It's a tricky thing; growing up, getting older, that is.
One day, you are your parents' child. The world is laid out before you like a red carpet of opportunity and adventure. You are but one grain of sand in a beach full.
You go to sleep one night, and when you wake up, you are your own person. You look around and realize that you are now securely established on that carpet that that was previously laid out before you. You are still one in a sea of a million, but suddenly, its more like you are one person in a sea of hundreds of people on that beach. The individual particles now softly giving way under the weight of your labored step.
You look back and kinda, sorta - through the gray haze of the years - can see the point where you grew up. But, like a star, you have to look with your peripherial vision. Otherwise you lose it in the march of time that is your life.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Green with envy
Black tea, that is, after this WebMD article on the benefits of green tea.
Nothing horribly new. Green tea compounds have been shown to fight all manner of things, including heart disease, cancer, obesity, diabetes, non-Supermanism and stroke. But most of the studies are in the lab, not on people. Still.
The story notes that most human studies involve those from the East, where other factors could influence results (don't they adjust for that?).
The story also notes the lack of individuals who have a long history of drinking tea that they can study. Uh, right here. Hello! Willing participant with 8 years of 3-6 cups of 50% green tea drinking experience available!
And yeah, I made that pentultimate disease up.
Nothing horribly new. Green tea compounds have been shown to fight all manner of things, including heart disease, cancer, obesity, diabetes, non-Supermanism and stroke. But most of the studies are in the lab, not on people. Still.
The story notes that most human studies involve those from the East, where other factors could influence results (don't they adjust for that?).
The story also notes the lack of individuals who have a long history of drinking tea that they can study. Uh, right here. Hello! Willing participant with 8 years of 3-6 cups of 50% green tea drinking experience available!
And yeah, I made that pentultimate disease up.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Dealings with the Dalai Lama
Not personal ones, unfortunetly. That would be pretty cool though.
But on to the point of the post. Interesting article the the Dalai Lama, some of his recent statements, and the author's reaction to said statements are here. Its of special note because I'm reading the Art of Happiness.
Read some of the comments on the article for some... uh, criticism ... of the Dalai Lama's viewpoint. Some of it is even justified.
Anyway, take a read and come back. I'll wait...
-------
Done? Okay then. My problem is this - In my view, religious leaders often get stuck in a sticky web string of "touchy feely" philosophy rather than actual thought. The Marxist idea of everything to everyone get endorsed, despite never having worked anywhere and being responsible for some of the most heinious acts of man imaginable i.e. - N. Korea, USSR, China, et al. The fact that Capitalism has raised the fortunes of 1,000s is ignored. The Dalai Lama even acknowledges Capitalism's positive impact in China, and then dismisses it for the touch feely Marxism.
Part of the problem is that Marxism seems great at the moment if you apply it to a Capitalist made society that is promoting work and productivity because its already established a Living Standard A that can be distributed to all. But once you really start seeing the unintended consequences of a "from each, to each" philosophy, you realize that you now have a Living Standard B that will soon disintegrate into Living Standard C, on and on in a perpetuating cycle.
To me, the Devil is in the details. How much more "moral" can the system be, if it leads to the poverty - to the point of starvation - of thousands, if not tens of thousands? I suppose the Dalai Lama isn't all that worried about poverty - excepting starvation. But putting you in a more productive, prosperous place makes it that much more likely that another person, either through productivity or your generosity, can also be in a good place.
The second part is that it ignores that Capitalism does indeed have a moral underpinning. It suffers from having a title that isn't associated with a person's name, but it does have a moral underpinning.
Having said all this: The DL does seem to make some insightful points - mainly that Marxism/socialism has focused too heavily on destroying the successful class/ruling class and that as a result, when the revolution comes, there isn't much left to distribute. He suggests, instead of a resentful jealousy of the ruling class, that we employ a more compassionate stance overall.
I'm on board with that. I think there are rich that don't deserve their riches just as there are poor who don't deserve their poverty, and I'm not going to say either are totally deserving or undeserving of their lot. Nor am I going to pretend that being poor is the most horrible thing in the world or that being rich makes everything better. Both come with their own problems.
But on to the point of the post. Interesting article the the Dalai Lama, some of his recent statements, and the author's reaction to said statements are here. Its of special note because I'm reading the Art of Happiness.
Read some of the comments on the article for some... uh, criticism ... of the Dalai Lama's viewpoint. Some of it is even justified.
Anyway, take a read and come back. I'll wait...
-------
Done? Okay then. My problem is this - In my view, religious leaders often get stuck in a sticky web string of "touchy feely" philosophy rather than actual thought. The Marxist idea of everything to everyone get endorsed, despite never having worked anywhere and being responsible for some of the most heinious acts of man imaginable i.e. - N. Korea, USSR, China, et al. The fact that Capitalism has raised the fortunes of 1,000s is ignored. The Dalai Lama even acknowledges Capitalism's positive impact in China, and then dismisses it for the touch feely Marxism.
Part of the problem is that Marxism seems great at the moment if you apply it to a Capitalist made society that is promoting work and productivity because its already established a Living Standard A that can be distributed to all. But once you really start seeing the unintended consequences of a "from each, to each" philosophy, you realize that you now have a Living Standard B that will soon disintegrate into Living Standard C, on and on in a perpetuating cycle.
To me, the Devil is in the details. How much more "moral" can the system be, if it leads to the poverty - to the point of starvation - of thousands, if not tens of thousands? I suppose the Dalai Lama isn't all that worried about poverty - excepting starvation. But putting you in a more productive, prosperous place makes it that much more likely that another person, either through productivity or your generosity, can also be in a good place.
The second part is that it ignores that Capitalism does indeed have a moral underpinning. It suffers from having a title that isn't associated with a person's name, but it does have a moral underpinning.
Having said all this: The DL does seem to make some insightful points - mainly that Marxism/socialism has focused too heavily on destroying the successful class/ruling class and that as a result, when the revolution comes, there isn't much left to distribute. He suggests, instead of a resentful jealousy of the ruling class, that we employ a more compassionate stance overall.
I'm on board with that. I think there are rich that don't deserve their riches just as there are poor who don't deserve their poverty, and I'm not going to say either are totally deserving or undeserving of their lot. Nor am I going to pretend that being poor is the most horrible thing in the world or that being rich makes everything better. Both come with their own problems.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Sat Fat is just Phat
Someone informed me recently that my last post might have been mistaken and that saturated fat is still considered the boogeyman of fats. I'm willing to concede that the science isn't settled, but I'd like to point out a couple of things from the wiki sat fat page (yes, take it for what it is worth):
A 3-year study conducted of 235 postmenopausal women with established coronary artery disease, many also having metabolic syndrome concluded that "in postmenopausal women with relatively low total fat intake, a greater saturated fat intake is associated with less progression of coronary atherosclerosis." Nevertheless, the authors deemed that "the findings do not establish causality." [41][42]
A 2010 meta-analysis in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition looked at 21 unique studies containing over 350,000 people. They found no association between saturated fat and an increased risk for coronary heart disease, stroke, or cardiovascular disease.[17]
A study of 297 Portuguese males with acute myocardial infarction (MI), found that "total fat intake, lauric acid, palmitic acid [two common saturated fats] and oleic acid [a monoinsaturated fat] were inversely associated with acute MI" and concluded that "low intake of total fat and lauric acid from dairy products was related to acute MI". The authors suggest that "recommendations on fatty acid intake should aim for both an upper and lower limit".[43]
Fulani of northern Nigeria get around 25% of energy from saturated fat, yet their lipid profile is indicative of a low risk of cardiovascular disease. This finding is likely due to their high activity level and their low total energy intake.[44]
A 2004 article in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition raised the possibility that the supposed causal relationship between saturated fats and heart disease may actually be a statistical bias. The authors take the example of the "Finnish mental hospital study" in which saturated fat intakes were monitored more closely than were total fat intakes, therefore ignoring the possibility that simply a larger fat intake may lead to a higher risk of coronary diseases. It also suggests that other parameters were overlooked, such as carbohydrates intakes.[45]
A 3-year study conducted of 235 postmenopausal women with established coronary artery disease, many also having metabolic syndrome concluded that "in postmenopausal women with relatively low total fat intake, a greater saturated fat intake is associated with less progression of coronary atherosclerosis." Nevertheless, the authors deemed that "the findings do not establish causality." [41][42]
A 2010 meta-analysis in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition looked at 21 unique studies containing over 350,000 people. They found no association between saturated fat and an increased risk for coronary heart disease, stroke, or cardiovascular disease.[17]
A study of 297 Portuguese males with acute myocardial infarction (MI), found that "total fat intake, lauric acid, palmitic acid [two common saturated fats] and oleic acid [a monoinsaturated fat] were inversely associated with acute MI" and concluded that "low intake of total fat and lauric acid from dairy products was related to acute MI". The authors suggest that "recommendations on fatty acid intake should aim for both an upper and lower limit".[43]
Fulani of northern Nigeria get around 25% of energy from saturated fat, yet their lipid profile is indicative of a low risk of cardiovascular disease. This finding is likely due to their high activity level and their low total energy intake.[44]
A 2004 article in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition raised the possibility that the supposed causal relationship between saturated fats and heart disease may actually be a statistical bias. The authors take the example of the "Finnish mental hospital study" in which saturated fat intakes were monitored more closely than were total fat intakes, therefore ignoring the possibility that simply a larger fat intake may lead to a higher risk of coronary diseases. It also suggests that other parameters were overlooked, such as carbohydrates intakes.[45]
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Food choice, schmood schmoich, apparently
Reason.com has an interesting article of the White House's recent anti-obesity initiative and a peak at the newly redesigned food pyramid, along with the usual anti-government seasoning.
I've got some thoughts at my other blog.
I try not to cross post too often, but part of this blog's 1000 & 1 things is health & fitness. So I thought I would expand upon my other post.
So here goes: Don't even get me started on the food pyramid. It was a staple in schools and on food containers while I was growing up. Nice orderly progresssion from grains/carbs at the bottom (base), progressing up through fruits and veggies and meat and finally ending up in the smallest, topmost portion with fats and sugars. It was very nice.
And pretty much completely wrong.
Turns out, the carbs and grains that made the base of the pyramid really shouldn't form the base, because outside of a few whole grains and vegetables, carbs shouldn't be the base of your diet. Why not? They are mostly empty calories, and worse yet, they are relatively calorie dense and don't fill you up like, say fats and protiens. And lets just forget that the smallest part of the old pyramid makes a demon out of "fats," despite that saturated fats are probably one of the more healthy things you can eat.
So you see, the pyramid was pretty much entirely ass backwards or upside down, take your pick.
To make matters worse, based partly on that pyramid and party on advocacy from decades earlier, companies started abandoning fat at all costs. The result - trans fats and low-fat foods with high calorie counts. Both have since been discovered to be evils in the battle of the bulge.
Oh, and I forgot the best part of this little cross-over article: it gives me a place to crow about the fact that I'm down from 230ish pounds to 220 pounds. Almost all of it fat, as far as I can tell. And while on vacation R. and I worked out and I took a "fitness test" offered by one of the treadmills. It rated by VO2 Max as "above average."
Here I come, 210.
I've got some thoughts at my other blog.
I try not to cross post too often, but part of this blog's 1000 & 1 things is health & fitness. So I thought I would expand upon my other post.
So here goes: Don't even get me started on the food pyramid. It was a staple in schools and on food containers while I was growing up. Nice orderly progresssion from grains/carbs at the bottom (base), progressing up through fruits and veggies and meat and finally ending up in the smallest, topmost portion with fats and sugars. It was very nice.
And pretty much completely wrong.
Turns out, the carbs and grains that made the base of the pyramid really shouldn't form the base, because outside of a few whole grains and vegetables, carbs shouldn't be the base of your diet. Why not? They are mostly empty calories, and worse yet, they are relatively calorie dense and don't fill you up like, say fats and protiens. And lets just forget that the smallest part of the old pyramid makes a demon out of "fats," despite that saturated fats are probably one of the more healthy things you can eat.
So you see, the pyramid was pretty much entirely ass backwards or upside down, take your pick.
To make matters worse, based partly on that pyramid and party on advocacy from decades earlier, companies started abandoning fat at all costs. The result - trans fats and low-fat foods with high calorie counts. Both have since been discovered to be evils in the battle of the bulge.
Oh, and I forgot the best part of this little cross-over article: it gives me a place to crow about the fact that I'm down from 230ish pounds to 220 pounds. Almost all of it fat, as far as I can tell. And while on vacation R. and I worked out and I took a "fitness test" offered by one of the treadmills. It rated by VO2 Max as "above average."
Here I come, 210.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)