So I'm not running. As I've mentioned before, I seem to suffering from a case of hamstring tendonitis, or an inflammation of the hamstring tendon. It's primarily focused around my knee, something that made it a little more difficult to diagnose (since there's so much going on there) and treat, since hey I have to stand and walk around all day. The best way I could have really treated it was not doing anything, particularly running, but I think my boss would not be too happy with me if I decided not to do any lab work because it hurts to stand.
On the other hand, I did get some good results (right as we speak!) so I guess the whole "not sitting all day" thing is also working.
I've been getting to know the elliptical machine pretty well, which is alright since I can watch the Daily Show whilst exercising (they have TV's on them now... technology, am I right?) but it's TERRIBLE because the weather has been BEAUTIFUL and I can't go running. This was further exasperated this morning when a friend of mine and runner who often wins her age division gave me a quick "what's up?" as she trotted by me while I was walking to the gym. Sad.
I've been exploring other possibilites for exercise, including riding my bike, elliptical, and pool running (which is something that I'm a little embarassed about since I'm not exactly slim, so I'm creating a plan to start arriving at the gym right when it opens at 6 am to avoid, well, people). I've gotten recommendations about physical therapy (have a referral, haven't gone yet) and trigger point stretching (know all about it now, but I'm kind of poor right now so I can't afford the good stuff... gonna go buy some tennis balls tonight, I think). The main thing that sucks is that I feel disconnected from the Run Net Community (in particular, The Extra Mile) because I can't talk about my running.
So, the plan? Cross train, stretch, rest, and shoot for getting back on the roads on January 7th, which is the beginning of training for the Illinois Marathon. I'll be leading a 4 hour pace group... if I can do it.
We'll see...
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
The Truth About Splenda
Today in Biochemistry we finished up our discussion of glucose-related metabolism with a short discourse on other mono- and disaccharides (sugars like fructose, maltose, sucrose, and so forth). One particular slide (and yes, it was only one) was dedicated to Splenda, a zero-calorie sugar substitute. Splenda is a trade name for the sugar substitute sucralose, the structure of which is shown here.
Sucralose is a derivative of sucrose, which itself is a glucose disaccharide. The main difference is the substitution of chloride substituents for hydroxyl groups at three different positions. The chemistry itself is pretty straightforward - primary alcohols are protected, the secondary alcohols are acetylated, primary alcohols are deprotected, and after some chemistry to cause migration of an acetyl group from secondary to primary hydroxyl group, the free hydroxyl groups are substituted with chlorine.
The substitution of chloride groups alters the properties of the molecule, primarily leading to a molecule that's ~600 times sweeter than sugar. It also becomes more heat and pH stable, making it a better choice for baking and cooking than regular ol' sugar or aspartame (which itself is a completely different animal), which can break down more quickly. That 600x amplification of sweetness means that the Splenda you have in your coffee, however, is mostly fillers like glucose and maltodextrin (i.e. other sugars) in order to modify the taste and make sure you don't experience a sweetness overload.
As with any synthetic substitute, the safety profile of this sugar-mimic is especially important. In numerous studies it's been clear that the use of sucralose is more than fine at currently available amounts. A recent study at Duke University suggests that increased intake of sucralose may cause problems with intestinal bacteria and increase cytochrome P450 levels, which can influence the bioavailability of drugs. This last study was only in male rats, which suggests continued study in humans may be beneficial, since it's possible that these levels were not analyzed in previous human trials. All in all, though, it appears that sucralose is a perfectly safe substitute for sugar.
Which is why it continues to bug me that websites like this one continue to pop up. Any time we deviate from the "natural" and "organic" in science, we have a tendency to question the authority of those who move in that direction (think vaccinations). This website touts that there's something wrong with Splenda (it's got chlorines! The same kind of chlorine they they use to clean my pool!), citing "medical and scientific evidence" (newspaper quotes and quotes from papers that say stuff along the lines of "sucralose contains chloride substitutions for hydroxyl groups") to support that it's bad. The only negative study they have is the Duke Study, with no follow up studies or additional evidence.
While I'm not against questioning resources and scientific inquiry, quoting scientists who say "Sucralose is a disaccharide that is made from sucrose in a five-step process that selectively substitutes three atoms of chlorine for three hydroxyl groups in the sugar molecule. It is produced at an approximate purity of 98 percent.", citing a newspaper article, and then saying it's from a medical professional and using as evidence against the product is just lazy. Cite the papers that support your cause and find more of them that do, don't just rely on one (you can't rely on one citation in a scientific paper, for goodness' sakes).
On a final note, I should point out that I'm not giving my ringing endorsement for Splenda or anything related, nor do I think that I should be referred to as an authority on the subject. Having scanned through a number of blogs/websites in the last few minutes, it's clear that anecdotal evidence can be very easily misconstrued for actual science, something which I do not endorse. And seriously, someone said "I drank two large cups of coffee with two spoonfuls of Splenda in each and I didn't feel well and it's the Splenda's fault!". Correlation does not equal causation, ya'll. Just saying.
Sucralose is a derivative of sucrose, which itself is a glucose disaccharide. The main difference is the substitution of chloride substituents for hydroxyl groups at three different positions. The chemistry itself is pretty straightforward - primary alcohols are protected, the secondary alcohols are acetylated, primary alcohols are deprotected, and after some chemistry to cause migration of an acetyl group from secondary to primary hydroxyl group, the free hydroxyl groups are substituted with chlorine.
The substitution of chloride groups alters the properties of the molecule, primarily leading to a molecule that's ~600 times sweeter than sugar. It also becomes more heat and pH stable, making it a better choice for baking and cooking than regular ol' sugar or aspartame (which itself is a completely different animal), which can break down more quickly. That 600x amplification of sweetness means that the Splenda you have in your coffee, however, is mostly fillers like glucose and maltodextrin (i.e. other sugars) in order to modify the taste and make sure you don't experience a sweetness overload.
As with any synthetic substitute, the safety profile of this sugar-mimic is especially important. In numerous studies it's been clear that the use of sucralose is more than fine at currently available amounts. A recent study at Duke University suggests that increased intake of sucralose may cause problems with intestinal bacteria and increase cytochrome P450 levels, which can influence the bioavailability of drugs. This last study was only in male rats, which suggests continued study in humans may be beneficial, since it's possible that these levels were not analyzed in previous human trials. All in all, though, it appears that sucralose is a perfectly safe substitute for sugar.
Which is why it continues to bug me that websites like this one continue to pop up. Any time we deviate from the "natural" and "organic" in science, we have a tendency to question the authority of those who move in that direction (think vaccinations). This website touts that there's something wrong with Splenda (it's got chlorines! The same kind of chlorine they they use to clean my pool!), citing "medical and scientific evidence" (newspaper quotes and quotes from papers that say stuff along the lines of "sucralose contains chloride substitutions for hydroxyl groups") to support that it's bad. The only negative study they have is the Duke Study, with no follow up studies or additional evidence.
While I'm not against questioning resources and scientific inquiry, quoting scientists who say "Sucralose is a disaccharide that is made from sucrose in a five-step process that selectively substitutes three atoms of chlorine for three hydroxyl groups in the sugar molecule. It is produced at an approximate purity of 98 percent.", citing a newspaper article, and then saying it's from a medical professional and using as evidence against the product is just lazy. Cite the papers that support your cause and find more of them that do, don't just rely on one (you can't rely on one citation in a scientific paper, for goodness' sakes).
On a final note, I should point out that I'm not giving my ringing endorsement for Splenda or anything related, nor do I think that I should be referred to as an authority on the subject. Having scanned through a number of blogs/websites in the last few minutes, it's clear that anecdotal evidence can be very easily misconstrued for actual science, something which I do not endorse. And seriously, someone said "I drank two large cups of coffee with two spoonfuls of Splenda in each and I didn't feel well and it's the Splenda's fault!". Correlation does not equal causation, ya'll. Just saying.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Finding Time
I think I may have discussed this before, but I want to address it again because it's important.
Those of you who are involved in anything that I'm involved in - running/athletics, medicine, science, teaching, marriage, etc. - probably know that it's hard to find time to do anything other than what you feel is necessary to do. I always seem to find myself saying "I don't have time for that, because I have to do this", subsequently doing several other things in the process when doing the first thing would probably have been just as good of a choice. For example, do I set up this reaction or do I go to a seminar? Setting up the reaction would probably help to advance my research a little bit, but the seminar is only going to happen once and I could always set up the reaction afterward. Except, of course, because I need to get a ride home with my wife and she's going to show up immediately after the seminar. You can hopefully see where I'm going with this... I can't set up the reaction (that), I have to go home (this) right after seminar (also this). I suppose I could always just stay later instead...
It's a pretty common theme for me lately. I have a whole slew of things to do (original research proposal, sending samples to another professor, further my own research, studying for my Biochemistry class), in addition to a whole slew of other things that I should do (go to the gym, clean the house, make dinner, do laundry), in addition to a whole slew of things I would like to do (practice guitar, research/write the blog, etc.), in addition to a whole slew of things I should NOT do but do anyway (play on Facebook, Twitter, play video games). For some reason I'm having a hard time focusing on the first two and much more easily focusing on the second two. Combine that with the inability to go running (yay hamstring tendonitis), which fills the dual role of fulfilling a part of my list and clearing my head so I can better focus on the other parts of the list, and I'm not doing too good a job here.
One thing I've learned is that the whole idea of "not having enough free time" is bunk. This excuse, which I use on a regular basis, is one I'm bringing up because it has actually been studied. Surveys of runners and non-runners who said that they "didn't have enough free time" were actually shown to have no difference in the amount of free time (unfortunately I can't go more than anecdotal here, but I'm sure you get the idea). In reality I have no more or less time than anyone else... it's a question of how I use it that's key.
Take home message here? Whether or not you think so, you have just as much time as anyone else and it's entirely possible to do something as long as you prioritize and focus on what you should do rather than what you want to do. Hopefully those end up being the same thing.
As for me, I'm going to try doing what I should do and not getting distracted by things I shouldn't do. Like blogging, for example.
Those of you who are involved in anything that I'm involved in - running/athletics, medicine, science, teaching, marriage, etc. - probably know that it's hard to find time to do anything other than what you feel is necessary to do. I always seem to find myself saying "I don't have time for that, because I have to do this", subsequently doing several other things in the process when doing the first thing would probably have been just as good of a choice. For example, do I set up this reaction or do I go to a seminar? Setting up the reaction would probably help to advance my research a little bit, but the seminar is only going to happen once and I could always set up the reaction afterward. Except, of course, because I need to get a ride home with my wife and she's going to show up immediately after the seminar. You can hopefully see where I'm going with this... I can't set up the reaction (that), I have to go home (this) right after seminar (also this). I suppose I could always just stay later instead...
It's a pretty common theme for me lately. I have a whole slew of things to do (original research proposal, sending samples to another professor, further my own research, studying for my Biochemistry class), in addition to a whole slew of other things that I should do (go to the gym, clean the house, make dinner, do laundry), in addition to a whole slew of things I would like to do (practice guitar, research/write the blog, etc.), in addition to a whole slew of things I should NOT do but do anyway (play on Facebook, Twitter, play video games). For some reason I'm having a hard time focusing on the first two and much more easily focusing on the second two. Combine that with the inability to go running (yay hamstring tendonitis), which fills the dual role of fulfilling a part of my list and clearing my head so I can better focus on the other parts of the list, and I'm not doing too good a job here.
One thing I've learned is that the whole idea of "not having enough free time" is bunk. This excuse, which I use on a regular basis, is one I'm bringing up because it has actually been studied. Surveys of runners and non-runners who said that they "didn't have enough free time" were actually shown to have no difference in the amount of free time (unfortunately I can't go more than anecdotal here, but I'm sure you get the idea). In reality I have no more or less time than anyone else... it's a question of how I use it that's key.
Take home message here? Whether or not you think so, you have just as much time as anyone else and it's entirely possible to do something as long as you prioritize and focus on what you should do rather than what you want to do. Hopefully those end up being the same thing.
As for me, I'm going to try doing what I should do and not getting distracted by things I shouldn't do. Like blogging, for example.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Let us talk a bit about metabolism
I'm currently in the throws of M1 Biochemistry (which, by virtue of me being an MD/PhD student here at the good ol' U of I, is my only M1 class at the moment... don't worry I've got plenty of other things to keep me occupied), which lately has involved the study of metabolism.
As you may (or may not) know, metabolism is essentially the set of reactions involved in the build-up and break-down of energy sources in the cell, the reactions that really keep you going on a day-to-day basis. For example, glucose (i.e. sugar) ingested by a person is converted to pyruvate, which is then entered into the citric acid cycle in order to produce the intermediates necessary for production of ATP, the main energy source of the cell. In short, fuel added into the body, converted to energy, and then used by the body to function. Not exactly the most exciting thing in the world, but bear with me it may/will get more interesting.
Metabolism is very important for exercise (ah, there's the transition/connection). During exercise, the skeletal muscles are utilizing different energy sources in order to contract and relax, propelling the individual forward/to the side/up/down/etc, depending (of course) on the sport involved. These fuel sources can include glucose, glycogen (the polymeric form of glucose), and fatty acids (think of getting into the "fat burning zone" while running), depending on which types of muscle are involved in the process. There are two types of muscle, type I and type II.
Type I muscle fibers are involved in slower, aerobic endurance exercise, contain myoglobin (essentially oxygen storage units), and primarily utilize fatty acids as fuel. These are the muscles you would use primarily while running a marathon (if you're slow like me).
Type II muscle fibers are involved in fast, anaerobic endurance exercise, don't contain myoglobin, and utilize glucose primarily as a fuel source. These are the "fast twitch" muscles that would be used while sprinting, jumping, etc.
During exercise, both types of muscle will utilize glucose and produce lactate from pyruvate, which is why long bouts of exercise lead to what runners refer to as "lactic acid buildup" in the muscles. The lactate is produced because it helps produce more intermediates for energy production - having a better "lactic threshold" essentially means that you can keep your level of lactate being produced and/or accumulated down longer than someone with a lower lactic threshold. This can be increased with training, which helps to body to better utilize fuel sources and transport lactate to the liver more quickly.
The difference between Types I and II muscle fibers becomes apparent in patients who have glycogen storage diseases. In these diseases, glycogen - one of the main fuel sources for muscle fibers... especially type II fibers - cannot be efficiently synthesized or broken down, altering the levels of glycogen or free glucose available for energy production. The effects can be moderate to severe, depending on which enzyme is deficient and where the deficiency occurs. Of particular interest here are McArdle's disease (a deficiency in a phosphorylase that breaks down glycogen) and Tarui's disease (a phosphofructokinase deficiency that prevents production of pyruvate and, thus, energy production). In both disease, one of the main symptoms is extreme fatigue during bouts of severe exercise. This results from the inability of the body to either mobilize or utilize glucose stores in the cell for energy production. Interestingly, patients with these disease can generally tolerate moderate exercise.
Why the difference? Simply, because type I muscle cells utilize fatty acids primarily as a fuel source, the inability to mobilize or utilize glucose does not have as much of an effect, so moderate aerobic exercise can be well tolerates. In severe exercise, type II muscle fibers are utilized, but they cannot use glucose or glycogen as a fuel source, so the muscles cramp up and the patients suffer from fatigue. Essentially, the difference in energy source leads to the issues associated with the disease.
In summary, energy metabolism plays a very important role in exercise. As we run (in my case), we utilize glucose, glycogen, and fatty acids in a complex array of chemical reactions to produce the fuel necessary to fire our muscle fibers. Consumption of carbohydrates, proteins, and fats before, during, and after the race ensures an additional source of fuel for energy production, which is why you eat Gu or something equivalent during your big races. Patients who have enzyme deficiencies at different points along these cycles can have problems with exercise, depending on where and how the enzyme affects the pathway.
All in all, pretty cool stuff, I think.
As you may (or may not) know, metabolism is essentially the set of reactions involved in the build-up and break-down of energy sources in the cell, the reactions that really keep you going on a day-to-day basis. For example, glucose (i.e. sugar) ingested by a person is converted to pyruvate, which is then entered into the citric acid cycle in order to produce the intermediates necessary for production of ATP, the main energy source of the cell. In short, fuel added into the body, converted to energy, and then used by the body to function. Not exactly the most exciting thing in the world, but bear with me it may/will get more interesting.
Metabolism is very important for exercise (ah, there's the transition/connection). During exercise, the skeletal muscles are utilizing different energy sources in order to contract and relax, propelling the individual forward/to the side/up/down/etc, depending (of course) on the sport involved. These fuel sources can include glucose, glycogen (the polymeric form of glucose), and fatty acids (think of getting into the "fat burning zone" while running), depending on which types of muscle are involved in the process. There are two types of muscle, type I and type II.
Type I muscle fibers are involved in slower, aerobic endurance exercise, contain myoglobin (essentially oxygen storage units), and primarily utilize fatty acids as fuel. These are the muscles you would use primarily while running a marathon (if you're slow like me).
Type II muscle fibers are involved in fast, anaerobic endurance exercise, don't contain myoglobin, and utilize glucose primarily as a fuel source. These are the "fast twitch" muscles that would be used while sprinting, jumping, etc.
During exercise, both types of muscle will utilize glucose and produce lactate from pyruvate, which is why long bouts of exercise lead to what runners refer to as "lactic acid buildup" in the muscles. The lactate is produced because it helps produce more intermediates for energy production - having a better "lactic threshold" essentially means that you can keep your level of lactate being produced and/or accumulated down longer than someone with a lower lactic threshold. This can be increased with training, which helps to body to better utilize fuel sources and transport lactate to the liver more quickly.
The difference between Types I and II muscle fibers becomes apparent in patients who have glycogen storage diseases. In these diseases, glycogen - one of the main fuel sources for muscle fibers... especially type II fibers - cannot be efficiently synthesized or broken down, altering the levels of glycogen or free glucose available for energy production. The effects can be moderate to severe, depending on which enzyme is deficient and where the deficiency occurs. Of particular interest here are McArdle's disease (a deficiency in a phosphorylase that breaks down glycogen) and Tarui's disease (a phosphofructokinase deficiency that prevents production of pyruvate and, thus, energy production). In both disease, one of the main symptoms is extreme fatigue during bouts of severe exercise. This results from the inability of the body to either mobilize or utilize glucose stores in the cell for energy production. Interestingly, patients with these disease can generally tolerate moderate exercise.
Why the difference? Simply, because type I muscle cells utilize fatty acids primarily as a fuel source, the inability to mobilize or utilize glucose does not have as much of an effect, so moderate aerobic exercise can be well tolerates. In severe exercise, type II muscle fibers are utilized, but they cannot use glucose or glycogen as a fuel source, so the muscles cramp up and the patients suffer from fatigue. Essentially, the difference in energy source leads to the issues associated with the disease.
In summary, energy metabolism plays a very important role in exercise. As we run (in my case), we utilize glucose, glycogen, and fatty acids in a complex array of chemical reactions to produce the fuel necessary to fire our muscle fibers. Consumption of carbohydrates, proteins, and fats before, during, and after the race ensures an additional source of fuel for energy production, which is why you eat Gu or something equivalent during your big races. Patients who have enzyme deficiencies at different points along these cycles can have problems with exercise, depending on where and how the enzyme affects the pathway.
All in all, pretty cool stuff, I think.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Halloween
What did I go as for Halloween?
Well, let's just say this: I wore my U of I scrubs, white coat, my stethoscope, and my hospital ID badge (don't worry, I was only at friends' places, so I didn't go anywhere where my official status would have been a problem).
I guess it wasn't a costume in a way, but I did grow a beard for the occasion. So there.
(PS not the best picture, but we only took a few with our camera - our friends have the rest on their own cameras)
Well, let's just say this: I wore my U of I scrubs, white coat, my stethoscope, and my hospital ID badge (don't worry, I was only at friends' places, so I didn't go anywhere where my official status would have been a problem).
I guess it wasn't a costume in a way, but I did grow a beard for the occasion. So there.
(PS not the best picture, but we only took a few with our camera - our friends have the rest on their own cameras)
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
October Randoms
And now a glimpse into what the heck is going on with me:
- Do you remember taking biochemistry as an undergraduate and kind of hating it because you had to remember a bunch of enzymes and what reactions they catalyzed and the cascade from glucose to pyruvate to the Krebs cycle? Remember how fun that was? Well, I just had an exam on it again. This time for medical school. Let me just say that M1 biochemistry is essentially the same as undergraduate biochemistry, with the exception that you get to hear more about what drugs and/or evil molecules (KCN, CO, etc.) can affect these cycles. Did you know that molecules such as oligomycin don't just make interesting synthetic targets, but they can inhibit ATP synthase and prevent oxidative phosphorylation (i.e. ATP synthesis)? It's cool stuff, but a pain in the ass when you don't have time to study the pathways until right before the exam. Please don't tell my mom... but I'm working on it darn it!
- I think I've run a grand total of 20-25 miles in the last month. This hamstring thing is driving me crazy, because the only way I can alleviate the problem is by resting, which I just can't do. FYI, it appears that other activities like the elliptical, biking, and normal walking don't have too much of a negative effect, but the impact stresses from running make it sore (not so much while I'm running, but definitely afterward). I have been able to do some runs by decreasing my speed, shortening my stride, and increasing my turnover (thus compensating for the shortened stride). I've been trying to go to the gym, but it's much more difficult/annoying than just leaving from my front door, so it's not been as consistent as I would be normally. My plan for the next few months (the next race I would sign up for would be in January) is to focus on biking, elliptical, weight lifting, and stretching/icing and seeing how I feel as I start up next year. It's too bad, because I had a really good spring, but I guess these things just happen. Better to take time off now than to not be able to run 10 years from now, right?
- On the research front... well, not much happening there. You remember me talking about chemical ligations involving DNA? Well, given the amount of time I was spending on it, and the fact that I shouldn't have been spending time on it, we just went and ordered the minigenes we wanted from IDT. Now, don't get me wrong here, I am still going to work on the ligation on my own time to figure out what the hell was going wrong, and if ya'll have any thoughts on the subject feel free to send them my way. With this out of the way, we can focus on analyzing RNA using junction probes. We'll see how that goes.
- I got the swine flu vaccine last week, since I am considered to be a "health care worker" and could potentially be "on the front lines" during this pandemic. And I'm pretty sure the President said it was a pandemic, so those of you who are convinced it's just scare-mongering can get out of here. If you're not convinced it's a problem, and that vaccines cause autism and all those other shenanigans, go read Science-Based Medicine and be amazed by facts. Also go read that blog because there's a lot of compelling stuff being written (almost too much - it's beginning to take up a lot of my time!). Anyway, the point is that I now feel confident that I can go to the clinic for my shadowing and be able to focus on the important issues - diabetes, obesity, etc. - without worrying about infecting or being infected by the patients.
- I've been listening to the remastered Beatles albums a lot recently... not that I could afford them myself, but I found someone on the campus network who has them all so I just listen on iTunes while at work. Rubber Soul and Revolver are so good!! Man, I need to get another job so I can go buy music instead of "borrowing" it...
Okay, I think that just about covers it. If you are working on science things, continue to work hard and don't give up on your work! It may be difficult (and it's driving me crazy how difficult it can be) but there are rewards for not giving up! And remember:
"A man must love something very much if he not only does it without hope of fame or fortune, but also does it without the hope of doing it well" (G.K. Chesterton).
*EDIT* If you haven't seen this video (mentioned over at Science-Based Medicine) then you need to see it. Seriously, it will BLOW YOUR MIND.
- Do you remember taking biochemistry as an undergraduate and kind of hating it because you had to remember a bunch of enzymes and what reactions they catalyzed and the cascade from glucose to pyruvate to the Krebs cycle? Remember how fun that was? Well, I just had an exam on it again. This time for medical school. Let me just say that M1 biochemistry is essentially the same as undergraduate biochemistry, with the exception that you get to hear more about what drugs and/or evil molecules (KCN, CO, etc.) can affect these cycles. Did you know that molecules such as oligomycin don't just make interesting synthetic targets, but they can inhibit ATP synthase and prevent oxidative phosphorylation (i.e. ATP synthesis)? It's cool stuff, but a pain in the ass when you don't have time to study the pathways until right before the exam. Please don't tell my mom... but I'm working on it darn it!
- I think I've run a grand total of 20-25 miles in the last month. This hamstring thing is driving me crazy, because the only way I can alleviate the problem is by resting, which I just can't do. FYI, it appears that other activities like the elliptical, biking, and normal walking don't have too much of a negative effect, but the impact stresses from running make it sore (not so much while I'm running, but definitely afterward). I have been able to do some runs by decreasing my speed, shortening my stride, and increasing my turnover (thus compensating for the shortened stride). I've been trying to go to the gym, but it's much more difficult/annoying than just leaving from my front door, so it's not been as consistent as I would be normally. My plan for the next few months (the next race I would sign up for would be in January) is to focus on biking, elliptical, weight lifting, and stretching/icing and seeing how I feel as I start up next year. It's too bad, because I had a really good spring, but I guess these things just happen. Better to take time off now than to not be able to run 10 years from now, right?
- On the research front... well, not much happening there. You remember me talking about chemical ligations involving DNA? Well, given the amount of time I was spending on it, and the fact that I shouldn't have been spending time on it, we just went and ordered the minigenes we wanted from IDT. Now, don't get me wrong here, I am still going to work on the ligation on my own time to figure out what the hell was going wrong, and if ya'll have any thoughts on the subject feel free to send them my way. With this out of the way, we can focus on analyzing RNA using junction probes. We'll see how that goes.
- I got the swine flu vaccine last week, since I am considered to be a "health care worker" and could potentially be "on the front lines" during this pandemic. And I'm pretty sure the President said it was a pandemic, so those of you who are convinced it's just scare-mongering can get out of here. If you're not convinced it's a problem, and that vaccines cause autism and all those other shenanigans, go read Science-Based Medicine and be amazed by facts. Also go read that blog because there's a lot of compelling stuff being written (almost too much - it's beginning to take up a lot of my time!). Anyway, the point is that I now feel confident that I can go to the clinic for my shadowing and be able to focus on the important issues - diabetes, obesity, etc. - without worrying about infecting or being infected by the patients.
- I've been listening to the remastered Beatles albums a lot recently... not that I could afford them myself, but I found someone on the campus network who has them all so I just listen on iTunes while at work. Rubber Soul and Revolver are so good!! Man, I need to get another job so I can go buy music instead of "borrowing" it...
Okay, I think that just about covers it. If you are working on science things, continue to work hard and don't give up on your work! It may be difficult (and it's driving me crazy how difficult it can be) but there are rewards for not giving up! And remember:
"A man must love something very much if he not only does it without hope of fame or fortune, but also does it without the hope of doing it well" (G.K. Chesterton).
*EDIT* If you haven't seen this video (mentioned over at Science-Based Medicine) then you need to see it. Seriously, it will BLOW YOUR MIND.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
