Wednesday, December 17, 2014


Bill Nye was best known for hosting the science program “Bill Nye the Science Guy.” The funny thing about Nye is that he’s not a Ph.D.-credentialed scientist. He has a number of honorary Doctor of Science degrees. In 2010, Nye received the 2010 Humanist of the Year Award from the American Humanist Association.
Nye enhanced his public notoriety by debating Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis on February 4, 2014.
Since then, Nye has been saying some rather ridiculous things about people who are skeptical of molecule to man evolution. Here’s his latest:
“The biggest danger creationism plays, according to Bill Nye the ‘Science Guy,’ is that it is raising a generation of children who ‘can't think’ and who ‘will not be able to participate in the future in same way’ as those who are taught evolution.”
Prior to the Nye-Ham debate, I suggested the following strategy for Ken Ham to take with Nye. Unfortunately, he did not take my advice. Here’s what I wrote:
“Evolutionists must demonstrate (1) the origin of matter out of nothing (a topic they rarely want to talk about), (2) how inorganic matter evolved into organic matter (abiogenesis, life from non-life, spontaneous generation which was disproved more than 150 years ago), (3) the origin of complex information and its meaningful organization (DNA programming for millions of life forms), and (4) a genetic explanation for why it is mandatory that anyone be moral or how morality can arise out of matter. If these four points cannot be demonstrated scientifically as well as observationally, then evolution is nothing more than a modern-day form of alchemy.”
What does Nye mean when he says that the tens of millions of people who are skeptical about the claims of evolutionist won’t be able “to participate in the future in same way”? Is he trying to say that laws will be passed to keep skeptics of evolution out of certain jobs? Will he and his fellow evolutionists work to make it mandatory for colleges only to allow full-fledged evolutionists to attend?
Will people who deny the theory of evolution be denied teaching positions at the university level? You may not know that this is already happening. Ph.D.-holding professors have been denied tenure because of their creationist or intelligent design beliefs. A professor who even hints that he’s a creationist of any type will come under suspicion.
Is Nye saying that someone who denies evolution can’t be an engineer, medical doctor, surgeon, chemist, pilot, musician, computer programmer, or graphic artist designer?
The thing of it is, I know people in each of these fields, and they are all creationists. In fact, it’s the creationists who are more rational and scientific than the evolutionists. In each of these fields the four points I listed above operate. No one expects life to generate from non-life. No one believes that complicated systems like computer programs will run without organized information.
It’s evolutionists like Nye who are irrational and ideologically schizophrenic.  They live inconsistently with their operating assumptions in a world that can’t be explained by the major tenets of evolution.
I’ve been reading Ed Catmull’s book Creativity, Inc. Catmull is president of Pixar animation and Disney animation. I don’t know where he stands on the creation-evolution debate. He holds a Ph.D. in computer science. Catmull, with training in physics, describes how watching Donald Duck being drawn and coming to life in the 1956 Disney feature "Where Do the Stories Come From?" shaped his desire to enter the animation field:

“The definition of superb animation is that each character on the screen makes you believe it is a thinking being. Whether it’s a T-Rex or a slinky dog or a desk lamp, if viewers sense not just movement but intention—or, put another way, emotion—then the animator has done his or her job. It’s not just lines on paper anymore; it’s a living, feeling entity. This is what I experienced that night, for the first time, as I watched Donald leap off the page. The transformation from a static line drawing to a fully dimensional, animated image was sleight of hand, nothing more, but the mystery of how it was done—not just the technical process but the way the art was imbued with such emotion—was the most interesting problem I’d ever considered. I wanted to climb through the TV screen and be part of this world” (8-9).
This descriptive story explains a great deal about the creation-evolution debate.  Donald Duck didn’t just appear on paper. Lines did not converge to create him. An animator— designer—had to conceive and draw him and put him in motion. As simple as an animated feature is to conceive and create, it’s a complicated process, but not as complicated as claiming that nothing became something and that something evolved into the animator that conceived and put “emotion” into Donald Duck.


Wednesday, December 10, 2014

Liberal Propaganda & the War on Truth

“In war, truth is the first casualty.”  —Aeschylus
Obama's War on the Truth
Obama’s War on Truth is part of an organized plan to make people believe that the world is spinning out of control and that more government is required to bring order and safety.  For example, making the American public—the same broad-minded, tolerant people that elected a black president twice—believe that America is a racist nation that requires the obliteration of their freedom, in order to ensure their safety.  To get permission to do this, the Obama Administration must endeavor to scare the public into giving the state more power.
Michael Brown Never Surrendered & Never Said, “Don’t Shoot!”
The facts testified to, before the grand jury in Ferguson, Missouri, with respect to Officer Darren Wilson’s use of deadly force against Michael Brown, indicate that there was no wrongful death perpetrated against Mr. Brown.  Even black witnesses testified that Michael Brown never did raise his hands, never did utter the words “Don’t shoot,” and actually did try to take Officer Wilson’s gun.
Brown backed off only briefly, after the officer’s weapon discharged inside the police car.  And it was only after Brown began charging the officer with his head down that Wilson finally opened fire to protect himself from bodily harm, hospitalization, or death.  The liberal media world knows these facts, but they do not report them.  They choose, instead, to lie.
A High-Tech Lynching for the Police
truthThe liberal media, in collusion with the Congressional Black Caucus, have worked together as an Orwellian Ministry of Truth for President Obama and his lieutenants, Eric Holder and Al Sharpton, to turn fiction into fact, making lies appear to be the truth within their world of racially-charged propaganda reporting.  To paraphrase Clarence Thomas, from his Supreme Court confirmation hearing, they have perpetrated a high-tech lynching for the police.
Many low-information Americans have, as a result of the relentless propaganda onslaught, bought into the false narrative.  As proof of this, we have the acting out of Saint Louis Rams football players during an NFL game.  We also have every member of the Congressional Black Caucus who was called on during the course of business in the House of Representatives, December 2nd, raising their hands and saying, “hands up, don’t shoot!” before taking their turns to speak.
Thomas Sowell Weighs In
African-American economist Thomas Sowell, on the evening of December 2nd, said that the “hands up, don’t shoot” propaganda slogan, adopted by the Congressional Black Caucus, reminds him of the Big Lie Doctrine so aggressively pursued by Adolf Hitler’s propagandist-in-chief, Joseph Goebbels.
Dr. Sowell was queried by Sean Hannity with regard to the subject of the CBC’s doubling down on the “hands up, don’t shoot” fiction on Hannity’s television show on the Fox News Channel: “Why are members of Congress repeating something that they know is not true?”
“Oh, for political reasons,” replied Dr. Sowell, further adding, “I thought of Joseph Goebbels’ doctrine: People will believe any lie if it’s repeated often enough and loud enough.  They’re repeating it often enough and loud enough.  And it will pay off for them personally and politically.  People who are out to forward their political careers say and do things that have no relationship whatever to reality or to anybody else’s interests but their own.”
Obama’s Ministry of Truth: America’s Liberal Media
truth_is_the_new_hate_speechIn George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, the main character Winston Smith works at the Ministry of Truth.  It is a gigantic pyramid, upon which are written these slogans: WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.  Within the walls of the ministry, documents are being perpetually destroyed by being put down memory holes.
The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, the entertainment industry, and educational publishing.  Its purpose is to constantly rewrite history, in much the same way the American liberal media are doing today.  For example, the liberal media have recently announced Eric Holder’s policy to end racial profiling in America.  (But, truth be told, President Bush ended profiling after 9-11, in order to ensure that no unfair profiling of American Muslims would ensue in its aftermath.)
Liberal media are rewriting history, slowly but surely.  Perhaps, one day, in collusion with a leftist government, they will begin to wipe their web sites clean of any accounts that make conservatives look good or liberals look wrong.  In Orwell’s totalitarian vision of the future, if the government predicts something, and the opposite occurs, the Ministry of Truth rewrites history, changing the prediction to match current reality and republishing entire newspapers, to replace the old copies with corrected ones in their records department.  These activities are ongoing, of course.  Any news based on current events is always more propaganda-laden than fact-bearing.
Departments of the Ministry of Truth
The following departments of the ministry are mentioned in Orwell’s book: 1) the Records Department, 2) the Fiction Department, 3) the Pornography Department, and 4) the Tele-programmes Department.  A curious fact about the Ministry of Truth is that no minister is ever mentioned who actually runs the department (much the same way no Obama secretary actually runs any department of Obama’s executive branch; they are all just figureheads with no real power whose departments are run out of the White House).
The Obama Fiction Department does actually exist as a cabal of workers in the White House who are constantly doctoring information that is fed to the liberal media.  Many observant viewers of the liberal propaganda that passes for “news reporting” these days have noticed how every “news” program uses exactly the same nomenclature for any given event.  For example, every single media outlet now refers to the hold used on Eric Garner as a “chokehold,” although he was never really choked; he, in fact, had asthma, and that is what caused his breathing difficulties—not a “chokehold.”  The use of this “chokehold” lie is uniform throughout the leftwing media, whether one be reading the New York Times or watching the NBC Nightly News.
There is not a Pornography Department, per se, but Obama makes up for this by having approved the universal use of government-issued EBT (electronic bank transfer) cards, choosing not to restrict them to legitimate food items in grocery stores, as food stamps once were.  As a result, people on welfare have actually been known to buy porn with government-issued EBT cards.
There is no formal Tele-programmes  Department, either, but conservatives in America have found TV programming less and less entertaining, as liberal messages in the scripts are being forced on viewers.  Most TV shows have references to global warming (despite the founder of the Weather Channel's debunking of this propaganda, pointing out that the planet has been cooling for the last fifteen years and that the polar ice caps have grown 50% in the last five years), or depict gun owners as crazy and irresponsible, or perpetuate other left-leaning notions.  Also, it seems that the hero police officer is always the one who breaks a Constitutional rule (generally referred to as a “technicality”) in order to catch the bad guy, sowing the seeds of resentment with respect to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The Wholesale Discrediting of the Liberal Media
Americans are smarter than the liberal media think.  All Americans have to do is to look around themselves to know that racism is not a big problem anymore in America.  Our places of work, our grocery stores, our public parks, and our concert halls are all filled with a healthy cross-section of the American public.  And it is far from commonplace to see anybody being denigrated or devalued, due to race.
The liberal media can choose to push their narrative that America is still hopelessly racist, but most people are onto them.  And more and more Americans are simply tuning them out.

Paul Dowling, EdD, grew up in Baytown, Texas, where he learned to value family, friends, and freedom. He earned a BA in Linguistics and an MA in German from the University of Texas at Austin, and then went on to an MA in English and an EdD in Curriculum & Instruction at the University of Houston. A public school teacher for 10 years in Texas and 15 years in California, Paul currently lives in the San Fernando Valley, where he is a job developer who helps special education students procure their first job experiences. Paul is a sponsor of a Constitution Club at his high school. Paul enjoys making political speeches and writing articles for his blog He can be contacted

Saturday, December 6, 2014

What the Constitution Says about Money & how the Federal Reserve Devalues Money

Tim Brown
Former Texas Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul awakened a generation to the scheme of the Federal Reserve and the role they play in the nation’s economy. In 2012, he told then Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke that though the Fed was claiming there is only a 2% inflation increase, that the reality was more like 9%. Paul even taunted Bernanke by asking if he purchased his own groceries at the store and was aware of the prices being paid. Mr. Bernanke did say that he purchased his own groceries. However, more to the point, Paul addressed the fact that the fiat money that the Fed produces is unconstitutional. So let’s take a moment to address the Constitutional issue.

The Constitution explicitly says:

Article I Section 10
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
Now, the Constitution is not just a list of what the federal government cannot do nor is it a list of prohibitions on the federal government.

The Constitution is a list of what the federal government is authorized to do, with all else being denied to it by default and reverting back to the states. The absence of specific constitutional authorization for anything means that the federal government is denied authorization by default.

How do I know this? Well, the Constitution gives us that as well.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The Constitution also says who is to coin money. That responsibility lies with Congress.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 5
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
So there are several things that we can derive from the simply language of the Constitution here:

  • The federal government (The Congress) is authorized to coin money.
  • States are not authorized to coin money.
  • States are authorized in determining what can be used as a tender in payment of debts. States are then prohibited by the Constitution from making anything but gold or silver coin a tender in payment of debts.
All of this is very important in dealing with fiat currencies, which are not authorized in the Constitution.

During Paul’s questioning of Bernanke, he pulled out a silver coin from his pocket and deliver the following statement to show the value of the metal increasing over the previous 5 years versus the decline of the current fiat system.

“I have a silver ounce here, and this ounce of silver back in 2006 would buy over 4 gallons of gasoline. Today it’ll buy almost 11 gallons of gasoline,” he said. “That’s preservation of value and that’s what the market has always said should be money. Money comes into effect in a natural way, not in a edict, not by fiat, by governments declaring it is money.”

“The record of what you’ve done in the last six years is destroy the value of real money.” he added.

America has a problem with debt, something the founders warned us about. She also has a problem with fiat money and she also has a problem with following the Constitution, but all these things can be summed up in the fact that she is not obeying God which is the chief cornerstone of America. If we will return to God, then He will restore us as we once were.

Wednesday, December 3, 2014

20 rules for winning gun fights

If you opt to carry or own a gun for self protection, you should already know that there may be times that you’ll have to make difficult decisions. Well, here are a few thoughts to keep in mind for tactical shooters that will help you make the right ones:

1. Be prepared to use deadly force.

This emotional, mental and psychological decision must be made long before the incident arrives. You may have to shoot a man, a woman, pregnant lady or a teenager. Think about it before the time arrives.  Be prepared to stop a co-worker, a neighbor, a teammate, friend or even a relative.  You may have to physically hurt or kill someone that you know or someone you’ve talked with or like or someone you think you know well.

2.  Have plan to kill everyone you meet.

This old military adage still holds true: if you have prepared for every possibility, you’ll be able to act or react quicker.  In gun fights, speed saves.

3.  Action is faster than reaction.

If someone’s pointing a gun at you, you must act fast. He can pull the trigger anytime he wants to and you’ll be DRT – dead right there. Never – ever – get involved in a so-called Mexican standoff where two people just stand there and point guns at each other.  Save that for Hollywood because in real life, if you do that, you could lose with disastrous results.

4. Have a positive ID on the threat/target, then shoot.

Be absolutely sure of your target before pulling the trigger.  If you’re too quick on the trigger, you might shoot the wrong person at the wrong time.

5. Shoot from behind cover, if available.

Know the difference between cover and concealment.  Get to hard cover – and stay there until the threat stops.  Of course, shoot from behind cover and move only if you are gaining a tactical advantage without sacrificing your own safety.
gun fight stance rule
All in good fun… but there is nothing “fun” about self-defense.

6. Shoot on the move.  Shoot then move.  Move then shoot.

Practice all of these. Static shooting will get you killed.  Save that for target shooting and plinking.

7. Don’t turn your back on the threat.

If you need to retreat do so, but don’t turn your back, if possible.

8. Keep your eyes on the threat.

You’re eyes are key in battle.  Protect your eyes, and keep your head on a swivel.

9. Don’t hesitate.

Hesitation kills. Hesitation is your enemy–but so is shooting too fast.

10. Never give up your weapon.

If someone other than a police officer tells you to drop your gun or give up your gun, don’t.  Be prepared to use it.  If you give up your gun, you could die.

11. Shoot center mass.

It’s the largest area on the body. Save shooting the gun out of someone’s hand for the movies.  Don’t shoot the leg or the shoulder, shoot center mass.  The next best target is the head and then the pelvis, but first shoot center mass.

12. Know your ballistics and how it pertains to wound penetration.

If you’re justified to shoot, realize that the attacker might continue even after one or two shots, so keep shooting until the threat has stopped.  If you want some insight into this, plan a visit with an ER doctor in a big, violent city.

13. Shoot until the threat stops.

Forget the two-shots and stop drill. Try a six-shot rhythm drill on the target’s chest.
shooting center mass
Shooting center mass (and training to shoot center mass) is the most advised way to stop a threat.

14. Have a self aid/buddy aid medical kit handy.

You’ll need it when you least expect it.

15. Don’t give up space you’ve already taken when clearing a room.

You’ll just have to re-clear that area again.

16. It’s okay to retreat.

Confidence wins fights but bravado has injured and killed many people.

17. Don’t be a wuss.

You can be scared (should be scared even), but you must act anyway.  Acting in the face of fear is called courage and its what is needed in gun fights.

18. Be aggressive.

Violence of action is your friend, as long as it is controlled.  Be tactically smart, but aggressive in movement and attitude.  Call it what you will, but in the end, more violence wins.

19. Know and be confident in your weapon disarming techniques.

Realize additionally that criminals, crazies and kooks can learn weapon disarming techniques just as well as you can. Also, be careful where you learn these techniques as some less advisable ones will get you killed.

20. Train hard.

Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower once said, “Training in all its phases must be intensive.”  The harder you train, the more you’ll begin to conquer your own inner weaknesses and the more confidence you’ll gain.
Until next time continue to hone your skills and keep adding to your tactical toolbox.
The views and opinions expressed in this editorial are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of

Friday, November 14, 2014

3 Charts About Income Inequality, Transfers, and Taxes

Between 1979 and 2011, CBO estimates, inflation-adjusted after-tax income for the top 1 percent increased 200 percent. For the rest of the top income quintile, the figure was 67 percent and for the three middle quintiles, inflation-adjusted after-tax income was 40 percent higher. For folks in the bottom income quintile, inflation-adjusted after-tax income was 48 percent greater.
Quintile analysis of course is a series of snapshots that don't capture mobility between income quintiles; we'll get to that in a moment.
Here's a breakdown of income quintiles, pre- and post-tax and transfers, in 2011:
"Transfers" include "cash payments and in-kind benefits from social insurance and other government assistance programs. Those transfers include payments and benefits from federal, state, and local governments." What should be surprising is that even households in the top 20 percent of income pull down $11,000 on average in transfers even as they pay 23 percent in federal taxes on before-tax income.
Here's how different quintiles saw income grow.
While all groups saw increases, the middle-three quintiles gained less (40 percent each on average) than any other group.
Between 1979 and 2011, the Gini Index, a measure of income inequality, increased whether talking about pre-tax or post-tax income. In terms of straight "market income" (a measure of all income from all non-transfer sources), it increased from below 0.5 to 0.59. Based on before-tax income, it went from 0.4 to 0.47. And for after-tax income, it went from around 0.36 to 0.44.
CBO notes that federal tax and transfer policy reduced the increase in after-tax inequality by 26 percent from what it would have been otherwise, with the majority coming from transfers, not taxes. That's despite the aggressive—if often unacknowledged—progressivity of the U.S. tax system, which is far more progressive than systems of other developed countries. As Veronique de Rugy has pointed out in Reason and elsewhere, European countries typically charge more of their residents more taxes at all levels, especially in the form of value-added taxes (on the flip side, those countries typically give more straight transfers to citizens too). The U.S. system, argues de Rugy, hides many of its costs because "it disproportionately relies on the top earners to raise revenue, it exempts a large class of taxpayers from paying any income taxes, and it conceals spending in the form of tax breaks." A more transparent system might have lower marginal rates but fewer if any exemptions.
So, does increased income inequality reduce economic mobility? Intelligence Squared recently hosted a debate on the issue, featuring the Manhattan Institute's Scott Winship, whose work is often cited here. The entire debate is worth a listen but Winship's main point is that income mobility—the ability for an individual or particular household—to move up or down the income ladder is unrelated to whether the rungs of the ladder are being more widely spread out. Winship is a critic of mobility rates—he thinks they are too low—but he persuasively documents that those rates haven't changed over the past 30-plus years even as income inequality has increased. Read some his reasons here.

Nick Gillespie is the editor in chief of and Reason TV and the co-author of The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong With America, just out in paperback.

Tuesday, November 11, 2014

Walking More May Be Key for a Longer, Healthier Life

By Dr. Mercola
The more time you spend sitting, the shorter and less healthy your life will tend to be—that’s the new consensus among researchers. Even the World Health Organization (WHO) now lists inactivity as the fourth biggest killer of adults worldwide, responsible for nine percent of premature deaths.1
In fact, the medical literature now contains over 10,000 studies showing that frequent, prolonged sitting—at work, commuting, and watching TV at night—significantly impacts your cardiovascular and metabolic function.
For example, one 2012 meta-analysis2 found that those who sat for the longest periods of time on a daily basis were twice as likely to have diabetes or heart disease, compared to those who sat the least.
Of great importance is the finding that prolonged sitting is an independent risk factor for poor health and early death; studies have shown these risks apply even if you’re very fit and maintain a regular workout schedule.
Why Gym Rats Aren’t Exempt
The problem is that an hour of exercise here and there, even if it’s vigorous, cannot counteract the harm incurred during the hours you’re sitting still. For example, one recent study3 found that six hours of uninterrupted sitting effectively counteracted the positive health benefits of a whole hour of exercise.
Basically, this means that even if you spend two to three hours in the gym each week, if you have a full-time sit-down job, many of those exercise benefits are simply evaporated.
I think it’s quite clear that you need both intense exercise, and daily intermittent or non-exercise movement in order to optimize your health and prolong your life. It’s not a matter of choosing one over the other. You really do need both.
As for intermittent movement, the key, experts say, is to avoid sitting for more than 50 minutes out of each hour. Ideally, you’d want to sit for a maximum of about three hours a day—a far cry from today’s norm.
The average American office worker can sit for 13 to 15 hours a day! This means that most people need to figure out how to get out of their chair for several hours each day.
One Hour of Sitting Can Cut Arterial Blood Flow in Half
According to David Dunstan with the Baker IDI Heart & Diabetes Institute in Melbourne, Australia, the lack of muscle contraction caused by sitting decreases blood flow through your body, thereby reducing the efficiency of biological processes.
“In addition to engaging in regular health enhancing exercise, people should be encouraged to also think what they do during the long periods in the day in which they are not exercising,” he says.4
One of the most recent studies56 in this field found that just one hour of sitting impaired blood flow to the main leg artery by as much as 50 percent! On the upside, simply taking a five minute walk for every hour spent sitting was found to ameliorate the heart disease risks associated with chronic sitting.
Although benefits were shown after just a five minute walk in this study, Dr. James Levineco-director of Obesity Solutions at Mayo Clinic in Phoenix and Arizona State University, recommends getting at least 10 minutes of movement for every hour you sit down.
As explained by Dr. Levine, when you have been sitting for a long period of time and then get up, at a molecular level, within 90 seconds of getting off your bottom, the muscular and cellular systems that process blood sugar, triglycerides, and cholesterol—which are mediated by insulin—are activated.
As soon as you stand up, a series of molecular mechanisms at the cell level set off a cascade of activities that impact the cellular functioning of your muscles. The way your body handles blood sugar is beneficially impacted, for example. Therefore, the disease prevention for diabetes comes into play.
Get Up and Walk at Least Once Every Hour
All of these molecular effects are activated simply by weight-bearing; by carrying your bodyweight upon your legs. Those cellular mechanisms are also responsible for pushing fuels into your cells.
Dr. Joan Vernikos,7 former director of NASA’s Life Sciences Division and author of Sitting Kills, Moving Heals, is another expert who has done much to educate us on the hazards of sitting.
In my previous interview with her, she revealed the dynamics involved. In essence, sitting prevents your body from interacting with and exerting itself against gravity. While not nearly as severe as the antigravity experienced by astronauts, uninterrupted sitting mimics a microgravity situation, which has the effect of accelerating the aging process.
Physical movements, such as standing up or bending down, increase the force of gravity on your body, and this is key to counteracting the cellular degeneration that occurs when you’re sitting down. Based on Dr. Vernikos’ research, I started recommending standing up and doing some exercises at your desk every 10-15 minutes, but after discussing the issue with Dr. Levine and reading his book, Get Up!: Why Your Chair Is Killing You and What You Can Do About It, I’m convinced that’s not even enough…
I really think the answer is to stand up as much as possible. Walking for five minutes every hour you sit is really the bare bones minimum; it’s still far from ideal. It would seem far wiser to strive to sit as little as possible, ideally less than three hours a day.
Walking Is ‘Good Medicine’
Many researchers are now starting to reemphasize the importance of walking. According to Katy Bowman,8 a scientist and author of the book: Move Your DNA: Restore Your Health Through Natural Movement:
 “Walking is a superfood. It’s the defining movement of a human. It’s a lot easier to get movement than it is to get exercise. Actively sedentary is a new category of people who are fit for one hour but sitting around the rest of the day. You can’t offset 10 hours of stillness with one hour of exercise.”
I believe high intensity exercises are an important part of a healthy lifestyle, but considering the fact that more than half of American men, and 60 percent of American women, never engage in any vigorous physical activity lasting more than 10 minutes per week,9 it’s clear that most people need to begin by simply getting more non-exercise movement into their daily routine.
The elderly and those struggling with chronic disease that prevents them from engaging in more strenuous fitness regimens would also do well to consider moving around more. While walking is often underestimated, studies show you can reap significant health benefits from it.
For example, one recent study1011 found that walking for two miles a day or more can cut your chances of hospitalization from a severe episode of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) by about half. Another study12 published last year found that daily walking reduced the risk of stroke in men over the age of 60. Walking for at least an hour or two could cut a man’s stroke risk by as much as one-third, and it didn’t matter how brisk the pace was. Taking a three-hour long walk each day slashed the risk by two-thirds.
How to Get More Movement into Your Day
I recommend using a pedometer, or better yet, one of the newer fitness trackers that can also give you feedback on your sleeping patterns, which is another important aspect of good health. I use the Jawbone UP24, which is one of the best ones out now, but far better ones will be available in the near future. For example, the MisFit13 is a new fitness tracker that tracks your steps and your sleep and is only $50.It looks like a watch but does not tell time.
At first, you may be surprised to realize just how little you move each day. Setting a goal of say 7-10,000 steps a day (which is just over three to five miles, or 6-9 kilometers) can go a long way toward getting more movement into your life. I personally am doing about 14,000-15,000 steps a day. The only way I can get this many steps in is to walk for 90 minutes, which I do barefoot on the beach. Tracking your steps can also show you how simple and seemingly minor changes to the way you move around at work can add up. For example, you can:
  • Walk across the hall to talk to a coworker instead of sending an email
  • Take the stairs instead of the elevator
  • Park your car further away from the entrance
  • Take a longer, roundabout way to your desk
Other simple ways to increase your physical movement and avoid sitting down at work include:
  • Organize the layout of your office space in such a way that you have to stand up to reach oft-used files, the telephone, or your printer, rather than having everything within easy reach.
  • Use an exercise ball for a chair. Unlike sitting in a chair, sitting on an exercise ball engages your core muscles and helps improve balance and flexibility. Occasional bouncing can also help your body interact with gravity to a greater degree than sitting on a stationary chair. But this is a concession and it is still sitting, so standing would be a better option.
  • Alternatively, use an upright wooden chair with no armrest, which will force you to sit up straight, and encourage shifting your body more frequently than a cushy office chair.
  • Set a timer to remind you to stand up and move about for at least 10 minutes each hour. You can either walk, stand, or take the opportunity to do a few simple exercises by your desk. For an extensive list of videos demonstrating such exercises, please see my previous article, “Intermittent Movement Benefits Your Health. Here’s How to Get More of It into Your Work Day
  • Use a standing workstation. For a demonstration on proper posture, whether you’re sitting or using a standing workstation, check out Kelly Starrett’s video in this previous article.
Intense Exercise and Intermittent Movement = A Winning Health and Fitness Combination
I’ve been passionate about exercising for nearly 50 years now and have been very fit for most of my life. But I still modify my exercise program based on new information. Several years ago, Phil Campbell helped me understand the importance of high intensity exercise and its value in increasing growth hormone. Then Dr. McGuff helped me understand how Super Slow weight training might be an even more superior form of high intensity training, compared to high intensity cardio.
Now I’ve made another important modification, and that is to sit as little as possible. I now strive to sit less than an hour a day. Remarkably, it wasn’t until I began to really limit my sitting that my chronic back pain disappeared. I had previously tried six different chiropractors, posture exercises, Foundation Training, ab work, inversion tables, standing up every 15 minutes to stretch, and strength training. But nothing would touch it—until I radically reduced my sitting. For the last few months, I have limited my sitting to under an hour a day except when travelling on a plane.
I want to stress that walking 7,000-10,000 steps is in addition to, not in place of, your normal exercise program. (It’s even better if you can walk barefoot so you can get grounded, and better yet, if you can walk on the beach by the ocean.) I really believe the combination of high intensity training with non-exercise activities like walking 10,000 steps a day, along with avoiding sitting whenever possible, is the key to being truly fit and enjoying a pain-free life.
Sources and References

The State of Progressive America