Teach. Lead. Inspire.

I'm Dr. Tyrone Ceaser. I teach people how to understand, implement, and sustain wellness.

Podcast | Blog | Services | Get in Touch

A potentially new research question - ponder on this!

Each generation introduces a set of challenges and circumstances.  In the paleolithic era, our ancestors were forced to learn, on very basic level, what was edible, how to travel, how to communicate, etc.  Since then, human beings have adapted and have enhanced foundational components of civilization (communication, language, transportation, etc.)

Over time, and with changes in civilization, mechanisms of achieving this change was based on the generation of that time.  Because of this, new challenges are introduced, and the generation of that time is forced to adapt to that particular time period - or so it was thought.  

In Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection, those who were not able to adapt essentially died off or lagged behind (hmmm...what's the 'standard for moving forward?).  For those who lagged behind, "stress" was the result. Regardless of the generation of the time, this is still the result today.  However, the costs of non-adaptation (i.e. the type of allostatic load responses) have changed.  Advances in technology, modernization of travel, work, leisure, etc., have changed the costs of non-adaptation, such that mental, physical, and emotional, stresses are much different that those suffered by our ancestors.  

Because of this fact, the current generation is forced to adapt in a new way, and  the consequences of non-adaptation have scarcely been experienced by previous generations. For example, a surplus of food introduces the capacity for obesity and unhealthy nutritional behavior, particularly in the modernized western world.  Modernized workplaces have introduced the capacity for - and the prevalence of - increased sedentary behavior.  Changes in culturally acceptable, societal, judicial standards encourage the capacity for new psycho-behavioral imbalances, leading to increased depression, anxiety, and other mental disturbances.  

In Layman's Terms

People of this generation need to be taught not only how to adapt, but how to adapt in a healthy way. I refer to this new way of adaptation as Microadaptation and Macroadaptation. Part of adapting in a healthy way depends on an individual's general ability to cope with their present circumstances (we'll call it macro-adaptation), without failing to compromise their health and quality of life in smaller, everyday decisions that lead to chronic, long-term positive or negative changes (we'll call this micro-adaptation). Microadaptations are different for everyone, depending on the circumstance. 

Here's my Theory:

1. abbreviated adaptation = macroadaptation (-) micro-adaptation (i.e.an undesired, imbalanced, unhealthy state).

2.full adaptation = macroadaptation (+) microadaptation (a desired, balanced, healthy state).

An example of macroadaptation: I need a drink, so I drink a soda because it fulfills my need for water and glucose, but I sacrifice the microadaptation, because it exceeds for my need for glucose, and has detrimental, long-term effects on my cellular health.

 

Overall Research Question: 

Since current approaches aren't working, how can we develop a novel approach that helps transfer individuals from the undesired state to the desired state to improve health and quality of life? Can individuals be taught how to move from macroadapting/surviving, to macroadapting and microadapting/thriving, while positively adjusting to the present circumstances of their internal and external environments?  Can people be taught a novel method to adapt in healthy, more positive ways? Does that depend on their ability to be resilient?

Overall Outcome

Outcomes 1: I would like to design novel, tailored programs, and teach people how to adapt in the midst of present, unfavored realities, through resiliency, and ultimately enhance their overall quality of life in the most natural way possible. 

Outcome 2: Using the concept of biomimicry, I would like to teach people to adapt to any current circumstance in healthier, more positive ways that will reduce disease risk and improve quality of life.

  • Null hypothesis: teaching natural adaptation through resiliency will not enhance quality of life.

 

1. What does it take to adapt in a healthy way? 

Outcome: Understanding the custom (based on the individual) components of healthy, natural adaptation will provide the framework for developing tailored programs designed to help people move to the desired state.

Null: Identifying the custom components of natural adaptation will not help individuals adapt in a healthy way.

2. Is resiliency a component of natural adaptation? Does resiliency mediate healthy adaptation?

Null: resiliency is not a component of adaptation.

If null is not  true: Can a program teaching resilience help any person in any state, adapt, and move to a desired state?

If null is not false: what are the components of adaptation?

 

Final Outcome: A tailored resiliency program helping people move from an undesired state to a desired state will reduce negative stress, increase resiliency, and (enhance) overall quality of life.

 

Assumptions:

1. People can "choose" to adapt.

 

keywords: flourishing, fitness, allostasis, allostatic load, adaptation, stress/strain, hormesis, spirituality, positive psychology, aerobic capacity, emotion, environment, resiliency, evolution, technology, coping, interleukin-6, myokines/cytokines, moykines/cytokines and thermogenesis, nutritional biochemistry, stress inoculation, minimal effective dose, controlled breathing, oxygen binding vs. oxygen delivery, interleukin-15, anterior cingulate

desired state, undesired state