The Civl Heretic

The NYT has published a friendly, 8-page article about a Global Warming Alarmist Denier, the eminent physicist Freeman Dyson. This really is a wonderful piece and I tend to agree with most of his conclusions. Dyson also brings into focus the underlying motivation behind the GW Alarmism, which he calls a new religion of environmentalism. In the article, Dyson is described as
"a mathematics prodigy who came to this country at 23 and right away contributed seminal work to physics by unifying quantum and electrodynamic theory — [who] not only did path-breaking science of his own; he also witnessed the development of modern physics, thinking alongside most of the luminous figures of the age, including Einstein, Richard Feynman, Niels Bohr, Enrico Fermi, Hans Bethe, Edward Teller, J. Robert Oppenheimer and Edward Witten, the “high priest of string theory” whose office at the institute is just across the hall from Dyson’s. Yet instead of hewing to that fundamental field, Dyson chose to pursue broader and more unusual pursuits than most physicists — and has lived a more original life. Among Dyson’s gifts is interpretive clarity, a penetrating ability to grasp the method and significance of what many kinds of scientists do. His thoughts about how science works appear in a series of lucid, elegant books for nonspecialists that have made him a trusted arbiter of ideas...."
The article goes on to explian, "Dyson may be an Obama-loving, Bush-loathing liberal who has spent his life opposing American wars and fighting for the protection of natural resources, but he brooks no ideology and has a withering aversion to scientific consensus."

"Dyson agrees with the prevailing view that there are rapidly rising carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere caused by human activity. To the planet, he suggests, the rising carbon may well be a MacGuffin, a striking yet ultimately benign occurrence in what Dyson says is still “a relatively cool period in the earth’s history.” The warming, he says, is not global but local, “making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter.” Far from expecting any drastic harmful consequences from these increased temperatures, he says the carbon may well be salubrious — a sign that “the climate is actually improving rather than getting worse,” because carbon acts as an ideal fertilizer promoting forest growth and crop yields. “Most of the evolution of life occurred on a planet substantially warmer than it is now,” he contends, “and substantially richer in carbon dioxide.”

"Dyson says he doesn’t want his legacy to be defined by climate change, but his dissension from the orthodoxy of global warming is significant because of his stature and his devotion to the integrity of science. Dyson has said he believes that the truths of science are so profoundly concealed that the only thing we can really be sure of is that much of what we expect to happen won’t come to pass.... When Dyson joins the public conversation about climate change by expressing concern about the “enormous gaps in our knowledge, the sparseness of our observations and the superficiality of our theories,” these reservations come from a place of experience. Whatever else he is, Dyson is the good scientist; he asks the hard questions."

And this sentence echoes my claim of there being "two sides" to this debate; something my science friend, Tamsin, took me to task for when I suggested it:

"Dyson strongly disagrees with each of these points [the extreme predictions made by GW Alarmists], and there follows, as you move back and forth between the two positions, claims and counterclaims, a dense thicket of mitigating scientific indicators that all have the timbre of truth and the ring of potential plausibility."
Science is provable, and where it can be verifiable, is not open for debate. However, that's the biggest problem with Global Warming - most of it is not based on science, but on models.
"Climate models, he says, take into account atmospheric motion and water levels but have no feeling for the chemistry and biology of sky, soil and trees. “The biologists have essentially been pushed aside,” he continues. “Al Gore’s just an opportunist. The person who is really responsible for this overestimate of global warming is Jim Hansen. He consistently exaggerates all the dangers.”

And this is why the "science" is debated; because it's not fully scientific. The article continues:

"Beyond the specific points of factual dispute, Dyson has said that it all boils down to “a deeper disagreement about values” between those who think “nature knows best” and that “any gross human disruption of the natural environment is evil,” and “humanists,” like himself, who contend that protecting the existing biosphere is not as important as fighting more repugnant evils like war, poverty and unemployment.

"Dyson has always been strongly opposed to the idea that there is any such thing as an optimal ecosystem — “life is always changing” — and he abhors the notion that men and women are something apart from nature, that “we must apologize for being human.” Humans, he says, have a duty to restructure nature for their survival.

"Greatest Lie Ever Told"...

... is that sea levels will rise to as much as 20 feet (per Al Gore).  And the person calling this the greatest lie is the "one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world...the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change"  And according to the article in the Telegraph,
"[The] uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story....  The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world".

When running the International Commission on Sea Level Change, he launched a special project on the Maldives, whose leaders have for 20 years been calling for vast sums of international aid to stave off disaster. Six times he and his expert team visited the islands, to confirm that the sea has not risen for half a century. Before announcing his findings, he offered to show the inhabitants a film explaining why they had nothing to worry about. The government refused to let it be shown.... "

One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC's favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend".

When I spoke to Dr Mörner last week, he expressed his continuing dismay at how the IPCC has fed the scare on this crucial issue. When asked to act as an "expert reviewer" on the IPCC's last two reports, he was "astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors on sea levels was a sea level specialist: not one". Yet the results of all this "deliberate ignorance" and reliance on rigged computer models have become the most powerful single driver of the entire warmist hysteria."



Preventing Tooth Decay

Meet Sir Edward Mellanby, the discoverer of vitamin D. Along with his wife, Dr. May Mellanby, he identified dietary factors that control the formation and repair of teeth and bones. He also identified the cause of rickets (vitamin D deficiency) and the effect of phytic acid on mineral absorption. Truly a great man! This research began in the 1910s and continued through the 1940s.

What he discovered about tooth and bone formation is profound, disarmingly simple and largely forgotten. I remember going to the dentist as a child. He told me I had good teeth. I informed him that I tried to eat well and stay away from sweets. He explained to me that I had good teeth because of genetics, not my diet. I was skeptical at the time, but now I realize just how ignorant that man was.

Tooth structure is determined during growth. Well-formed teeth are highly resistant to decay while poorly-formed teeth are cavity-prone. Drs. Mellanby demonstrated this by showing a strong correlation between tooth enamel defects and cavities in British children. The following graph is drawn from several studies he compiled in the book Nutrition and Disease (1934). "Hypoplastic" refers to enamel that's poorly formed on a microscopic level.
The graph is confusing, so don't worry if you're having a hard time interpreting it. If you look at the blue bar representing children with well-formed teeth, you can see that 77% of them have no cavities, and only 7.5% have severe cavities (a "3" on the X axis). Looking at the green bar, only 6% of children with the worst enamel structure are without cavities, while 74% have severe cavities. Enamel structure is VERY strongly related to cavity prevalence.

What determines enamel structure during growth? Drs. Mellanby identified three dominant factors:
  1. The mineral content of the diet
  2. The fat-soluble vitamin content of the diet, chiefly vitamin D
  3. The availability of minerals for absorption, determined largely by the diet's phytic acid content
Teeth and bones are a mineralized protein scaffold. Vitamin D influences the quality of the protein scaffold that's laid down. For the scaffold to mineralize, the diet has to contain enough minerals, primarily calcium and phosphorus. Vitamin D allows the digestive system to absorb the minerals, but it can only absorb them if they aren't bound by phytic acid. Phytic acid is an anti-nutrient found primarily in unfermented seeds such as grains. So the process depends on getting minerals (sufficient minerals in the diet and low phytic acid) and putting them in the right place (fat-soluble vitamins).

Optimal tooth and bone formation occurs only on a diet that is sufficient in minerals, fat-soluble vitamins, and low in phytic acid
. Drs. Mellanby used dogs in their experiments, which it turns out are a good model for tooth formation in humans for a reason I'll explain later. From Nutrition and Disease:
Thus, if growing puppies are given a limited amount of separated [skim] milk together with cereals, lean meat, orange juice, and yeast (i.e., a diet containing sufficient energy value and also sufficient proteins, carbohydrates, vitamins B and C, and salts), defectively formed teeth will result. If some rich source of vitamin D be added, such as cod-liver oil or egg-yolk, the structure of the teeth will be greatly improved, while the addition of oils such as olive... leaves the teeth as badly formed as when the basal diet only is given... If, when the vitamin D intake is deficient, the cereal part of the diet is increased, or if wheat germ [high in phytic acid] replaces white flour, or, again, if oatmeal [high in phytic acid] is substituted for white flour, then the teeth tend to be worse in structure, but if, under these conditions, the calcium intake is increased, then calcification [the deposition of calcium in the teeth] is improved.
Other researchers initially disputed the Mellanbys' results because they weren't able to replicate the findings in rats. It turns out, rats produce the phytic acid-degrading enzyme phytase in their small intestine, so they can extract minerals from unfermented grains better than dogs. Humans also produce phytase, but at levels so low they don't significantly degrade phytic acid. The small intestine of rats has about 30 times the phytase activity of the human small intestine, again demonstrating that humans are not well adapted to eating grains. Our ability to extract minerals from seeds is comparable to that of dogs, which shows that the Mellanbys' results are applicable to humans.

Drs. Mellanby found that the same three factors determine bone quality in dogs as well, which I may discuss in another post.

Is there anything someone with fully formed enamel can do to prevent tooth decay? Drs. Mellanby showed (in humans this time) that not only can tooth decay be prevented by a good diet, it can be almost completely reversed even if it's already present. Dr. Weston Price used a similar method to reverse tooth decay as well. I'll discuss that in my next post.

Abortion Profiteer Family Dies at Abortion Monument

Covenant Eyes. Com

Here is a great internet resource I found and highly recommend. I have tried various accountability and filter software over the years, but none seem to be ideal. I'm not sure how I found CE, but it has been amazing. I use it for filtering, but they have many services available, including accountability and monitoring software, as well as a blog and other support services.

The reason I am sold on the filtering service is that it does not just block websites, but actual images on a page or questionable links. So I can use the internet as I normally do, and if there's a pop-up that is inappropriate, or an ad in a website's margin, just that portion is "blocked out". Of course there are whole websites that are blocked out and I don't have to worry about clicking on some embedded link on some blog and getting an illicit site. I can also allow specific sites that I know and trust, which makes the service very user-friendly, yet safe.

The other component that I like, and really need, is the time limit feature. You can set the time that the computer, or a specific user, has access to the internet. For myself, who would stay up until all hours of the early morning just surfing, it's a great tool that keeps me disciplined to get to bed at a "reasonable" hour.

There is an override mechanism if you have a password, and a "Panic Button" if you are being tempted to look at inappropriate material [which means you have to call the customer service line to reactivate your connection]. Overall, it really is an amazing service. I plan to link this in the margin if you want to forward this on to friends or check back in the future.

States Going Galt?

Here's an article by Walter E Williams that gives me hope.  If the states listed can get this done AND put teeth to the legislation, this could be something revolutionary.  I'm thrilled MI is on the list.

Skin Texture, Cancer and Dietary Fat

Richard and I exchanged a series of e-mails last week in which he remarked that Thai people generally have nice skin, which is something I've also noticed in Thai immigrants to the U.S. I believe you can often tell what kind of fat a person eats by looking at their face, especially as people age or bear children.

People who eat predominantly traditional fats like butter and coconut oil usually have nice skin. It's smoother, rosier and it ages more gracefully than the skin of a person who eats industrial fats like soy and corn oil. Coconut is the predominant fat in the traditional Thai diet. Coconut fat is about 87% saturated, far more than any animal fat*. Coconut oil and butter are very low in omega-6 linoleic acid, while industrial vegetable oils and margarine contain a lot of it.

I saw a great movie last week called "The Betrayal", about a family of Lao refugees that immigrated to the U.S. in the late 1970s. The director followed the family for 23 years as they tried to carve out a life for themselves in Brooklyn. The main fats in the traditional Lao diet are lard and coconut milk. The mother of the family was a nice looking woman when she left Laos. She was thin and had great skin and teeth, despite having delivered half a dozen children at that point. After 23 years in the U.S., she was overweight and her skin was colorless and pasty. At the end of the movie, they return to Laos to visit their family there. The woman's mother was still alive. She was nearly 100 years old and looked younger than her daughter.

Well that's a pretty story, but let's hit the science. There's a mouse model of skin cancer called the Skh:HR-1 hairless mouse. When exposed to UV rays and/or topical carcinogens, these mice develop skin cancer just like humans (especially fair-skinned humans). Researchers have been studying the factors that determine their susceptibility to skin cancer, and fat is a dominant one. Specifically, their susceptibility to skin cancer is determined by the amount of linoleic acid in the diet.

In 1994, Drs. Cope and Reeve published a study using hairless mice in which they put groups of mice on two different diets (Cope, R. B. & Reeve, V. E. (1994) Photochem. Photobiol. 59: 24 S). The first diet contained 20% margarine; the second was identical but contained 20% butter. Mice eating margarine developed significantly more skin tumors when they were exposed to UV light or a combination of UV and a topical carcinogen. Researchers have known this for a long time. Here's a quote from a review published in 1987:
Nearly 50 years ago the first reports appeared that cast suspicion on lipids, or peroxidative products thereof, as being involved in the expression of actinically induced cancer. Whereas numerous studies have implicated lipids as potentiators of specific chemical-induced carcinogenesis, only recently has the involvement of these dietary constituents in photocarcinogenesis been substantiated. It has now been demonstrated that both level of dietary lipid intake and degree of lipid saturation have pronounced effects on photoinduced skin cancer, with increasing levels of unsaturated fat intake enhancing cancer expression. The level of intake of these lipids is also manifested in the level of epidermal lipid peroxidation.
Here's a quote from a study conducted in 1996:
A series of semi-purified diets containing 20% fat by weight, of increasing proportions (0, 5%, 10%, 15% or 20%) of polyunsaturated sunflower oil mixed with hydrogenated saturated cottonseed oil, was fed to groups of Skh:HR-1 hairless mice during induction and promotion of photocarcinogenesis. The photocarcinogenic response was of increasing severity as the polyunsaturated content of the mixed dietary fat was increased, whether measured as tumour incidence, tumour multiplicity, progression of benign tumours to squamous cell carcinoma, or reduced survival... These results suggest that the enhancement of photocarcinogenesis by the dietary polyunsaturated fat component is mediated by an induced predisposition to persistent immunosuppression caused by the chronic UV irradiation, and supports the evidence for an immunological role in dietary fat modulation of photocarcinogenesis in mice.
In other words, UV-induced cancer increased in proportion to the linoleic acid content of the diet, because linoleic acid suppresses the immune system's cancer-fighting ability!

It doesn't end at skin cancer. In animal models, a number of cancers are highly sensitive to the amount of linoleic acid in the diet, including breast cancer. Once again, butter beats margarine and vegetable oils. Spontaneous breast tumors develop only half as frequently in rats fed butter than in rats fed margarine or safflower oil (Yanagi, S. et al. (1989) Comparative effects of butter, margarine, safflower oil and dextrin on mammary tumorigenesis in mice and rats. In: The Pharmacological Effects of Lipids.). The development of breast tumors in rats fed carcinogens is highly dependent on the linoleic acid content of the diet. The effect plateaus around 4.4% of calories, after which additional linoleic acid has no further effect.

Conversely, omega-3 fish oil protects against skin cancer in the hairless mouse, even in large amounts. In another study, not only did fish oil protect against skin cancer, it doubled the amount of time researchers had to expose the mice to UV light to cause sunburn!

Thus, the amount of linoleic acid in the diet as well as the balance between omega-6 and omega-3 determine the susceptibility of the skin to damage from UV rays. This is a very straightforward explanation for the beautiful skin of people eating traditional fats like butter and coconut oil. It's also a straightforward explanation for the poor skin and sharply rising melanoma incidence of Western nations (source). Melanoma is the most deadly form of skin cancer. If you're dark-skinned, you're off the hook:

I believe the other factor contributing to rising melanoma incidence is sunscreen. Most sunscreens block sunburn-causing UVB rays but not melanoma-causing UVA rays. The fact that they allow you to remain in the sun for longer without burning means they increase your exposure to UVA. I've written about this before. Sunscreen also blocks vitamin D formation in the skin, a process that some researchers believe also promotes cancer. I'll end with a couple more graphs that are self-explanatory (source). "PUFA" stands for polyunsaturated faty acids, and primarily represents linoleic acid:





*Not only do Thais have clear skin, they also have clear arteries. Autopsies performed in the 1960s showed that residents of Bangkok had a low prevalence of atherosclerosis and a rate of heart attack (myocardial infarction) about 1/10 that of Americans living in Los Angeles.

some lessons learned while traveling

Progress:

Okay, I’ve screwed up a fair bit on my trip, before and during (mainly before, see previous posts).  However, I think it's worth pointing out all the progress I’ve made in my evolution to being a healthy eater.  In my Standard American Diet past, vacation road trips have always been even worse than at home.   Road trips meant driving long distances while eating home-made chocolate chip cookies, potato chips, and gorp made from peanuts, raisins, and m&ms. That and coffee would keep me awake while we put on the miles.  Then we’d still have meals at restaurants.  Now I don't desire any of that and don't pine over the restaurant food I'm not eating--it doesn't look appealing to me.  That's progress!   I’ve just got a few remnant habits to throw off and I sometimes stumble as I encounter them.  The stumbling points on this trip were 1) feeling like I needed a treat like the cookies and the cherry essene.  To be honest, both of these have squeezed out things I like better. I finally got to eat the soup and spinach I brought tonight.  2) feeling like I need a snack to stay awake while driving. My snacks have just been celery and carrots so healthy, but it is not necessarily to eat all the time. I do feel better when I give my digestion several hours in between meals, just as Fuhrman says. And there’s two of us so we can switch drivers when we get tired. 3)  Travel-mate continues to eat her favorite snack foods: cookies, chips, pretzels, and gorp.  A tiny part of me saw her eating cookies last night and I think made me a little weak when I saw the peanut butter.  For the most part though, I don't wish I were partaking in any of that SAD food, so it is progress.   In a way, I am vicariously enjoying the food through travel-mate without having to suffer the consequences.  I feel guilty about that because I don't want her health to suffer.  

Discipline:

Today's enjoyable pudding reminded me that there are some foods that I don’t want to give up altogether, like nuts and occasional dried fruit (though chocolate is one I do need to give up).  So I have to regulate them so I can enjoy them as treats occasionally. One thing I try to avoid in my life is discipline. I have a negative reaction to discipline due to some personal reasons. But, it’s time to get over that. If I exercised a little discipline then I could have an occasional treat.  Some forbidden foods are necessary—the ones that act like drugs on my body and cause cancer and heart disease. But I don’t want to forbid too much. So I think I just need to come up with ways to make it easier to be disciplined. For example, when I make a delicious sorbet or ice cream, it usually makes 2 servings. So, knowing my weaknesses, I can make them when I know there will be one other person to help me eat them. Similarly for some of the other treats. Only make pie or cookies for big gatherings or plan to give away most. There are two reasons for this. 1) If my attempt at discipline doesn’t succeeed, I will overindulge. 2) even if my attempt at discipline does succeed, I will have to be eating this stuff for a few days and crowding out other stuff that, again, I like better. I really only want one helping of these treats usually (the rational part of me, I mean).

mar. 25 food

This morning we stopped at the flagship Whole Foods store in Austin TX.  It is impressive.  It occupies an entire block.  Here's me dwarfed by it:














It was pretty fun, I have to admit.  They had a raw vegan bar and I decided I was allowed a treat.  It was a chocolate pudding with a nut crust, and it was a nice small serving.  All the ingredients were "allowed" (no oil, salt, okay some agave nectar but it was a treat).    Then I was going to get a juice at the juice bar but the juicer was broken.  Travel-mate got a smoothie and I was asking the smoothie-maker what's a good one and she didn't have an opinion, so I decided oh well, I don't need one since I have my pudding.  Sensing the loss of a sale she suggested one that a lot of people get that's not on the menu.  I don't recall what it was.  It has acai (?) berries in it which are supposed to be one of those wonder-foods.  I said, okay, I'll get it.  And it was excellent.  I'm glad I got it.  So that was my brekky:  the pudding and the smoothie.  more than enough but enjoyable.  The only problem was that the chocolate affected me.   I don't enjoy caffeine buzzes anymore.  I buzzed for 7 hours, then was tired.   So I guess chocolate will have to go off my list of allowed foods.  It's a bit sad but not heartbreaking.  Really, the smoothie was as good or better.  So I think I can survive with other treats besides chocolate.

For lunch we had food from the Whole Foods salad bars.  Mine was salad greens, fruit, peas and edamame:















Travel-mate had roasted potatoes (super salty!), some rice dishes, peas and corn:















For dinner, I finally started eating my now-thawed split pea and carrot soup (from the fuhrman forums, was in my freezer for a few weeks), over spinach.  yummy.  I'll have the rest of that for brekky tomorrow.  and I had some carrots and celery and an apple and a mango (okay, should have held off on the mango).

Tomorrow we start camping for 4 nights, so no blogging.  I got tons of good food from Whole foods.  I'm planning to make "Gorgeous garlic greens soup" from Compassionate Cooks (you have to pay $5 to get the recipe packet).  and a corn chowder if that runs out (with kale, potatoes, onions, corn, soy milk).  I forgot that recipe so will just make it up.   I will have salads and fruit for brekky until they run out.  then I'll figure something out.  we have lots of canned beans and veggies and potatoes and onions, etc.  I forgot to get oranges but have apples and banana.


Inherited Deficits?

The Devalued Leader and His Devalued Currency

This speech could just as easily be given to our own leader. It happens to be addressed to Britain's Prime Minisiter, Gordon Brown. Very eloquent, and accurate, I would say:

Forgiveness is Good For Your Heart

So says this recent study.  Researchers from the University of WI-Madison and the University of Notre Dame have conducted a study on patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and found that those who were involved in "forgiveness intervention" treatment during their care showed positive changes [that] were compellingly shown 10 weeks after completing the program."    Part of the reasoning for doing the research, according to the report, is "an association between intense emotions, such as anger, and risk for cardiac events is well-established...."

And just to make sure we're all talking about the same thing, it is interesting to note the study's definition of its terms:
"There is now consensus in the field of psychology that forgiveness is not the same as making excuses for unfair treatment, condoning, ignoring justice or reconciling. Those who forgive, in other words, acknowledge the other person's wrong without excusing or simply letting the offense go. Forgiveness is a person's individual act of offering mercy, compassion, and empathy towards an offender. Reconciliation is the negotiated resolution of conflict between two or more people. Thus, one might, under certain circumstances, forgive an offender but then not reconcile if that offender continues in his or her hurtful behavioural patterns."
The forgiveness intervention component of the study
"...was based on a forgiveness process model integrating cognitive, affective and behavioural components.... The program comprises four phases in which 20 psychological variables are identified..., such as confrontation and release of anger, willingness to consider forgiveness as a possibility for change, viewing the offender in his context and finding meaning in the painful event. This form of intervention has been shown to significantly increase hope and self-esteem and to decrease anger, anxiety and grief...." (emphasis added)
This highlighted aspect was explained further in the report:
"The persistence of the physiological effects of the forgiveness program may relate to its added psychosocial effects. The experimental program focused on reducing resentment and fostering more positive attitudes through forgiveness therapy. Central in this process is a decision made by the injured individual to change his current problem-solving strategy and to choose a path that involves transformation towards positive attitudes rather than simply venting feelings of anger. Several studies have indicated that catharsis tends to increase emotions rather than reducing them .... The expression of emotions can be helpful if connected with gaining insights and finding meaning, motivation to change and learn, and a means to move towards productive coping strategies.... As the injured individual becomes more aware of his emotional and cognitive responses to the injury, he may come to see the offender in a broader way and, as he does so, his negative thoughts, feelings and behaviours are replaced with more positive ones...."

As a result,
"...the degree of forgiveness continued to be statistically significant between the two groups from pre-test to follow-up and the myocardial perfusion defect improvements favoured the experimental group. This may be the case because forgiveness not only reduces negative affect but also increases positive affect towards that person. The combination of decreased negative and increased positive affect may be a key to the physiological improvements...." (emphasis added)
I find all of this particularly interesting, not because it is new to me, but because it is always satisfying to see science find the same conclusions as Scripture.  There is much wisdom for life in the Bible's teachings on forgiveness.  There is now some clear evidence it has more than just spiritual benefit.

mar. 24 food

brekky:  banana, arugula+orange bell pepper+d'angou pear vinegar.  it was early, wasn't that hungry.

snack:  carrots and celery

lunch:  fruit salad (strawberries, raspberries, blueberries, banana), cabbage salad.  very good.

snack that turned into dinner because we were so late:  carrots and celery, apple, banana, brazil nuts, peanuts, peanut butter (a bit too much).

March 25, National Medal of Honor Day

This was brilliant (and so is the rest of the article):
During a recent commercial flight from Jacksonville (Fla.) to Baltimore, a flight attendant offered free drink coupons to any of the 150 passengers who could name just one of the five Medal of Honor recipients from the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Awkward moments of silence followed until one man, Navy veteran Dale Shelton of Annapolis, Maryland, spoke up and named Army Sgt. 1st Class Paul R. Smith.

Shelton was correct: Smith received the award posthumously in 2005 for his actions during the April 2003 battle for Baghdad airport.

No other passenger was able to name a recipient.

The flight attendant then asked the passengers to name an American Idol winner. “The cabin lit up like a pinball machine as 43 passengers scrambled to push their attendant call button,” according to a piece by the American Forces Press Service. “Passengers named various Idol winners.”

The flight attendant then announced there would not be any free drink coupons for that answer, adding that naming an American Idol winner was not worth a drink.

Obama Has His Nuclear Moment

Hope it doesn't go unnoticed by the MSM!  Here's the article and video that shows Obama mispronouncing the word Orion, the name of a small business he is acknowledging, three times in about 3 minutes. 

If you ask me, this stuff is childish.  I really could care less.  The amount of words the POTUS speaks in a given day is immense.  For his tongue to keep up with the teleprompter is no small feat.  The only reason I mention it is the obvious.  This type of slip was interpretted by the MSM as "Bush is stupid".  It was fodder for the continued assault on the man and evidence of his incompetence.  Well, what does it mean when the golden-tongued ONE does the same thing?  I don't know, maybe that he is just human.  However you look at it, it certainly does NOT mean that he is stupid. <sarc>


The Economy, Science, and the Future

This guy is brilliant and funny. The 18 minute presentation is concise, expansive, and a bit odd. He jumps off the deep end in the last 2 minutes in the context of my world view, but the majority of it is worthwhile.

Experiment with Cheating

Here is a fascinating video presentation from TED.com about the factors that this researcher found involved in why people cheat. It has some very obvious implications for children and even communities in general.




A few take-aways:

1) The "fudge factor" is the room we give ourselves to lie/cheat/steal based on the cost-benefit analysis we perform in each opportunity. To reduce an individual's fudge factor, it was effective to remind them of their morality, whether referencing the Ten Commandments or signing an honor code statement. How much more significant is this for us as we teach our children and remind one another of God's standard for our lives.
2) The further an item is removed from actual value (a token for a vending machine or bus pass, or a pencil from work vs. a check or actual cash) the more likely people are to steal/cheat/lie about it. The lesson would be to always remind ourselves of the value of what we are responsible for (i.e. an honest day's work for an honest wage, office supplies that I did not pay for, etc).
3) The norm within my "in group" will effect my willingness or inhibition to steal/lie/cheat. It is true that if we think "everybody's doing it" we will be more likely to do it also. Peer pressure is only pressure if you see the others as peers. The lesson is to find friends that value what you value. The second lesson is to reaffirm what you value in your community often. I have seen this, and appreciate it when I have, churches have existing members recite their covenant together out loud with new members, or congregations recite a creed or faith statement in conjunction with taking communion, etc. This is very powerful.

Unnoticed

OK, so this will prove I have a demented sense of humor. I came across this statement in a comment line on this blog post. I laughed out loud repeatedly. The last sentence I can hear as deadpan, and that makes it even funnier. Nothing deep here.

"Today, I was at a sandwich shop and couldn’t help but secretly remove a loose hair from a girl standing in front of me. I yanked it and she instantly began screaming and crying. It was in fact a very long mole hair. The thing started bleeding like a gunshot wound. My apologies went unnoticed."

mar. 24 food

Start of vacation road trip.  

Brekky:  wasn't hungry.  (see yesterday's post).  Drank some juice from the fridge to finish it off.

Lunch:  this was really good.  yesterday I was just cooking up vegetables and I steamed brussels sprouts and asparagus.  added some D'angou  pear vinegar and no-salt seasoning and put in a tupperware bowl.  It went into the ice chest this morning and I just ate it cold for lunch (you call those things salads!).   it was really good!    Also made a huge batch of cabbage salad yesterday (half a cabbage left in the fridge).  had some of that too.

Dinner:  cabbage salad, apple, banana.  1/2 oz brazil nuts, 1/2 oz pumpkin seeds.  house mate had broccoli and cauliflower that I cooked up yesterday.  she doesn't like it cold so didn't have it for lunch.

I didn't eat a lot today but that's because I ate so much yesterday.   It will probably be a few days before I resume normal hunger patterns.   It's embarrassing to admit I sometimes can't control my eating.   I didn't used to have this problem.  I just can't handle concentrated sugar anymore I guess...?

mar 23 food

I was a bad veganbarbie yesterday (it's mar. 24 now).   I was preparing food for my vacation, and decided to make some (healthy) banana-raisin-oatmeal cookies from leangreenmama's blog.   She warned at the end, avoid this recipe if raisins are a trigger food.  Boy was she right.   I ate them all!   (I wish I didn't have to confess this but I'm trying to be honest about failures as well as successes).   I'm not even that big of a fan of these kinds of cookies.  They are just okay to me.   It's funny, I felt a splurge coming on on Friday.  On Saturday I splurged on the red beans and rice, and on Sunday, on these cookies.   So here's my food log for yesterday:

Brekky: smoothie

Lunch:  red beans and rice, kale and sweet potato sauce (without the nuts--it's better with the nuts but I wasn't hungry enough)

afternoon splurge:  entire batch of cookies (1 cup oats, 2/3 cup raisins, 2 large bananas, 2 oz walnuts).  

Late Dinner:  believe it or not, I still ate.  I was cooking all the food so as not to waste it so had a baked sweet potato and 2 baked beets.

I was uncomfortably full at bedtime.   Still full when I woke in the morning.   Oh, and here's the other funny thing:  I had just posted on the Fuhrman forums that using this cron-o-meter program to track my calories keeps me in line.  I jinxed myself!   oh well, practice makes perfect, time to get back on the horse.  sigh.

More Thoughts on the Glycemic Index

In the last post, I reviewed the controlled trials on the effect of the glycemic index (GI) of carbohydrate foods on health. I concluded that there is no convincing evidence that a low GI diet is better for health than a high GI diet, and in fact the long-term trials suggest that a high GI diet may even be better for insulin sensitivity.

Despite the graphs I presented in the last post, for the "average" individual the GI of carbohydrate foods can affect the glucose and insulin response to carbohydrate foods somewhat, even in the context of an actual meal. If you compare two meals of very different GI, the low GI meal will cause less insulin secretion and cause less total blood glucose in the plasma over the course of the day (although the differences in blood glucose may not apply to all individuals).

But is that biologically significant? In other words, do those differences matter when it comes to health? I would argue probably not, and here's why: there's a difference between post-meal glucose and insulin surges and chronically elevated glucose and insulin. Chronically elevated insulin is a marker of metabolic dysfunction, while post-meal insulin surges are not (although glucose surges in excess of 140 mg/dL indicate glucose intolerance). Despite what you may hear from some sectors of the low-carbohydrate community, insulin surges do not necessarily lead to insulin resistance. Just ask a Kitavan. They get 69% of their 2,200 calories per day from high-glycemic starchy tubers and fruit (380 g carbohydrate), with not much fat to slow down digestion. Yet they have low fasting insulin, very little body fat and an undetectable incidence of diabetes, heart attack and stroke. That's despite a significant elderly population on the island.

Furthermore, in the 4-month GI intervention trial I mentioned last time, they measured something called glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). HbA1c is a measure of the amount of blood glucose that has "stuck to" hemoglobin molecules in red blood cells. It's used to determine a person's average blood glucose concentration over the course of the past few weeks. The higher your HbA1c, the poorer your blood glucose control, the higher your likelihood of having diabetes, and the higher your cardiovascular risk. The low GI group had a statistically significant drop in their HbA1c value compared to the high GI group. But the difference was only 0.06%, a change that is biologically meaningless.

OK, let's take a step back. The goal of thinking about all this is to understand what's healthy, right? Let's take a look at how healthy cultures eat their carbohydrate foods. Cultures that rely heavily on carbohydrate generally fall into three categories: they eat cooked starchy tubers, they grind and cook their grains, or they rely on grains that become very soft when cooked. In the first category, we have Africans, South Americans, Polynesians and Melanesians (including the Kitavans). In the second, we have various Africans, Europeans (including the villagers of the Loetschental valley), Middle Easterners and South Americans. In the third category, we have Asians, Europeans (the oat-eating residents of the outer Hebrides) and South Americans (quinoa-eating Peruvians).

The pattern here is one of maximizing GI, not minimizing it. That's not because high GI foods are inherently superior, but because traditional processing techniques that maximize the digestibility of carbohydrate foods also tend to increase their GI. I believe healthy cultures around the world didn't care about the glycemic index of foods, they cared about digestibility and nutritional value.

The reason we grind grains is simple. Ground grains are digested more easily and completely (hence the higher GI).  Furthermore, ground grains are more effective than intact grains at breaking down their own phytic acid when soaked, particularly if they're allowed to ferment. This further increases their nutritional value.

The human digestive system is delicate. Cows can eat whole grass seeds and digest them using their giant four-compartment stomach that acts as a fermentation tank. Humans that eat intact grains end up donating them to the waste treatment plant. We just don't have the hardware to efficiently extract the nutrients from cooked whole rye berries, unless you're willing to chew each bite 47 times. Oats, quinoa, rice, beans and certain other starchy seeds are exceptions because they're softened sufficiently by cooking.

Grain consumption and grinding implements appear simultaneously in the archaeological record. Grinding has always been used to increase the digestibility of tough grains, even before the invention of agriculture when hunter-gatherers were gathering wild grains in the fertile crescent. Some archaeologists consider grinding implements one of the diagnostic features of a grain-based culture. Carbohydrate-based cultures have always prioritized digestibility and nutritional value over GI.

Finally, I'd like to emphasize that some people don't have a good relationship with carbohydrate. Diabetics and others with glucose intolerance should be very cautious with carbohydrate foods. The best way to know how you deal with carbohydrate is to get a blood glucose meter and use it after meals. For $70 or less, you can get a cheap meter and 50 test strips that will give you a very good idea of your glucose response to typical meals (as opposed to a glucose bomb at the doctor's office). Jenny Ruhl has a tutorial that explains the process. It's also useful to pay attention to how you feel and look with different amounts of carbohydrate in your diet.

Free Time

Here is a good challenge to our thinking about free time. I particularly appreciate the conclusion, that brings things into focus:

Can you remember the names of all 4 of your grandparents?....

Ok, most of us can if we try hard, how about the names of all 8 of your great grandparents?

I didn’t think so, in two generations your own family won’t even remember you!

What are you doing in your spare time that will be remembered in eternity?

Change?

"If you are right that change has come, where is that change? What is the sign of that change? Make it clear for us what has changed."
Of course, Conservatives didn't believe it from the start. But you can't say this guy's a Conservative.

Amish Technology

No, this is not an oxymoron. Here is a very fascinating article I found at KK.org/the technium (I've added a link in the margin called The Technium). This is a blog by Kevin Kelly, an editor and founder of Wired magazine. The cultural lessons from the Amish and their adoption of new technology is very insightful for us. Here's how the article concludes:
"The Amish are steadily adopting technology -- at their pace. They are slow geeks. As one Amish man told Howard Rheingold, "We don't want to stop progress, we just want to slow it down," But their manner of slow adoption is instructive.

1) They are selective. They know how to say "no" and are not afraid to refuse new things. They ban more than they adopt.
2) They evaluate new things by experience instead of by theory. They let the early adopters get their jollies by pioneering new stuff under watchful eyes.
3) They have criteria by which to select choices: technologies must enhance family and community and distance themselves from the outside world.
4) The choices are not individual, but communal. The community shapes and enforces technological direction.

This method works for the Amish, but can it work for the rest of us? I don't know. It has not really been tried yet. And if the Amish hackers and early adopters teach us anything, it's that you have to try things first. Try first and relinquish later if need be. We are good at trying first; not good at relinquishing – except as individuals. To fulfill the Amish model we'd have to get better at relinquishing as a group. Social relinquishing. Not merely a large number (as in a movement) but a giving up that relies on mutual support. I have not seen any evidence of that happening, but it would be a telling sign if it did appear."

Ethnic Technologies

Here is an interesting article about how technologies are not universally adopted by groups of people even in a bordering village or across a river, for no apparent reason. Even when certain technologies, whether in weaponry, tools, architecture, or modern conveniences, are visibly superior and advantageous. In part:
"Technologies have a social dimension beyond their mere mechanical performance. We adopt new technologies largely because of what they do for us, but also in part because of what they mean to us. Often we refuse to adopt technology for the same reason: because of how the avoidance reinforces, or crafts our identity....

We should expect technology to continue to exhibit ethnic and social preferences. Groups or individuals will reject all kinds of technologically advanced innovations simply because. Because everyone else accepts them. Or because they clash with their self-conception. Because they don't mind doing things with more effort. I know an author who writes science fiction books today in long hand. At least the first draft. Efficiency and productivity may, in the future, be seen as something to avoid."


One commenter to this article brought up the issue of forks vs. chopsticks. I agree. And no one can really explain why a culture would continue to use chopsticks when forks are verifiably easier.

Consider what this may say for how we "do church". Is power point better than hymnals? What do each say about our identity? Are lapel mics for speakers or even small groups something that we have adopted or avoided because of our identity as "seeker sensitive" or "fundamentalist" or whatever would be altered? Very interesting sociological observations.

mar 21

Today I pigged out.  I don't feel guilty about it but I do feel more full than I'm comfortable with.  

Brekky:  smoothie, 0.5 oz brazil nuts, apple.

Lunch:  small apple.  3 large bowls of red beans and rice.  Three bowls!   It was good and I couldn't stop...this is a new recipe I made up this morning and I like it a lot.   very easy too.  and somehow I managed to eat a couple of small carrots too.

snack:  yes, a snack after all that.  well, I made cherry essene and wanted to try it.  had 2 servings.  It was good.  I'm going to take it on vacation.

Dinner:  guess what, I wasn't hungry!  I had a couple of small carrots, and some peas and corn.  

Nutritional info:  Calories 1905, protein 69 g (13%), carbs 365 (73%), fat 31 g (15%).

I should have done some weight lifting with all that protein I ate.  
 

cherry essene

I pretty much followed strix's instructions but I'm putting them here for easy reference.  well, I changed it a bit.

Ingredients:
1 cup kamut.  soak overnight, then sprout (seems to only take a day + a few hours) (after soaking and sprouting, it was closer to two cups).
1/4 cup dried cherries
1/4 cup raisins  (strix used 1/2 cup cherries but mine aren't that sweet so I split it with raisins)
1/4 cup walnuts
2 tsp vanilla
some freshly grated nutmeg

Soak the cherries and raisins in 1/3 cup water.   Then blend everything in the blender.  I added the soaking water too which helped it blend.  It takes a while to get the blender to start mixing it all--lots of smashing with the plunger.  But then you get a nice smooth batter.  Spread it on parchment paper on a big pan.  I baked it at 250 F for about 45 minutes then let it sit in the oven for another 30 minutes while I ran to the hardware store (I love the hardware store--those guys are so helpful!).  So alternatively I might have cooked it for 60 minutes if I were at home to watch it.  But this worked fine.  Oh, if you have a dehydrator, that's probably better and then you can keep this "raw", but I don't have requirements for raw (feel free to convince me otherwise).

Here's the batter spread out:













After it baked and cooled, I cut it into 11 pieces (servings).  














It wasn't super-sweet but I think it was just right, a nice flavor.  

Nutritional info per serving:  Calories 105, protein 3g (10%), carbs 19g (71%), fat 2g (19%)  

NCQA Quality Awards

Every year, the NCQA hosts a major event in Washington D.C. called the Quality Awards Dinner. Typically, the NCQA gives out multiple awards to deserving politicians, providers, and others, who have contributed to the quality agenda at the national level. This year, the dinner was held on Wednesday night March 18th and I attended along with one of my key new faculty members, Dr Susan DesHarnais---she directs our Masters Degree Program in Quality and Safety. The attendees at the dinner, numbering nearly 500, come from all across our industry. I recognized key policy persons from many of the biggest managed care plans in the country, vendors who service the industry and of course, the phamrmaceutical companies too. I was lucky enough to sit at the MedAssurant table, a key firm involved in processing data from managed care companies and helping them to turn that data into useful information to measure and improve quality. For me, the highlight of the evening was the brief talk by Dr Peter Orszag, director of the OMB and a key player in health reform. He reiterated the Obama Administration key message ---create an agenda for Comparative Effectiveness Research, change provider incentives,promote health IT and finally, invest more in prevention and wellness----that sure all sounds good to me!! I am more convinced than ever that our new Jefferson School of Population Health could not have come along at a better, or more challenging time!! Kudos to NCQA on a great event and for their ongoing work in our field. Hope I see you there next year, DAVID NASH

Integrated Nutrition, Lifestyle and Health Database

Ricardo from the website Canibais e Reis has just released a fantastic resource for anyone who's interested in the relationship between nutrition, lifestyle and health. It's an excel spreadsheet that integrates information from several international sources, including:
  • UN Food and Agriculture Organization Statistical Yearbook
  • FAOSTAT food consumption database
  • British Heart Foundation Health Statistics database
  • World Health Organization Global Health Atlas
This database provides a wealth of information on 86 different countries, and even includes a macro feature that automatically plots variables. This is an empowering resource for those of us who like to do our own research and come to our own conclusions, and I thank Ricardo for his hard work.

You can read more about the database and download it here.

barb's red beans & rice

Traditional red beans & rice was an easy meal to cook on the stove on wash day. Nowadays most recipes include lots of fancy ingredients and is a big production. Well, here's a recipe that's back to basics and nutritarian all the way--so completely different from the standard recipe (no smoke flavor or ham hocks or spices needed).

Ingredients:
1 cup red beans
1 cup pinto beans (more tender than red beans but you can use all red beans if you'd like---or any other kind--I just happened to have 1 cup left of each!)
1.5 cups of brown and/or wild rice (or 1 cup or 2---I just happened to have 1.5 cup!)
1 large leek or onion
2 cups carrot juice
1-2 cups whatever else you want to juice up--I did beets and celery
1 tsp thyme (optional)
1 tsp oregano (optional)
chipotle powder to taste (small amount as it's hot)--this adds a little smoky flavor
1/4 tsp ground cloves--this also is remniscent of smoky flavor (think ham with cloves...)

Throw it all in the pot with a few more cups water, bring to a boil, turn down the heat to a simmer, and go do your chores or play. Check it every once in a while to make sure you have enough water. You can turn it off in 2-4 hours. But if you turn it off in 2 hours, you probably want to let it sit for another hour or two to continue softening the red beans while it cools. Today I turned on the stove at about 7:30 am, the stove was turned off at 10 am when housemate left the house, and when I returned at noon, it was still warm and nicely cooked.

You can add seasoning to taste in your bowl: cinnamon is good, believe it or not. Also gumbo file is good (ground sassafras leaves), and any no salt seasoning. If SAD (Standard American Diet) guests want to add salt, you can offer them salt or soy sauce or cajun seasoning or red pepper sauce, which all have salt in them--that's why people like them.

Makes 6 large bowls. Nutritional info per bowl: Calories 254, protein 13 g (20%), carbs 49 g (77%), fat > 1 g (3%).

The Wheels Have Come Off

I honestly don't know what to say. It seems as if Obama WANTS Geitner to fail. It's the only reasonable explanation I can think of for why he has not nominated any of the other 17 positions at Treasury. How can the man possibly do the job he is being asked to do. IHe can't answer the phone for his counterparts for the G20 meeting coming up, testify on Capitol Hill every other day, brief the President every morning, and then hold oversight meetings, all the while actually trying to find some solutions to the world's problems between meetings. Seriously! I'm not making excuses, but what the heck is going on? Is this really the federal government at it's brightest and best?

mar 20

Brekky: 0.5 oz brazil nuts & kiwi before yoga.  morning smoothie afterwards.

Lunch:  grapes (2 cups!), 0.5 cups frozen peas (munched on), baked sweet potato, steamed asparagus with lemon and sunflower seeds, 

Dinner: big easy salad, which had an additional treat in it:  sliced mango.  It was fantastic, at perfect ripeness.  That might have been the best mango I've ever eaten.  It was a small yellow one from Mexico.  I don't have good luck with the big green ones from South America.  They are shipped unripe and they don't ripen well in my kitchen.  But these little yellow ones are good.  I also had 2 small baked beets, carrots and celery while preparing, two small tangerines, and 0.5 oz brazil nuts.

total calories: 1613. protein 43 g (8%), carbs 293 g (68%), fat 44 g (24%).

I'll be curious to see if I get hungry in the middle of the night.  I kind of felt like I overate at dinner.   But 4 hours later I feel just right.    I don't like going to bed hungry.

Oh, I was at a gathering of friends tonight and there were the vegan chocolate chip cookies---these are the healthier ones (cowgirl cookies from the co-op) with whole wheat flour, coconut shavings, and oil instead of white flour and margarine.   I didn't have any but it wasn't because of discipline.  The host just forgot to serve them.  haha.  until the end when we were putting on our coats.  then it was easy to say no.  I doubt I would have resisted if they had been served earlier---even though, I really don't like them that much.   It's like alcohol.  I stopped liking it long before I stopped drinking with friends.  I still have a hard time saying no sometimes even though I have no desire for it and usually feel tired the next day.  I just want to be a part of the gang sometimes.   Maybe I have to change my mentality about gangs.  Maybe I should think of myself as a leader instead of a follower.  Sounds silly but it could work.   Stranger things have happened.  Huh, maybe this is why women often have more trouble adopting this eating plan.  I get the impression that women have a harder time in social situations, from what I read on the Fuhrman forums.  And women are programmed more to be followers.  A lot of the men are able to be more rational about it.  I don't mean to be sexist, it just seems that some of the men are able to just decide this is the way to go and do it.  And a lot of men are more comfortable in leadership roles due to socialization in our society.  Maybe we women just need to adopt that mentality more.  Pretend you are a leader rather than a follower.  I think there's a lot of power in pretending.

It's Time to Let Go of The Glycemic Index

The glycemic index (GI) is a measure of how much an individual food elevates blood sugar when it's eaten. To measure it, investigators feed a person a food that contains a fixed amount of carbohydrate, and measure their blood glucose response over time. Then they determine the area under the glucose curve and compare it to a standard quickly digesting food such as white bread or pure glucose.

Each food must contain the same total amount of carbohydrate, so you might have to eat a big plate of carrots to compare with a slice of bread. You end up with a number that reflects the food's ability to elevate glucose when eaten in isolation. It typically depends on how quickly the carbohydrate is absorbed, with higher numbers usually resulting from faster absorption.

The GI is a standby of modern nutritional advice. It's easy to believe in because processed foods tend to have a higher glycemic index than minimally processed foods, high blood sugar is bad, and chronically high insulin is bad. But many people have criticized the concept, and rightly so.

Blood sugar responses to a carbohydrate-containing foods vary greatly from person to person. For example, I can eat a medium potato and a big slice of white bread (roughly 60 g carbohydrate) with nothing else and only see a modest spike in my blood sugar. I barely break 100 mg/dL and I'm back at fasting glucose levels within an hour and a half. You can see a graph of this experiment here. That's what happens when you have a well-functioning pancreas and insulin-sensitive tissues. Your body shunts glucose into the tissues almost as rapidly as it enters the bloodstream. Someone with impaired glucose tolerance might have gone up to 170 mg/dL for two and a half hours on the same meal.

The other factor is that foods aren't eaten in isolation. Fat, protein, acidity and other factors slow carbohydrate absorption in the context of a normal meal, to the point where the GI of the individual foods become much less pronounced.

It's time to put my money where my mouth is. Researchers have conducted a number of controlled trials comparing low-GI diets to high-GI diets. I've done an informal literature review to see what the overall findings are. I'm only interested in long-term studies-- 10 weeks or longer-- and I've excluded studies using subjects with metabolic disorders such as diabetes.

The question I'm asking with this review is, what are the health effects of a low-glycemic index diet on a healthy normal-weight or overweight person? I found a total of seven studies on PubMed in which investigators varied GI while keeping total carbohydrate about the same, for 10 weeks or longer. I'll present them out of chronological order because they flow better that way.

Study #1. Investigators put overweight women on a 12-week diet of either high-GI or low-GI foods with an equal amount of total carbohydrate. Both were unrestricted in calories. Body composition and total food intake were the same on both diets. The reason became apparent when they measured the subjects' glucose and insulin response to the high- and low-GI meals, and found that they were the same!

Study #2. Investigators divided 129 overweight young adults into four different diet groups for 12 weeks. Diet #1: high GI, high carbohydrate (60%). Diet #2: low GI, high carbohydrate. Diet #3: high GI, high-protein (28%). Diet #4: low GI, high protein. The high-protein diets were also a bit higher in fat. Although the differences were small and mostly not statistically significant, participants on diet #3 improved the most overall in my opinion. They lost the most weight, and had the greatest decrease in fasting insulin and calculated insulin resistance. Diet #2 came out modestly ahead of diet #1 on fat loss and fasting insulin.

Study #3. At 18 months, this is by far the longest trial. Investigators assigned 203 healthy Brazilian women to either a low-GI or high-GI energy-restricted diet. The difference in GI between the two diets was very large; the high-GI diet was double the low-GI diet. Weight loss was a meager 1/3 pound greater in the low-GI group, a difference that was not statistically significant at 18 months. Insulin resistance and fasting insulin decreased in the high-GI group but increased in the low-GI group, also not statistically significant.

Study #4. The FUNGENUT study. In this 12-week intervention, investigators divided 47 subjects with the metabolic syndrome into two diet groups. One was a high-glycemic, high-wheat group; the other was a low-glycemic, high-rye group. After 12 weeks, there was an improvement in the insulinogenic index (a marker of early insulin secretion in response to carbohydrate) in the rye group but not the wheat group. Glucose tolerance was essentially the same in both groups.

What makes this study unique is they went on to look at changes in gene expression in subcutaneous fat tissue before and after the diets. They found a decrease in the expression of stress and inflammation-related genes in the rye group, and an increase in stress and inflammation genes in the wheat group. They interpreted this as being the result of the different GIs of the two diets.

I have a different interpretation. I believe wheat is a uniquely unhealthy food, that promotes inflammation and general metabolic havoc over a long period of time. This probably relates at least in part to its gluten content, which is double that of rye. Dr. William Davis has had great success with his cardiac patients by counseling them to eliminate wheat. He agrees based on his clinical experience that wheat has uniquely damaging effects on the metabolism that other sources of starch do not have.

Study #5. This is the only study I've seen that has found a tangible benefit for glycemic index modification. Investigators divided 18 subjects with elevated cardiovascular disease risk markers into two diets differing in their GI, for 12 weeks. The low-glycemic group lost 4 kg (statistically significant), while the high-glycemic group lost 1.5 kg (not statistically significant).  In addition, the low-GI group ended up with lower 24-hour blood glucose measurements.  This study was a bit strange because of the fact that the high-GI group started off 14 kg heavier than the low-GI group, and the way the data are reported is difficult to understand.  Perhaps these limitations, along with the study's incongruence with other controlled trails, are what inspired the authors to describe it as a pilot study.

Study #6. 45 overweight females were divided between high-GI and low-GI diets for 10 weeks. The low-GI group lost a small amount more fat than the high-GI group, but the difference wasn't significant. The low-GI group also had a 10% drop in LDL cholesterol.

Study #7. This was the second-longest trial, at 4 months. 34 subjects with impaired glucose tolerance were divided into three diet groups. Diet #1: high-carbohydrate (60%), high-GI. Diet #2: high-carbohydrate, low-GI. Diet #3: "low-carbohydrate" (49%), "high-fat" (monounsaturated from olive and canola oil). The diet #1 group lost the most weight, followed by diet #2, while diet #3 gained weight. The differences were small but statistically significant. The insulin and triglyceride response to a test meal improved in diet group #1 but not #2. The insulin response also improved in group #3. The high-GI group came out looking pretty good. 

[Update 10/2011-- please see this post for a recent example of a 6 month controlled trial including 720 participants that tested the effect of glycemic index modification on body fatness and health markers-- it is consistent with the conclusion below]

Overall, these studies do not support the idea that lowering the glycemic index of carbohydrate foods is useful for weight loss, insulin or glucose control, or anything else besides complicating your life. 

Further reading:

The Fructose Index is the New Glycemic Index

The BaaaStuds 2009

OK, since we're thinking about animals, check out these sheep herders. Seriously, these guys should join Facebook. They have way too much time on their hands. Then again, maybe people on Facebook should try their hand at this. Brilliant!

mar. 19

Brekky: 0.5 oz brazil nuts and morning smoothie.  I just realized I've been linking to the wrong smoothie.  I'll go correct a few of them...

Lunch:  kiwi, lentils & rice with peas added.  carrot and celery while preparing.  banana cherry ice cream for dessert.  yummy!  

Dinner: cabbage & apple dish (3 helpings!)  carrots and celery, and kiwi while preparing.  0.5 oz brazil nuts.  3 small tangerines.

total calories: 1646. protein 42 g (8%), carbs 316 g (70%), fat 40 g (21%).

I've lost a couple of pounds over the last month, and don't really want to lose any more.  Plus I've been getting hungry in the middle of the night.  So I think upping my calories today was good.  I think I'll be fine tonight.

Saddest Picture!

Here is one of the saddest pictures I've ever seen. I can laugh when humans do stupid things and must face the consequences, but animals are another story. The horse, Gracie, wanted to see what was in the hole in the tree, and, like a boy who gets his melon stuck in the monkey bars, couldn't pull it out. But the saddest part of this picture is that the poor beast has slumpt to the ground and appears to be holding the tree with her front legs. Honestly pitiful.

Doing a little research on this, I realized I'm a little late on this big story. Here's a video about the event, that includes the horse and her family retelling the account.

Diversity - Color or Culture?

Recently I heard a radio commercial that portrayed a scenario where an adult brings a child to work (where there is "diversity") and the child, having enjoyed the experience, asks the parent on the way home, "Why are there only white people where we live?" The closing tag says something like, "Diversity is good and enriches all of life." I heard another one today that created a different scenario, but hit the same conclusion at the end. This one credited the 40th anniversary of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 as the reason for bringing this matter to the radio waves. I have several thoughts about "Diversity" that flood my mind when I hear such promos.

First, let's just say I support the emphasis. It is practically impossible to implement. To illustrate:

If each community (town, city, subdivision, etc) was made up of 100 people (just to make the math easy), based on the quick facts of the US Census (numbers estimated for 2007), each community would need to have (split the group 50/50 between Male /Female):

65 White persons

15 Hispanics/Latinos persons

12.8 Black persons

1 American Indian and Alaska Native persons

4.4 Asian persons

.2 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander

1.6 Persons reporting two or more races

Now, according to the radio commercials, this needs to be duplicated everywhere across the US; including Atlanta, Miami, Seattle, Grand Forks, Cincinnati, Pueblo, etc. You get the point. Practically, this simply is not possible. So the "admonition" to embrace diversity cannot be honestly responded to by the average hearer. I get the objective: we should be open to different races and should not hinder the integration of "others" within our own communities. OK. But then say that!

But, the argument would go, just "being open to" diversity doesn't change a thing. There must be effort involved. Again, I get it. But maybe the point is then to talk about not discriminating and attacking the negative behaviors and attitudes, rather than trying to promote some bizarre proactive behavior. This was the point of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 anyways, wasn't it? This, I agree with and can support.

But let me point out a few other thoughts. "Diversity" today generally includes a broader agenda then just fair housing. It has led to quotas in hiring practices, ongoing training in the work place primarily for White people, Affirmative Action, and a slough of other tangential agendas. This ultimately has turned "Diversity" into "color counting", sort of like above, but with highly weighted measures on the minority (not hiring 13 Black for every 65 White employees, but rather, for every one White we need one Black, etc).

More importantly, this "color counting" fails to consider one other factor that may not be as easily distinguished: the importance of culture over color. As a White Christian, I have more in common (and am more at home/comfortable interacting with) a Black Christian, than a White non-Christian. The predominant culture of a group of people is what generally attracts them: "Birds of a feather flock together!" The common "feather" being the prevailing cultural principles and values that the flock ascribes to. Since I brought it up, many people say that the most segregated time in America is noon on Sunday (implying when most Americans are at church). And granted there are racial divisions, but I would propose what is even greater are the cultural divisions that can probably be most clearly seen in religious life.

Starting with the family unit, cultural principles set "comfort zones". If you've ever seen the reality TV show "Wife Swap" you understand this. Most often there is not a racial component in the "swap", but the cultural diversity is huge! Remember the brilliantly portrayed contrast of the families in My Big Fat Greek Wedding? Extrapolate this out to the most sacredly-held beliefs expressed in religious habits, and everything in between. Culture is the key, not color! And culture is much more than, yet often mistaken as synonymous with, color/race.

Additionally, where the work place is seen as an example of diversity (as illustrated in the radio ads), I think it should be pointed out that racial differences are in most ways suppressed in the corporate CULTURE that is dictated by an employer. This culture is as pervasive as encompassing dress code, personal articles decorating a workspace, relationship boundaries, and basic standards of behavior with corresponding disciplinary actions for infringement, etc. Individual "diversity" is practically dissolved in a corporate culture. There is no one to do this in a social environment or local neighborhood. This means you can paint your garage door to resemble a Greek flag or decorate your house with Christmas lights like Chevy Chase, or leave your Christmas lights up all year round like Gretchen Wilson. If your neighbors don't like it, let 'em move! And thus, it is clear to see why it is easier to live among those who naturally embrace similar cultural values.

But this leads me to the final thought that comes up when I hear these promotions for diversity. Who says diversity is a good thing? Now slow down. I'm not advocating a Nazi agenda of securing a pure race. I'm asking a question about culture, not color.

Many have suggested that diversity, or pluralism (many cultures being equal in one place), is a good thing. However, Chicago is a very diverse city, but it is not integrated / homogeneous. And the value of homogeneity is what is critical to the success of a community. Homogeneity gets to the heart of mixing diverse peoples into a melded culture. America was known as "The Melting Pot" because the American culture has integrated aspects of various cultures (one example is the popularity of people wearing green clothing on St Patrick's Day, even if they're not Irish). Multi-culturalism has ultimately led to more segregation in inner-cities where pockets of immigrants fail to assimilate into the American culture. So diversity is actually superficial, and potentially conflicted, if it does not integrate culture, but fixates on color alone.

This challenge to the promotion of diversity was underscored in a 2001 study by Robert Putnam, a Harvard political scientist, that was highlighted in 2007 article in the Boston Globe. According to the Globe article,

"The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings. "The extent of the effect is shocking," says Scott Page, a University of Michigan political scientist."

The study found:

"Higher diversity meant lower social capital. In his findings, Putnam writes that those in more diverse communities tend to "distrust their neighbors, regardless of the color of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television. People living in ethnically diverse settings appear to 'hunker down' -- that is, to pull in like a turtle," Putnam writes."

My bottom line is that we should not work for social diversity, as much as cultural homogeneity among different groups. I am not advocating for segregationism or racial isolationism. I am pointing out what I believe should be a subtle, but crucial, shift in the focus of diversity efforts. Ironically, Sunday at noon is one of the prime times in America where this is exhibited, contrary to what many assume. People from every economic background, marital status, occupational pursuit, age demographic, and even race come together, not to focus on their differences, but the cultural values (religiously speaking) they have in common. The differences meld into a distinctly other (from the individual's) and solidly similar (among the participants) cultural expression. This should be a great example for those interested in promoting integration in America.

Blog Archive