I trained in Mr. Alan S. Gardner's martial arts school from 1993 until his death in 2006. We called him "Sensei Al", which of course means "Teacher or Instructor." He was a 2nd generation Armenian (Bardezbanian was the Armenian name from which "Gardner" was translated), a virtuoso oud and clarinet player, and way too smart for his own good. I was lucky enough, despite a Naval career, to be able to stay in Maine for six years, training with him many times per week. Somehow I managed to be both student and friend with Al. I made a lot of sweat in his dojo, many friends, and many, many memories. Flash forward to last week, when I was listening to a nutrition podcast, and a caller asked the guest, Robb Wolf, what his qualifications were to write a book and give nutritional advice. Robb's the author of a best selling book 
but more importantly, a ten plus year clinician who's put quite a lot of what he learned on the web (http://www.robbwolf.com/). The question brought to mind a couple of Al's stories.
Al was "certified" in many levels of "black belt" (and the Chinese equivalents) in a bunch of traditional martial arts. I never knew anyone to question or criticize his rank, as he could discuss any topic of the martial arts intelligently, he could demonstrate and teach innumerable forms, and his students always shined when in a group of martial arts students. But when he was young, he ordered a black belt certificate from a company advertising in the back of a martial arts magazine - the deal was, you could order a certificate of any rank or any style you named. His later aspiration was to be proclaimed Master of Time and Space, but feeling a bit more humble back in the day, he ordered a certificate for a mere 8th degree black belt. The style? He called it (phonetically) "Shun Kak Do." When asked, he said "That's Armenian for 'The Way of Dogshit.'" Perhaps it will give you an idea of what kind of person he was that he would take the time, effort and expense to order such a certification, but use it only as a joke.
Another story revolved around one of his Japanese instructors, who went through a rough patch in life ("He lost his freaking mind"), and stripped all of the black belts in the dojo of their ranks. Al's thought: "Wow, this is great, I don't have to teach now, I get to train like any other student!" In other words, he didn't care what belt he wore, because his knowledge and ability was neither reflected by nor dependent upon a belt. He knew what he knew, and it was a body of knowledge earned in years of training and teaching, and more than a few beatings given and received. His teacher could not take away what he knew, only a symbol of that knowledge.
As regards immature sciences in particular, the certifications, qualifications and credentials mean very little. Many folks who spent 8-10 years of their lives getting a health care credential know frightfully little about the science of diet (but it's hardly their fault as Gary Taubes documents thoroughly in Good Calories Bad Calories
). The only standard that matters is "what effect will a practicioner have in the life of a person that needs help getting healthy and lean?" Some certifications may help in that pursuit, but most will not. Lucky for you and moreso for me, the knowledge that the certifications should represent is available for free on the internet, and it can be had by anyone who's sufficiently motivated to get it.
That leaves you, dear reader, with a problem, to wit, how to sift through mountains of nonsense to get control of your health and weight?? Whenever you consider dietary advice, I recommend that you think in terms of verification (this is why I post about glucose meters repeatedly). For example, if someone says that "(fill in the dietary criminal du jour)" is making you fat, one conversation you should have with yourself is "How could that be proved?" and "How could I, or can I, test that idea for myself?" In many cases you can test it for yourself, and when you can, you should, unless you have some reason to trust the advice based on experience or a special relationship with the advice giver.
Some examples of the bad info we've been subjected to: "many small meals throughout the day will help you lose weight by increasing your basal metabolic rate", "fat has more calories per gram, so eating less fat will help you lose weight", "red meat causes cancer", and perhaps the whopper of all time, "Saturated fat is proven to cause heart disease, eat grains instead." How could these assertions be verified? How could you test them for yourself?
Once you start to think this way habitually, you will find that virtually everything you hear about science and nutrition from the mass media is both unverified and unverifiable - you will probably start to see that it is much harder to prove any particular assertion to be true than it is to disprove it (in science, the burden of proof is always on the one making the assertion of truth). You will also start to realize there's a good reason why the science of diet is so immature and poor - it's incredibly difficult and expensive to study health and diet in humans - the variables are innumerable, we live a relatively long time (much easier to study rats and fruits flies for that reason), and we're not keen on being cooped up in lab cages for years on end making control of variables at best problematic.
In particular, be wary when you hear anyone appeal to authority: "Scientists say" or "Scientists think" or "Studies show" or "Studies link" should be heard as code language for "this person doesn't really know what they are talking about" - unless the person making the report has already qualified their pronouncement with a 'statement of uncertainty.' This is because virtually nothing is PROVEN in the science of diet. Unfortunately, that means there's a fair amount of money and significance that can be obtained even if what one says they know isn't so. The diet and health arena is a "buyer beware" market - many of the most loudly heard voices are qualified only in Shun Kak Do.
but more importantly, a ten plus year clinician who's put quite a lot of what he learned on the web (http://www.robbwolf.com/). The question brought to mind a couple of Al's stories. Al was "certified" in many levels of "black belt" (and the Chinese equivalents) in a bunch of traditional martial arts. I never knew anyone to question or criticize his rank, as he could discuss any topic of the martial arts intelligently, he could demonstrate and teach innumerable forms, and his students always shined when in a group of martial arts students. But when he was young, he ordered a black belt certificate from a company advertising in the back of a martial arts magazine - the deal was, you could order a certificate of any rank or any style you named. His later aspiration was to be proclaimed Master of Time and Space, but feeling a bit more humble back in the day, he ordered a certificate for a mere 8th degree black belt. The style? He called it (phonetically) "Shun Kak Do." When asked, he said "That's Armenian for 'The Way of Dogshit.'" Perhaps it will give you an idea of what kind of person he was that he would take the time, effort and expense to order such a certification, but use it only as a joke.
Another story revolved around one of his Japanese instructors, who went through a rough patch in life ("He lost his freaking mind"), and stripped all of the black belts in the dojo of their ranks. Al's thought: "Wow, this is great, I don't have to teach now, I get to train like any other student!" In other words, he didn't care what belt he wore, because his knowledge and ability was neither reflected by nor dependent upon a belt. He knew what he knew, and it was a body of knowledge earned in years of training and teaching, and more than a few beatings given and received. His teacher could not take away what he knew, only a symbol of that knowledge.
As regards immature sciences in particular, the certifications, qualifications and credentials mean very little. Many folks who spent 8-10 years of their lives getting a health care credential know frightfully little about the science of diet (but it's hardly their fault as Gary Taubes documents thoroughly in Good Calories Bad Calories
). The only standard that matters is "what effect will a practicioner have in the life of a person that needs help getting healthy and lean?" Some certifications may help in that pursuit, but most will not. Lucky for you and moreso for me, the knowledge that the certifications should represent is available for free on the internet, and it can be had by anyone who's sufficiently motivated to get it. That leaves you, dear reader, with a problem, to wit, how to sift through mountains of nonsense to get control of your health and weight?? Whenever you consider dietary advice, I recommend that you think in terms of verification (this is why I post about glucose meters repeatedly). For example, if someone says that "(fill in the dietary criminal du jour)" is making you fat, one conversation you should have with yourself is "How could that be proved?" and "How could I, or can I, test that idea for myself?" In many cases you can test it for yourself, and when you can, you should, unless you have some reason to trust the advice based on experience or a special relationship with the advice giver.
Some examples of the bad info we've been subjected to: "many small meals throughout the day will help you lose weight by increasing your basal metabolic rate", "fat has more calories per gram, so eating less fat will help you lose weight", "red meat causes cancer", and perhaps the whopper of all time, "Saturated fat is proven to cause heart disease, eat grains instead." How could these assertions be verified? How could you test them for yourself?
Once you start to think this way habitually, you will find that virtually everything you hear about science and nutrition from the mass media is both unverified and unverifiable - you will probably start to see that it is much harder to prove any particular assertion to be true than it is to disprove it (in science, the burden of proof is always on the one making the assertion of truth). You will also start to realize there's a good reason why the science of diet is so immature and poor - it's incredibly difficult and expensive to study health and diet in humans - the variables are innumerable, we live a relatively long time (much easier to study rats and fruits flies for that reason), and we're not keen on being cooped up in lab cages for years on end making control of variables at best problematic.
In particular, be wary when you hear anyone appeal to authority: "Scientists say" or "Scientists think" or "Studies show" or "Studies link" should be heard as code language for "this person doesn't really know what they are talking about" - unless the person making the report has already qualified their pronouncement with a 'statement of uncertainty.' This is because virtually nothing is PROVEN in the science of diet. Unfortunately, that means there's a fair amount of money and significance that can be obtained even if what one says they know isn't so. The diet and health arena is a "buyer beware" market - many of the most loudly heard voices are qualified only in Shun Kak Do.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteCouldn't agree more. I've said many of the same things myself. Your teacher sounds like a rare breed in the martial arts: a good soul, with nothing to prove.
Barry, thanks my friend. My teacher was many things including what you described, but I don't know anyone who had a more positive impact on more people than he did, and he did that with no money to speak of. There were something like a thousand folks at his funeral, some from out of the USA. It was an incredible stroke of good fortune when I found him, for more reasons than I could count.
ReplyDeleteI was in Iraq at the time he died and during his funeral - it was right before I started CrossFit. Probably not an accident when I found CF.