Literary Legs

Writers Talking About Running

This month's issue of Runner's World contains two fantastic examples of where running and writing intersect (the tagline of this blog, by the way).

One, Mark Bittman writes about how runners can prepare food that tastes good, fuels their running, and is easy to make.  Bittman, who writes for the New York Times, is my favorite food writer.  He has no formal training as a chef, though he wrote my favorite cookbook How to Cook Everything.  His training is as a journalist and editor.

In the RW article, Bittman discusses how he fell into the trap of overeating, thinking that as long as he ran he could maintain his weight regardless of how much he consumed.  Before he knew it, he had gained so much weight--40 lbs.--that running became difficult (literally, his form broke down) and he became injury prone.  Now, eating sensibly with a plant-heavy diet (though he is not a vegetarian), he is running better and faster than ever.  His diet makes his daily runs easier.

Bittman's article contains some great recipes, though I can do without his annoying David Foster Wallace-like habit of footnotes.  Read the article here.

And two, Kay Ryan, the US poet laureate, is featured in the "I'm a Runner" section this month.  She talks about revising poems in her head while running (a la Wordsworth).  She discusses how poetry and running are similar.  But my favorite line is her response to why she loves running so much.  As only a poet could answer: "It evens out my disposition. It sweeps out my mind. It's a brain conditioner, rinsing out the brain the way that hair conditioner rinses your hair."  Read the interview here.

The Washington Post and Pronouns

A few weeks ago I posted this sentence from Mike Wise's column in the Washington Post sports section:

But all you have to know about his last days in Ashburn was the falling-out between he and his greatest supporter over the years, Joe Bugel, leader of the original Hogs and the modern-day Sluggos like Jansen.

Obviously, there is a problem with between he and his greatest supporter over the years.  At the time I said that either Wise or his copy editor is to blame--or maybe both.  But hey, we all make mistakes, and perhaps this was just another example of why newspapers should not be slashing copy editors from its staff.

But today I read this, again from Mike Wise in today's column:

When Camille was working late, she recalled, she had her friend, a police officer, pick up he and Edwin's sister Danielle in a squad car.

Really?  Pick up he and Edwin's sister Danielle in a squad car?  Why is Mike Wise so resistant to the object form of the the male pronoun?

Maybe this is a good example of hypercorrection, when people, in an effort to sound grammatically correct, produce nonstandard usage. For example, people often say between you and I or they misuse who/whom.  I'll chalk Wise's two errors up to the tendency of people to hypercorrect by using the subject form of a pronoun when they should be using the object form.   

Perhaps Mike and his copy editor are not such a good combination.

 

How Verbs Shape Our Perception of an Event

Last week saw an unfortunate confluence of running and writing when a jogger was struck by a Metrobus in downtown DC.  She was taken to the hospital in critical condition but is expected to recover.  What intrigued me most about the press coverage of the accident were the headlines.

The DC area is suffering from Metro transit fatigue.  We had the subway accident earlier this year that killed nine people.  In 2007, four bus accidents resulted in the deaths of five pedestrians. The subway is overcrowded and seems to break down daily.  And bus passengers have photographed drivers in various states of distraction. So transit operators are on a short leash with much of the public.

Most of the online headlines from the credible news sources used verbs like strikes or hits to describe the moment of impact.  These are appropriate, neutral descriptors since so little was known about the accident in the immediate aftermath.  But one news outlet already decided, within hours, who was at fault. NBCWashington said:

House Staffer Run Down by Metrobus

"Run down" is in whole different class than strikes and hits, carrying a much more aggressive connotation.  It is more graphic, more violent, and it implies almost a sense of purpose by the driver.  It only adds to the frenzy of those who have already lost faith in the DC public transit system. 

To a city used to fatalities involving the Metro system, this fits into their worldview, confirming what they think they already knew about the operators (for the record, the jogger was wearing headphones and appeared not to be in the crosswalk).  So it's no surprise that for those who already thought that the drivers were careless, this headline only adds fuel to the fire. 

Of course, good persuasive writers use verbs that are subtly argumentative.  For example, in the Senator Larry Craig case (he of the wide stance in the Minneapolis airport bathroom), the defense said that he merely "glanced" into the stall where the undercover officer was waiting, but the prosecution said he was "looking."  The latter carries with it a sense of purpose. 

The idea of verbs shaping perception reminds me of the famous Loftus and Palmer study from 1974.  Participants watched videos of auto accidents and afterward were asked to estimate the speed of the cars. People were asked a variation of the question using one of these five verbs to describe the impact: smashed, collided, bumped, hit, and contacted.

Participants who were asked how fast the cars were going when they smashed into each other gave the highest estimate, followed by the order in the list above. Those who asked what speed they were going when they smashed into each other gave an estimate almost 10 mph faster than those who watched the same video and were asked how fast they were going when they contacted each other. 

One week later, subjects who received the verb smashed were more likely than not to say yes to the question Did you see any broken glass?--even though there was no broken glass in the film. Loftus and Palmer wrote that "these results are consistent with the view that the questions asked subsequent to an event can cause a reconstruction in one’s memory of that event." (see complete study here).

While my Metrobus example is slightly different--people reading the headline with the verb phrase run down most likely did not witness the event--most DC residents probably have a preconceived notion of the safety of DC bus drivers.  This verb confirms their view of the drivers and helps shape their perception of what happened on that street in downtown DC.

Oh, and a few safety tips.  One, this is another reason why wearing earphones when running is unsafe.  And two, the jogger had no identification and was a Jane Doe for hours until news outlets posted a physical description of her and someone recognized it.  So always carry some form of ID when you run.

Now CNN Says Exercise Makes You Fat

I thought that we could put to rest for good the silliness of Time magazine's cover story last month on how exercise can make you fat.  I offered a thorough rebuttal of the piece, as did many other experts around the world, including the American College of Sports Medicine here.

But CNN, upset that it was late to the party, posted a link to the Time article as its lead headline today, a month after Time's piece appeared (see CNN screen shot here).  I am a bit surprised by CNN's decision to link to the piece given how thoroughly it has been dismissed by reliable experts.  But since the Latest News section at the top of its home page contains such critically relevant stories as "Bride says 'I do' to laughing bout," I should not be surprised that CNN would publish such sensationalism.

One of the points that the Time article makes is that exercise makes you hungry, so after your run you pig out and negate the calories that you just burned during your workout.  From a physiological perspective, I am not in the position to dispute the assertion that exercise makes you hungry.  The last thing I feel like doing after a run is eating; if I did, I'd be headed straight to the bathroom within minutes.  My stomach can't handle food for at least 30 minutes after aerobic exercise, and because of this I'll never be able to understand how people can head straight from the finish line to the buffet line at a road race. 

But the Time article misses a golden opportunity to discuss one important reason why people who exercise might gain weight or at least might not lose weight as quickly as they hope.  It's not that people eat after exercise because they are hungry; instead, they eat because they think that working out has given them a bottomless calorie deficit. If you want to lose weight, you can't down the Big Mac value meal at McDonalds and follow it off with a Blizzard from Dairy Queen.  I exaggerate slightly, of course, but some people think that exercise gives them free reign to eat whatever they want, that the 30 minute treadmill session will gobble up calories from the six pack of Budweiser and chicken wings that they'll eat while watching college football.  Studies have shown that we tend to grossly underestimate both the calories and the portion sizes we ingest, and it would not surprise me if a fair number of people also overestimate the calories they burn while exercising.  If you belong to both of these cohorts, you might belong to the "I exercise but still gain weight" category.