12 October 2010
There are some pretty backwards energy using devices we use on a daily basis, the most bizarre one of these in my opinion is energy usage while we work out. When you really think about it we are using electrical energy to burn calories (burn our own energy), which means we are not only using our OWN energy, but also the energy to run machines. Using energy to use our own energy, pretty strange. I looked into how much energy is used running on a treadmill for half an hour:
This website http://www.treadmillsusa.com/HPnotes.htm tells me that the average treadmill uses about 2HP (anywhere from 1.75 HP to 3.00 HP). There are 750 Watts in 1 HP, so a 2 HP motor uses about 1500 Watts. For half an hour this is 0.75 kWh (1.5 x 0.5kWh ).
How does this compare with how much energy our bodies use running for half an hour? I burn about 590 calories per hour running (295 calories per half hour) according to this site: http://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist4.htm.
With 295 Calories per half hour, this comes out to 0.000319825 kWh per workout. Comparing this to the 0.75 kWh per workout on a treadmill, running outside or around a track uses 0.0004% of the energy you would in a gym. This means you would have work out for half an hour 2,345 times to use as much energy as the treadmill is using in the half hour you run on it (or for 1,172.5 hours (48.85 days).
It is ironic that we use so much energy getting around in cars every day and then need to spend MORE time burning more of our own energy because we didn't use any of it during the day. I can recall many days before this project when I woke up, got on a bus to school, sat at a desk all day and then got on a bus, sat in my house for a few hours before bed and then slept. Literally the farthest I would walk is up or down a flight of stairs (and I wouldn't even have to do that if I didn't want to, I could have taken the elevator). Point being, our society is built around using energy to minimized the energy we need to use ourselves. This isn't helping us, however, because we end up having to use that energy somehow (working out) or our 'unused energy' in the form of food eaten just turns to fat, making us unhealthy.
It is interesting to consider a workout on a treadmill as an 'energy loss'. There are no positive benefits from the energy the treadmill uses, but there are positive benefits for the energy our BODIES lose. How can we use our own energy without wasting other energy?
_bicycle commuting
_walking to run errands
_take the stairs
_running outside, or around a track
_using workout machines which only rely on your own energy
It really does make a difference, to your health and to the health of our environment.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Friday, October 15, 2010
DAY 58_BIKING BARRIERS - PART 2: PERSPECTIVES + ATTITUDES
11 October 2010
The typical street is full of people trying to get places; pedestrians, bikes, cars, buses, trucks...Our society has a mentality of needing to get places fast, no matter where they are going, or if they are even in a hurry. In a totally unscientific argument, I have observed that the need to go fast ironically goes up the faster mode of transportation you are in. When walking we are typically not in too much of hurry. In a car, however, our #1 objective is to get where we are trying to go in the fastest way possible. Biking is somewhat of a middle ground. Bicycle commuting is obviously a way to GET places (as is walking), but people often bike in a more relaxed manner than they drive (again,, unscientific observation). The different attitudes of people contributes to quite a bit of conflict on the road.
I'd like to spend a moment stereotyping first:
Jokes aside, the reality is that each of these different people are in different states of mind, with one common goal to GET places.
I think it is difficult for drivers who have never commuted by bike to understand what it is like to get around this way. How fast I am biking and my mood are just about directly related to how cold it is outside. Sometimes biking around isn't a real pleasant thing, but if its the only way to get somewhere, so be it. I guess what I'm trying to say is, when I'm CRAWLING up the Cleveland Ave hill in 40 degree weather, getting rained on, after having biked for 8 miles to get there, that is the FASTEST I CAN GO. Promise. If I had a bike lane to get into to get out of your way, I would use it so don't yell at me. :)
In the film "No Impact Man", a film about a couple in New York and their baby girl living as "no impact" as possible, the wife describes the feelings she had about bikers in a very interesting way. She describes feeling like the BIKERS were the ones making roads unsafe for CARS because they are hard to see and cars are constantly having to get out of the way. While this might seem ridiculous, it is really interesting to hear very honestly what it is that goes through people's minds to react the way they do as drivers of cars (and on bikes). Everyone has a reason to think the way they do, and the only way to resolve these issues is to take a meaningful look into another person's life and try to understand where their opinions are coming from
I actually wrote this entire post, and then deleted it because it had such an "angry biker" tone that wasn't addressing the real obstacles of getting around by bicycle. Whether this one has any better tone, I'm not sure. What I do understand, is that although our safety on the road as bicyclists is very personal, ranting about the "asshole bus driver that cut me off" and the "cars" who "don't care about us" (whether they do or not) is just an expression of bitterness and fear and would not be getting to the core of the issues-which are SO important.
The stories of bicycle dealths on the road are very sobering, as seen on websites such as http://www.ghostbikes.org/. A handful of bikers are killed each year in Minneapolis and 1000+ more are injured in some way.
The language we use to describe accidents is very telling of the way we view these incidents: We say, "that CAR hit me" or "that BIKE cut me off". We aren't recognizing the PEOPLE in those cars and on those bikes. We aren't recognizing each other as humans.
The typical street is full of people trying to get places; pedestrians, bikes, cars, buses, trucks...Our society has a mentality of needing to get places fast, no matter where they are going, or if they are even in a hurry. In a totally unscientific argument, I have observed that the need to go fast ironically goes up the faster mode of transportation you are in. When walking we are typically not in too much of hurry. In a car, however, our #1 objective is to get where we are trying to go in the fastest way possible. Biking is somewhat of a middle ground. Bicycle commuting is obviously a way to GET places (as is walking), but people often bike in a more relaxed manner than they drive (again,, unscientific observation). The different attitudes of people contributes to quite a bit of conflict on the road.
I'd like to spend a moment stereotyping first:
 |
| (click to enlarge) |
Jokes aside, the reality is that each of these different people are in different states of mind, with one common goal to GET places.
I think it is difficult for drivers who have never commuted by bike to understand what it is like to get around this way. How fast I am biking and my mood are just about directly related to how cold it is outside. Sometimes biking around isn't a real pleasant thing, but if its the only way to get somewhere, so be it. I guess what I'm trying to say is, when I'm CRAWLING up the Cleveland Ave hill in 40 degree weather, getting rained on, after having biked for 8 miles to get there, that is the FASTEST I CAN GO. Promise. If I had a bike lane to get into to get out of your way, I would use it so don't yell at me. :)
In the film "No Impact Man", a film about a couple in New York and their baby girl living as "no impact" as possible, the wife describes the feelings she had about bikers in a very interesting way. She describes feeling like the BIKERS were the ones making roads unsafe for CARS because they are hard to see and cars are constantly having to get out of the way. While this might seem ridiculous, it is really interesting to hear very honestly what it is that goes through people's minds to react the way they do as drivers of cars (and on bikes). Everyone has a reason to think the way they do, and the only way to resolve these issues is to take a meaningful look into another person's life and try to understand where their opinions are coming from
I actually wrote this entire post, and then deleted it because it had such an "angry biker" tone that wasn't addressing the real obstacles of getting around by bicycle. Whether this one has any better tone, I'm not sure. What I do understand, is that although our safety on the road as bicyclists is very personal, ranting about the "asshole bus driver that cut me off" and the "cars" who "don't care about us" (whether they do or not) is just an expression of bitterness and fear and would not be getting to the core of the issues-which are SO important.
The stories of bicycle dealths on the road are very sobering, as seen on websites such as http://www.ghostbikes.org/. A handful of bikers are killed each year in Minneapolis and 1000+ more are injured in some way.
The language we use to describe accidents is very telling of the way we view these incidents: We say, "that CAR hit me" or "that BIKE cut me off". We aren't recognizing the PEOPLE in those cars and on those bikes. We aren't recognizing each other as humans.
DAY 57_BIKING BARRIERS- PART 1: KNOWING THE LAWS
10 October 2010
As my only way to get around these days is biking, I spend some quality time each day on the road trying not to die. The other day biking between campuses with a friend I realized that we have the SAME conversation about near-misses on bikes almost every time we ride together. We both always seem to have new stories about a car, truck or bus that cut us off, pedestrian we had to slam our brakes on for, or taxi cab that pushed the limits on how close they could get without hitting us. Almost everyone who bikes knows somebody who has been seriously injured by a collision on the road. There are many factors contributing to the ridiculous lack of safety commuting by bike, some of which is the bikers doing. Most of the accidents, however likely stem from the same few problems.The fact that getting around by bike is not safe is one of the biggest barriers to change for people who want to bike by are still commuting by car.
This post is dedicated to first of these barriers to change for bicycle commuting as I see it-understanding the laws for both bikes and cars:
PART 1: We all went to driving school, but none of us went to bicycling school.
A link to the Minnesota Bicycling Laws can be found on the City of Minneapolis website: http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/bicycles/UnderstandingtheLaw.asp
or directly here:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/data/revisor/statutes/2005/169/222.html
Allow me to summarize in my own words:
Subdivision 1:
Every person operating a bicycle shall have all of the rights and duties applicable to the driver of any vehicle except where bicycles are prohibited
Subdivision 2:
No more people riding on bikes than the bike is designed to carry (except babies)
Subdivision 3:
No hanging on to vehicles (which makes life difficult for tall bikes)
Subdivision 4:
_Bicycles shall ride "as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of roadway except" ...when passing a vehicle, when preparing for a left turn, when necessary to avoid fixed or moving objects, vehicles, animals, pedestrians
_Must ride in the direction of traffic
_"Cannot ride more than two abreast and shall not impeded the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, remaining inside a single lane"
_When biking on the sidewalk bikes must yield to pedestrians (bicycles are prohibited on sidewalks in business districts, map of zones is found here: http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/bicycles/CommercialZoningDistricts.pdf)
_When biking on the sidewalk in legal zones, bikes have all of the same right-of-way rights as pedestrians
Subdivision 5:
When carrying articles you must keep at least one hand on the handle bars and be able to use your brakes.
Subdivision 6:
Cannot ride bikes at night without :
_a lamp emitting a white light visible from a distance of 500 ft on the front
_a red reflector visible from 100-600 feet on the rear (red flashing signal light recommended)
_no operating without a brake
_"No person shall operate upon a highway any bicycle equipped with handlebars so raised that the operator must elevate the hands above the level of the shoulders in order to grasp the normal steering grip area.
_"No person shall operate upon a highway any bicycle which is of such a size as to prevent the operator from stopping the bicycle, supporting it with at least one foot on the highway surface and restarting in a safe manner." (again tall bikes)
Subdivision 7:
Cannot sell new bicycles without being equipped with reflectors and equipment required by Subd. 6
Subdivision 8:
Must signal with arms continuously for 100 feet before turning (unless you lose control)
Subdivision 9:
(according to parking laws http://library1.municode.com/default-test/home.htm?infobase=11490&doc_action=whatsnew) Bikes can park temporarily only in bike racks, but not street signs, parking meters or lamp posts :/
Subdivision 10:
No bike racing, events or parades without city approval
Subdivision 11:
Peace officers are exempts from all these rules
Laws in the Minnesota Driving Law that apply to bikes:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/data/revisor/statutes/2005/169/18.html
Subdivision 3: Passing:
"(3) the operator of a motor vehicle overtaking a bicycle or individual proceeding in the same direction on the roadway shall leave a safe distance, but in no case less than three feet clearance, when passing the bicycle or individual and shall maintain clearance until safely past the overtaken bicycle or individual. "
and
Subdivision 7: Laned Highway:
"(d) Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a roadway, any person operating a motor vehicle on such roadway shall not drive in the bicycle lane except to park where parking is permitted, to enter or leave the highway, or to prepare for a turn as provided in section 169.19, subdivision 1."
I believe the biggest misunderstanding that cars drivers have of bicyclists is that bikes don't have the same rights to the road as cars do. This is the first law of the Bicycle Laws, but isn't included anywhere in the Driving Laws. So, as a bike, we are aware we have a right to be on the road, but nobody ever told the cars.......?
As you can see, many of these laws are a bit muddy. What happens when you are biking down Hennepin Ave (really busy street in Uptown), traffic in both lanes, parked cars on each side, and are forced to bike in the lane and, consequently, slow traffic? Well, the reality is you nearly get hit by a bus or two.
As bikers and drivers we need to understand the laws of each and obey them! I feel a bit hypocritical saying this because I'm not exactly an angel on a bike and have tendency to bend and break the rules quite a bit (not stopping at all way stops, forgetting to signal...). Communicating with drivers, and being predictable are good ways to start, however we need to make cars aware of our rights on the road, and this begins with educating people about the laws....
As my only way to get around these days is biking, I spend some quality time each day on the road trying not to die. The other day biking between campuses with a friend I realized that we have the SAME conversation about near-misses on bikes almost every time we ride together. We both always seem to have new stories about a car, truck or bus that cut us off, pedestrian we had to slam our brakes on for, or taxi cab that pushed the limits on how close they could get without hitting us. Almost everyone who bikes knows somebody who has been seriously injured by a collision on the road. There are many factors contributing to the ridiculous lack of safety commuting by bike, some of which is the bikers doing. Most of the accidents, however likely stem from the same few problems.The fact that getting around by bike is not safe is one of the biggest barriers to change for people who want to bike by are still commuting by car.
This post is dedicated to first of these barriers to change for bicycle commuting as I see it-understanding the laws for both bikes and cars:
PART 1: We all went to driving school, but none of us went to bicycling school.
A link to the Minnesota Bicycling Laws can be found on the City of Minneapolis website: http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/bicycles/UnderstandingtheLaw.asp
or directly here:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/data/revisor/statutes/2005/169/222.html
Allow me to summarize in my own words:
Subdivision 1:
Every person operating a bicycle shall have all of the rights and duties applicable to the driver of any vehicle except where bicycles are prohibited
Subdivision 2:
No more people riding on bikes than the bike is designed to carry (except babies)
Subdivision 3:
No hanging on to vehicles (which makes life difficult for tall bikes)
Subdivision 4:
_Bicycles shall ride "as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of roadway except" ...when passing a vehicle, when preparing for a left turn, when necessary to avoid fixed or moving objects, vehicles, animals, pedestrians
_Must ride in the direction of traffic
_"Cannot ride more than two abreast and shall not impeded the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, remaining inside a single lane"
_When biking on the sidewalk bikes must yield to pedestrians (bicycles are prohibited on sidewalks in business districts, map of zones is found here: http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/bicycles/CommercialZoningDistricts.pdf)
_When biking on the sidewalk in legal zones, bikes have all of the same right-of-way rights as pedestrians
Subdivision 5:
When carrying articles you must keep at least one hand on the handle bars and be able to use your brakes.
Subdivision 6:
Cannot ride bikes at night without :
_a lamp emitting a white light visible from a distance of 500 ft on the front
_a red reflector visible from 100-600 feet on the rear (red flashing signal light recommended)
_no operating without a brake
_"No person shall operate upon a highway any bicycle equipped with handlebars so raised that the operator must elevate the hands above the level of the shoulders in order to grasp the normal steering grip area.
_"No person shall operate upon a highway any bicycle which is of such a size as to prevent the operator from stopping the bicycle, supporting it with at least one foot on the highway surface and restarting in a safe manner." (again tall bikes)
Subdivision 7:
Cannot sell new bicycles without being equipped with reflectors and equipment required by Subd. 6
Subdivision 8:
Must signal with arms continuously for 100 feet before turning (unless you lose control)
Subdivision 9:
(according to parking laws http://library1.municode.com/default-test/home.htm?infobase=11490&doc_action=whatsnew) Bikes can park temporarily only in bike racks, but not street signs, parking meters or lamp posts :/
Subdivision 10:
No bike racing, events or parades without city approval
Subdivision 11:
Peace officers are exempts from all these rules
Laws in the Minnesota Driving Law that apply to bikes:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/data/revisor/statutes/2005/169/18.html
Subdivision 3: Passing:
"(3) the operator of a motor vehicle overtaking a bicycle or individual proceeding in the same direction on the roadway shall leave a safe distance, but in no case less than three feet clearance, when passing the bicycle or individual and shall maintain clearance until safely past the overtaken bicycle or individual. "
and
Subdivision 7: Laned Highway:
"(d) Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a roadway, any person operating a motor vehicle on such roadway shall not drive in the bicycle lane except to park where parking is permitted, to enter or leave the highway, or to prepare for a turn as provided in section 169.19, subdivision 1."
I believe the biggest misunderstanding that cars drivers have of bicyclists is that bikes don't have the same rights to the road as cars do. This is the first law of the Bicycle Laws, but isn't included anywhere in the Driving Laws. So, as a bike, we are aware we have a right to be on the road, but nobody ever told the cars.......?
As you can see, many of these laws are a bit muddy. What happens when you are biking down Hennepin Ave (really busy street in Uptown), traffic in both lanes, parked cars on each side, and are forced to bike in the lane and, consequently, slow traffic? Well, the reality is you nearly get hit by a bus or two.
As bikers and drivers we need to understand the laws of each and obey them! I feel a bit hypocritical saying this because I'm not exactly an angel on a bike and have tendency to bend and break the rules quite a bit (not stopping at all way stops, forgetting to signal...). Communicating with drivers, and being predictable are good ways to start, however we need to make cars aware of our rights on the road, and this begins with educating people about the laws....
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
DAY 56_SAVING CILANTRO
9 October 2010
56 days into the project and my plants are not looking very harvestable. The time to harvest on most of the vegetables is around 80 days, but looking at them now, I really doubt I will have plump, ripe jalapenos and bell peppers from my 4 inch tall plants in 25 days :/
I guessed that they would take longer than usual, but I'm wondering now if they have enough light to produce fruit. Regardless, the greens and herbs won't have a problem except slow growing.
I'm also having a problem with many of the plants getting slightly yellow leaves on the bottom and the cilantro is totally dying. I did some reading on it in Edward Smith's book The Vegetable Gardener's Bible (really great resource) and it sounds like cilantro has trouble transplanting and needs very well drained soil. Being that it is in a plastic tub with no bottom holes, that could be part of the problem :) also, they got transplanted as seedlings and were one of the only plants I tried and saving each seedling instead of cutting the ones growing out of one one down. I'm going to start another batch of them directly sowing them into the planters and see if they do better. I also drilled holes in all of my tubs and elevated them on bricks above a few seed flats to give them better drainage. I placed the potted plants on stones so they weren't sitting in any excess water that drains into the catchment trays. Hopefully this will save them! Trial and error woooo!
56 days into the project and my plants are not looking very harvestable. The time to harvest on most of the vegetables is around 80 days, but looking at them now, I really doubt I will have plump, ripe jalapenos and bell peppers from my 4 inch tall plants in 25 days :/
I guessed that they would take longer than usual, but I'm wondering now if they have enough light to produce fruit. Regardless, the greens and herbs won't have a problem except slow growing.
I'm also having a problem with many of the plants getting slightly yellow leaves on the bottom and the cilantro is totally dying. I did some reading on it in Edward Smith's book The Vegetable Gardener's Bible (really great resource) and it sounds like cilantro has trouble transplanting and needs very well drained soil. Being that it is in a plastic tub with no bottom holes, that could be part of the problem :) also, they got transplanted as seedlings and were one of the only plants I tried and saving each seedling instead of cutting the ones growing out of one one down. I'm going to start another batch of them directly sowing them into the planters and see if they do better. I also drilled holes in all of my tubs and elevated them on bricks above a few seed flats to give them better drainage. I placed the potted plants on stones so they weren't sitting in any excess water that drains into the catchment trays. Hopefully this will save them! Trial and error woooo!
 |
| vegetables |
 |
| greens |
 |
| herbs and arugula |
 |
| pots on stones for drainage |
 |
| tubs on bricks/flats for drainage |
 |
| dying cilantro |
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
DAY 55_HOW OUR HOMES REFLECT OUR USE OF SPACE
8 October 2010
After analyzing how much time is dedicated to various activities in my life in the last post, I wanted to see how my use of time translates to the built environment of my house:
The diagram below shows how the use of space in my house relates to how much time I am spending in these spaces. My use of space has changed during the course of this project just as the time dedicated to certain activities has. I spend more time doing dishes, tending to plants , dealing with waste and cooking, and less time washing, and relaxing in my living room :). um, wow. Homes in a post-oil age would help to accommodate these changes in lifestyle by dedicating more, and better quality space to activities which we spend a lot of time doing.
Figure 1 shows the spaces in my house which are dedicated to various activities
Figure 2 uses my pie graphs of time spent doing various activities (from last post) and translates them onto the plan of the house
Figure 3 reorganizes and re sizes the spaces in my house to be more reflective of how I use my time (and what emphasis should be placed on certain rooms).
The size and quality of spaces in my house does not necessarily reflect the amount of time I spend there. For example, my kitchen is a fairly large space, but not a great quality space. Many kitchens are designed for function and are quite small compared to the living room. If you had a tiny kitchen and spent 7% of your life cooking (as I do now) you would be happier with a larger, light-filled kitchen (as many living rooms are). By making the kitchen a better quality environment you are able to enjoy the spaces of your house which you spend a majority of your time in.
The majority of the time I spend in my house is sleep, working and cooking. My sleeping space does not need to be as large as it is now even though I spend a lot of time in it because, well, I'm unconscious :) This 'frees up' space for a bigger kitchen and work space. The living room space is typically the space people hang out in, however, when I have people over to cook (which is a lot) EVERYONE hangs out in the kitchen. That's where the action is and everyone is pitching in to help. By integrating the living space with the kitchen it allows the kitchen to become a large, quality space and still provides room for those people who are just hanging out.
Adjacency's are also important. Although this is a quick sketch, the logic behind where to put spaces in relation to each other is an important part of helping to facilitate the activities of the house. For example, all the 'water use' spaces are located next to each other (washing dishes, bathroom, shower). My experience using water from a rain barrel has made me realize that all of the uses of this water should be close together (less hauling). This means the kitchen needs to be next to the water spaces as well as the bedroom.
Both the kitchen and growing spaces should be near the compost. Food goes in on one side and can be accessed for use in soil on the other.
As mentioned the kitchen is adjacent to the living space, and the grow table runs along the kitchen, living and working spaces. The grow table could be a very pleasant environment, filled with living things, but also has a functional use. Food can be harvested literally IN the kitchen, but the growing plants can be enjoyed throughout the living spaces.
After analyzing how much time is dedicated to various activities in my life in the last post, I wanted to see how my use of time translates to the built environment of my house:
The diagram below shows how the use of space in my house relates to how much time I am spending in these spaces. My use of space has changed during the course of this project just as the time dedicated to certain activities has. I spend more time doing dishes, tending to plants , dealing with waste and cooking, and less time washing, and relaxing in my living room :). um, wow. Homes in a post-oil age would help to accommodate these changes in lifestyle by dedicating more, and better quality space to activities which we spend a lot of time doing.
Figure 1 shows the spaces in my house which are dedicated to various activities
Figure 2 uses my pie graphs of time spent doing various activities (from last post) and translates them onto the plan of the house
Figure 3 reorganizes and re sizes the spaces in my house to be more reflective of how I use my time (and what emphasis should be placed on certain rooms).
The size and quality of spaces in my house does not necessarily reflect the amount of time I spend there. For example, my kitchen is a fairly large space, but not a great quality space. Many kitchens are designed for function and are quite small compared to the living room. If you had a tiny kitchen and spent 7% of your life cooking (as I do now) you would be happier with a larger, light-filled kitchen (as many living rooms are). By making the kitchen a better quality environment you are able to enjoy the spaces of your house which you spend a majority of your time in.
The majority of the time I spend in my house is sleep, working and cooking. My sleeping space does not need to be as large as it is now even though I spend a lot of time in it because, well, I'm unconscious :) This 'frees up' space for a bigger kitchen and work space. The living room space is typically the space people hang out in, however, when I have people over to cook (which is a lot) EVERYONE hangs out in the kitchen. That's where the action is and everyone is pitching in to help. By integrating the living space with the kitchen it allows the kitchen to become a large, quality space and still provides room for those people who are just hanging out.
Adjacency's are also important. Although this is a quick sketch, the logic behind where to put spaces in relation to each other is an important part of helping to facilitate the activities of the house. For example, all the 'water use' spaces are located next to each other (washing dishes, bathroom, shower). My experience using water from a rain barrel has made me realize that all of the uses of this water should be close together (less hauling). This means the kitchen needs to be next to the water spaces as well as the bedroom.
Both the kitchen and growing spaces should be near the compost. Food goes in on one side and can be accessed for use in soil on the other.
As mentioned the kitchen is adjacent to the living space, and the grow table runs along the kitchen, living and working spaces. The grow table could be a very pleasant environment, filled with living things, but also has a functional use. Food can be harvested literally IN the kitchen, but the growing plants can be enjoyed throughout the living spaces.
Monday, October 11, 2010
DAY 54_DAILY TIME USE
7 October 2010
My schedule has been modified doing this project because there are quite a few things that just take A REALLY LONG TIME. Food is the big one, as I have mentioned before, but there are also smaller differences that add up which has recently been making me feel like there just aren't enough hours in a day. My time is getting sucked away and I wanted to figure out how:
The graphic below shows how I am using my time currently (no oil) compared to how I was before:
The major differences are in food prep (an additional 7% of my time) and commuting (additional 3% of time). I spend slightly more time doing dishes but less time getting ready for the day (don't waste time in the shower when its in a bucket) and less time at the gym because I am getting good exercise biking around everywhere. Time left to study and do research, however suffers by about 2 hours.
My schedule has been modified doing this project because there are quite a few things that just take A REALLY LONG TIME. Food is the big one, as I have mentioned before, but there are also smaller differences that add up which has recently been making me feel like there just aren't enough hours in a day. My time is getting sucked away and I wanted to figure out how:
The graphic below shows how I am using my time currently (no oil) compared to how I was before:
 |
| (click to enlarge) |
The major differences are in food prep (an additional 7% of my time) and commuting (additional 3% of time). I spend slightly more time doing dishes but less time getting ready for the day (don't waste time in the shower when its in a bucket) and less time at the gym because I am getting good exercise biking around everywhere. Time left to study and do research, however suffers by about 2 hours.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
DAY 53_NUTRITION IN A POST OIL WORLD
6 October 2010
I met Sarah Kunkel who is a graduate student in University of Minnesota's Nutrition program for dinner tonight at an all-raw restaurant a few blocks from my house (Ecopolitan), and picked her brain about the nutrition of my "no oil diet". I was curious to hear her thoughts on how my diet has either improved or degraded my health, as well as what 'holes' I had nutritionally. Here is what she had to say:
_While you should eat at least 4 1/2 cups of fruits and vegetables each day (according to the government-created food health pyramid), it doesn't necessarily matter if the ratio of fruits to vegetables is exactly 50/50. This is good news for me because I am only eating apples and pear for fruit at this point which doesn't provide me with a wide array of vitamins. If I eat more vegetables to make up for my lack of fruit variety, then this works out.
_I haven't been eating meat during this project because of packaging restrictions. Sarah is a vegetarian and says she eats a lot of cottage cheese to get enough protein. A 1/2 cup of cottage cheese has 12 grams of protein, compared to a steak with has 18 grams. She also mentioned that in general, Americans eat WAY more meat than is necessary for their daily protein intake, and it isn't necessary to eat meat every day if protein requirements are being met in other ways. Some grains such as Quinoa are also a good sources of protein.
_We talked about fortified foods (foods which have had vitamins added to them). These are called "functional foods" in nutrition lingo, and are the subject of some controversy (Probiotic yogurt, goo-gels, pepsi fortified with vitamins, vitamin water). While it is better to get vitamins in foods rather than in supplement form because they are easier for your body to digest, it is better to get them in the form they originally come from. For example, milk is often fortified with Vitamins A and D. Neither of these vitamins are naturally occurring in milk, but they are both vitamins which the government has identified as deficiencies for the American public. One of the best sources for vitamin D is the sun. Because we are not out in the sun as much anymore, and when we are you cover ourselves in sunscreen, we don't get enough of this vitamin. In order for the body to absorb vitamin D, the sun has to be at a certain angle. In Minnesota, the sun is not at this angle from Nov-March. The controversy with functional foods also arises because there are dangers with having TOO MANY vitamins are well. Sarah explained that most single vitamins (ex. vitamin C) capsules contain way more of the vitamin than is needed every day. There are toxicity problems with eating too many vitamins just as there are with eating too few. Water soluble vitamins are not a problem because you simply pee out the excess.
_Being that we were at Ecopolitan, surrounding by die-hard raw foodists, we talked about some diets such as RAW and vegan. Her stance was that most of these diets are lacking nutritionally in some fashion. Both RAW and Vegan diets are lacking in calcium and cause bone structure problems with people who are on them long term.
_She explained that while it is clear that the leading health programs in our country related to food have conflicting intentions and are not necessarily looking out for our health, there may be a bit of 'over attacking' going on as well. There is a lot of attacking of processed foods, much of which is justifiable: Processed foods contain much more salt and less potassium than we need. Because our cells are a delicate balance between sodium and potassium if this is unbalanced we can end up with hypertension which is a blood pressure issue. High fructose corn syrup is another example. She explained that "sucrose is sucrose" and HFCS has only 5% more fructose than table sugar. Fructose and Glucose are what makes up table sugar. Fructose being the one that people have attacked because studies have found that it bypasses a feedback system in your body allowing you to eat more of it than you need. Glucose is regulated more easily in body feedback loops. Fructose, however is naturally found in fruits as well.
All of this talk left me fairly conflicted. Nutrition is a delicate balance and there is a lot of scientific data and studies getting thrown around every year which tell us what is "good" and what is "bad". In a post cheap oil world some of these problems of processed and functional foods will likely be eliminated as transportation of food is limited and foods no longer need to be preserved in the same way they would being trucked and stored for months. Eating foods from raw ingredients has made me more aware of what exactly I am putting in my body, and it is easier to analyze my diet to make sure I am getting the nutrients I need. This awareness, I believe, is possibly the best and easiest way to understand your diet, what your body needs and how to cook with foods available in your area to eat in a nutritionally balanced way.
After looking at my charts of data of what I have eaten for this entire project she pointed out that at the beginning of the project (when I was only eating vegetables and potatoes basically that I had a lot of nutritional gaps. However, as I learned to make breads and found out how to cook different meals with the ingredients available to me that my diet now is much healthier than the way I was eating before because I have been forced to eat much more fresh produce and no processed foods.
She recommended the following resources to me as well:
_mypyramid.gov (allows to to put in the foods you eat each day and analyzes the nutrition balance accroding to the food pyramid)
_Michael Pollan's books especially (In Defense of Food)
_Eating Well magazine
_Farmer's Market Cookbook Featherstone Farms (a local CSA)
_Apples to Zucchinis book
_Fresh Earth Farms website (local CSA)
I met Sarah Kunkel who is a graduate student in University of Minnesota's Nutrition program for dinner tonight at an all-raw restaurant a few blocks from my house (Ecopolitan), and picked her brain about the nutrition of my "no oil diet". I was curious to hear her thoughts on how my diet has either improved or degraded my health, as well as what 'holes' I had nutritionally. Here is what she had to say:
_While you should eat at least 4 1/2 cups of fruits and vegetables each day (according to the government-created food health pyramid), it doesn't necessarily matter if the ratio of fruits to vegetables is exactly 50/50. This is good news for me because I am only eating apples and pear for fruit at this point which doesn't provide me with a wide array of vitamins. If I eat more vegetables to make up for my lack of fruit variety, then this works out.
_I haven't been eating meat during this project because of packaging restrictions. Sarah is a vegetarian and says she eats a lot of cottage cheese to get enough protein. A 1/2 cup of cottage cheese has 12 grams of protein, compared to a steak with has 18 grams. She also mentioned that in general, Americans eat WAY more meat than is necessary for their daily protein intake, and it isn't necessary to eat meat every day if protein requirements are being met in other ways. Some grains such as Quinoa are also a good sources of protein.
_We talked about fortified foods (foods which have had vitamins added to them). These are called "functional foods" in nutrition lingo, and are the subject of some controversy (Probiotic yogurt, goo-gels, pepsi fortified with vitamins, vitamin water). While it is better to get vitamins in foods rather than in supplement form because they are easier for your body to digest, it is better to get them in the form they originally come from. For example, milk is often fortified with Vitamins A and D. Neither of these vitamins are naturally occurring in milk, but they are both vitamins which the government has identified as deficiencies for the American public. One of the best sources for vitamin D is the sun. Because we are not out in the sun as much anymore, and when we are you cover ourselves in sunscreen, we don't get enough of this vitamin. In order for the body to absorb vitamin D, the sun has to be at a certain angle. In Minnesota, the sun is not at this angle from Nov-March. The controversy with functional foods also arises because there are dangers with having TOO MANY vitamins are well. Sarah explained that most single vitamins (ex. vitamin C) capsules contain way more of the vitamin than is needed every day. There are toxicity problems with eating too many vitamins just as there are with eating too few. Water soluble vitamins are not a problem because you simply pee out the excess.
_Being that we were at Ecopolitan, surrounding by die-hard raw foodists, we talked about some diets such as RAW and vegan. Her stance was that most of these diets are lacking nutritionally in some fashion. Both RAW and Vegan diets are lacking in calcium and cause bone structure problems with people who are on them long term.
_She explained that while it is clear that the leading health programs in our country related to food have conflicting intentions and are not necessarily looking out for our health, there may be a bit of 'over attacking' going on as well. There is a lot of attacking of processed foods, much of which is justifiable: Processed foods contain much more salt and less potassium than we need. Because our cells are a delicate balance between sodium and potassium if this is unbalanced we can end up with hypertension which is a blood pressure issue. High fructose corn syrup is another example. She explained that "sucrose is sucrose" and HFCS has only 5% more fructose than table sugar. Fructose and Glucose are what makes up table sugar. Fructose being the one that people have attacked because studies have found that it bypasses a feedback system in your body allowing you to eat more of it than you need. Glucose is regulated more easily in body feedback loops. Fructose, however is naturally found in fruits as well.
All of this talk left me fairly conflicted. Nutrition is a delicate balance and there is a lot of scientific data and studies getting thrown around every year which tell us what is "good" and what is "bad". In a post cheap oil world some of these problems of processed and functional foods will likely be eliminated as transportation of food is limited and foods no longer need to be preserved in the same way they would being trucked and stored for months. Eating foods from raw ingredients has made me more aware of what exactly I am putting in my body, and it is easier to analyze my diet to make sure I am getting the nutrients I need. This awareness, I believe, is possibly the best and easiest way to understand your diet, what your body needs and how to cook with foods available in your area to eat in a nutritionally balanced way.
After looking at my charts of data of what I have eaten for this entire project she pointed out that at the beginning of the project (when I was only eating vegetables and potatoes basically that I had a lot of nutritional gaps. However, as I learned to make breads and found out how to cook different meals with the ingredients available to me that my diet now is much healthier than the way I was eating before because I have been forced to eat much more fresh produce and no processed foods.
 |
| RAWvioli at Ecopolitan |
She recommended the following resources to me as well:
_mypyramid.gov (allows to to put in the foods you eat each day and analyzes the nutrition balance accroding to the food pyramid)
_Michael Pollan's books especially (In Defense of Food)
_Eating Well magazine
_Farmer's Market Cookbook Featherstone Farms (a local CSA)
_Apples to Zucchinis book
_Fresh Earth Farms website (local CSA)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)