Two new studies suggest that antibiotic use - especially in the under 6 month old set - can cause gut bacteria to rebalance. This potentially sets the stage for obesity. The discovery coincide with a rise in the use of antibiotics, including at a younger age. I've also been doing a lot of reading of emerging science on just how complicated our gut bacteria is. It plays a big and fascinating role in our life. When things go wrong with it, it can have depressing consequences.
But you know, maybe we should ban soda.
Showing posts with label health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Milk Dud
Here is an article that caught my eye titled “5 ways milk doesn’t do a body good. It’s a The Week story apparently based on an opinion piece in the New York Times.
The gist is that there are reasons why humans should not drink milk, or at the very least, the downsides to such consumption. But the reasoning is a bit flawed; to say the least. I take down the five (really four and one half) arguments below. “Checks” indicate my support with the argument. “Milk dud” indicates I think the argument falls short.
First description of problem: I’m guessing they put it up top is because it’s the best. Anyway, the article notes milk is high in calories and saturated fat. The article notes that milk has the same calorie load as soda on an ounce for ounce basis. Also: Sugar. Egad! And the story notes milk consumption is linked to type 1 diabetes and that milk contains as much saturated fat as French fries.
My thoughts: Since when did calorie load become the absolute measuring stick for food health? Just about everything seems inflated when compare to carrots or kale, so should we only be eating those things? (yes, I realize comparing something to unhealthy soda is a bit different than comparing it to healthy kale). And I thought we had largely given up the saturated fat fear, but I’ll go along.
Fat, half check; diabetes risk, check; calories, half check.
Second description: A lot of people can’t drink it. Like, 50 million people and 90 percent of Asian-Americans and 75 percent of African-Americans!
My thoughts: Um, Ok. A lot of people can’t run a 4-minute mile or do a triatholon either. My son Liam and many others can’t handle penicillin-based antibiotics (that’s 20% of this family!). This argument is so irrelevant that I’m not sure what to say.
Lots of people can’t drink it! Bad argument. Milk dud.
Third description: Milk is often full of chemicals. The article notes additives have been blamed for skin conditions, acne (aren’t they the same?) and inflammation. Its source appears to be Blisstree’s Deborah Dunham, who notes that we are the only species to drink milk from another species.
My thoughts: Let’s ignoring the boogieman of “chemicals” and the fact that “chemical” doesn’t equate with bad or harmful. “Natural” products can sometimes be more harmful than “chemical” ones. Even then, lots of products are full of chemicals. Tea has photochemicals like HGCG that are very good for you. Merely saying “chemical” isn’t going to win me over. Secondly, we are also the only species with a legal system, or cars, or clothing made from the hides of other species, but I doubt you would use that argument for those items. And besides, I think the cross-species milk drinking probably has a lot to do with the fact that in nature, species tend to be hostile to one another.
Chemicals! I hate doing this based on the unreasonable fear, but half-check for at least listing potential problems, even if they are shadily sourced.
Fourth description: Many people are allergic (hey, didn’t we see something like this already?). Milk follows only peanuts as a food allergen.
My thoughts: Allergies! This is literally the end of the argument. So, are we to abandon peanuts? And once we’ve abandoned peanuts and milk, are we then going to abandon the new #1 and #2 allergens? Something has to be #1 on the list. Not going to cut it. Milk dud.
Fifth description: You don’t need milk for strong bones. Exercise and Vitamin D contribute to strong bones.
My thoughts: Yeah, but just about every food has an alternate supplier of the nutrients its supplies. Life isn’t about optimizing nutrient delivery; at least mine isn’t. Absolutely deplorable. Milk dud
The article ends on an odd note by quoting someone at Lifehacker regarding the health benefits of milk, but then says you should drink milk because you enjoy it and not for its health claims. Um, what? This despite the fact that the opening paragraph of the story noted that milk is “packed with nutrients” and helps kids grow taller.
The gist is that there are reasons why humans should not drink milk, or at the very least, the downsides to such consumption. But the reasoning is a bit flawed; to say the least. I take down the five (really four and one half) arguments below. “Checks” indicate my support with the argument. “Milk dud” indicates I think the argument falls short.
First description of problem: I’m guessing they put it up top is because it’s the best. Anyway, the article notes milk is high in calories and saturated fat. The article notes that milk has the same calorie load as soda on an ounce for ounce basis. Also: Sugar. Egad! And the story notes milk consumption is linked to type 1 diabetes and that milk contains as much saturated fat as French fries.
My thoughts: Since when did calorie load become the absolute measuring stick for food health? Just about everything seems inflated when compare to carrots or kale, so should we only be eating those things? (yes, I realize comparing something to unhealthy soda is a bit different than comparing it to healthy kale). And I thought we had largely given up the saturated fat fear, but I’ll go along.
Fat, half check; diabetes risk, check; calories, half check.
Second description: A lot of people can’t drink it. Like, 50 million people and 90 percent of Asian-Americans and 75 percent of African-Americans!
My thoughts: Um, Ok. A lot of people can’t run a 4-minute mile or do a triatholon either. My son Liam and many others can’t handle penicillin-based antibiotics (that’s 20% of this family!). This argument is so irrelevant that I’m not sure what to say.
Lots of people can’t drink it! Bad argument. Milk dud.
Third description: Milk is often full of chemicals. The article notes additives have been blamed for skin conditions, acne (aren’t they the same?) and inflammation. Its source appears to be Blisstree’s Deborah Dunham, who notes that we are the only species to drink milk from another species.
My thoughts: Let’s ignoring the boogieman of “chemicals” and the fact that “chemical” doesn’t equate with bad or harmful. “Natural” products can sometimes be more harmful than “chemical” ones. Even then, lots of products are full of chemicals. Tea has photochemicals like HGCG that are very good for you. Merely saying “chemical” isn’t going to win me over. Secondly, we are also the only species with a legal system, or cars, or clothing made from the hides of other species, but I doubt you would use that argument for those items. And besides, I think the cross-species milk drinking probably has a lot to do with the fact that in nature, species tend to be hostile to one another.
Chemicals! I hate doing this based on the unreasonable fear, but half-check for at least listing potential problems, even if they are shadily sourced.
Fourth description: Many people are allergic (hey, didn’t we see something like this already?). Milk follows only peanuts as a food allergen.
My thoughts: Allergies! This is literally the end of the argument. So, are we to abandon peanuts? And once we’ve abandoned peanuts and milk, are we then going to abandon the new #1 and #2 allergens? Something has to be #1 on the list. Not going to cut it. Milk dud.
Fifth description: You don’t need milk for strong bones. Exercise and Vitamin D contribute to strong bones.
My thoughts: Yeah, but just about every food has an alternate supplier of the nutrients its supplies. Life isn’t about optimizing nutrient delivery; at least mine isn’t. Absolutely deplorable. Milk dud
The article ends on an odd note by quoting someone at Lifehacker regarding the health benefits of milk, but then says you should drink milk because you enjoy it and not for its health claims. Um, what? This despite the fact that the opening paragraph of the story noted that milk is “packed with nutrients” and helps kids grow taller.
Monday, April 2, 2012
I'm at 89
I've now done 89 pushups over 6 sets (approximately 5 minutes). The program I'm using is trying to get me to 50 consecutive pushups. I started out at appoximately 25 and I've been doing 20+ on that last set, so I should be, well, at least closer.
I actually pushed another, probably better, post out of the way to make room for this one, so check back later for a post that involves an XKCD comic as well as a glimpse into the mind of Bryan.
I actually pushed another, probably better, post out of the way to make room for this one, so check back later for a post that involves an XKCD comic as well as a glimpse into the mind of Bryan.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Back to the salt's mine
After NY and other places went on a tear and tried to ban salt, or at least reduce its use, and after years of government programs shouted from the rooftops regarding the hazards of the white crystal, it turns out that lowering your salt intake can be harmful. And these weren't crazy reductions to like 600 mg per day, these people were still eating - after the reduction - 3,800 mg, which is much much higher than the 2,000 mg the government recommends.
Meanwhile, out on the left coast Los Angeles is busy preventing new fast food chains from opening, on the premise that they locate in poor neighborhoods and make the poor fat. Ignoring the personal choice issue, it turns out that - OMG - middle class people eat more fast food and in fact, the richer you are, the more fast you eat, up to about $60,000 in income. The availability of healthy food in poor neighborhoods, and health and obesity in general in those areas, is an issue, but simplifying it down to "fast food = bad" is not the way to solve it. But it makes some people feel like they are helping, so who cares who it hurts.
Oh, and after needlessly worrying parents for the last 5 or so years, it turns out that your fat baby probably isn't going to grow up to be the blob.
Meanwhile, out on the left coast Los Angeles is busy preventing new fast food chains from opening, on the premise that they locate in poor neighborhoods and make the poor fat. Ignoring the personal choice issue, it turns out that - OMG - middle class people eat more fast food and in fact, the richer you are, the more fast you eat, up to about $60,000 in income. The availability of healthy food in poor neighborhoods, and health and obesity in general in those areas, is an issue, but simplifying it down to "fast food = bad" is not the way to solve it. But it makes some people feel like they are helping, so who cares who it hurts.
Oh, and after needlessly worrying parents for the last 5 or so years, it turns out that your fat baby probably isn't going to grow up to be the blob.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Now might be one of few times when it's appropriate to panic
I've always chuckled when I've reading warnings say "First, don't panic." Then I came across a warning that said "now is not the time to panic."
Thanks. I'll keep that in mind.
The silliness of the warnings (is there ever a good time to panic?) has led me to saying "now is the time to panic" - or just saying panic! - during times of relatively unimportant disturbances. So, if we are out of pudding - panic!
But in answer to my question above, I thought I may have found a situation where panic is entirely appropriate, via CNN:
What to do when body parts fall off
Sadly, the headline is a bit misleading, since it opens with a story about unintentional amputation. That isn't exactly "falling off." And of course, panic isn't the proper response. Foiled again!
Thanks. I'll keep that in mind.
The silliness of the warnings (is there ever a good time to panic?) has led me to saying "now is the time to panic" - or just saying panic! - during times of relatively unimportant disturbances. So, if we are out of pudding - panic!
But in answer to my question above, I thought I may have found a situation where panic is entirely appropriate, via CNN:
What to do when body parts fall off
Sadly, the headline is a bit misleading, since it opens with a story about unintentional amputation. That isn't exactly "falling off." And of course, panic isn't the proper response. Foiled again!
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
So, this is your god
You hear all the time about how Church goers tend to live longer, healthier lives. What you never hear is this tid bit from a Slate.com story (emphasis mine):
Of course, maybe God knew it was a study, had fun with it, and is sitting up their laughing at us as some kind of practical joke. Since we can't know the plan the man in the sky and his super-marketer have for us, he pretty much has carte blanche to do whatever, doesn't he?
I'm not convinced it mattered one way or the other. The fewer complications were probably an anomoly or some other issue with the study. But if you are going on faith alone that a omnipotent, benevolent god exists, intervenes, and listens in any way to prayer, this can't be good.Christians, of course, don't limit their prayers to the deceased—they also pray for the sick, and several recent studies have tested whether this practice contributes to recovery. The answer appears to be no.
As part of a study published in the American Heart Journal in 2006, researchers asked Christian congregations to pray for two groups of cardiac patients—the first group knew the Christians were praying on their behalf, and the second thought they might be. As a control, researchers told a third group that Christians might pray for them, but the Christians did not do so.
Mortality rates were comparable across the three groups, but the unprayed-for group experienced the fewest complications.
Of course, maybe God knew it was a study, had fun with it, and is sitting up their laughing at us as some kind of practical joke. Since we can't know the plan the man in the sky and his super-marketer have for us, he pretty much has carte blanche to do whatever, doesn't he?
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
It's the trifecta! The trifecta, I tell ya!
Its not exactly the technological singularity, or even the other, more sciency, singularity, but still.
This reason.com post and the accompanying video (well worth a watch in my opinion - but I wouldn't have posted it if I didn't think that was the case) hits all the interests: government programs, health and food. And there is a TED mention, to boot.
This reason.com post and the accompanying video (well worth a watch in my opinion - but I wouldn't have posted it if I didn't think that was the case) hits all the interests: government programs, health and food. And there is a TED mention, to boot.
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.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
28.6
That's my BMI. 28.6. And I was generous, giving my honestly 6-foot 2-inch/2.5 inch height an additional inch or half inch of height. I used this morning's 229 weight. Even assuming that was high, 225 pounds at 6'3 gets me 28.1.
I'm not the first to rail against BMI, nor is this even my first time. But let's put that in perspective...
BMI Categories:
Underweight = less than 18.5
Normal weight = 18.5-24.9
Overweight = 25-29.9
Obesity = BMI of 30 or greater
To get to 24.9 I have to get down to 199 pounds. Now, I'm not particularly athletic. I keep in shape and workout. Yes, I lift some weights and do pushups, and I follow a program designed to get me lean. What I don't do is extreme weight lifting. I do push ups and just recently started using weights in one or two of my exercised. And I don't participate in any type of sport. So I'm not sure I fall into this site's "overestimate body fat in athletes and others who have a muscular build." I wouldn't ordinarily describe myself as muscular. Frankly, if I'm muscular, I'd hate to think what the alternative is. Though, based on convos with siblings, I guess maybe I have a distorted view. Now, luckily, the site also includes a helpful "waist measurement" component. So let's look there, shall we? Athletes and "the muscular" should have thin waists and thus offset this whole problem, right?
Hmmm.... a waist greater than 40 inches with the same BMI is at a "high" risk.
Good thing: I've been keeping my waist measurements over the last year.
Bad thing:
- 41.5 in August '08,
- 39.75 in December '08
- 41.25 in April '09
- 40.75 in May '09
So, in the last year, AT BEST, I've been at an "increased" risk for diease, and then only by a quarter inch, easily within the margin of measuring error or happenstance of having been slightly dehyrdated. The rest of the time I've been in the "high" risk category. WTF?
And let's look at weight during that same period....
- 223.5 lbs on August 1, 2008
- 216.5 on Dec. 31 (exact date of the waist measurement)
- ? in April 09
- 226-229 in May/June '09.
So. My weight is up 6 or so pounds from August, 15 from December. My waist is currently right in the middle of the measurements from those two months (though lower than August and higher than December).
So, since August 2008 I've gained 6 pounds, lost .75 inches off my waist, and stayed pretty solidly in the "overweight" BMI category. A mere 10 pounds (240 total lbs) and I'm "obese." That's not an "overestimate," that's ridiculous.
I gorge too much at times. Guilty.
I carry the tiniest bit of weight in my belly. Guilty.
But frankly, to get down to 199, the very max I can weigh, or even to eliminate that belly, I'd have to have a six pack or be anorexically thin. To get to a perfectly respectible 20.6 BMI I'd have to weigh 165 pounds.
It's just not feasible. So I guess I'm athletic or muscular. I guess I have to be. Not sure what that means for real weight lifters or guys who are actually athletes. But it seems to me that if an average, in shape guy can throw the system that badly, its probably not much of a system.
BMI Prime, which tries to calculate for the overally tall, since they skew the scale (since when has 6'2 been abnormally tall? Tall, yes. But, abnormally?) puts my upper acceptable weight at .... 199.25. The same as BMI.
I'm not the first to rail against BMI, nor is this even my first time. But let's put that in perspective...
BMI Categories:
Underweight = less than 18.5
Normal weight = 18.5-24.9
Overweight = 25-29.9
Obesity = BMI of 30 or greater
To get to 24.9 I have to get down to 199 pounds. Now, I'm not particularly athletic. I keep in shape and workout. Yes, I lift some weights and do pushups, and I follow a program designed to get me lean. What I don't do is extreme weight lifting. I do push ups and just recently started using weights in one or two of my exercised. And I don't participate in any type of sport. So I'm not sure I fall into this site's "overestimate body fat in athletes and others who have a muscular build." I wouldn't ordinarily describe myself as muscular. Frankly, if I'm muscular, I'd hate to think what the alternative is. Though, based on convos with siblings, I guess maybe I have a distorted view. Now, luckily, the site also includes a helpful "waist measurement" component. So let's look there, shall we? Athletes and "the muscular" should have thin waists and thus offset this whole problem, right?
Hmmm.... a waist greater than 40 inches with the same BMI is at a "high" risk.
Good thing: I've been keeping my waist measurements over the last year.
Bad thing:
- 41.5 in August '08,
- 39.75 in December '08
- 41.25 in April '09
- 40.75 in May '09
So, in the last year, AT BEST, I've been at an "increased" risk for diease, and then only by a quarter inch, easily within the margin of measuring error or happenstance of having been slightly dehyrdated. The rest of the time I've been in the "high" risk category. WTF?
And let's look at weight during that same period....
- 223.5 lbs on August 1, 2008
- 216.5 on Dec. 31 (exact date of the waist measurement)
- ? in April 09
- 226-229 in May/June '09.
So. My weight is up 6 or so pounds from August, 15 from December. My waist is currently right in the middle of the measurements from those two months (though lower than August and higher than December).
So, since August 2008 I've gained 6 pounds, lost .75 inches off my waist, and stayed pretty solidly in the "overweight" BMI category. A mere 10 pounds (240 total lbs) and I'm "obese." That's not an "overestimate," that's ridiculous.
I gorge too much at times. Guilty.
I carry the tiniest bit of weight in my belly. Guilty.
But frankly, to get down to 199, the very max I can weigh, or even to eliminate that belly, I'd have to have a six pack or be anorexically thin. To get to a perfectly respectible 20.6 BMI I'd have to weigh 165 pounds.
It's just not feasible. So I guess I'm athletic or muscular. I guess I have to be. Not sure what that means for real weight lifters or guys who are actually athletes. But it seems to me that if an average, in shape guy can throw the system that badly, its probably not much of a system.
BMI Prime, which tries to calculate for the overally tall, since they skew the scale (since when has 6'2 been abnormally tall? Tall, yes. But, abnormally?) puts my upper acceptable weight at .... 199.25. The same as BMI.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
A couple health links/stories of notes
Part 3 of the consecutive posts/days with a health-related story. I'll soon have rename the damn site & 1 Thing.
A new review shows that while obesity is the cause of heart disease, obese heart patients live longer than lean patients and respond better to treatment. And lest you object with "one study does not a fact make," take note: It's a phenom that has its own name: it's called the obesity paradox and "study after study has shown that obese heart patients have better survival and have fewer strokes and heart attacks than normal-weight or underweight heart patients with the same severity of disease." This is all relevant to yesterday's post and resulting comment. It might be the case that lean people who get heart disease have some deeper, more troubling heart problem than self-imposed "obese" heart disease and that's why they don't react to treatment as well. Or it could be something else. Either way, I think it demonstrates the folly of trying to micromanage such things. Throw out the microscale - individualized issues/choices - even on the macro scale "common sense" doesn't always rule.
Good news for green tea, though not so much for drinkers as for growers... EGCG may be the missing ingredient for an anti-HIV gel. Me thinks this will somehow end up in green tea advertising, probably not on the tea itself, but on some cream containing it. Though the "green tea in every product imaginable" phase has seemingly past us now.
A new review shows that while obesity is the cause of heart disease, obese heart patients live longer than lean patients and respond better to treatment. And lest you object with "one study does not a fact make," take note: It's a phenom that has its own name: it's called the obesity paradox and "study after study has shown that obese heart patients have better survival and have fewer strokes and heart attacks than normal-weight or underweight heart patients with the same severity of disease." This is all relevant to yesterday's post and resulting comment. It might be the case that lean people who get heart disease have some deeper, more troubling heart problem than self-imposed "obese" heart disease and that's why they don't react to treatment as well. Or it could be something else. Either way, I think it demonstrates the folly of trying to micromanage such things. Throw out the microscale - individualized issues/choices - even on the macro scale "common sense" doesn't always rule.
Good news for green tea, though not so much for drinkers as for growers... EGCG may be the missing ingredient for an anti-HIV gel. Me thinks this will somehow end up in green tea advertising, probably not on the tea itself, but on some cream containing it. Though the "green tea in every product imaginable" phase has seemingly past us now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)