I very much appreciate hearing your thoughts on this, even if we don’t see eye-to-eye on everything. And thank you for the kind words, too. I’d be happy to discuss with you and explain my views.

Although, I’m really not sure what point you’re trying to make other than questioning my credibility. Do you disagree that the Honda WAD’s, in particular, the devices demonstrated in the video, will not have health-diminishing side-effects?

You wrote:
“The question that immediately comes to mind, John, is do you know it or not? You can’t say that it [WAD] does alleviate joint stress and you can’t say that it doesn’t, without proof, or at least some sort of coherent contemplation.”

It wasn’t my purpose for this article to prove that the WAD will create problems, but rather to create a discussion – like this one that we’re having now. Whenever somebody wants proof, I’ll do the best I can. I think it’s self-evident that WAD’s would lead to health problems, much like it’s self-evident that walking with a limp creates imbalances in the body that are unrelated to the actual injury which created the limp in the first place.

WAD’s absolutely will have health consequences, and we don’t need proof such as in peer-reviewed research to demonstrate this (which can only happen after the fact, and usually after many people have already suffered the consequences of being misinformed). I don’t even need to use the device to know this – watching a video of it being used is enough to see how it affects human locomotion. We know the laws of conditioning and that tells us that everything we subject ourselves to has physical consequences, whether good or bad. If you exercise well, you will receive benefits. If you exercise poorly, you will suffer health problems. It’s the same with anything we subject ourselves to, even how we walk. The laws of conditioning dictate this.

• Law of Outcome: Whatever you do produces an outcome, regardless of how you value that outcome. (If you use a WAD, it will produce an outcome in your body, whether you want that outcome or not.)
• Law of Adaptation: Whatever you do over a period of time creates a change in you to find homeostasis, regardless of how you value that adaptation. (If you use a WAD over a period of time, your body will actually change to make itself more suited for using the WAD.)
• Law of Progress: Whatever you do with continually increasing volume, intensity, density, or complexity becomes more easily repeatable, regardless of how you value the progress. (If you use a WAD most or all of the time, then you will get much better at walking with the WAD, and walking without it will become more difficult.)

For instance, anyone who has used crutches for an extended period of time knows that there are usually negative side-effects. While an injured leg may be healing, the way you travel with crutches changes everything about your movement and posture/structure while walking. Many people who go on crutches for a long period experience shoulder and elbow problems after a few weeks of use because your body is now relying on an unnatural movement for basic transportation.

Similarly, the WAD’s that Honda is creating will change the way we move into a clearly unnatural movement pattern – movement that is not within our true nature. Unnatural movements always create health problems because of the laws of conditioning, and it’s obvious that the people using the WAD’s in this video were not moving with efficiently effective biomechanics.

Do you disagree?

See here about how I define natural movement:
http://physicalliving.com/natural-movement-doesnt-come-naturally-you-werent-born-perfect/

I’m not saying that technology couldn’t be created to assist with walking in a positive way. On the contrary, I think this particular device could be great for certain situations, as I noted in the article above. Just like canes and walkers serve a very specific need, other devices can help, too. However, this particular device, as shown in the video will also have side-effects (which are not mentioned in the video). That’s not to say that a more refined device that could minimize side-effects couldn’t be created, but I think impeccable attention to detail must be taken when constructing anything that affects such a common human movement as walking. And quite frankly, I don’t think we’ve advanced to that level of science yet, before we could safely roll out a device on a large scale to the general population.

We know from exercise machines that one size definitely does NOT fit all, even with adjustable pads. Think about the difference between a suit bought at your local department store, and a tailored suit – then magnify that to the extreme of how human movement affects the body structurally using biotensegrity as our model of human anatomy, and you’ll begin to understand how complicated it would be to create a WAD that would minimize injury and could work for any body type. We just haven’t gotten to that level yet.

In cases like this, it’s important to understand that there is a risk to benefit ratio involved. For some people, the benefits of using a WAD outweigh the risks, and vice versa. The same is true of crutches, canes, and walkers. Nobody is debating that.

Technology is not the problem, it’s the misuse of technology. The point of the article was to help my readers understand that technology isn’t always a good thing for our health, and to always evaluate for themselves the risk:benefit ratio before blindly accepting new technology as a miracle solution for common problems – especially when big name, credible companies are creating and marketing them, which gives off a signal to consumers that the product has been validated as safe and effective for its given purpose (which is not always true, especially when major profits are involved).

You wrote:
“While our evolution is a remarkable thing, biologists, medical experts, and convergence engineers now would tend to disagree with that” [that our bodies are perfectly suited for the environment]

You’re right, we disagree.

Whether or not we are perfectly suited to our environment is a valid discussion point, and there are many facets to this argument. It’s not a cut and dry topic, and I see it as a situation where there are arguments that make sense from both sides, but nothing that would make me say it’s obviously one or the other. We just don’t know the truth, rather we choose to believe one side or the other.

Perfect is a strong word to describe how our body fits in with our environment, but I used the term perfect for a reason. Part of the reason I said this is because I do not believe in the theory of evolution, but that a Creator made us physiologically perfect for the world in which He created us. You and I disagree on this point, and therefore our worldviews are different. Yes, it’s my opinion, and I don’t see how sharing it on my website is an issue at all.

Even though well-educated people would disagree with me, I’m not convinced that we are evolved beings. So, there’s little value in arguing this point. If we both believed in evolution, then there could be a reasonable debate, but this isn’t the case. So, we simply disagree.

I’m actually going to touch on this topic in an upcoming article about a creationist’s response to evolutionary fitness, which you can watch for in the future.

You wrote:
“probably the most presumptuous thing I’ve ever read [that Physical Living readers are well-informed], and considering that this sub-culture is now less well informed than before they had read your article, I would redefine your idea of elite.”

I think it’s even more presumptuous to assume that my readers are not well-informed, especially coming from one who has brought up some good points. You are one of my readers, too :)

Each of my readers is fully capable of deciding for themselves what to believe, and I hope nobody will convince them otherwise. Actually, I often remind my readers to double-check everything that I say because I am quite open to the possibility of being wrong. I’ve been wrong before and I can be wrong again. I don’t use my website as a channel for truth, but rather for a channel for sharing my views. You may take them or leave them. I’m not trying to please everybody, but to share my convictions. If you’re looking for the truth, look elsewhere, and let me know when you find it.

As with any publishing, you will have people who take anything that is written as absolute truth. It’s sad, but unavoidable. Hopefully, this is the exception, not the norm.

If anyone has a disagreement with me, I’m open to hearing it.

You wrote:
“It really rubs me the wrong way when people use their opinions, not truth, to serve an agenda. False information influencing popular opinion on technology literally kills millions (Genetically modified foods in Africa are being impeded by moralists like Green Peace without any scientific argument). What I’m trying to say is there are two sides to every coin, John, and the internet is a powerful tool with which we can inform ourselves beyond assumptions. It’s your responsibility as a writer to bring readers closer to the truth, even if that truth makes you uncomfortable.”

You’re absolutely right, that there are 2 sides to every coin – and often a balance between them. Within many arguments, the discussion is more important than the conclusion. There are countless cases in science and research where we simply don’t know the truth, and we have to make a decision about how to live regardless. We use all the information we have, but it’s seldom enough to confirm absolute truth.

You wrote:
Death is not scientifically inevitable.

I won’t even go there :)

Promoting physical fitness is a valuable mission, and an important one in a society that is rife with sedentary lifestyles and unhealthy foods. Kudos, it’s needed.

“Making [health and fitness] a priority is honoring the gift of life you’ve been given.”

Very true!

Unfortunately, there’s more of what I don’t like in this article.

You make a TON of propositions without any proof whatsoever. Grand sweeping statements that simply aren’t scientifically sound, and these readers eat it up and then spread the false information to others, a big no no for me. At least provide some links to back up what you say.. I won’t cite every example, but the more prevalent ones deserve being addressed:

“WAD’s will have all sorts of health consequences…They say it will help your joints, but they’re lying – whether they know it or not.”

The question that immediately comes to mind, John, is do you know it or not? You can’t say that it does alleviate joint stress and you can’t say that it doesn’t, without proof, or at least some sort of coherent contemplation.

“Whether you believe your body was created by a divine being or evolved over countless generations, you must admit that it is perfectly suited for this beautiful environment we call Earth.”

While our evolution is a remarkable thing, biologists, medical experts, and convergence engineers now would tend to disagree with that (Ray Kurzweil, Aubrey de Grey, Robert Frietas). There are many biological processes that are inefficient in modernity, and technology intends on replacing those outdated systems; red and white blood cells for example are inefficient and there are already designs to replace them called “respirocytes” and “microbivores” by some brilliant scientists in the field of nanorobotics.

Consider also the fat insulin receptor gene: a gene that moderates the amount of fat your body stores; initially an evolutionary mechanism designed to store calories between hunting seasons, it finds itself impractical in a society that doesn’t have trouble getting food at all. Luckily we have gene therapies and drugs in the works to alleviate this (RNAi, in vivo viral gene therapy). This technology will provide more benefits (unfortunately, but thats the world we live in) than physical fitness does in addressing the obesity problems.

The title of the article is “Stop Right There And Don’t Take Another Step – How Technology is Killing Us One Invention at a Time,” yet though I read it several times, you don’t really address what you set out to. I understand the concept – shortcuts make you lazy, laziness makes you unhealthy. But this has nothing to do with the phenomenon of technology or how it evolves, or why we should or should not embrace it.

“I’m confident that this message will resonate with my readers because you are part of an *elite sub-culture* who understands the role that physical living plays in our lives.”

probably the most presumptuous thing I’ve ever read, and considering that this sub-culture is now less well informed than before they had read your article, I would redefine your idea of elite.

It really rubs me the wrong way when people use their opinions, not truth, to serve an agenda. False information influencing popular opinion on technology literally kills millions (Genetically modified foods in Africa are being impeded by moralists like Green Peace without any scientific argument).

What I’m trying to say is there are two sides to every coin, John, and the internet is a powerful tool with which we can inform ourselves beyond assumptions. It’s your responsibility as a writer to bring readers closer to the truth, even if that truth makes you uncomfortable.

P.S.

“the end-result is already decided”

Death is not scientifically inevitable.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/ray_kurzweil_on_how_technology_will_transform_us.html

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/aubrey_de_grey_says_we_can_avoid_aging.html

Peace.Tobias.