Changing The Cardio

For the last four months, I have been very faithfully lifting weights. My brother and I have only missed a couple of days--once, because his wife had a baby, and once, because my daughter had an earache.

I haven't been nearly so faithful with my cardio. Because we both figured we could do cardio without needing a spotter, we didn't get together to do it.

Well, that's changing this week.

Starting Teusday, we will also be doing cardio together. I don't mean side-by-side (that boy could probably run me into the ground) but we will meet each morning, like we do with weightlifting, so we both feel the positive peer pressure to get up and do it.

I hope to see this push me to the proverbial "next level," fitness wise.

I'll let you know.

Friday Mythbustin': "Right Way" vs. "Wrong Way"

Myth: There is one right "way" to eat, and once you discover it, you're going to be slim, happy and healthy.

Truth: Because people's bodies and goals are different, "right" and "wrong" can be completely different for different people.

So there are diets that say to eat no carbs.

And then there's diets that say that to eat carbs, but only when you balance them with protein.

And then there's diets that say to eat carbs and protein, but never at the same time.

What's going on here? Why can't anybody agree?

What you have to remember is that different diets have different purposes. They're each trying to make your body do different things.

For example, a lot of the "no-carb" diets are trying to trigger a specific reaction in your body--a thing called ketosis. The entire goal of this type of diet is that one single thing. Dieticians disagree about whether ketosis is a good thing or a bad thing, but they all agree a no- or low-carb diet will get you there.

The types of diet that require you don't eat combinations of food--they usually say to eat nothing but fruit until noon, and then make sure time passes between when you have carbs and when you have protein--are actually less about weight loss, and more about keeping your system clean. Since different chemicals are required to digest carbs than protein, your body can process them faster if you only throw one of them at a time into your system.

On the other hand, diets that ask you to eat foods in combination are trying to do the opposite--since digestion burns calories, the longer the digestion process takes, the better. Combinations of food slow the rate of absorption into your body, giving you the chance to burn that energy before it gets stored.

So if it seems like two food statements are in conflict (This article says I should eat broccoli, but this one says I shouldn't) stop and look at what the reasoning for each statement is. A difference in recommendation is usually because of a difference in goal.

Good-Bye Cheap Internet

Well, I just got word that what has been one of the nicest budget items I have--my dial-up internet access--is going away.

Access4less.net is going to discontinue doing dial-up on May 9th. I've been getting dial-up service from them for $5.95 a month for some time now, and have not had any complaints about their service.

I'm a no-frills internet kind of guy anyway--spare me your special browsers and your nifty chat features and your special dialers. Just give me the settings to plug into my dialer, don't hassle me, and I won't hassle you. Access4less was internet service that worked for me.

If I don't do anything, they're going to bump me over to Earthlink for $9.95 a month, which only represents a $4.00 increase in my budget, and while $4.00 doesn't bother me so much any more, six months ago, that would have been a pretty big deal to me, and so there's still a little voice in my head that's upset about it now.

Either way, I'm going to miss my silent ISP. I have a suspicion this is going to be like when my neighbor upstairs moved away and the new people moved in--it's not that I missed seeing and hearing the folks upstairs, it's that I miss not seeing and hearing them.

On Budgets--An Analogy or Two (or Six)

I've been using an analogy lately when talking to people about budgets. People seem to think using a budget is like tying up your hands and feet before jumping into shark-infested waters. If the month is going to be tough, financially, why limit yourself? Why not leave yourself completely free to use the money the way it's needed?

I'd say that's like a major-league center fielder looking at his glove and saying, "You know, this thing is really limiting me. It's got two positions--open and close. If I took this thing off, my hand would really be free to catch that ball that's hurling at me through space."

Or a carpenter who says, "You know, I keep using this hammer, and the end of this hammer is really small. I'm even missing the nails sometimes. But look at the size of the palm of my hand! I bet I'd never miss if I used that. What am I using this tiny little hammer for?"

The fact is, the budget is a tool, and like most tools, it gives you more freedom than if you didn't use it, because it gives you more power.

Budget represents your money saddled and bridled, with you firmly in control. No budget is when your money running wild and free, dragging you to all sorts of places you never expected (or really needed) to go.

I never plan to go a month of my life without a budget again. I'll never trap myself, hold myself back like that again.

Missing the Update

I should get the Tale of the Tape updated by Thursday. I'm sure it doesn't bother other people as much as me when I don't do it on Mondays, but the first half of this week is a little hectic, and I haven't been able to get to Official Government Scale I use to weigh myself each Monday.

I did bring the finance portion down a bit, but it will come down a little more when I do the update. However, because of debt snowballing, a $300 mileage check, and a reimbursment check for work expenses, I was able to make a $750 car payment this month, and I had to post that. My car payment is usually $170.

I'll tell ya'--it was a great feeling. I'm so far ahead of where I was just four months ago. I couldn't be gladder that I've been doing this.

Between that and the fact that I'm starting to get some real shoulders, I'd say things are going pretty well.

More On Separate Checking Accounts

My friend Becky makes the case that, rather than pooling all their money, it's a good idea for couples to pool some of their money, and leave the rest separate--the idea being, more or less, that the money that's together will help avoid the conflicts that come from having all your money separate, and the money that's separate will avoid the conflicts that come from all your money together.

I really feel that the opposite is true--keeping some money together and some money separate opens up the door for both types of problems.

I'm reminded of a buddy of mine who was a missionary. Normally, missionaries serving together keep their finances separate, for the only real good reason to do so: They're going to be leaving each other eventually, and it will make the separation easier.

However, one missionary he was living with convinced him it would be a good idea to pool part of their money for food and other expenses.

What do you think happened? The other missionary ate all the food, even though they'd gone in halvsies on it. The other missionary spent all his personal money at the start of the month, so when unexpected expenses came up my friend had to pay for all of them. At the time I met him, this missionary had a bunch of "rainy day" money saved. When I saw him again after he served with this guy, that was entirely gone.

Same thing in a relationship. Let's say Marci and I did this. What I got in an accident, and I had to use Marci's car? Would I then pay for the gas and oil changes for Marci's car, since I'm the one using it? But I still have to pay for the deductible for my car.

And what about when we're doing something together that only one of us wants to do? If we go to a comic book convention on my day, would I pay for both of us, since I'm the only one who really likes that? And if we go see a chick flick on her day, should she pay, since it's a movie she wants to see?

The problem with the above examples is how independent they both try to be. My car. Her car. My night. Her night. If we really are in this together, that's our car. It's our night. It's the separatedness that makes conflict inherent in each of the interactions above.

A couple of points--

First, I am not saying multiple checking accounts are a bad idea. I'm going to be opening up another account here eventually, when the first check for ad revenue for this site comes in. What promotes conflict is separate checking accounts--accounts where expenses are, in effect, "hidden" from the partner.

Also, I'm not saying complete unification of finances is going to be conflict free. I'm saying that pooling all the money creates a sense of unity with both partners that makes the conflicts easier to handle. Even if my wife and I are at odds about whether me buying printer toner is more important than her buying a sewing machine part because we don't have the money for both, the fact that we're arguing about our money and what's best for us puts us a step ahead of those couples who are arguing about "my" and "yours" and "you" and "I."

And because we've taken that attitude about everything--even our debt--that puts us at a full advantage. She came into the marriage with a lot of debt, and a lot of conflict came from her continuing to think of that debt as "hers." She didn't feel I should have to pay it. Now, by fully relinquishing "her" debt to "us," we're able to pay it off a lot more effectively than if we were still fretting about whose was whose. The second we decided to become an "us," the debt had to, had to, become "ours."

Would it have made sense, financially, if I was investing "my" extra money and getting a 10% return, while "her" debt was still costing 18% a year? It might have made sense for me, but it wouldn't have made sense for us.

I'm not saying we won't eventually budget each other a few dollars. We aren't doing that right now, because we're paying down debt so aggressively--right now the sewing machine is still broken and the printer still has no toner--but we'll eventually reach a point where we can budget out for a few of our "own" purchases.

I am saying that since money is directly linked to emotion, fully "investing" in a relationship by contributing your entire salary allows and creates a more complete emotional commitment. Failing to fully commit financially may represent that a person hasn't fully committed emotionally.

And, since partners know this too, a complete surrendering of one's finances to the relationship will be perceived as one of those actions that speak so loud it's hard to hear what you're saying. So will failing to make that commitment.

So again--I'm not saying completely pooling finances will eliminate all conflicts. It won't. I can testify to that.

I am saying it can create a sense of relationship security, of unity, that cannot be had otherwise.