Probability and Randomness

I'm gonna start with a puzzle for you...there are 3 light switches outside a room, one of the switches turns on the light inside the room, the other two do nothing. There is a door to get in to the room and you can only open it once, you can't flick any switches with the door open, but before opening the door you can flick as many switches as you like. So how do you figure out which switch turns on the light inside the room?

OK so we'll come back to that a little later. At the moment I'm reading a book called 'The Drunkard's Walk' by Leonard Mlodinow, subtitled How Randomness rules our lives. It's a really interesting book with some great anecdotes and examples for the lay person to understand the science he explains. Before I get on to the great examples here's why I chose to read the book. It was an Amazon recommendation. No, just kidding, I'm fascinated by how we see patterns that don't exist. E.g if we toss a coin 10 times and get heads, what is most likely to be the 11th time?.....in reality we often make assumptions based on what it has been; e.g. the previous 10 coin tosses have helped us to know the 11th coin toss. No it hasn't, not really. When you toss a coin you have a 50:50 chance of heads and tails. Eventually, as long as the coin is not weighted it will likely balance out, but that might take 100, 1,000, or even 100,000 coin tosses to get to that 50:50 ratio. The 11th coin toss is completely independent of the other 10. You might think that works against the following initial example but remember that we have no idea how many tosses we need to see to get a balanced result, and 10 coin tosses is potentially not enough.

Regression to the mean
This essentially means that "in any series of random events an extraordinary event is most likely to be followed, due partly by chance, by a more ordinary one". Mlodinow uses an aeronautical example but I'm going to provide a different one:
Consider a basketball player who on average is shooting 50% from the field, if he has a game where he shoots 60+% he will likely get praise from the coach.Another player averaging the same 50%, shoots <40% but he gets (let's call it..) 'less positive feedback'. Often in this situation in the next game the player receiving positive feedback shoots closer to their average, but so does the player receiving negative feedback. The coach giving positive feedback thinks; "great when I give positive feedback he get's worse". And the coach who gave negative feedback thinks "Jeez, when I chew this guy out, he performs better". In reality neither coach is right, the player's performance simply regressed to their average. If they performed particularly badly, or particularly well then next time out they were likely to perform closer to their average.

Confirmation Bias
This is a phenomenon where someone with preconceived ideas/theory is more likely to see the evidence that supports their ideas/theory. I find this a common occurrence in sport science as well as every day life. And don't for a moment think that you don't have pre-conceived ideas, because we both know that you do. So here's the example that Mlodinow gives; Here is a sequence of numbers that follow a rule. 2, 4, 6. As the budding scientist you are trying to find the rule so you can test it by giving me a sequence of 3 numbers to check the rule, and I will tell you whether or not they fit the rule. Have a think about your sequence of numbers.......

....I'm waiting....

...OK then, so you said 8, 10, 12.....or 18, 20, 22....or 16, 20, 24. And I tell you that yes, it fits the rule. So what's the rule? At this point I am betting (and you will probably deny it) that it was something to with even numbers or multiples of two. If this was your theory, then your test has proven the rule, right. So it the rule correct!? No. The rule is simply that each successive number in the sequence must be higher than the previous. You chose to test your hypothesis, you tested your theory, or preconceived ideas. And because it fitted you assumed you were right. If you had chosen to test your rule by looking for something that would have given a negative result to your theory e.g. 3, 6, 9, or 11, 12, 13, (which wouldn't have fitted in to your even number theory) then you would have found it did still fit the rule and had to ask more questions, or revise your hypothesis.

Back to the Puzzle
OK then so back to the puzzle we go. How did you get on? Did you get it?

So there are 3 light switches outside a room. And a light behind a closed door. So the solution;

Let's call them Light switch (LS) 1, 2, and 3. You flick LS1 and leave it a few minutes. Then you flick it back. And flick LS2 and open the door. if the light is on, then it was LS2, if the light is off then you know it was LS1 or LS3 right. Is the bulb hot? If so then we can pretty safely assume that it is LS1, if the bulb is cold then we have a good idea that it is LS3.

OK so that's not hugely relevant to the discussion of probability and randomness, my tenuous link is that perhaps your preconceived ideas of how you tell if a light switch works is built solely on whether the bulb is illuminated.

Anyway, now you can go try it on someone else.

Be well

JF

The Paleo Case Study

I'm not going to post before and after pictures, because they were never taken. I'm not going to give you detailed girth or body composition measurements, or diet diary's, or other values to fall back on. I'm not going to try to baffle you with science, I'm going to tell you something real.

I got to chatting about palaeolithic nutrition and the low-carbohydrate concept a good few weeks back (probably end of September/start of October) with a close friend of mine. He was talking about losing some excess weight and getting in to better shape but he didn't want to do some fad or go on some diet where he'd lose weight and then put it back on. Eventually over the course of a series of discussions he decided that he'd give it a try.
I guess it started with some simple decisions about cutting down obvious complex carbohydrates such as bread, rice and pasta, but I explained about cereals and the like as well. He would always ask what I ate, e.g. for breakfast if I don't eat cereal what do I eat....I would explain; eggs, bacon, mushrooms, whatever I wanted as long as it was fitting with palaeolithic. Of course the reality is that this is quite appealing! I remember early on he asked about salmon and eggs and ham, to which I responded yes, yes and yes! He smiled.

I normally avoid showing this image, but I like that the last
stage in this evolution is a tall, strong, athletic man - not a
chubby short guy, crouched over with illness and disease.

Week One
By the end of the first week we estimate that he'd lost about 6lbs of weight, and he was excited. I made a point of explaining that much of this was likely excess water weight that he didn't need, but that he would not sustain this continued weight loss. We talked about training and he committed to a more rigid schedule, employing simple HIT philosophies; controlled movements, brief intense workouts on body-weight exercises (e.g. pull-ups and dips) or resistance machines (e.g. shoulder press, etc.).
We also talked about fatigue. I had mentioned that he might feel quite tired but if he could get through it then to do so as it would not last (as your body transitions from carbohydrate intake, we switch to a more ketogenic diet, where our body essentially produces all the sugars that tissues will need!). He wasn't feeling any degree of fatigue and so was happy to carry it on.
Week Two
My friend showed a great degree of commitment to it, expressing that it was not a difficult change in his lifestyle and diet. He ate a lot of stir-fry and quick and easy food like that. We talked of cooking with butter and coconut milk and flavoured things that are wrongly considered unhealthy because of their fat content. I talked about maintaining protein intake and fluid intake as well and he seemed happy that all of this was easy to do. We estimated that he lost maybe another 1-2lbs over this week.
Week Three
I had been trying to get him to commit whole-heartedly to this change in the early stages but by this week we were overdue a few Friday night drinks. At this point I unveiled the key......the 80:20 principle! Some of you may be familiar with this, that generally 80% of our productivity comes in 20% of our time and effort. It's pretty well documented, so check it out if you haven't already. In context, my policy is that eating following palaeolithic principles 80% of the time is generally good enough. I travel a lot and spend weekends away coaching where I have little control over what is available to eat so those days I eat what I want and what is available without concern. When you consider the odd few beers or a slice of pizza here and there it all adds up to about 20% of the time, but it's OK (or at least it seems to work for me). he expressed interest in this and of course liked the idea of having a few guilt-free drinks and not being on anything too rigid. This week his training continued and he probably lost another 1-2lbs.
Week Four and onwards
It was a couple of weeks back he popped around and stood in my door way chatting I commented that he was looking really well, certainly the shape in his upper body seemed to have changed considerably. The bulk was missing from his mid section and he had certainly filled out his chest and shoulders (or got an expensively flattering suit!) He continued to comment about how happy he was and the weight he was losing albeit small increments of a lb here of there.
We spoke about all of this just the other day and while a couple of weeks back he was suggesting that he wouldn't stick with this on a long term basis, he's now stating that it's a lifestyle choice and that he's settled into it. We estimate that from day one he's lost approximately a 14lbs, but I would reckon he's dropped closer to 16-18lbs of fat and put on the rest in muscle mass. His words were that he's tightened two belt sizes, he feels better, lighter, more athletic. He doesn't get hungry between meals, he never feels the need to snack and so on; all the things we all wish when we're trying to lose weight or get fitter. He's more comfortable in his body, happier with his body shape and ultimately and most importantly healthier for it.

You can go back through my blogs and look at how carbohydrate intake screws up hormones like insulin and testosterone. The reality is there's no wonder he's doing so well.

So there you go. No photo's. No measurements. Just reality. Just a guy following some simple rules. And more proof that it works.

So give it a try.

Be well

JF

Heavy Duty - A Scientific Perspective

 
Mike Mentzer, potentially one of the greatest body-builders of all time, and the only one to get a perfect score in the Mr. Universe competition in 1978 in Mexico, was also a leader in strength training theory and practice. Having worked under the expertise of Arthur Jones for many years, he then progressed some of Arthur's ideas and almost revolutionised the world of strength training and body-building.

Low-volume, high-intensity training is almost synonymous with Mike Mentzer, and many of the current greats still preach his training philosophies. Indeed, Mike was also a big advocate of Ayn Rand, and her Objectivism philosophy; essentially supporting self-worth, and personal value above all else. He once intelligently wrote:

"Man, is an indivisible entity, an integrated unit of mind and body."

Myself and a colleague have recently put together something of a tribute article which looks at Mike's exercise theories from a scientific perspective, and evaluates their merits. His logical, unbiased, forward thinking approach has, for want of a better term, led us in to the light, and his Heavy Duty high-intensity training (HIT) principles, are unquestionably supported by the scientific research.

Here is the link to his site, and the article Heavy Duty - A Scientific Perspective should be in the top middle of the page with a big NEW sign next to it.

This is a must read for anyone interested in strength training, bodybuilding, or Mike Mentzer.

Mike, tragically never won the Mr Olympia but placed a controversial 5th in the 1980 line-up that saw Arnold (Schwarzenegger) win again. Without going in to it, this whole competition was riddled with controversy and ABC the US news station who filmed the event refused to show it believing it to be a fix. Whilst he never won himself he went on to train Dorian Yates, one of the greatest of all time, who collected 6 consecutive wins from 1992-1997, before retiring with injury.

You can find a bunch of Mike's books on there with all his teachings and strength training work-outs and words of wisdom, including details of his training of Dorian Yates. You'll also find some reading about how mind and body connect and his life philosophies, in addition to t-shirts, tank tops, etc. Pay it a visit!

And enjoy the article

JF

Nature vs. Nurture - The making of excellence

Wow dare I really interject in the long debated area.....well of course I do.

So having recently read The Talent Code by Daniel Coyle and The Genius in All of us by David Shenk (with Bounce by Matthew Syed waiting patiently in the antilibrary), I thought it only fair to impart my acquired knowledge.....

The Talent Code goes in to considerable detail to discuss and emphasise "deliberate practice". The relatively well-known 10,000 hour practice model (which essentially discusses that to attain expert level at anything, sports, music, etc. you need  to have been practising for 10,000 hours). The term "deliberate practice" relates to the level or quality of practice needed; better defined by Vince Lombardi:

"practice doesn't make perfect; perfect practice makes perfect"

What we're talking about here, is both understanding the processes required in the performance and continuously challenging ability. One of the elements is best described by failing and trying again. Coming short must be the ultimate in motivational experiences. As a basketball coach it is easier to coach the appropriate technique in shooting a ball if the player has missed as opposed to if the player has scored. Imagine a child shooting a basketball, and by chance it goes in, the child would struggle to understand why there is a need to change the technique when they just watched the ball go through the hoop. Alternately children struggling to score might better listen to directions and challenge themselves to perform the directed actions. Indeed, Coyle talks about the correlation between some of the best sprinters in the world and their birth in relation to their siblings. In order of most recent, here are the 100m world record holders and the place of their birth:

1. Usain Bolt (2nd of 3)
2. Asafa Powell (6th of 6)
3. Justin Gatlin (4th of 4)
4. Maurice Greene (4th of 4)
5. Donovan Bailey (3rd of 3)
6. Leroy Burrell (4th of 5)
7. Carl Lewis (3rd of 4)
8. Leroy Burrell (4th of 5)
9. Carl lewis (3rd of 4)
10. Calvin Smith (6th of 8)

The relationship here being that in play the younger children have to work harder, or fall short and thus try again to catch their elder (and thus likely faster) siblings. Of course this is not a scientific study, but it is an interesting observation. It compares well to the analogy of rough play and strength; the older child wrestling with his younger sibling barely applies any effort, where the younger child has to work as hard as possible in an effort just to keep up.

The Genetics equation
Of course nothing so far seems too irrational, or anything less than obvious to be honest. However, at this point we generally assume that these sprinters have the genetics to allow them to be that fast to begin with, whereas you might argue that you might not be blessed with those same genes.....or are you!?

 
The world is littered with those exceptional people that just could. You know, Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Shakespeare, Mozart, and the like; as well as child prodigies who were born with amazing gifts; e.g. Beethoven. Or so the fairy-tales would have us believe. The reality is a little different. These people worked, no, really they worked to achieve any degree of greatness. They worked like you cannot imagine working. Their achievements are a product of their efforts. Shenk makes the brilliant comparison that "to assume Mozart or Beethoven could just play is like assuming a clown could just juggle". The reality in fact is that Beethoven was beaten as a child, forced up on to a step stool to reach the keys of the piano, and allowed time off only to pick up the violin. Musical theory was everything in his life, he was forced to play, his 10,000 hours came early, and as a product he excelled as a musician.

Self Belief
So the reality that these authors are hinting at is that everyone might have these genetics. You might have been (and still might be) capable of being an amazing poet, tennis player, cellist, or chess player. But another of the missing ingredients is self belief (unless of course you're young enough to not have had an option). Both Shenk and Coyle discuss Roger Bannister and his achievement of breaking the 4 minute mile. Perceived by physiologists, athletes and coaches to be simply impossible! Coyle states "Bannister systematically attacked the record; how he broke the mark by a fraction of a second". Without doubt, a personal self belief that he can achieve this impossible feat. Both authors continue to discuss what most people do not know about the weeks following.....an Australian runner John Landy also broke the four-minute barrier. The next season many more did, and within 3 years of Bannister's accomplishment the four-minute barrier had been broken no fewer than seventeen times. Ultimately very likely a result of the change in perception that this was not impossible, and more; "if he could do it then so could I".


Indeed for many it is the challenge of great competitors that drives greater accomplishments; Michael Jordan had to overcome Magic Johnson and Larry bird, Leaonardo Da Vinci was in constant competition with Michaelangelo, the reality is that the nature of competition that drives us, drives excellence, drives excellent performance. This is not new thinking, Friedrich Nietsch, the 19th Century philosopher wrote:

"Every natural gift must develop itself by contests"

Epigenetics
Charles Darwin, apparently most famous for his arguing for the "survival of the fittest", should have been known for a far more appropriate quote; "it is not neither the strongest who survive, not the most intelligent, but the one most adaptable to change". But what are epigenetics and how does this effect our traits, or our abilities. Consider; Epi is Latin for above or outside, research has found made some interesting discoveries:

• Mouse colour is hereditary; it passes through the DNA, genes, and so forth.....unless it eats a certain diet. A pregnant yellow mouse eating a diet rich in folic acid or soy milk would be prone to experience an epigenetic mutation producing brown-fur offspring. And even with the pups returning to a normal diet, that fur could be passed to future generations.
• In 2004, Michael Skinner at Washington State University discovered that exposure to a specific pesticide in rats spurred an epigenetic change that led to low sperm counts lasting at least four generations.
• In 2005, New York University's Dolores Malaspina, et al., discovered age-related epigenetic changes in human males that can lead to lower intelligence and a higher risk of schizophrenia in children.
• In 2006, Marcus Pembrey presented data from Swedish medical records to show that nutritional deficiencies and cigarette smoking in one generation of humans had effects across several generations.
• In 2007, Megan Hitchins, et al., reported a link between inherited epigenetic changes and human colon cancer. 

The reality then; that what we do might not only effect our genes by switching them on or off, by proteins, timing, etc. but also effect that of future generations. 

Summary
So ultimately we come back to the same question; nature or nurture? Well previously it's been thought that they interact in a way described by Shenk as Genetics + Environment (G+E). In reality, we might all have the genes to become great at any one thing, or another, or in fact any number of things, with the right hours and type of practice, as well as motivations and self belief. Shenk considers the simple formula to be better described by G x E (Genetics x Environment), giving E a far larger effect in the equation. So we might all have the right genes to be highly skilled with the right practice but it is our environment that ultimately allows us to switch on or off those genes, that provides us with the right proteins, at the right times, and the right experiences to encourage the development of our excellence.