Why Playgrounds Can Help Create Healthy, Happy, Strong, Free Kids AND Adults

When I was a kid, I remember my mom telling me: 'Go outside, play, and don't come back inside until it gets dark.' We were poor too. So I had to learn to be creative with the natural, available and found objects and environments around me. But I remember she was smart enough to know that the concrete and cement playground by our home posed an unnecessary risk of injury, especially when it was raining. I still played on that playground when it rained anyway because it just seemed like adding water to it would be more fun.

And while I never got more than a bruise or a scratch on that playground regardless of the rain, one day my mom made it more than clear to me that playing on a rainy playground was not OK by taking a switch from a nearby tree to my rear. I think that was the last time I can recall playing on that playground as a kid. And I think I developed less of a liking for trees then too. But I'm over it.

I tell that story because I think that while most kids are born with an innate, primal physical intelligence (among others) that serves to protect them from any real harm, it does not mean that they do not need leadership on playgrounds. In the end, we do not live in a risk-free world no matter how many lawsuits or rules we create. And we can't navigate it in a bubble either. After all, some of the greatest happiness comes when we seek goals that have reasonable risk associated with them.

With that said, I think that as we become adults we sometimes end-up losing our connection to the physical intelligence (among others) that we had as kids by not moving, by not using it. As a result, taking the lead on playgrounds becomes much more challenging. In addition to that loss of connection, I also believe that well-intentioned parenting may end-up causing parents, teachers and community elders to micro-manage, rather than lead children on today's hyper-safe playgrounds. So safe that they lose their fun factor and kids' interest.

Even still, we are now learning that well-intentioned parents who ride slides with their kids may actually be causing them greater injuries due to that loss of connection to their physical intelligence and not allowing children to explore their own. This approach does not help our children to learn to trust and develop their body's intelligence either. It seems to me that there is a real place of balance between authoritarian and permissive parenting. And I'm not necessarily talking about attachment parenting. I've seen and heard how so-called self-described parents end-up distorting such ideas to include helicopter and overprotective parenting while also being overly permissive.

And as I have continued to explore play around the world, I have had the opportunity to visit many playgrounds in third-world countries as well as talk to those countries play and playground experts. While many of these countries are known for serious hazards in everyday life like missing man-hole covers if they even have drainage; "speed zones" in what should be school zones; random, tetanus-filled, protruding metal objects and rabid dogs just to name a few, I have never seen or heard of a child getting hurt on a playground that would never come close to meeting our standards of safety in the US. But I have certainly heard and seen it happen in the US, over and over.

Now, as I reflect on my childhood and see parents on playgrounds today, I wonder what effect constantly hearing things like "Be careful!".... "Don't do that!".... "Stop" and "No!" has on a child as they first begin to explore the wonder, awe and joy that comes with playful movement. Evermore today there seems to be this constant worry and fear that is imposed on children. This has lead many parents to not let kids out of their sight even if that means that they sit in front of the TV or video games eating unhealthy foods along with them. So it seems, at some point having fun was replaced by distraction and entertainment, taking chances and risks was replaced with the false safety and security of a artificial bubble and trying to the point of "failing" was replaced with what is well-known and well-treaded. What was once the exception to the rule has in fact became the norm.

Why don't we lead our kids in exploring risk on playgrounds and when needed celebrate a "failure"? What if we raised our heads and arms up and taught our kids to take a circus bow instead, rather than allowing shame and guilt to take over? It seems to me that it would do wonders for our children's learning, growth and success. As two of my play mentors Shana Merlin and Michael Joplin once reminded me in their amazing Spirit of Play class taking a circus bow helps us to: not take ourselves too seriously; laugh at yourself; not get hung up on personal successes or failures; play for the sake of playing and not to compete or compare; let go of ego and trying to control everything; be fun to play with; and just be a good sport. There is no question I felt something quite cathartic when I followed Shana's and Micheal's lead, but even then that hiding my head sometimes still snuck in there.

Another mentor of mine, Stephen Covey, author of The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People whom I had the opportunity to help with the creation of another book on leadership also taught me:

"While successful people often share similar characteristics, the single characteristic they most have in common is that they find success on the far side of failure. Almost all successful people have experienced significant failures in life or in their work, but they have learned from their failures. Unless they learn to do so, they will not develop the maturity for humility and integrity—and they find themselves repeating their mistakes again and again."

If you are looking for other successful models who have experienced repeated failure there are many throughout history and all sectors of life. Take Micheal Jordan. There are many times he has shared his experience with "Failure." Here are some:

"Always turn a negative situation into a positive situation."

"I can accept failure, everyone fails at something. But I can't accept not trying."

And in a Nike commercial Michael shared the following:

"I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. 26 times, I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed."

But the one quote by Michael I find most powerful is the following:

"I never thought a role model should be negative."

What I believe is that our children need real role models of not just "success," but also "failure" and it can be done positively. Without it children will be ill-equipped to overcome adversity and be functioning and contributing members of the community. And I believe it can and should start on a playground. To me there seems no more appropriate place then where they are first learning to explore a connection to themselves and with others through the spirit of play.

And it sure does seem like learning risk-management and to adapt especially in today's unstable world is a good thing. As the great historian Arnold J. Toynbee whose twelve-volume treatise on the rise and fall of civilizations from a global perspective said:

"Nothing fails like success."

I believe the lessons we teach our children on playgrounds and elsewhere about how to internalize "failure," managing risk and adapting really can have profound implications not just on their own future, but on the future health of a community.

As Stephen Covey says, "If you consider the challenges you’re facing, you might just be using an old approach that isn’t equal to the challenge. In other words, when we have a challenge and the response is equal to the challenge, that’s called success. But once we have a new challenge, the old, once successful response no longer works. That’s why it’s called a failure."

How about we try to just be positive while encouraging our kids to explore risk and possibly failure? How about we remind ourselves of how to climb a tree and then take the lead on teaching our kids to climb one? Really. Just do it.

A Day to Mindfully Barefoot That Includes Shoeless Children

I want to encourage my friends and family this Saturday, May 26th to observe The Primalfoot Alliance's Annual 'Your Day Without Shoes' 2012 Event. And I would ask for you all to extend the same mindfulness and thoughtfulness about where you are walking and running to the third world children who go without shoes everyday because of their socio-economic status and geo-political factors.

Your Day Without Shoes is an annual event started by ThePrimalfoot Alliance to promote foot health and barefoot freedom. Your Day Without Shoes was started in part as a response to a campaign by TOMS shoe company (“One Day Without Shoes”). The TOMS campaign asks people to go barefoot for a day to raise awareness for poor shoeless children in Africa.

With that said, here is my original response to the Primalfoot Allaince's post: TOMS' 'One Day Without Shoes': Our Position

http://www.primalfootalliance.org/blog/toms-one-day-without-shoes-our-position.html

As an avid barefooter and minimalist shoer (although never having owned a pair of TOMS), I appreciate The Primalfoot Alliance's (PA) willingness to share their position on some touchy issues that involve TOMS 'One Day Without Shoes' (ODWS) event. Unfortunately too many others involved in the movement toward living a more ancestral, caveman, evolutionary, natural, paleo, primal lifestyle have sidestepped addressing such issues in favor of perpetuating myths that sell through the use of glittering generalities. While most lack the education, even more lack the experience to provide credible and meaningful insight. With that said, I still have some reservations about the concerns and remedies that PA has shared about the ODWS event.

First, I will respond to your first concern that donated shoes like the ones through the ODWS event may do more harm than good, as well as the inference to be made that if people would go shoeless that their feet shape would not be negatively altered and that they would then benefit from proper foot function.

In the case of whether the shoes do more harm than good, the TOMS company points out that the donated shoes are intended to protect against injury and prevent disease which they base on such hazards as podoconosis, jiggers and hookworm. Additionally, one should note that there are even greater potential disease hazards when exposing bare skin to the elements such as Leisamniasis, the second leading cause of death in these communities after Malaria. If the Leishmaniasis doesn't get you, then there's the Streptococcus, Staphylococcus and Pneumonia which you are much more susceptible to once you have Leishmaniasis. And of course, it's possible to get each of those on their own as well. Then there is Trypanosmiasis and Chagas which can also kill you. And in these cases inadequate or no treatments exist at all, not to mention the lack of inadequate Western medical care that may be useful in exigent circumstances. I know this because I have personally experienced it.

And while it may be true that donated shoes can do more harm than good when we base our evidence on Western studies that use typical Western-style shoes, it is not necessarily the case when we look at indigenous communities. Having spent years living among indigenous people throughout Central and South America from the coast to the mountains, to the deserts and the jungles, I have seen first-hand how their use of minimalist shoes do not cause such problems. In fact, I have seen shoes that look quite similar to the TOMS minimalist shoe design. Whether that was influenced by Western culture or vice-versa has yet to be proven as far as I know. Arguably, the real problem with the TOMS shoes is the lack of a more natural toe-box that allows the feet to take what may be a more natural form. Although, I have also seen how those who are still living a hunter-gatherer lifestyle have feet that more closely resemble a primate rather than a human. One of the best examples of this is where this foot shape seems endemic to the Huaorani in the Ecuadorian Amazon.

And while TOMS donations may not be the ideal primal footwear due in large part to the narrow toe-box design, I am not convinced that the shoes are inadequate protective footwear. With that said adequate primal footwear is also lacking for all the environments I have encountered. I know because I have tested the best primal footwear on the market in these environments and there is a lot left to be needed, let alone desired. The closest is the Barefoot Ted's Tarahumara inspired Luna Sandals or tres puntas as they are called throughout Latin America. Even then, while they would provide a barrier from sharp object including rocks, unsafe soil and leave the foot open to the air and to keep its' natural shape intact, they do not provide protection from all environmental threats. Still, I consider them essential gear for anyone looking to travel in multiple environments. And let's state the obvious here which seems to be continually sidestepped. That somehow the book Born to Run which is based in large part on the Tarahumara Indians who wear tire sandals somehow has served as main catalyst for a barefoot lifestyle. Even sadder are those who lack both the education and experience, especially with these communities that have co-opted the connection to sell a natural, paleo, evolutionary, and primal lifestyle while giving little to nothing in return.

Second, I want to respond to your second concern that campaigns to put shoes on the feet of those who do not have shoes often inappropriately demonize barefoot living, and that TOMS and other similar organizations could emphasize that having footwear available when needed is important.

Campaigns to put shoes on the feet of those who do not have shoes do not inappropriately demonize barefoot living because it is already stigma of the poor in undeveloped countries including many in the indigenous communities that many in the movement are seeking to emulate and in some cases exploit. But it is far from the biggest problem. This is best stated by Oswaldo Guayasamin, a world-renowned artist from Ecuador, whose UNESCO celebrated work depicts the strife that indigenous and mixed-race people have endured.

"Yo llore porque no tenia zapatos hasta que vi un nino que no tenia pies."

Which translates as, "I cried because I had no shoes until I saw a child who had no feet."

But I would agree that those of us who live in developed countries -- and who often wear shoes -- can especially safely live barefoot most of the time. We have developed a civilized society so influenced by litigation that we have managed to create the closest thing to living in a safety bubble. But those who are living in less civilized, less evolved, even paleo-esque, primal, natural lifestyle environments do not have such a luxury. They do not have such smooth, paved surfaces, well-groomed grassy areas, carpeted floors and other harmless ground coverings that lend themselves well to bare feet. So to be clear, I can tell you first-hand that poor people of the undeveloped world can not live most of their lives barefoot under conditions much harsher than we have in developed countries. While it may be true that their feet are conditioned for the rougher, undeveloped environments in which they live, they mostly go barefoot because they so not have a choice. And it is yet to be proven that they are somehow healthier than we are do to their circumstances. The TOMS campaign in fact seems to shed light on a dark place that too many misunderstand such that they engage in sharing ill-conceived and misguided thoughts on the the issues they do not face rather than addressing them.

I agree that TOMS and similar organizations could emphasize that having footwear available when needed is important. I believe as TOMS adequately states on their ODWS main page the 'Why' or purpose of the event is to address the following problem: 'Millions of children live without proper footwear, exposing them to injury and disease every day.'

In summary, I believe that PA could do a better job of looking at the bigger picture by better understanding the culture, socioeconomic factors, even geopolitical factors that play a large role in children without shoes in 'underdeveloped' countries. While I agree that the design of the TOMS shoes are potentially harmful to the poor they seek to help in term of foot function, I am not so sure they do more harm than good. And while I do not believe as a Westerner that shoes are necessary for quality of life in our bubble, the insinuation that shoes are necessary for quality of life in developing countries spreads ignorance because it fails to address the complex nature of the problem. While I appreciate PA's evidence-based mission of advocating for people to go barefoot and finding prudent ways to let feet be feet first, I believe in this case they are ignorant of all the issues at hand.

In response to Keith Norris' article The Paleo Mystique: Deciphering "Paleo" Eating

This blog is originally inspired by an article Keith Norris wrote entitled: The Paleo Mystique: Deciphering "Paleo" Eating

The "Paleo Diet" and the corresponding lifestyle never seemed to quite add up for me. I continued to have an increasing number of lingering concerns no matter how much I read and listened to others. I think I have finally come to enough clarity about my concerns to now share them.

It does not seem logical to argue that the "Paleo Diet" our ancestors followed provides properly timed nutrition when you have to apply modern science to efficiently and effectively implement it for others like athletes and diabetics to name a few. Then there is the way that the main proponents of "Paleo" Loren Cordain, Robb Wolf as well as others have modified the "Paleo Diet" to include foods such as sweet potatoes, fatty meats and only certain types of processed dairy. And maybe as new science comes out these guys will continue to modify their positions. But at what point exactly do the exceptions swallow the rule? At point does it by definition no longer continue to be "Paleo"? Really, it seems more like a moving target.

A red flag first went up for me when the "Paleo Diet" reminded me of one of the scientifically-based diets I followed many years ago during my competitive O-lifting, powerlifting and bodybuilding days. I was fortunate to have a number of accomplished nutritionists around me throughout the years who all had their own innovative ideas about meal plans that worked for varying purposes. One such friend was Lyle McDonald, PHD widely credited with helping to develop and promote the Ketogenic Diet. Recently, I looked into what Lyle had to say about the "Paleo Diet" because I thought he might be mostly on board with it. But it turns out he has some real scientifically-based reservations. Then there's people like John Berardi, PHD who I came to know while in Austin who also cites research that seems to also call into question what is "Paleo." Even my old training partner and nutritionist to the stars Rehan Jalali shares similar concerns. The list goes on.

However, most telling to me is the ultra and "barefoot" runners such as those in the book Born to Run who the paleo, natural, evolutionary, primal movement crowd tries to align themselves and who are well-known for not consuming a "Paleo or even Primal Diet." Rather they consume carbs like grains quite liberally including pizza and beer. Then there is the actual Tarahumara Indians who actually use persistence-hunting to hunt their own food and who also have a massively high carb intake including from legumes and grains. The list goes on including those from recently and minimally contacted indigenous people still living a "hunter-gather" life who I have lived with in the Amazon, coast and mountains which contradict the myths propagated by those selling the "Paleo Diet". For example, I have seen the subsistence eating required that does not always include meat and when it does it may be a rat or a monkey. And then there's the natural foods that made me sick to my stomach for hours. Is it possible that the 10,000 plus years of not eating like a caveman has caused me to adapt to other forms of nutrition?

Most disturbing to me is the way that the "Paleo Diet" fails to fully distinguish agriculturally and industrially created and developed food from the clear medicinal benefits of natural foods like sprouted legumes and grains, "processed" fermented foods, as well as raw, probiotic dairy. Furthermore, it did not seem logical to me for "Paleo" advocates to say that you can not consume the dairy of domesticated cows while beating one's chest at Wholefoods. Did I mention they sell "Paleo Bread" there now? Proponents like Cordain harp on the unhealthy industrialized cow milk due to lactose without distinguishing it from say non-industrialized, non-hormone and antibiotic-injected raw goat dairy for which there is no lactose issue. You constantly hear proponents like Cordain and Wolf talk about non-domesticated, non-industrialized, free-range meat but where do these guys think that the fruits and veggies come from? And how often do you hear them address the toxins in those foods including those in so called organic?

I am still waiting for proponents to prove that the "Paleo Diet" is truly healthy and sustainable based on scientific results. When I look at the physical health of people like Cordain and Wolf I have some questions. Then there's the time I spent weeks in the jungle with MovNat's Erwan LeCorre eating a "Paleo Diet" only to watch as he later binged on processed deserts for a week once in the city because he was "getting too lean." And that was just one instance. It seems clear to me that there are number of people out there interested in perpetuating myths that sell to the likes of an "alpha-male" while not actually knowing the lives of the people that they claim to represent.

While I do not know Andrew Badenoch personally or all the details of what he actually proposes as a lifestyle, I think he describes today's "Paleo Diet" movement most accurately when he proposed the term: Hyperlithic. As Andrew puts it, "If “paleolithic” roughly means old-stone age, “hyperlithic” roughly means beyond stone age. There’s a nod to the old, and a hint at a modern update." I think I would be less annoyed if "Paleo" proponents would just call it what it is rather than pretending to be purists.

But it all really does depend on one's goals and reality. Proponents of the "Paleo Diet" argue about the importance of not just subsisting, but "thriving" outside "the human zoo" even though subsistence may be the reality for hunters-gathers at times since they do not have access to Wholefoods.

As a lifetime drug-free, accomplished O-lifter, powerlfiter and bodybuilder my goals over the years were all about numbers and how I looked. But for example, there is no question in my mind that at the age of 20 I could not have bulked to 220 at 5'7 without lots of potatoes, grains and legumes and cut to 170 and 5% body fat in three months without cutting lots of those foods out. Still even up to the end, I ate various forms of grains with higher and higher levels of fiber content, as well as lots of sweet potatoes. l also could not have totaled over 1500lbs in a powerlifting meet at 15 yrs old without lots similar eating. And while we're at it, let's also be clear that concepts like "natural movement" such as MovNat alone is not going to help someone to develop optimal strength, nor a large muscular physique (especially with all that running around) if that's their goal, or an optimally strong, muscular and functional physique for that matter if they are say a linebacker. Did I mention that hunters and gatherers don't train and the ones I lived with certainly don't train to fight or "defend"?

But do the numbers I focused on as a goal equal subsisting, let aloe thriving? I no longer think so. As I grew older, I began to train others and went to work in the professional world. It's then that I really began to see how others including how I applied the same adrenal-exhausting mentally from work to "working out" and its negative health effects. While the numbers looked good, I am not sure about the actual physical health, let alone the mental, emotional and spiritual. And since we are talking about thriving here, I do not think thinking of ourselves as an evolutionary monkey or applying a survivalist approach to our eating or movement gets us there.

I can also tell you that the recently and minimally contacted indigenous I have lived with do not have cortisol producing careers that often serve as the genesis for addictions like sugar, smoking and drinking just to name a few. Even John Durant of hunter-gatherer.com, a young guy I first became acquainted with in the jungle shared on his blog how he has been fighting his own cupcake addiction: smoking. He took up the habit recently after quitting his NYC desk job to write his book about hunting and gathering. I already appreciated John for his integrity, and he didn't let me down when he along with Barefoot Ted and others at least attempted to catch their own food in The Red Desert of Wyoming. Then there's Robb Wolf who has a caffeine addiction and whose labs don't seem to substantiate that "Paleo" is working for him. But what angers me the most is reading postings by proponents of "Paleo" that attack people like vegetarians and vegans for having addictions like sugar all the while fighting addictions of their own.

What I can tell you is that what is available to eat among indigenous people then and today was and is strongly influenced by not just "culture," but by the ethno-geographical, socio-economic and geo-political factors. Let's also remember here that Darwin's original book title was "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." That book and Darwin's other writings have been used countless times to justify the arguments of eugenicists to commit genocide against our ancestors the "savages" or people of color. I think it's ironic that some people promoting the Ancestral, Caveman, Evolutionary, Hunter-Gatherer, Natural, Paleo, Primal Lifestyle attempt to use the tenets of Darwin's books to supposedly honor our ancestors as it suits them. And I find it especially silly when I consider the fact that Darwin and others promoted the breeding and domestication of select people and animals. Say reverting to a "Paleo Diet" was successful, then what would happen to the billions of people of color in the third world countries who subsist off of grains and legumes?

You know, I remember when I was a kid before all the commercial influence, I seemed to have a real innate sense of what was healthy to eat and in how to move. For instance, I remember we would play for hours until we were played-out because it was fun and we didn't need someone motivating us or instructing us how to run, jump or climb? We just knew.....and still do. Isn't that the sort of primalness we should strive for in a "goal"? Didn't that feel like thriving? I remember I was pretty healthy, happy, strong and free then too.