This book! Making me nuts. False pride is involved, I believe.

I skimmed this book because a neighbor recommended it to me. It's causing me to fret way, way, way more than it should, and for all the wrong reasons. I'm not going to tell the whole story right now--because I seem incapable of blogging a short story (see, for example, yesterday's overly long story about a micro dog bite). But friends and family will get a sense of why I'm wringing my hands over the book when I reveal that the neighbor who suggested it is my Tea Party/Trump Supporter/Conspiracy Theorist Neighbor, with whom I have a love-hate relationship.

Skimming the book led me to this article, which is also why my brain is so muddled right now.

A very small rant.

The Washington Post recently ran a short news item about the health benefits of fidgeting. This subject always interests me because I am, or at least I was, a very fidgety person. The headline ("Fidgeting might be good for your health, new study suggests") didn't exactly match the conclusions of the study; that didn't surprise me -- news, especially online news, frequently has bait-and-switch headlines. What did surprise and irritate me a bit was that the quote from the co-lead author of the study makes absolutely no sense to me. Maybe one of my readers can explain it to me. Here's the quote:

"While further research is needed, the findings raise questions about whether the negative associations with fidgeting, such as rudeness or lack of concentration, should persist if such simple movements are beneficial for our health," study co-lead Janet Cade of the University of Leeds said in a statement. 

What? I get the part about "negative associations," and it's probably true that all these years while I've been fidgeting I've been distracted and, more important, I've been rude to anyone nearby (sorry). But what does "...raise questions about whether the negative associations...should persist if such simple movements are beneficial for our health" mean? Is Dr. Cade saying that if fidgeting leads to better health, and therefore longer life, it should also lead to reduced rudeness and better concentration? That's the best I can do. Opinions?

Oh, one more thing. The Post article links to the study and gets the name of the journal wrong. They call it the American Journal of Preventative Medicine while the real name is the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. I've long hated the word "preventative" and I always edit out that errant "ta."

I guess I'm done. I'm going to stand up now and go fidget since that seems to be the only exercise I get these days. Unless complaining counts as exercise.

Giving up traditional shampoo. For no particular reason.

My hair with no shampoo for 7 weeks.

I'm trying a no-shampoo experiment. My last shampoo with a commercial hair product was August 15, 2014.

Here's my history so far:
Aug 16-24, beach vacation: washed hair with ocean water and tap water only.

Aug 25: 1st washing with baking soda solution (2 teaspoons baking soda diluted in 24 oz of water) followed by a vinegar solution rinse (2 teaspoons vinegar diluted in 24 oz of water).
Aug 26-Sept 1: washed with water, every 2nd or 3rd day.
Sept 2: 2nd washing with baking soda/vinegar (BS/V).
Sept 3-9:  washed with water only.
Sept 10: 3rd BS/V washing.
Sept 11-19: water only.
Sept 20: 4th BS/V washing.
Sept 21-27: water only.
Sept 28: 5th BS/V washing. (Added a rosemary water rinse--steep fresh rosemary in boiling water for 15 mins; cool down and rinse hair.)
Sept 29-Oct 4: water only.
Oct 5: 6th BS/V washing, followed by  a rosemary rinse.


This experiment came about without any planning or forethought. Being at the beach reminded me how much better my hair feels and curls up when I'm there. I always think it's the salt water. So by the end of Day 1 at the beach, when I took my first shower, I said "I'll just skip the shampoo." And for the rest of the week, I washed my hair with water only.

When we got home from the beach, I Googled "no shampoo hair wash" and realized that there's a lot written on the subject. A lot. Another blogger I follow, by pure chance, wrote about the no-shampoo method during the week I was at the beach (and offline). So that seemed like a sign from somewhere that I should try this out.

So far my hair feels good, although it didn't really feel bad before I started all this. I do think I notice that it never feels like it needs to be washed. It doesn't feel greasy or flat. It's keeping a curl, or wave actually, better than before. And I think the BS/V might be lightening it a bit because the gray doesn't show as much, and there's a lot of gray on that old head.

I have no faith in much of what I read online, pro or con, about this washing technique. For one thing, there's a lot of questionable chemistry in some of the arguments on either side. But giving up commercial shampoos is attractive to me. I'm suspicious enough to not trust shampoo manufacturers. Do we REALLY need to use those products? Are our scalps and hair dirty unless we use them? If I were religious, I'd ask myself "did Eve suffer because she didn't have L'Oreal to wash her hair with?"

I like the idea of not having to "recycle" the shampoo bottles. (Yeah, right, like plastic bottles truly get recycled; tell me another fairy tale. That's a rant for another day). I like the idea of not putting those chemicals on my body and down the drain into the water supply. I like saving a buck. I like experiments.

There are some scary videos out there about how using baking soda will make your hair fall out. I'm skeptical. Maybe people who put pure baking soda paste on their hair every day or two have problems, but those people are, sorry, stupid. On the other hand, I'm only 7 weeks into this and I may be bald in a month.

True Detective.

 

I want one of those Lone Star beer can men. He's made about five so far.

 

I like both Rust Cohles. The older one and the younger one. The HBO show True Detective is addictive and just weird enough to have pulled me in. And not quite as violent as other series on TV. Disturbing, but not terribly violent.

In Sunday's fifth episode the screenwriter Nic Pizzolatto has Rust spout string theory. At least that's what a couple of other viewers have suggested on Slate.com -- see below. And this! Well this is just hilarious.

Calabi–Yau manifold (3D projection). From Wikipedia.
 



A 2D slice of the 6D Calabi-Yau quintic manifold. From Wikipedia.

 

 

From the Slate article:

I did think Rust’s speechifying this episode—especially as compared to the early episodes—was starting to feel a little far out and pretentious in a nonsensical way. Membrane theory, schmembrane theory.

Haglund: Membrane theory (or M-theory) is presumably an example of the “legitimate scientific and philosophical thought” that Pizzolatto is very fond of. (Update, 4:55 p.m.: In the comments, Dan Schiller notes that Cohle is probably saying “M-brane,” rather than membrane. Brane is short for membrane; both terms are connected with string theory.) Pizzolatto has defended Cohle’s speechifying from charges that it’s just dorm-room bullshit. Me, I love listening to McConaughey talk...

"Microbes: The Trillions of Creatures Governing Your Health"

Wow! I just heard an interview with Richard Conniff, author of "Microbes: The Trillions of Creatures Governing Your Health," and now will read the article from start to finish. Anyone who takes a lot of antibiotics should read it too. Article is here.  From the latest issue of Smithsonian magazine. Long Live Magazines!

Illustration by Stephanie Dalton Cowan (Smithsonian magazine, May 2013).

PS: Toss out that Purell while you're at it. I always thought that was such a corporate rip-off anyway.