving and breast-feeding, and according to pre-modern European and Chinese medicine concepts, their children will generally have less vitality, because the mother's body will not be at its biological peak when imparting life to the children.  A growing body of evidence indicates that late child-bearing is not only worse for the children, it is also be worse for mother's long term health. 

Wednesday, December 7, 2016

Study: Low Volume Single Set Resistance Training Produces Similar Results to High Volume Training

Can low volume single-set high intensity resistance training programs produce similar results to high volume multiple-set resistance training programs?  There has been much debate of this question in the exercise science community, and it seems that the orthodoxy maintains that it is necessary to perform multiple sets of an exercise to get the optimal strength and hypertrophy responses, while a minority of researchers have dissented. 

In a paper published in September 2016, Giessing et al. revisit this question.  They point out that to date experiments, meta-analyses, and literature reviews include studies that are heterogeneous in respect of controlling a very important variable, namely training effort. 

Advocates of single-set per exercise high intensity training (HIT) generally recommend continuing each exercise until the point of momentary muscular failure (MMF) or local exhaustion, i.e. the point at which it is temporarily impossible to perform another repetition in proper form.  Practitioners of high-intensity training often include so-called drop sets, wherein after reaching MMF in the main set of an exercise, the resistance is immediately reduced 10-15% to allow 2-3 additional repetitions, after which the resistance is again reduced 10-15% to allow another 2-3 repetition.  In contrast, advocates of multiple set high volume (HV) routines generally recommend fixed repetition targets and often recommend avoiding training to momentary muscular failure.

Giessing et al. set up their experiment to directly compare these two methods of training: single-set to MMF, or multi-set not-to-failure (NTF).  Thirty subjects were randomly assigned to perform either a single-set program including 2 drop sets, or a multiple-set program (3 sets per exercise) NTF.

Both groups performed the following exercises in the listed order: chest press, heel raise, rear deltoid, elbow flexion, seated row, knee extension, knee flexion, abdominal (trunk) flexion, push-ups.  These were also the test exercises at the end of the training experiment.

Regarding this menu of exercises, chest press and push ups both train the pectorals, anterior and medial deltoids, and triceps; seated row trains upper back, rear deltoid, and elbow flexors, while elbow flexion also trains elbow flexors and rear deltoid trains rear deltoid.  The push up also trains the trunk flexors and knee extensors to some degree (although perhaps not to MMF).  The remaining movements involve only one muscle group.  Thus, the "single-set" group actually did two sets affecting each of the following muscle groups: pectorals, anterior and medial deltoids, triceps, rear deltoid, knee extensors, trunk flexors, and elbow flexors.  The program design resulted in only one training set for only the upper back, gastrocnemius (heel raise), and knee flexors in the single-set group.
The HIT group did one set of each exercise to MMF, followed by 2 drop sets.  The HV performed each exercise to a self-determined maximum number of repetitions, i.e. stopped each set when he or she felt like stopping.  Subjects rested long enough between sets to normalize breathing.  The HV group rested 2-3 minutes at the end of each circuit of 9 exercises before doing the second and third rounds. 

The groups differed also in repetition performance:  "The HIT group used a repetition duration of 2 seconds concentric, 1 second isometric contraction at the top of the range of motion, and 4 seconds eccentric (2-1-4 seconds). The 3ST group trained using a repetition duration of 2 seconds concentric and 2 seconds eccentric (2-2 seconds)."  Each exercise was performed for 10 repetitions excluding drop sets. 

The study duration was ten weeks.  Each group trained all exercises twice weekly.  The HIT group spent about 11 minutes on each training session; the HV group spent about 25 minutes on each training session. 

The Results

Both the HIT and HV programs produced significant improvements in muscular performance.  However, the HIT program produced significantly greater gains than the HV program in 3 of the tested exercises, and had larger changes in 8 of the 9 exercises.  Neither group showed statistically significant changes in any body composition measures.  The near null results for body composition changes were probably due to the inclusion of both male and female trainees of roughly equal numbers; since female trainees do not generally show large muscle mass gains in response to resistance training, their results washed out any evidence of gains in the male trainees in the average results.  However, there was a small effect size trend for greater body composition changes in the HIT group.

What accounts for these differences?  The programs differed in volume (number of repetitions and time under load), intensity of effort, use of drop sets, and duration of repetitions.

The HV group performed a greater volume of exercise (both number of repetitions and time under load), but produced less performance gains.  Therefore, the greater performance improvement in the HIT group was not due to performance of a greater exercise volume. 

The HIT group trained to MMF but the HV group did not.   The authors note that research has suggested that training to MMF produces greater adaptations than not training to MMF, provided recovery is adequate.  Training to MMF produces a greater degree of momentary fatigue in the trained muscle groups compared to training to a self-determined number of repetitions.  The fatigue level was further increased in this study by adding drop-sets.  Fatigue stress stimulates the body to make adaptations.  It makes sense that creating greater fatigue will elicit greater results, provided recovery is adequate.  The reduced volume of the HIT program may allow greater recovery due to the fact that it consumes fewer metabolic resources than the HV program.

My Take on This

In practice, if you are going to perform multiple sets of any exercise for the same number of repetitions and with the same resistance used for each set, it is necessary to avoid training to MMF in all sets leading up to the final set.  In my experience, if one trains to MMF on the first set, it will be impossible to duplicate the performance on the second set with the same load within 3 to 5 minutes, so I would have to either reduce the repetitions, or reduce the load by 10-20% on the second set to get the same number of repetitions.  It would look something like this:

BB squat:  200 lbs. x 20 reps (near MMF)
rest 3-5 minutes
BB squat: 200 lbs. x 10-15 reps; or 180 lbs. x 15-20 reps (both near MMF)

Hence, when assigned to perform multiple sets of X number of repetitions of any exercise, trainees will generally hold back effort on early sets to reserve strength for subsequent sets.

One has to question this approach on the basis of the progressive overload principle.  The second set is performed for fewer repetitions with the same resistance, or with a lesser resistance and possibly fewer repetitions than the first.  Hence the degree of stimulation does not reach the higher level of the first set.  Since either or both the resistance and the repetitions are less on the second set, the second set does not qualify as a progression of overload.

Over the past 40 years, the vast majority of my resistance training routines have been single-set, low-volume, high intensity training to MMF.  During some periods I have used simple routines doing 3 sets of 5 repetitions using only basic exercises (squats, deadlifts, pull-ups, overhead presses, bench presses).  I have been able to increase strength using either type of program.

However, I tend to prefer mostly single-set training to MMF because it is so time-efficient.  One set of chin ups to MMF will take about a minute to perform.  Three sets of 5 repetitions of chin ups with 2 minutes rest between sets will (assuming 40 s per set) take 6 minutes to perform.  This may seem minor but when performing 10-12 exercises per full body training session, a single-set routine will involve ~15 minutes of actual exercise performance and ~20 minutes of rest periods and set up times, or a total of 35 to 45 minutes, whereas a multi-set routine using the same number of exercises would take 90 minutes or more to complete. 

One general comment I have about the research on this topic is that all studies I have seen that look at single-set vs. multiple-set training routines define single-set routines as those in which subjects perform only one set of each exercise, and multi-set routines as those in which subjects perform multiple sets of each exercise.  Yet in practice many routines provide multiple sets for individual muscle groups even if the individual performs only one set per exercise.

For example, consider this routine:
  1. Barbell squat
  2. Chin up
  3. Parallel bar dips
  4. Cossack squat
  5. Rowing on rings
  6. Push-ups on rings
If one performs only one set of each exercise, this routine involves two sets for each muscle group: 
  • Thighs & hips:  barbell squat and Cossack squat
  • Upper back, rear deltoid, arm flexors and forearms:  chin up and rowing
  • Pectorals, anterior and medial deltoid, arm extensors:  parallel bar dips and push ups on rings
If one is training to MMF on each set, a second set of the same exercise would very likely be  superfluous because it will only retrace the same muscle activation already exhausted on the first set.

In summary, Giessing et al. appear to have shown that a HIT program involving only one set per exercise and drop sets will produce similar or greater results than a HV program consisting of 3 sets per exercise without training to MMF.  However, it is possible that other types of HV training may produce equal or superior results, e.g. 2 or more sets performed to MMF rather than to self-determined 'maximum' repetitions. 

Wednesday, November 30, 2016

How To Get A Lean Strong Waist

That’s a snapshot of my waist this morning.  It measures about 31.5 inches in circumference.  Here’s what I’m doing to keep it lean and make it progressively stronger:

First, to get and stay lean I eat a whole foods plant-based macrobiotic diet consisting of whole grains, legumes, seasonal vegetables (mostly cooked), sea vegetables, fruits, nuts, and seeds.  I haven’t eaten any animal flesh, milk or eggs for 5 years. 

Many cuts of animal flesh are calorie-dense,  so it is easy to over consume calories when eating meat liberally.  In addition, eating animal protein can increase your insulin response to meals to favor fat storage.

You don’t have to completely eliminate animal products to get or stay lean, but limiting animal food consumption to a maximum of 15% of calories will help you get and stay lean.  If you eat animal products, we recommend wild or sustainably farmed fish or poultry as the best choice.  This chart from my book Essential Macrobiotics shows how much lean animal flesh constitutes 15% of calories at various calorie intake levels.
Note that I suggest this as the upper limit for animal protein intake based on research (discussed in Essential Macrobiotics) indicating that adverse effects of animal protein consumption may occur when animal protein exceeds 10% of total calories. 

Second, I fast for roughly 16 hours every day, and only two meals daily both within an 8 hour feeding window.  I eat a large breakfast, generally between 8 and 10 a.m., and another meal between 2 and 4 p.m. 

In my book Intermittent Fasting I discuss research that suggests that if you want to get lean, it is best to eat a most of your food early in the day, as food eaten late in the day triggers lipid storage mechanisms favoring body fat gain, insulin resistance, and elevated blood lipids.  This same research indicates that most people feel less hunger and more satiety when they eat more of their food in the early part of the day rather than in the evening. 

Diet is the key to getting a lean waist.  Resistance training is the key to getting a strong waist.  You should train the waist musculature with progressive resistance.  You can train the waist fully with 2-4 exercises.  For full training your routine needs to include each of these movements once or twice weekly.

 Waist flexion for the rectus abdominus
 Waist extension for the erector spinae
 Waist rotation for the obliques

Here's an example of how I have fit the waist-strengthening exercises (in bold) into my full-body routines.

Day 1
  1.  Handstand holds
  2.  Hollow body holds (rectus abdominis)
  3.  Shoulder bridge (erector spinae)
  4.  Weighted Cossack squats
  5.  Weighted supinated chin-ups 
  6.  Dips in L-sit  (rectus abdominis)
  7.  Ring rows
  8.  Windshield wipers (rectus abdominis and obliques)
  9.  "Jefferson curl" deadlift  (erector spinae)
Day 2
  1.  Feet-supported crane pose
  2.  Straddle V-ups (rectus abdominis)
  3.  Shoulder bridge (erector spinae)
  4.  Weighted Cossack squats
  5.  Chin-ups in L-sit (rectus abdominis)
  6.  Weighted dips
  7.  Ring rows
  8.  Twisting back extension (erector spinae and obliques)
  9.  "Jefferson curl" deadlift  (erector spinae)
In these routines, the Jefferson curl deadlift is done with a very light weight for improving mobility and flexibility.

I do only one set per exercise, training to fatigue or close to it.   Day 1 involves 3 direct sets for the rectus abdominis, 2 direct sets for the erector spinae, and 1 direct set for the obliques.  Bear in mind that the obliques are also trained indirectly in all movements for the rectus abdominis.  Day 2 involves 3 direct sets for the erector spinae, 2 for the rectus abdominis, and 1 for the obliques. 

Friday, November 25, 2016

Do You Need Single Joint Exercises for Strength or Hypertrophy Training?

Weighted dips for pectorals, shoulders and triceps.  © Don Matesz 2016

Do you need single-joint exercises (such as barbell curls, tricep extensions, leg curls, and leg extensions) in a strength training program, or can you get the same results using only multi-joint exercises (such as squats, chin ups, dips, rowing and overhead press)?

Gentil et al. assigned untrained males to train the elbow flexors (biceps, brachialis) with either shoulder-width supinated grip barbell curls (a single-joint exercise, SJ group, n=15) or pronated wide grip lat. pull downs (a multi-joint exercise, MJ group, n=14).  Both groups also performed leg press, leg flexion, trained twice weekly for 10 weeks, using 3 sets of 8-12 repetitions with maximum effort (i.e. to failure).  They were supervised and instructed to perform the lifting and lowering phases of each repetition in 2 seconds each phase, with no pause between repetitions.  They rested 1.5-2.5 minutes between sets.  If necessary, weights were adjusted for each set in order to keep repetitions in the 8-12 range.  Before and after the 10 weeks, they tested the subjects elbow flexors for peak torque (PT) and muscle thickness (MT).

At the end of the 10 weeks, the MJ and SJ groups had increased elbow flexor MT by 6.1% and 5.38% respectively, and PT by 10.4% and 11.87%, respectively.  These differences were statistically non-significant.

L-sit pull-ups with a supinated grip. © Don Matesz 2016
I find it this study particularly interesting because the MJ group used pronated grip pulldowns, and the pronated grip places the biceps in a mechanically disadvantaged position.  The biceps are the largest of the elbow flexors and they can exert more force when the wrist is supinated, so that people can handle more resistance in a supinated barbell curl, pull-up or pull-down than in pronated grip versions of these exercises.  This study suggests that the biceps are loaded just as effectively by pronated pull-ups as by supinated barbell curls.  In fact the subjects who did only pronated pull-ups had slightly greater bicep hypertrophy than the subjects who did only supinated-grip barbell curls.  The take home message is that it probably does not matter whether you use a supinated or a pronated grip for pull-ups.

de France et al. found that adding SJ movements to a resistance training routine composed of MJ movements for 8 weeks did not improve results in individuals who had a minimum of 2 years training experience.  This study involved training upper body pushing movements (chest, shoulders, triceps)on Mondays and Thursdays, upper body pulling movements (back and biceps) on Tuesdays and Fridays, and lower limbs, low back, and abdomen on Wednesdays and Saturdays.  Here's the selection of movements used for the upper body training:

 All exercises were performed for 3 sets of 10 repetitions except during the "shock" weeks which involved 3 sets of 12-15 repetitions including assisted post-fatigue repetitions.  The MJ only routine took only 35 minutes to complete, the MJ+SJ routine took 50 minutes to complete.  The training program was periodized as shown in Table 1.

Table 3 displays the results:

There was no significant difference in results between the group that used SJ movements and the group that did not.  Once again, the addition of single joint movements did not provide any additional benefit.  Over the course of 8 weeks, the MJ+SJ group spent 8 hours more time training (an extra 15 minutes per session, 4 times weekly, for 8 weeks), without any additional compensation.

Twisting back extension.  © Don Matesz 2016

These are just 2 examples of studies of this topic.  Gentil et al. conducted a review of 23 studies of the acute effects and long-term adaptations of SJ and MJ exercises in resistance training.  They found:

1. "For the upper and lower limbs, analysis of surface electromyographic (sEMG) activation suggests that there are no differences between SJ and MJ exercises when comparing the prime movers."
2.  For the lumbar extensors, the evidence supports including a SJ exercise (i.e. back extensions vs. deadlifts).
3.   "Long-term studies comparing increases in muscle size and strength in the upper limbs reported no difference between SJ and MJ exercises and no additional effects when SJ exercises were included in an MJ exercise program."
4.  Only one study directly compared the effects of MJ and SJ on recovery and its results suggest that SJ exercises produce increased muscle fatigue and soreness.

In short, the evidence to date indicates that, unless you just have time to burn and like working more hours for no additional compensation, you should build your routine of basic multi-joint exercises like squats, pull-ups, dips, rows, overhead presses, and limit your inclusion of SJ exercises in your strength training routine to those that address the lower back (back extensions), and possibly the neck, calves, and forearms, except in cases where an SJ exercise may be needed for rehabilitation. 

Weighted Cossack squats train hip and thigh strength and flexibility.  © Don Matesz 2016

Monday, November 21, 2016

Book Review: Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat

I learned of Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat: Why Its So Hard To Think Straight About Animals by Hal Herzog through reading several of his blog posts online at Psychology Today.  Herzog is one of the world's leading experts on anthrozoology, the study of human-animal relations.  He is a professor of psychology at Western Carolina University.

I was interested in reading his book because I have had some trouble "thinking straight" about animals myself, and I have noticed that few if any people – including animal rights advocates – seem to me to have straight thinking on this topic. 

Herzog discusses the many ways people get caught in odd contradictions with regard to their attitudes or ethical principles towards non-human animals.  For example, while not eating meat myself for the past 5 years, I have taken care of several cats.  Cats eat an average of two ounces of meat daily, which adds up to 50 pounds of meat in a year.  Since there are 94 million cats in America, en masse they consume nearly 12 million pounds of flesh, the equivalent of 3 million chickens, every day.

So why are there so many vegetarians who keep cats?  They could save 3 million chickens every day by humanely killing all cats (euthanasia).  But we don't hear vegetarians calling for this approach.  Why not?

According to Herzog, surveys show that 60% of Americans believe that animals have an intrinsic right to life, yet they also believe that people have the right to eat animals.  Why are people so inconsistent?  Herzog wants to find out. 

Throughout the book Herzog discusses gender differences in attitudes toward animals.  In the introduction he tells the story of one Judith Black, a women who at the age of 12 decided that it was wrong to kill animals for food.  The interesting thing is that this woman, who went on to earn a Ph.D. in anthropology, decided at that age that while cows and pigs were animals, fish were not.  So for 15 years she called herself a vegetarian while regularly enjoying "smoked Copper River salmon and lemon-grilled swordfish."

Her taxonomy served her well until she met Joseph Weldon, a biology graduate student and meat-eater, who tried to convince her that since fish are vertebrates, she was wrong to treat them differently from birds and mammals.  She did not agree, but this did not prevent them from getting married.  The discussion continued for 3 years before Judith gave in.  Faced with deciding whether to stop thinking of herself as a vegetarian, or quitting eating fish,  Herzog says she "joined the ranks of ex-vegetarians," but this is not correct.  She never was a vegetarian, she just thought of herself as such, and lied to herself about fish to make it so. 

Reading Herzog's book, one gets the impression that this is in fact what all ethical vegetarians and animal rights people do.  They tell themselves lies about reality in order to boost their moral certitude and signal their "advanced virtue" to themselves, if not to observers.  

Herzog tells of a dilemma he encounters himself.  A series of events led Herzog to adopt a boa constrictor.  He had a friend who was deeply involved in rescuing kittens who heard through rumor that he was feeding kittens to the boa constrictor.  She called him up to confront him.  It was not true, but it led him to thinking about the issue.  Cats kill songbirds, and cats eat a lot of meat requiring the killing of many animals.  As reptiles with low metabolic rates, boas need must less meat than cats; a cat consumes 10 times more meat in a year than a boa constrictor.  Animal shelters euthanize and cremate 2 million unwanted cats, many of them kittens, every year in the U.S..  Herzog thinks it through:
"Wouldn't it make more sense to make these carcasses available to snake fanciers?  After all, these cats are going to die anyway and fewer mice and rats would be sacrificed to satisfy the dietary needs of the pythons and king snakes living in American homes.  Seems like a win-win, right?

"Yikes...I had inadvertently painted myself into a logical corner in which feeding the bodies of kittens to boa constrictors was not only permissible but morally preferable to feeding them rodents.  But while the logical part of my brain may have concluded that there was not much difference between raising snakes on a diet of rats or a diet of kittens, the emotional part of me was not buying the argument at all.  I found the idea of feeding the bodies of cats to snakes revolting, and had no intention of hitting up the animal shelter for kitten carcasses."
Emotion allowed to trump reason.  Is it really morally preferable to breed and kill more mice and rats to feed to snakes, then to feed the animals we already have killed, even if they be kittens, to the snakes? And why is there so much more emotion around kittens, than around mice and rats?  Herzog answers:  its the 'cuteness factor.'

He reports that anthrozoologist Stephen Kellert of Yale University has consistently found that women are more concerned with protecting animals than men, yet also 3 times more likely to have fears of certain animals (e.g. snakes or spiders).  On the other hand, men are much more likely than women to know more about the biology and ecology of other species, and to appreciate animals for what Kellert calls "practical and recreational reasons" i.e. for profit, food and fun.  

Women far outnumber men among vegetarians and animal rights activists.  Herzog writes:
"According to Donna Maurer, author of the book Vegetarianism: Movement or Moment?, the typical vegetarian is a liberal, white, well-educated, middle- or upper- class female who is less likely than the average person to adhere to traditional values."

"Women dominate nearly every aspect of grassroots animal protection.  They make up 85% of the membership of the two largest mainstream animal protectionist organizations in the United States, the ASPCA and the Humane Society of the United States.  Among dog rescuers, women outnumber men eleven to one, and three times more female high school students than males call the National Anti-Vivisection Society's dissection hotline each year because they want to opt out of biology dissection labs for reasons of conscience.  And more women than men give up meat for ethical reasons."
One might even interpret both of these movements as anti-male movements.  They attack specifically male values and behavior.  The irony is that these male values and behavior evolved to protect and provide for the survival of women, children, and elders.

Imagine life 200,000 years ago.  It is late fall, and plant food is scarce.  The women and children of the tribe are hungry.  A man has to choose between killing a deer and watching his spouse, progeny and parents die of starvation.  If he hunts and kills an animal his family lives, if he is paralyzed by 'compassion' for the animal, he and his family die.  The latter would be pathological altruism.  If men were not men – primarily rational not primarily emotional, women and children would die.

Imagine the tribe is holed up in a cave for the winter.  A bear discovers the cave and attempts to enter to take it from the family.  The man has to choose between certain death for himself and his family, or killing the bear.  He breaks down in tears, unable to bring himself to slay the bear because its "cruel" to do so.  Would humanity still exist today if this is what men were made of?

In this light, disgust for men and their capability for cold, calculating rationality toward animals seems inseparable from hatred for humanity.  Do women really want men to abandon rationality in favor of sentimentality?  Do women really believe that, after millions of years of evolution selecting for men who are more rational than emotional, which served women's interests, things have changed so much that now women's interests are better served by opposing men in favor of animals?

It is worth noting that these vegetarians and animal rights advocates are "well-educated" and "less likely to adhere to traditional values."  Since the 1960s, "well-educated" means having a university degree.  Many of the elite intellectuals at American universities are so-called cultural Marxists who are actively hostile to "traditional values" which means European values.  Whereas Marx aimed for a classless society, cultural Marxists consider distinctions between the sexes, races, and species to be the "socially constructed" roots of oppression, and they aim for eliminating what they see as oppression by eliminating the idea that there exist meaningful differences between the sexes, races, and even species.

 Cultural Marxists believe that race, sex, and even species are "social constructs" with no biological components.  They believe that the white race – that is, the European race, or European culture, particularly as manifest through "socially constructed" European males – is the main source of oppression.  Therefore, they have a mission to destroy European culture and its "social constructions" of race, gender, species, etc.  For example, Noel Ignatiev of Harvard University says he is inspired by Marxists and writes:
"The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists."
"Make no mistake about it: we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as 'the white race' is destroyed—not 'deconstructed' but destroyed."
Such individuals can only be considered openly hostile to European people and culture.  Their stated goal is to destroy white culture, which means European culture, and even the (allegedly non-biological) white race itself.  They hide their desire to genocide Europeans behind a laughable claim that the European race is only a social construct.  They aim to accomplish this genocide by denouncing European men, creating conflict between European men and European women, reducing European reproductive success through "sexual revolutions" and discouraging Europeans from mating with other Europeans, and teaching people to abandon traditional European values and habits, including diets, so as to disintegrate European culture and thereby European power.  In this way the hostile elites get European youth to rebel against their own culture and kind, to destroy the European race from the inside out.

It is well worth noting that whites – Caucasians, Europeans – dominate the vegetarian and animal rights movements.  Not non-whites.  Europeans don't eat dogs, but Asians do.  Europeans want to save the whales, but Japanese refuse to stop because "whaling is an ancient part of Japanese culture, fishermen have caught whales for centuries, and Japan will never allow foreigners to tell its people what they can and cannot eat."

Did you get that last part?  Japan will never allow foreigners i.e. non-Japanese to tell its people what they can and cannot eat.  Japanese resist foreign control of their habits.  Further, Japanese also resist foreign control of their homeland by strictly controlling immigration – only 1.75% of people living in Japan are non-Japanese.  Japanese describe Japan as being a nation of "one race, one civilization, one language and one culture."  This is in fact the correct definition of a nation.  The word nation comes from the Latin nasci- meaning "born" and nationem meaning "birth, origin; breed, stock, kind, species; race of people, tribe."  The Japanese clearly believe that there are very meaningful differences between Japanese people and non-Japanese.  Unlike the Japanese, Europeans (including the Caucasian American population) have been convinced that they must let foreigners control their habits and their culture and even take over their homelands, in order to have a moral high ground and avoid the charge of "racism." 

 Europeans also fill the ranks of the organized environmentalist movement.  Some people blame this "lack of diversity" in these movements on the whites, but that's odd, as if its the fault of Europeans that non-Europeans aren't as likely to have a personal or professional interest in vegetarianism or environmentalism.  No one is stopping non-whites from taking an interest in animal rights, meatless diets or environmental issues.  Would we blame Africans for the relative paucity of white people interested in performing rap music?  Per Occam's razor, it may simply be that Europeans have a greater inclination to have this feeling for animals and nature, and hence these concerns, which is evident in the contents of European literature and folk tales.

Herzog points out that the animal liberation movement is like religion in two ways. One, animal liberation movements offer people moral meaning and purpose.  Two, "Animal rights activists and religious fundamentalists are alike" in that "they see moral issues in terms of black and white rather that shades of gray."
"Shelley Galvin and I gave animal activists a psychological scale developed by the social psychologist Donelson Forsythe to assess individual differences in people's ethical ideologies.  Seventy-five percent of animal activists (compared to only 25% of a group of college students) fell into the 'moral absolutist' category.  People with this ethical stance believe that moral principles are universal and that doing the right thing will result in happy endings."
So most animal activists believe that they have the right to tell other people what to do because they (the activists) believe that they have the moral high ground.  This is how so-called liberal values lead to totalitarian sentiments, such as when a vegan advocate states on video that meat-eaters don't deserve to live and everyone should be forced to be vegan to save the planet.

Since I am totally opposed to totalitarian control such as advocated by this dimwit,  I have been tempted to eat meat just to rebel against their kind.    She illustrates how mentally imbalanced people can become when intoxicated with so-called liberal values.   I agree with Thoreau:
“If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I would run for my life.”

Henry David Thoreau, Walden
For it is those who are most convinced of their righteousness that do the most harm in "doing good" to others.

Herzog discusses the heavy price that animal activists pay for their moral vision and absolutism.  Their allegiance to animals can alienate friends, family, and lovers.   People go bankrupt for donating all their money to animal rights organizations.  They become terrorists who attack and even bomb humans to save animals.

People who take the animal rights arguments to their logical conclusions end up producing impossible ethical standards.  For example, Herzog discusses Joan Dunayer, who in her book Speciesism, takes ethical equality to mean that all creatures who can experience pleasure and pain "should" be treated as equals.  So, if we have to choose between saving a dog and saving a child from a burning building, we are perfectly justified in choosing the dog, perhaps by flipping a coin; and, duck hunters should be charged with murder. 
"The problem for animal liberationists is that Dunayer is right.  If you take the charge of speciesism literally, if you refuse to draw any moral lines between species, if you really believe that how we treat creatures should not depend on the size of their brains or the number of their legs, you wind up in a world in which, as Dunayer suggests, termites have the right to eat your house."
And mosquitos carrying West Nile virus have a right to eat your blood.  And you don't have the right to stop them.  
Imagine if your immune system followed the anti-speciesist rule.  Instead of identifying pathogenic foreign invaders as not self, and destroying them, it lays back on the principle that these viruses and bacteria and cancer cells have as much right to life as your normal healthy cells.

You'd be dead within a day.

No species can survive by the standard of speciesism.  Anti-speciesism is a variant of pathological altruism, involving the sacrifice of oneself, one's family, and one's nation to enable some foreigner, even one that threatens one's own existence, to survive and thrive.  Anti-speciesism is a death wish.

Who has this death wish?  Caucasians.  Why?  Well, first of all, these animal-rights ethical theories are products of Europeans.  Non-Europeans have faith-based rules of conduct, like the Ten Commandments, but Europeans have lead the world in the development of rational theories of ethics.  The idea of speciesism is attributed to Peter Singer and Tom Regan, both of Anglo extraction. 

Second, it seems to me that white people have been told that they are the bane of existence.  White people are popularly blamed for genocide, colonization, slavery, environmental disaster, and many other crimes against nature and non-European humanity.  Anti-Europeans pretend that non-Europeans have all been angelic, never having committed any of the crimes pinned in Europe. Their willful ignorance of history is appalling.  Contrary to the moral and legal principle that no one can be held responsible for the evil actions of his or her ancestors, there is a popular perspective, promoted by certain special interest groups, that white people alive today must pay for the crimes claimed to have been committed by unrelated white people in the past.

Perhaps as a consequence of this, some whites have come to the conclusion that white people must be eradicated from this planet.  We must put ourselves out of existence, and we must do it by sacrificing ourselves for the good of others.  We must stop eating animals, we must stop reproducing, and we must give everything in our possession to others less fortunate than ourselves.

Some think we are commanded to do so by the Christ of the New Testament.  Turn the other cheek.  Walk the extra mile. If he asks for your coat, give him your shirt as well.  Consider the interests of others to be above your own interests, or you are selfish, a hater of the others.

Meanwhile it is perfectly acceptable for those others to take advantage of you, to use you and spitefully persecute you.  Do not resist your own dispossession and destruction or Yahweh will burn you in hell for evermore.  This is "morality."  

I learned many things from this book, including:

Dolphin "therapy" is a scam.
It is generally true that dog owners look like their dogs.
So-called dog people and cat people are different.
Childhood animal cruelty is not as strongly linked with violence as I had thought.
Research shows that animal rights activism is motivated more by emotion than logic.

You will find Herzog taking you through other lines of thought he has entertained in his effort to understand the moral issues surrounding animals.  For example, he recounts an inner dialogue wherein he tries to understand how one would decide when it would be "right" to kill people who use animals for scientific or medical research, by comparing it to how one would decide when it would be right to bomb people holding other people hostage in an war-time internment camp, such as is usually attributed to Germans in WWII.  

And more.  I highly recommend this book to vegans, vegetarians, animal rights activists, and people who want to understand these people and their movements.  

Friday, November 18, 2016

Christoph Hufeland's Macrobiotic Diet Recommendations, c. 1842

Christoph Hufeland.  Public Domain,
Many people seem to think that the idea that a diet low in animal foods promotes health and longevity emerged only in the 20th century as a component of what they consider a scientifically unsupported lipid hypothesis.  They imagine that prior to 1900, physicians were promoting low carbohydrate diets because they were so advanced in their understanding of the "fact" that eating carbohydrates makes the body fat and sick. 

Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland (1762-1836) was the most prominent physician of his time in Germany.  He was physician for Johann Wolfgang Goethe, Johann Gottfried von Herder, Johann Christoph Friedrich von Schiller, and Christoph Martin Wieland.

He wrote 11 major works on medicine, including one in which he introduced a term he invented – macrobiotic:  Macrobiotics:  The Art of Prolonging Life.  This is from the introduction to this book:

Among the practices Hufeland advances as beneficial for prolonging life, he has this to say about diet:

John Wesley was an Anglican cleric.  In describing animal flesh as heating, stimulating, and richly yielding blood and nourishment, Hufeland is in resonance with the Oriental medicine view that animal flesh is more yang than plant food.  Basically, he maintains that animal food accelerates metabolic processes, resulting in acceleration of aging. 
"We find that it is not those who lived on flesh, but on vegetables, pulse, fruit, and milk, who attained to the greatest age."
If I remember correctly, Vilhjalmur Stefansson noted in one of his works, I think it was Cancer: Disease of Civilization, that Eskimos had significantly shorter life spans than Canadians eating mixed diets, and he also wondered whether the highly stimulating effect of a high meat diet was responsible for this.

In any case, Hufeland was not indoctrinated by a modern lipid hypothesis.  The observation that people who live on more plant-based diets tend to have longer life spans is not some 20th century fabrication from the lipid hypothesis.  This was observed at least as long ago as ancient Greece, as evidenced by the fact that Socrates suggests the same in Plato's Republic, Book II.  

Thursday, November 10, 2016

Macrobiotic Mindset: Self-Responsibility

By Frontispiece drawn by “Sonnem.” (? hard to read, left bottom corner) and engraved by “MB” (bottom right corner). Image scanned by the John Adams Library at the Boston Public Library. Image slightly improved by Aristeas. -, Public Domain,
Epictetus was born a slave in the Roman Empire about 55 A.D..  He discovered a passion for philosophy in youth, and he got permission from his owner to study Stoic philosophy under the master Gaius Musonius Rufus.  He obtained liberation from slavery after the cruel, tyrannical Roman emperor Nero died in 63 A.D..

Some time after this, Epictetus began to teach philosophy.  In 93 A.D. the emperor Domitian banned philosophers from Rome, so Epictetus moved to Greece where he established a school of Stoic philosophy.  One of his students was Marcus Aurelius, who went on to become the emperor of Rome.  Though born a “slave” he made himself into a great man, remembered and revered to this day, by taking control of himself, accepting and yet rising above his accidental circumstances.

Epictetus taught that if you are unhappy, it is your own fault.  He is reported to have said:
"To accuse others for one’s own misfortunes is a sign of want of education. To accuse oneself shows that one’s education has begun. To accuse neither oneself nor others shows that one’s education is complete."
Blaming others makes you a slave to things beyond your control.  Epictetus emphasized that slavery of the soul consists of trying to control things outside oneself, but failing to control things that are within one's own power:
"That alone is in our power, which is our own work; and in this class are our opinions, impulses, desires, and aversions. What, on the contrary, is not in our power, are our bodies, possessions, glory, and power. Any delusion on this point leads to the greatest errors, misfortunes, and troubles, and to the slavery of the soul." 
This world is full of beauty and opportunity.  If you are not happy, if you have not attained your potential, it is your own fault.  Self-responsibility is a key practice of macrobiotic mindset, necessary to self-mastery, freedom and greatness of the soul.  You can liberate yourself from slavery by taking responsibility for your thoughts, words, and deeds.  Easier said than done, but possible and worth more than you can imagine. 

Saturday, November 5, 2016

Ecological footprint, war and refugees

The Global Footprint Network has produced maps of the ecological balance of all regions of the world.  Red means the region has exceeded the carrying capacity of the local resources; green means the region has a surplus of resources.

The ecological demands of the U.S.A. exceed its biocapacity by 120%, in India demand exceeds capacity by 160%, in China by 260%.

Put otherwise, all of these regions, and all other red and pink regions on the map, are overpopulated. 

The map directly above depicts the total demands placed on the biosphere by the local populations.  The darker the color, the more demand.  Who puts the most demand on the biosphere?  Here are the top nine consumers of natural resources.

China tops the list, with more than double the ecological footprint than the U.S.A. in second place.  India is very close behind the U.S.A.

I often see people from India and elsewhere blaming "the west" for their poverty.  It is claimed that "the west" looted other nations to sustain itself.

The non-European nations can't blame Europeans for their population sizes.  Neither Europeans nor Americans caused their populations to grow to unsustainable levels.  There is good reason to believe that the practice of polygamy in some of these nations strongly contributed to their overpopulation, and that the traditional monogamy and sexual ethics of Europe played an important role in keeping the European populations smaller, enabling Europeans to maintain higher levels of per capita wealth. 

Moreover, the map below shows the biocapacity of the various regions of the world:

Brazil tops the list.  China has a biocapacity greater than the U.S.A..  India's biocapacity is greater than that of Canada and Europe.  Despite claims that Europeans "looted" India and Africa, as a matter of fact, India has a greater biocapacity than Europe and Africa has at the very least a biocapacity similar to Europe on a hectare by hectare basis. 

 The relative poverty in non-European nations is at least in part – probably a very large part – due to the simple fact that those nations had sexual and marriage norms that caused their populations to grow far more rapidly than European nations, resulting in higher ratios of people to natural resources, which per force results in lower wealth per capita.  The U.S.A. once had (I emphasize had) a small population and a large biocapacity, which resulted in a low ratio of people to natural resources, which naturally results in greater wealth per capita. 

Here's how much the ecological demands in the U.S.A. have been in excess of the biocapacity of the region between 1961 and 2012 – the green line indicates the biocapacity, the red area shows how much the region is in excess of capacity.

As you can see, due to damage, the biocapacity of the U.S.A. (represented by the green line) has been declining steadily since 1961.

Prior to 1965, the U.S.A. had limited immigration, but in 1965 the Hart-Celler act was passed, which greatly increased the number of immigrants entering the U.S.A..  Since immigration means more people putting more strain on the country's natural resources, immigration into the U.S.A. is accelerating environmental damage and the rate of progressive ecological collapse.

Here's the ecological footprint of India:

India is no ecological paradise.  This photo gives some indication of the Indian approach to environmental protection.

By meg and rahul - Flickr, CC BY 2.0,

Here's the ecological footprint of China:

Back in the 1960s China was more or less living within its carrying capacity, but since then it has consistently lived beyond its carrying capacity.  Chinese have not shown much concern for environmental preservation; 16 of the world's 20 most polluted cities are in China.


Chinese factory. By High Contrast - Own work, CC BY 2.0 de,

When a population starts experiencing resource shortages, individuals in the population may start fighting over what resources remain, or simply leave their depleted region in search of greener pastures.  Here's the ecological footprint for Syria:

Ecological demands far exceed the biocapacity of the region.  Same for Libya, deeply in the red:

Afghanistan is also living beyond its means:

As long as population demands on resources exceed carrying capacity, people are going to suffer and we are going to see progressive environmental degradation, increasing conflict between people, and mass migrations which will lead to more conflicts.    Be prepared.