So, I recently started going to the gym. I've decided this is an important thing to do, if for no other reason than to combat the nearly inevitable annual weight gain - studies show that this is fairly common across most individuals and may be linked to a slowing of our body's metabolism that in turn may be linked to a decrease in exercise. The gym I'm going to, an all-female one, gave me 2 free 1-hour sessions with a personal trainer with my membership. Last week was session 1 and tonight I barely made it through session 2.
My trainer was a super fit, perky blond that looks 5 years younger than me, but apparently is about 2 years older. (Damn her.) Despite that, I can't dislike her. She was encouraging, pushed me to do more with each exercise, and even showed a little experimental flair when I started experiencing an unusual back pain with one of the exercises.
Last week, she put me through a series of upper body and ab exercises. Shoulder presses, bicep curls, tricep extensions, chest presses, cable torso rotation, crunches, the captain's chair, and crunches. Tonight, it was my lower body's turn, plus some back and "core" exercises. Walking Lunges, dumbbell squats, Smith squats, bridge with hamstring extensions, inner and outer thighs on the machine, toe and elbow plank, roman chair, and more crunches. After the first set, I felt pleasantly tired. Tonight, my legs were burning and shaking. I didn't even think I'd be able to walk home.
I wish I could afford to have this woman kick my butt every week. I'll keep everyone posted on my progress toward becoming a total bad ass at the gym.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Monday, July 23, 2007
I miss Harry
Today, I entered a post-Harry Potter slump. I read the latest from Rowling in a day and a half, the fastest read of the seven books for me. (It could have been faster if I hadn't participated in the real world and interacted with my husband this weekend.)
I can't explain my draw to these books, except to say that I have always - or at least since middle school - been a fan of fantasy. Wizards and witches, magical spells and charms, vampires, ogres, demons, all of it.
Do I particularly enjoy the Harry Potter series over others? (Well, not more than say the Lord of the Rings trilogy.) Across all the books that have particularly captured my attention, one thing stands out beyond the charm of fantasy itself: the multi-dimensional characters. The overarching theme in Harry Potter - and Lord of the Rings as well as many other similarly themed books - is the battle of good versus evil. Yet, what sets these characters, and indeed Rowling's story, apart from the masses of fantasy novels out there are the numerous shades of grey interwoven in what otherwise may have been a white against black contest. For example, many of the most endearing characters struggle, at some point during their lives, with their own mixture of good and evil. Even Harry, whom no one would contend is evil, shares a profound link with the only character in the entire series who is completely bad, and this causes a considerable amount of confusion for the young boy. Lupin struggles against his werewolf side, Sirius struggles against his family background, even Hermionie struggles somewhat with her intellectual arrogance early in the series. Snape battles with his inner demons, his bitterness and feelings of inferiority, that at times in his life overwhelm him, but which he is ultimately able to transcend. The main battle between Harry and Voldemort maybe the pivotal and ultimate struggle of good against evil, but what draws me to these books - and what will attract me to them again and again over the years - are the inner battles of these two forces within each character.
I can't explain my draw to these books, except to say that I have always - or at least since middle school - been a fan of fantasy. Wizards and witches, magical spells and charms, vampires, ogres, demons, all of it.
Do I particularly enjoy the Harry Potter series over others? (Well, not more than say the Lord of the Rings trilogy.) Across all the books that have particularly captured my attention, one thing stands out beyond the charm of fantasy itself: the multi-dimensional characters. The overarching theme in Harry Potter - and Lord of the Rings as well as many other similarly themed books - is the battle of good versus evil. Yet, what sets these characters, and indeed Rowling's story, apart from the masses of fantasy novels out there are the numerous shades of grey interwoven in what otherwise may have been a white against black contest. For example, many of the most endearing characters struggle, at some point during their lives, with their own mixture of good and evil. Even Harry, whom no one would contend is evil, shares a profound link with the only character in the entire series who is completely bad, and this causes a considerable amount of confusion for the young boy. Lupin struggles against his werewolf side, Sirius struggles against his family background, even Hermionie struggles somewhat with her intellectual arrogance early in the series. Snape battles with his inner demons, his bitterness and feelings of inferiority, that at times in his life overwhelm him, but which he is ultimately able to transcend. The main battle between Harry and Voldemort maybe the pivotal and ultimate struggle of good against evil, but what draws me to these books - and what will attract me to them again and again over the years - are the inner battles of these two forces within each character.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
A quote
Life comes once, and it’s quite short. You have to appreciate what’s good in it… I was just sunbathing and a butterfly landed quite close to me. Beautiful wings, deep red colors and white sort of circles on them. And these creatures don’t last very long. But it landed very close to me. It didn’t seem frightened and it just seemed to delight in opening and closing its wings. Just actually being beautiful for that period of time enjoying the sunshine. And perhaps there actually isn’t anymore to life than that, just being what you are, realizing that life goes on all around, and there are millions of other living creatures that have to find their part as well.
Neil, 49Up
(If you haven't watched any of the documentaries in this series I highly recommend doing so.)
Neil, 49Up
(If you haven't watched any of the documentaries in this series I highly recommend doing so.)
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
A checklist for happiness
This new post from The Happiness Project is pretty good. I've grown to be a real fan of her blog, despite feeling like I have nothing in common with her. The one thing I do have in common with her is the pursuit of happiness. Elusive a target as it may be. From her list, today I am going to the gym.
To her list I would add:
What would you add? And what are you doing from her list (or your own happiness list) today?
To her list I would add:
- find an interesting recipe and make it (also on my list today)
- look at inspiring photography
- read anything
- write something
- give someone a hug
What would you add? And what are you doing from her list (or your own happiness list) today?
Friday, July 6, 2007
random brain waves
First thing this morning, I read an article on how women are NOT more talkative than men. The stereotype is that women talk incessantly and men are quiet. Commonly cited numbers are 20,000 words a day for women vs. men's paltry 7,000. Apparently, these numbers - as well as others pointing to a similar magnitude difference between men and women - have been cited up, down, right, and left by magazines, books, talk show hosts, marriage counselors, and psychiatrists for perhaps a couple decades, but I haven't run across a citation to an actual study (and neither have others who have been looking far harder than I have). The notion, however, has given rise to the concept of a "word budget" for the day, where a man's budget is smaller than a woman's. "At the end of the day.... A man has spent nearly all his words.... A woman, however, is just warming up. She has thousands of words left to speak, and since her husband's word count is depleted, the conversations often wind up sounding like nothing more than question-and-answer sessions." How clever. Some guy came up with a "scientific" way of explaining why he doesn't want to talk to his wife at the end of the day! (His name is Gary Smalley.)
I'm glad to run across a study that debunks the stereotype. A flaw in the study is that they only sampled university students. Perhaps with age or entrance into the work force, a difference emerges between men and women in their chattiness - though I want to believe the results of this study, and I've seen that a couple other studies have come to the same conclusion.
Then I cruised to a recent article discussing a new study on IQ and birth order. A Norwegian group found that first borns have, on average, a 3 IQ point advantage over the next youngest sibling. Further, they claim that this difference mostly likely arises from some aspect of family dynamics, as children who were born second, but whose older siblings had died (presumably very young), had average IQ scores similar to first born children. The average difference found across families, which can be confounded by a multitude of factors not all of which can be controlled for, also holds up when directly comparing siblings within a family.
Now, I am the baby in a family with 3 children. So I take this a little personally. True, the oldest of us is far older and therefore I might only be as disadvantaged as a second child. But frankly, my older sister Julie did score higher - and probably in the vicinity of 5 points higher - than I did on a fifth grade IQ test. I wonder whether other people's anecdotal evidence goes along with these findings as well?
Last, but not least, I'm constantly on the look out for little essays and such written by "famous" novelists. I guess it is my way of making myself feel more well-read and cultured. Today, I ran across an essay on thinking by William Golding that is worth a read. And if you subscribe to the New Yorker you should read the book review by John Updike.
I'm glad to run across a study that debunks the stereotype. A flaw in the study is that they only sampled university students. Perhaps with age or entrance into the work force, a difference emerges between men and women in their chattiness - though I want to believe the results of this study, and I've seen that a couple other studies have come to the same conclusion.
Then I cruised to a recent article discussing a new study on IQ and birth order. A Norwegian group found that first borns have, on average, a 3 IQ point advantage over the next youngest sibling. Further, they claim that this difference mostly likely arises from some aspect of family dynamics, as children who were born second, but whose older siblings had died (presumably very young), had average IQ scores similar to first born children. The average difference found across families, which can be confounded by a multitude of factors not all of which can be controlled for, also holds up when directly comparing siblings within a family.
Now, I am the baby in a family with 3 children. So I take this a little personally. True, the oldest of us is far older and therefore I might only be as disadvantaged as a second child. But frankly, my older sister Julie did score higher - and probably in the vicinity of 5 points higher - than I did on a fifth grade IQ test. I wonder whether other people's anecdotal evidence goes along with these findings as well?
Last, but not least, I'm constantly on the look out for little essays and such written by "famous" novelists. I guess it is my way of making myself feel more well-read and cultured. Today, I ran across an essay on thinking by William Golding that is worth a read. And if you subscribe to the New Yorker you should read the book review by John Updike.
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Happy 4th!
Time to say something more about Italy. First off, if you haven't checked them out yet, all the pictures are up on my flickr site .
There are two sets devoted to pictures from Italy. The first focuses on the small towns, including the town we stayed in (Montepulciano) and countryside of Tuscany. The second set contains pictures from the cities we visited, Siena, Florence, and Rome.
What can I tell you? Montepulciano sits atop a small hill. The streets are narrow, sometimes only alleys that cars can just barely squeeze through, but have to share with pedestrians and cats nonetheless. Most of the turns are blind; you just don't know what is coming up next. Since we didn't necessarily know how to interpret all the road sings, one time we found ourselves going down a street that turned into stairs! Backing up, uphill, to avoid the imminent danger was interesting. Things are much easier as a pedestrian, if you don't mind climbing up and down streets and stairs all day long (we didn't, for the most part).
The cutest, quaintest town we visited was Pienza, the perfect renaissance town, designed by Pope Pius II. The main part of town consists of cobblestone walkways and beautiful stone buildings. I think the residents in this part of town have a contest for who can grow the neatest garden around their doorway. Check out these pictures to see what I mean:
122_2252
122_2276
As for all the sunset shots, we had a cool balcony off the kitchen. I couldn't resist trying to capture a couple of the sunsets.
Also among these pics are some of an abbey, Sant'Antimo, where we stopped to listen to some monks chanting their prayers. Very austere, but beautiful. I admit that I started to fall asleep, the chanting was so soothing and hypnotizing. I didn't feel too bad about it because one of the monks was yawning towards the end. Around the abbey were some old and amazing olive trees.
Highlights from the big cities:
Siena is fantastic. Would be a great place to stay, particularly if the hustle and bustle of bigger, more touristy cities doesn't appeal to you. It is surrounded by the typical beautiful Tuscan landscape. The Duomo is a perfect example of Italian Romanesque architecture (notice the black and white stripes on the outside of the building, which is recapitulated inside).
Sculpture. Two Pietas by Michelangelo: the first in my set, which he carved when he was about 80, is in a museum in Florence, the second, more famous, is in St. Peter's Basilica in Rome - I can't believe he was only 23 when he made this one. In the Duomo in Siena I took a picture of a sculpture of St. Peter also by Michelangelo. The real standout piece I saw, though, was the Mary Magdalene by Donatello. It's a grisly portrayal, a woman, thin beyond belief, withered by age, covered only by her long, unkempt hair. Her hands are up as if to pray. (I think she is supposed to be clasping a chalice actually.) From behind though, to see this sad figure permanently standing in front of Jesus on the cross... well, I found it moving, and I'm not even a religious person.
St. Peter's is ridiculous in it's enormity and excess.
The Pantheon is graceful, elegant, and, well, classic. I wish I could have stayed inside longer, but they were starting mass. (They were also having mass in St. Peter's when we were there. Can you imagine going to mass in one of these buildings? Talk about a religious experience.) You have to know about the Pantheon, if you don't already. Built about 100 AD, only a couple decades after the Colosseum, it is the most well preserved building from the Roman Empire. The dome still stands as the largest unreinforced concrete dome in the world - I have to cite wikipedia here. What I read before was that it is the widest though not the tallest dome (nothing in Rome can stand taller than the dome at St. Peter's). The wikipedia entry contains other interesting architectural details - the height and width of the dome are equal, and the thickness of the concrete varies as you move from the base of the dome to the oculus, an oddity uncovered by Brunelleschi (I believe), who drilled holes at various places to determine how the dome was made (perhaps before starting on the design of his own very famous dome for the Duomo in Florence?). The only light coming into the building enters through the oculus at the crest of the dome, which is a great effect and obviously symbolic.
What about things I couldn't take pictures of? Even if you don't go to a single museum or church (which would be crazy stupid), a trip to Tuscany would be worth it for the food and wine alone. It's not necessary to order fancy wine at any restaurant - probably true for all of Italy - the vino di casa goes well with the hearty Tuscan dishes. I am partial to the pasta dishes, ragus made with rabbit or wild boar meat, perfectly soft gnocchi, and ravioli stuffed with anything (for example, porcini mushrooms) and served with butter and green peas.
For the rest, you just have to experience for yourself. Everything tastes and smells better, every tree and branch and vine perfect, every hill town picturesque. Life is better in Tuscany. And don't forget to have a lot of gelato.
There are two sets devoted to pictures from Italy. The first focuses on the small towns, including the town we stayed in (Montepulciano) and countryside of Tuscany. The second set contains pictures from the cities we visited, Siena, Florence, and Rome.
What can I tell you? Montepulciano sits atop a small hill. The streets are narrow, sometimes only alleys that cars can just barely squeeze through, but have to share with pedestrians and cats nonetheless. Most of the turns are blind; you just don't know what is coming up next. Since we didn't necessarily know how to interpret all the road sings, one time we found ourselves going down a street that turned into stairs! Backing up, uphill, to avoid the imminent danger was interesting. Things are much easier as a pedestrian, if you don't mind climbing up and down streets and stairs all day long (we didn't, for the most part).
The cutest, quaintest town we visited was Pienza, the perfect renaissance town, designed by Pope Pius II. The main part of town consists of cobblestone walkways and beautiful stone buildings. I think the residents in this part of town have a contest for who can grow the neatest garden around their doorway. Check out these pictures to see what I mean:
122_2252
122_2276
As for all the sunset shots, we had a cool balcony off the kitchen. I couldn't resist trying to capture a couple of the sunsets.
Also among these pics are some of an abbey, Sant'Antimo, where we stopped to listen to some monks chanting their prayers. Very austere, but beautiful. I admit that I started to fall asleep, the chanting was so soothing and hypnotizing. I didn't feel too bad about it because one of the monks was yawning towards the end. Around the abbey were some old and amazing olive trees.
Highlights from the big cities:
Siena is fantastic. Would be a great place to stay, particularly if the hustle and bustle of bigger, more touristy cities doesn't appeal to you. It is surrounded by the typical beautiful Tuscan landscape. The Duomo is a perfect example of Italian Romanesque architecture (notice the black and white stripes on the outside of the building, which is recapitulated inside).
Sculpture. Two Pietas by Michelangelo: the first in my set, which he carved when he was about 80, is in a museum in Florence, the second, more famous, is in St. Peter's Basilica in Rome - I can't believe he was only 23 when he made this one. In the Duomo in Siena I took a picture of a sculpture of St. Peter also by Michelangelo. The real standout piece I saw, though, was the Mary Magdalene by Donatello. It's a grisly portrayal, a woman, thin beyond belief, withered by age, covered only by her long, unkempt hair. Her hands are up as if to pray. (I think she is supposed to be clasping a chalice actually.) From behind though, to see this sad figure permanently standing in front of Jesus on the cross... well, I found it moving, and I'm not even a religious person.
St. Peter's is ridiculous in it's enormity and excess.
The Pantheon is graceful, elegant, and, well, classic. I wish I could have stayed inside longer, but they were starting mass. (They were also having mass in St. Peter's when we were there. Can you imagine going to mass in one of these buildings? Talk about a religious experience.) You have to know about the Pantheon, if you don't already. Built about 100 AD, only a couple decades after the Colosseum, it is the most well preserved building from the Roman Empire. The dome still stands as the largest unreinforced concrete dome in the world - I have to cite wikipedia here. What I read before was that it is the widest though not the tallest dome (nothing in Rome can stand taller than the dome at St. Peter's). The wikipedia entry contains other interesting architectural details - the height and width of the dome are equal, and the thickness of the concrete varies as you move from the base of the dome to the oculus, an oddity uncovered by Brunelleschi (I believe), who drilled holes at various places to determine how the dome was made (perhaps before starting on the design of his own very famous dome for the Duomo in Florence?). The only light coming into the building enters through the oculus at the crest of the dome, which is a great effect and obviously symbolic.
What about things I couldn't take pictures of? Even if you don't go to a single museum or church (which would be crazy stupid), a trip to Tuscany would be worth it for the food and wine alone. It's not necessary to order fancy wine at any restaurant - probably true for all of Italy - the vino di casa goes well with the hearty Tuscan dishes. I am partial to the pasta dishes, ragus made with rabbit or wild boar meat, perfectly soft gnocchi, and ravioli stuffed with anything (for example, porcini mushrooms) and served with butter and green peas.
For the rest, you just have to experience for yourself. Everything tastes and smells better, every tree and branch and vine perfect, every hill town picturesque. Life is better in Tuscany. And don't forget to have a lot of gelato.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
