Gyroscopic Investing

since we seem to have a pretty good split between those who analyze every minute detail of almost every aspect of their body and what they do with it, from food intake, medical tests, blood sugar, workout routines, to tooth brushing, etc. and people who benefit from the  wisdom and experience of the obsessive but take a more or less = close enough approach to their body and what they do with it, i am curious what people think.

to me it seems like the deep analysis and consent monitoring breeds a level of sensitivity that sounds almost painful  [exaggeration]- the bun i ate for lunch had three extra sesame seeds on it and my earlobes felt itchy and swollen for the rest of the day - i added two extra reps to my work out and my heart beat was thumping at a horrific extra two beats per minute. [/exaggeration]
i personally try to maintain some reasonably healthy habits (often based on things i have been turned on to here, by those who monitor everything and link to interesting research) 
but i don't notice any physical differences at all unless i swing waaay out of my normal (and fairly wide) range.

the phenomena of being extra sensitive seems to be a common result in a wide variety of enthusiasts groups whether its vegans discussing the brand of tofu or bullet proofers discussing types of coffee.

so is being or becoming that attuned/sensitive an advantage or a limitation?

If you have gut problems (e.g. I gather KResser was very sick) doing whatever you need to is very practical and I don't think people would consider it excessive.  Similarly if you have health issues doing what is necessary is appropriate.

MGs dental regime (one he posted/linked to) is complex, but has made a big difference in my dental health and preventing dental/periodental problems is important since gum disease causes inflammation which can be linked to/cause other medical illnesses including heart disease.

One can follow whatever health rules one thinks are appropriate 80% of the time and cheat 10-20% of the time and be fine for most healthy people.  Perhaps eating corectly 100%  will give some marginal benefits, perhaps not.

And yes, people do get carried away with things whether birdwatching, stockmarket watching, or the details of diets.

I think that people who ignore what they eat, supplement with, and what their body tells them are doing so at their own peril, which is their absolute right.

being obsessive or at least strict when it comes to health issues and illness is perfectly reasonable, but i suspect with analyzing what you eat, supplement with, and what your body tells you, there is a point where the returns diminish or even go negative.. living in some "perfect state" is less than perfect, if when if you expose yourself to something reasonably normal and it makes you ill or feel ill..  i would wonder if the feeling is at least in part psychosomatic, but building real sensitivity seems possible as well.
 
a related treatment for anaphylactic  peanut allergies that involves exposure to minute doses of peanuts slowly increased over a period of time till the allergy is cured. might be an opposite corollary of what i am wondering about..

I tend toward "moderation in all things" (food, drink, exercise, and the like) and try to stay away from things that seem to be a problem for me at very low levels, e.g. poison ivy (really bad rash/blisters), aspirin (heavy nose bleed), sunscreen (bad rash) and also stay away from things with very good documented evidence of harmful effects (tobacco).  I do try to focus on prevention more than cure when practical but I do not obsess over much.  Since I'm an engineer (vs. a chemist, physicist, or accountant), I tend toward the practical (good enough) vs. the theoretical (absolutely as precise as possible). 

... Mountaineer

l82start wrote: living in some "perfect state" is less than perfect, if when if you expose yourself to something reasonably normal and it makes you ill or feel ill..  i would wonder if the feeling is at least in part psychosomatic, but building real sensitivity seems possible as well.

Works for people with celiac disease.  Who is to say that other people don't need to avoid things forever.  Which is not to say that there is some of what you are talking about going on in some cases.

Had the same thoughts reading through the "Permanent" regimes at the top of the forum.

Wondering why they are even there, as though occupying the same place in health as the Permanent Portfolio does in finance.

I think not though I could be wrong.

An examined life.

Many of us who have been influenced by Harry Browne's writings also fall into the category of Plato's quote "An unexamined life is not worth living".

There isn't any truth in the minutiae.  But there is great value in examining it.

I'm of the school of thought that says that you can't arrive at a simple "good enough" answer to anything without first becoming an expert. You need those details so you can fine-tune your conclusion into something simple, actionable, and effective.

Pointedstick wrote: I'm of the school of thought that says that you can't arrive at a simple "good enough" answer to anything without first becoming an expert. You need those details so you can fine-tune your conclusion into something simple, actionable, and effective.

Yes. 

Simplicity in the long run but you have to earn that by wading through the complexity. 

Pointedstick wrote: I'm of the school of thought that says that you can't arrive at a simple "good enough" answer to anything without first becoming an expert. You need those details so you can fine-tune your conclusion into something simple, actionable, and effective.

Sounds like a reasonable simple "good enough" opinion.  A few followup questions to flesh this out:  By whose standards does one become an expert; is an expert something internal, i.e. self-proclaimed by ones own standards, or is there an external standard one must meet to satisfy others?  What are the objective criteria to become an expert and whose "data" does one use in cases of conflicting or unprovable data?  Who decides if the conclusion is simple, actionable, and effective - the one(s) the conclusion impacts?  Others?  If others, why?  Is one only an expert if a majority declares it so, or is there a final judge?  Can one be an expert without being able to prove it to another soul?  My point (opinion): all things cannot be established beyond a shadow of doubt but those same things can be true, even if expressed poorly; they can simply be "good enough" if objective, not subjective, truth is used - and it ultimately matters little if no other living human agrees.  Yes?  No?  Maybe?  It depends?

... Mountaineer

Benko wrote: MGs dental regime (one he posted/linked to) is complex, but has made a big difference in my dental health and preventing dental/periodental problems is important since gum disease causes inflammation which can be linked to/cause other medical illnesses including heart disease.

Change isn't easy.  I just wanted to point out it took me a full 1.5 years to stop psychologically fighting that routine.  Now I can do it while thinking of other things and am surprised sometimes when the 1 mins or 2 mins is up.  Sometimes I still get a little wee bit impatient but nowhere was bad as during the first 1.5 years.

Reub wrote: I think that people who ignore what they eat, supplement with, and what their body tells them are doing so at their own peril, which is their absolute right.

Dayum, why you... you libertarian!

I actually am less libertarian about this aspect than I used to be.  If just because neither the left or right ideologies just don't work out in the real world as theory says they should.  So yeah, I'm in favor of patriarchy in certain things now.  Lots of people are stooopid and simply do not know what is in their own bests interests especially when confoooosed by marketing fiction.  Now if the Millenials actually engender a social change to Conscious Capitalism where more than just making a profit to the shareholders (or nowadays, the C suite executives), then I will relent.

madbean wrote: Had the same thoughts reading through the "Permanent" regimes at the top of the forum.

Wondering why they are even there, as though occupying the same place in health as the Permanent Portfolio does in finance.

I think not though I could be wrong.

Mainly because it pushes the envelope in terms of thinking as the PP itself does.  But also because its a way towards a brighter future in terms of being relatively better off than everyone else.  Its like that old saying about outrunning a bear: You don't have to be faster than the bear, just faster than the person next to you!  To channel Reub, if people want to be irrational in their health but not in their finances, that's their choice.  But its certainly seems logical to me to extend the PP principles into other spheres.  The PP's aim is to get irrationality out of the investment process, because that is what causes losses.  My point is to apply those same principles to optimal health.

I think people (especially all you dayum old people!) tend to forgot that all of life is a constant competition.  The most adaptive and the most sexually selected are the winners.  If you don't play and don't stay ahead of the masses, you will almost certainly lose.  You can define "lose" in quite a variety of ways but one thing that is more important than even money is your health (and even more imporant than those two is time, but I digress).  If you want to be a frail, sarcopenic, fat, multiple-organ-disease prone piece of Swiss cheese by the time you're 45 like the woman in TN who can't get Medicaid because Republicans fobbed off the signup responsibility to the Feds who bungled it, simply do nothing.  Self-responsibilty is the only true power you really have.  I believe there is an inverse correlation between looking outside onself for a self-affirming source of authority vs taking self-ownership responsibility for your mind, your body and your life.

Benko wrote: Simplicity in the long run but you have to earn that by wading through the complexity.

But that's largely beause you can't trust any single authority, especially ones that are licensed, shout the loudest or that you have a personal relationship with.  Moderation implies listening to a diversity of opinions from multiple non-correlated sources and developing a composite.  Critical thinking is not taught in high school or college, otherwise it would be very bad for business.  And America is all about being in business.

There's a saying in air traffic control that "to gain control, first one must lose control". I'm saying that it doesn't have to be that way with one's health.