I have taken a fellow bandit's advice and have requested to have some fluid out of my band.
This goes against everything I feel should happen with the band. I honestly thought that you just gradually get topped up and up and up etc and you slowly starve yourself thin. Extreme, but there is not a lot of info about exactly HOW it works for real.
I have heard about how people get to their sweet spot etc, but I just thought they had been filled enough and were losing weight.
Paying someone to TAKE precious fluid out of my band seems crazy in my mind, but I know that I have to stop thinking that. I am too tight. Eating is a chore. I am all consumed with food, and I am thinking about nothing else other than eating or the lack of and this is making me feel like absolute rubbish.
Been looking back at my weight loss chart and I was going really well on 6.1mls, but had noticed the scales slowing down. My reaction was to get a little bit put in. Well 6.6mls is too much for me. Eating is a misery and a torture. I eat one mouthful and then cant have any more... this means that sometimes I don't even taste everything on my plate! I can cheat it a little bit. If I eat slowly to0 start with and then follow it with very wet food, I can eat more. But only in the evening. I very rarely eat before lunch time and today I ate my first thing at 3pm. That was a pot noodle. Nice and nutritious huh? Its wet, and slips down. That's what I am doing, just eating easy things and normally that means calories.
I would give anything just to be normal, and basically that 0.5mls has made too much difference. So I emailed Michelle at the WLSgroup today to book an appointment to take some fluid out. I cant do this any more. I feel exhausted from thinking about food; throwing it away kills me, eating it kills me, not eating enough is killing me, binging on junk is killing me.
I have not lost a bean for ages and I know its because I am trying to make myself feel better with food... food like chocolate and crisps which I can eat.
So will, keep you posted.
Kamis, 31 Juli 2008
Losing 60 Pounds in Six Months
Bill has lost 60 pounds in six months. He went from 240 pounds to 180 pounds by working out regularly at the gym and snacking on fruit instead of junk food. He got motivated to do it after visiting the doctor and learning he was starting to get diabetes and had high blood pressure.
He says, "I went from a 40 waist to a 34. I feel fantastic. I sleep a lot better. I've got a lot more flexibility. I swing a golf club a lot better now."
See his weight loss story as well as a video about him here.
What's Your Rhythm?
Over at the LivingAfterWLS Neighborhood in WLS Chat we have been talking about the 2B1B Rhythm. Do you know what that is? It is a method of counting food bites to make sure you get 66% protein and 33% complex carbohydrates. With the 2B1B Rhythm it is assumed that one has made a low-fat selection food choice and that processed or "white" carbs are not on the plate.Our Ambassador of Reception "N A
Rabu, 30 Juli 2008
Fat Boy
My family, some friends and I were at a restaurant last night. We ordered coffee after dinner. I poured a (very) generous amount of cream into my decaf. One of my friends gave me the nickname "fat boy" because I eat so much fat. The reason it's funny and not insulting is that I have a low bodyfat percentage. Paradox? I don't think so.
My family was also wide-eyed when I had three eggs for breakfast this morning, fried in butter. Sounds decadent, but it only adds up to 300 calories, or roughly 10% of my daily caloric intake.
My family was also wide-eyed when I had three eggs for breakfast this morning, fried in butter. Sounds decadent, but it only adds up to 300 calories, or roughly 10% of my daily caloric intake.
Fat Boy
My family, some friends and I were at a restaurant last night. We ordered coffee after dinner. I poured a (very) generous amount of cream into my decaf. One of my friends gave me the nickname "fat boy" because I eat so much fat. The reason it's funny and not insulting is that I have a low bodyfat percentage. Paradox? I don't think so.
My family was also wide-eyed when I had three eggs for breakfast this morning, fried in butter. Sounds decadent, but it only adds up to 300 calories, or roughly 10% of my daily caloric intake.
My family was also wide-eyed when I had three eggs for breakfast this morning, fried in butter. Sounds decadent, but it only adds up to 300 calories, or roughly 10% of my daily caloric intake.
How Does a Geek Lose Weight?
An anonymous geek asked for help on how to lose weight at home (too shy to go to the gym) and he got over 1,000 replies from fellow geeks on the Slashdot comment boards. One response was from Binaryboy who told him to try Yourself Fitness;
Yourself Fitness is an Xbox title - not sure if it runs on Xbox 360 - and is like having a personal aerobics and yoga instructor at home. I was little shy of aerobics in general at first, but once I got into it, learned the various moves without looking like an idiot, I was hooked. In the first year I lost 30 pounds (which was my target) and I felt 1000 times better.
See the interesting discussion at How Do Geeks Exercise?
Selasa, 29 Juli 2008
P'd off
Not in the mood. Completely pissed off with myself.
I cant believe we are the end of July and I have lost nothing basically since MAY.
Oh what the hell is wrong with me?
I feel shit. Cystitis is killing me slowly, as are the stupid ,ind games I play with myself. I just need to relax and let life happen. If I could, I think I would inject lard into my veins... such is the self sabotaging of my stupid fat ass!
I DON'T WANT TO, BUT I DO WANT TO.
What a screw up. I am even considering forgetting the bloody band as eating is a joke. I just cant handle it, and I am thinking about having all the fluid out and just having a normal life for a bit. I just don't know what to do because on the other hand I really do like the fact that I weigh less and stuff, and look better bla bla. Being slimmer doesn't seem to be making me as happy as I thought it would, or even as happy as I was last year in the initial weightloss phase before it broke.
The band break is still well and truly with me. I have not got over it. I am so wound up about how this works for everyone else and even the people who had the operation in November for the first time have lost like 60 pounds or something.
I feel very fucking sorry for myself.
Today's food & drink intake:
1 coffee
1 bag of 'Skips' style crisps in a party size bag
1 coffee
2 jelly babies
2 pints of water
1 pint of squash and potassium citrate liquid
Salad - comprising lettuce, beetroot, potato, coleslaw & a bite of quiche
2 pints of water
I feel as miserable as sin, and I hate the band. I just want to eat. I want to eat so badly.
I wish I had had the bypass.
I cant believe we are the end of July and I have lost nothing basically since MAY.
Oh what the hell is wrong with me?
I feel shit. Cystitis is killing me slowly, as are the stupid ,ind games I play with myself. I just need to relax and let life happen. If I could, I think I would inject lard into my veins... such is the self sabotaging of my stupid fat ass!
I DON'T WANT TO, BUT I DO WANT TO.
What a screw up. I am even considering forgetting the bloody band as eating is a joke. I just cant handle it, and I am thinking about having all the fluid out and just having a normal life for a bit. I just don't know what to do because on the other hand I really do like the fact that I weigh less and stuff, and look better bla bla. Being slimmer doesn't seem to be making me as happy as I thought it would, or even as happy as I was last year in the initial weightloss phase before it broke.
The band break is still well and truly with me. I have not got over it. I am so wound up about how this works for everyone else and even the people who had the operation in November for the first time have lost like 60 pounds or something.
I feel very fucking sorry for myself.
Today's food & drink intake:
1 coffee
1 bag of 'Skips' style crisps in a party size bag
1 coffee
2 jelly babies
2 pints of water
1 pint of squash and potassium citrate liquid
Salad - comprising lettuce, beetroot, potato, coleslaw & a bite of quiche
2 pints of water
I feel as miserable as sin, and I hate the band. I just want to eat. I want to eat so badly.
I wish I had had the bypass.
Randy Jackson Diet Book Coming Soon!
Randy JacksonAs reported in OK Magazine Randy Jackson, who had gastric bypass in 2003 and lost 150 pounds, announced the forthcoming publication of his own diet book, "The No-Nonsense Guide to Getting Fit, Eating Better, and Living Longer" due out in November.Jackson 51, who announced this year that he has Type II diabetes, says he has tried every diet under the Sun, and he swears that his new
Senin, 28 Juli 2008
Woman Loses 100#s with 5 Day Pouch Test
5 Day Pouch Test Ambassador Gretchen100 Pounds Lost with the 5DPT and Day 65 Day Pouch Test HomepageIt has been nearly a year since I first introduced the 5 Day Pouch Test to our LivingAfterWLS community and what a phenomena it is. In today's Bulletin you will read about Gretchen who has lost 100 pounds since doing the 5DPT last September. You will learn from her that there is always hope and
Red Lion Inn Smoked Salmon
More Fish & SeafoodOur Recipe of the Week yesterday featured terrific appetizers for outdoor picnics and parties. Summer is time for casual entertaining using fresh ingredients and easy preparation. Here is another healthy appetizer to enjoy when you are outdoor entertaining.Learn about the nutritional value of fish proteinRed Lion Inn Smoked SalmonThis is a quick and showy appetizer adapted from
One Cure for Bingeing
Clara was able to end a humiliating cycle of bingeing and starving herself when she started meditating on a regular basis. See her story here.
Sabtu, 26 Juli 2008
The Inuit: Lessons from the Arctic
The Inuit (also called Eskimo) are a group of hunter-gatherer cultures who inhabit the arctic regions of Alaska, Canada and Greenland. They are a true testament to the toughness, adaptability and ingenuity of the human species. Their unique lifestyle has a lot of information to offer us about the boundaries of the human ecological niche. Weston Price was fascinated by their excellent teeth, good nature and overall robust health. Here's an excerpt from Nutrition and Physical Degeneration:"In his primitive state he has provided an example of physical excellence and dental perfection such as has seldom been excelled by any race in the past or present...we are also deeply concerned to know the formula of his nutrition in order that we may learn from it the secrets that will not only aid in the unfortunate modern or so-called civilized races, but will also, if possible, provide means for assisting in their preservation."
The Inuit are cold-hardy hunters whose traditional diet consists of a variety of sea mammals, fish, land mammals and birds. They invented some very sophisticated tools, including the kayak, whose basic design has remained essentially unchanged to this day. Most groups ate virtually no plant food. Their calories came primarily from fat, up to 75%, with almost no calories coming from carbohydrate. Children were breast-fed for about three years, and had solid food in their diet almost from birth. As with most hunter-gatherer groups, they were free from chronic disease while living a traditional lifestyle, even in old age. Here's a quote from Observations on the Western Eskimo and the Country they Inhabit; from Notes taken During two Years [1852-54] at Point Barrow, by Dr. John Simpson:
These people [the Inuit] are robust, muscular and active, inclining rather to spareness [leanness] than corpulence [overweight], presenting a markedly healthy appearance. The expression of the countenance is one of habitual good humor. The physical constitution of both sexes is strong. Extreme longevity is probably not unknown among them; but as they take no heed to number the years as they pass they can form no guess of their own ages.One of the common counterpoints I hear to the idea that high-fat hunter-gatherer diets are healthy, is that exercise protects them from the ravages of fat. The Inuit can help us get to the bottom of this debate. Here's a quote from Cancer, Disease of Civilization (1960, Vilhjalmur Stefansson):
"They are large eaters, some of them, especially the women, eating all the time..." ...during the winter the Barrow women stirred around very little, did little heavy work, and yet "inclined more to be sparse than corpulent" [quotes are the anthropologist Dr. John Murdoch, reproduced by Stefansson].Another argument I sometimes hear is that the Inuit are genetically adapted to their high-fat diet, and the same food would kill a European. This appears not to be the case. The anthropologist and arctic explorer Vilhjalmur Stefansson spent several years living with the Inuit in the early 20th century. He and his fellow Europeans and Americans thrived on the Inuit diet. American doctors were so incredulous that they defied him and a fellow explorer to live on a diet of fatty meat only for one year, under the supervision of the American Medical Association. To the doctors' dismay, they remained healthy, showing no signs of scurvy or any other deficiency (JAMA 1929;93:20–2).
Yet another amazing thing about the Inuit was their social structure. Here's Dr. John Murdoch again (quoted from Cancer, Disease of Civilization):
The women appear to stand on a footing of perfect equality with the men, both in the family and the community. The wife is the constant and trusted companion of the man in everything except the hunt, and her opinion is sought in every bargain or other important undertaking... The affection of parents for their children is extreme, and the children seem to be thoroughly worthy of it. They show hardly a trace of fretfulness or petulance so common among civilized children, and though indulged to an extreme extent are remarkably obedient. Corporal punishment appears to be absolutely unknown, and children are rarely chided or punished in any way.Unfortunately, those days are long gone. Since adopting a modern processed-food diet, the health and social structure of the Inuit has deteriorated dramatically. This had already happened to most groups by Weston Price's time, and is virtually complete today. Here's Price:
In the various groups in the lower Kuskokwim seventy-two individuals who were living exclusively on native foods had in their 2,138 teeth only two teeth or 0.09 per cent that had ever been attacked by tooth decay. In this district eighty-one individuals were studied who had been living in part or in considerable part on modern foods, and of their 2, 254 teeth 394 or 13 per cent had been attacked by dental caries. This represents an increase in dental caries of 144 fold.... When these adult Eskimos exchange their foods for our modern foods..., they often have very extensive tooth decay and suffer severely.... Their plight often becomes tragic since there are no dentists in these districts.Modern Inuit also suffer from very high rates of diabetes and overweight. This has been linked to changes in diet, particularly the use of white flour, sugar and processed oils.
Overall, the unique lifestyle and diet of the Inuit have a lot to teach us. First, that humans are capable of being healthy as carnivores. Second, that we are able to thrive on a high-fat diet. Third, that we are capable of living well in extremely harsh and diverse environments. Fourth, that the shift from natural foods to processed foods, rather than changes in macronutrient composition, is the true cause of the diseases of civilization.
The Inuit: Lessons from the Arctic
The Inuit (also called Eskimo) are a group of hunter-gatherer cultures who inhabit the arctic regions of Alaska, Canada and Greenland. They are a true testament to the toughness, adaptability and ingenuity of the human species. Their unique lifestyle has a lot of information to offer us about the boundaries of the human ecological niche. Weston Price was fascinated by their excellent teeth, good nature and overall robust health. Here's an excerpt from Nutrition and Physical Degeneration:"In his primitive state he has provided an example of physical excellence and dental perfection such as has seldom been excelled by any race in the past or present...we are also deeply concerned to know the formula of his nutrition in order that we may learn from it the secrets that will not only aid in the unfortunate modern or so-called civilized races, but will also, if possible, provide means for assisting in their preservation."
The Inuit are cold-hardy hunters whose traditional diet consists of a variety of sea mammals, fish, land mammals and birds. They invented some very sophisticated tools, including the kayak, whose basic design has remained essentially unchanged to this day. Most groups ate virtually no plant food. Their calories came primarily from fat, up to 75%, with almost no calories coming from carbohydrate. Children were breast-fed for about three years, and had solid food in their diet almost from birth. As with most hunter-gatherer groups, they were free from chronic disease while living a traditional lifestyle, even in old age. Here's a quote from Observations on the Western Eskimo and the Country they Inhabit; from Notes taken During two Years [1852-54] at Point Barrow, by Dr. John Simpson:
These people [the Inuit] are robust, muscular and active, inclining rather to spareness [leanness] than corpulence [overweight], presenting a markedly healthy appearance. The expression of the countenance is one of habitual good humor. The physical constitution of both sexes is strong. Extreme longevity is probably not unknown among them; but as they take no heed to number the years as they pass they can form no guess of their own ages.One of the common counterpoints I hear to the idea that high-fat hunter-gatherer diets are healthy, is that exercise protects them from the ravages of fat. The Inuit can help us get to the bottom of this debate. Here's a quote from Cancer, Disease of Civilization (1960, Vilhjalmur Stefansson):
"They are large eaters, some of them, especially the women, eating all the time..." ...during the winter the Barrow women stirred around very little, did little heavy work, and yet "inclined more to be sparse than corpulent" [quotes are the anthropologist Dr. John Murdoch, reproduced by Stefansson].Another argument I sometimes hear is that the Inuit are genetically adapted to their high-fat diet, and the same food would kill a European. This appears not to be the case. The anthropologist and arctic explorer Vilhjalmur Stefansson spent several years living with the Inuit in the early 20th century. He and his fellow Europeans and Americans thrived on the Inuit diet. American doctors were so incredulous that they defied him and a fellow explorer to live on a diet of fatty meat only for one year, under the supervision of the American Medical Association. To the doctors' dismay, they remained healthy, showing no signs of scurvy or any other deficiency (JAMA 1929;93:20–2).
Yet another amazing thing about the Inuit was their social structure. Here's Dr. John Murdoch again (quoted from Cancer, Disease of Civilization):
The women appear to stand on a footing of perfect equality with the men, both in the family and the community. The wife is the constant and trusted companion of the man in everything except the hunt, and her opinion is sought in every bargain or other important undertaking... The affection of parents for their children is extreme, and the children seem to be thoroughly worthy of it. They show hardly a trace of fretfulness or petulance so common among civilized children, and though indulged to an extreme extent are remarkably obedient. Corporal punishment appears to be absolutely unknown, and children are rarely chided or punished in any way.Unfortunately, those days are long gone. Since adopting a modern processed-food diet, the health and social structure of the Inuit has deteriorated dramatically. This had already happened to most groups by Weston Price's time, and is virtually complete today. Here's Price:
In the various groups in the lower Kuskokwim seventy-two individuals who were living exclusively on native foods had in their 2,138 teeth only two teeth or 0.09 per cent that had ever been attacked by tooth decay. In this district eighty-one individuals were studied who had been living in part or in considerable part on modern foods, and of their 2, 254 teeth 394 or 13 per cent had been attacked by dental caries. This represents an increase in dental caries of 144 fold.... When these adult Eskimos exchange their foods for our modern foods..., they often have very extensive tooth decay and suffer severely.... Their plight often becomes tragic since there are no dentists in these districts.Modern Inuit also suffer from very high rates of diabetes and overweight. This has been linked to changes in diet, particularly the use of white flour, sugar and processed oils.
Overall, the unique lifestyle and diet of the Inuit have a lot to teach us. First, that humans are capable of being healthy as carnivores. Second, that we are able to thrive on a high-fat diet. Third, that we are capable of living well in extremely harsh and diverse environments. Fourth, that the shift from natural foods to processed foods, rather than changes in macronutrient composition, is the true cause of the diseases of civilization.
Kamis, 24 Juli 2008
Gaining inspiration
I have not been in the mood to be kid to my weightloss since coming back from Malta. I dunno why... Just haven't. I still expect the scales to tell me I lost weight each week, no matter how much shite I put down my neck!
Anyway, I am still 15stone 9 pounds (219lbs) as of this morning. I really want to get this moving now. I only have a couple of weeks before my brothers wedding, and I know that I wont be able to do much, but I will be able to do a couple of pounds and then spend the rest of the summer on track so that I look fabulous in September for the new term, which will also mean I have to get new clothes at last because my winter stuff will all be massive.
to gain inspiration I am looking through old photo albums and having a look at the fattest me. I have a particular horror of me on holiday in France. Fags on the table, bottle of wine and a pile of blubber. I will see if I can scan then and upload them to a gallery of shame, which will be very good for the soul.
You will all be pleased to know that I have got chronic cystitis once again. Ergh. I just hate the draining dragging and constant need to go to the loo, not to mention pain. So as I cant actually afford Oasis or Cystopurin as they are so bloody expensive and taste like that cranberry shit too... I bought a bottle of Potassium citrate. Exactly the same stuff but lemon flavour! YAY. This is much better and only £1.90 a bottle which will do me for ages. there must be at least 40 doses in that one bottle as opposed to 6 or something lame in the boxes of Oasis.
I mean what a rip off! I never heard of Potassium Citrate liquid!!! All these years and this is the first time someone went "what about a cheaper version?".
So, there we go.
Anyway, I am still 15stone 9 pounds (219lbs) as of this morning. I really want to get this moving now. I only have a couple of weeks before my brothers wedding, and I know that I wont be able to do much, but I will be able to do a couple of pounds and then spend the rest of the summer on track so that I look fabulous in September for the new term, which will also mean I have to get new clothes at last because my winter stuff will all be massive.
to gain inspiration I am looking through old photo albums and having a look at the fattest me. I have a particular horror of me on holiday in France. Fags on the table, bottle of wine and a pile of blubber. I will see if I can scan then and upload them to a gallery of shame, which will be very good for the soul.
You will all be pleased to know that I have got chronic cystitis once again. Ergh. I just hate the draining dragging and constant need to go to the loo, not to mention pain. So as I cant actually afford Oasis or Cystopurin as they are so bloody expensive and taste like that cranberry shit too... I bought a bottle of Potassium citrate. Exactly the same stuff but lemon flavour! YAY. This is much better and only £1.90 a bottle which will do me for ages. there must be at least 40 doses in that one bottle as opposed to 6 or something lame in the boxes of Oasis.
I mean what a rip off! I never heard of Potassium Citrate liquid!!! All these years and this is the first time someone went "what about a cheaper version?".
So, there we go.
Selasa, 22 Juli 2008
Diet Tips for Summer
Here's a guest post by Heather Johnson:Diet Tips for Summer
Summer is here and that means the temptation to indulge in fun, fatty foods is here too. It can be really difficult to say no to hot dogs and burgers when there seems to be a barbeque every weekend and to keep driving past ice cream stands as they stand out on a hot, sunny day. Vacations also mean eating out which means tempting menus with tasty treats that would never find their way into your kitchen. The pressure that comes with wearing a bathing suit or lighter clothes can be overwhelming. So, what can you do? You want to stay in shape after you struggled through the winter months and you don’t want all your hard work to go down the drain. Consider these tips for dieting this summer and you should achieve a happy balance:
1. Stay away from the sodas. When you reach into the cooler at the beach or your next party, make sure you skip the sodas. Soda is loaded with sugar and calories that are empty. We know how tempting it is slug back a soda on a hot afternoon but this is one way you can keep your calories down. Jason Giambi, a major league baseball player, said a few years ago he cut out soda during the off-season and dropped close to fifteen pounds.
2. Drink water instead. Water is the answer year round and even more so in the summer. Aside from being devoid of calories, water is such a healthy drink in the summer to keep you hydrated throughout the day. 8-10 glasses of water are recommended. Water is a substance that goes through the body quicker than any other drink and helps in raising your metabolism levels.
3. Eat light. You should eat lighter meals and avoid eating snacks in between meals. This will give you the notion of feeling lighter instead of the full feeling you have after a heavy meal.
4. Stay away from spicy foods. The salts you intake from fruits and vegetables are organic in nature and are retained by the body. However, the salts from spicy foods are inorganic and need to be expelled from the body. Drinking plenty of water will help in this process.
5. Stay away from sugary foods. The sugar from fruits and vegetables are natural unlike the manufactured sugary foods that stay clogged in your system for days and days.
This post was contributed by Heather Johnson, who writes on the subject of nursing program. She invites your feedback at heatherjohnson2323 at gmail dot com.
The water bottle image above is by Jenny Downing.
Day two of no wine
OMG, I was seriously fancying a glass of vino last night. That's completely worrying isn't it! Thankfully the urge lasted about as long as my old diets, and coffee did the trick.
Yesterday was not a bad day. I didn't eat anything until lunch time when I had some clear chicken broth that Csilla made on Sunday. In the evening we had a BBQ. I did Frikadellen and bratwurst, salad and a jacket potato. I managed 2/3rd of a frik, 1/4 jacket potato, 1/2 bratwurst and a little salad. I was last to finish, but didn't have to puke.
I was naughty though as I did have some ice cream. Eismann came yesterday and I bought some Big Cheesecake Mary Lou ice creams... MMMMmmmmm. So, oops, but there we go. Not bad when your not having anything else.
Today, I decided to sell my MG. I have put it on eBay. I was going to do a swap at a garage for a Peugeot. Yesterday everything looked great, but today, the car didn't look so hot as it had yesterday and I noticed that it needed a new front headlamp, and it has been in a smash as the rear driver side door was completely new and re-sprayed. Also someone at one time or another had tried to break into it, so it was a bit bent on the door lock. Yesterday it was go. today it was Ummm... maybe not. So I went with the old guts and decided not to do it. Also I was going to be losing about 2K on my MG doing a swap, so I am chancing it on eBay.
However, this means that I shall shortly be looking for a new car to buy. I want it to be newish, but either diesel or a small engine petrol. We shall see.
Today I had some rice and onion rings for lunch. Not a usual choice, but Csilla made it. Its doesn't seem to matter if you say "yes please" or "no thanks", you get it anyway. Its going to be sad when they move out on Friday, but at least we wont have to ingest a tonne of lard each day.
Been speaking to a fellow bandit, and I think that I am in the same place and possibly need an unfill. I really am not psychologically happy about that, because its gonna cost me £85 to have fluid out. Then what if I need some more back in? Another £85 and I haven't got it. I am so scared of having fluid out and being able to eat more, but on the other hand its doing me no good eating shit.
So, will have a good hard think about it. I think basically I either have to get more dedicated to mastication, or have an unfill.
Hmmm
Yesterday was not a bad day. I didn't eat anything until lunch time when I had some clear chicken broth that Csilla made on Sunday. In the evening we had a BBQ. I did Frikadellen and bratwurst, salad and a jacket potato. I managed 2/3rd of a frik, 1/4 jacket potato, 1/2 bratwurst and a little salad. I was last to finish, but didn't have to puke.
I was naughty though as I did have some ice cream. Eismann came yesterday and I bought some Big Cheesecake Mary Lou ice creams... MMMMmmmmm. So, oops, but there we go. Not bad when your not having anything else.
Today, I decided to sell my MG. I have put it on eBay. I was going to do a swap at a garage for a Peugeot. Yesterday everything looked great, but today, the car didn't look so hot as it had yesterday and I noticed that it needed a new front headlamp, and it has been in a smash as the rear driver side door was completely new and re-sprayed. Also someone at one time or another had tried to break into it, so it was a bit bent on the door lock. Yesterday it was go. today it was Ummm... maybe not. So I went with the old guts and decided not to do it. Also I was going to be losing about 2K on my MG doing a swap, so I am chancing it on eBay.
However, this means that I shall shortly be looking for a new car to buy. I want it to be newish, but either diesel or a small engine petrol. We shall see.
Today I had some rice and onion rings for lunch. Not a usual choice, but Csilla made it. Its doesn't seem to matter if you say "yes please" or "no thanks", you get it anyway. Its going to be sad when they move out on Friday, but at least we wont have to ingest a tonne of lard each day.
Been speaking to a fellow bandit, and I think that I am in the same place and possibly need an unfill. I really am not psychologically happy about that, because its gonna cost me £85 to have fluid out. Then what if I need some more back in? Another £85 and I haven't got it. I am so scared of having fluid out and being able to eat more, but on the other hand its doing me no good eating shit.
So, will have a good hard think about it. I think basically I either have to get more dedicated to mastication, or have an unfill.
Hmmm
Senin, 21 Juli 2008
Book Review: "The Human Diet: Its Origins and Evolution"
I recently read this book after discovering it on another health site. It's a compilation of chapters written by several researchers in the fields of comparative biology, paleontology, archaeology and zoology. It's sometimes used as a textbook. I've learned some interesting things, but overall it was pretty disappointing. The format is disjointed, with no logical flow between chapters. I also would not call it comprehensive, which is one of the things I look for in a textbook. Here are some of the interesting points:
- Humans in industrial societies are the only mammals to commonly develop hypertension, and are the only free-living primates to become overweight.
- The adoption of grains as a primary source of calories correlated with a major decrease in stature, decrease in oral health, decrease in bone density, and other problems. This is true for wheat, rice, corn and other grains.
- Cranial capacity has also declined 11% since the late paleolithic, correlating with a decrease in the consumption of animal foods and an increase in grains.
- According to carbon isotope ratios of teeth, corn did not play a major role in the diet of native Americans until 800 AD. Over 15% of the teeth of post-corn South American cultures showed tooth decay, compared with less than 5% for pre-corn cultures (many of which were already agricultural, just not eating corn).
- Childhood mortality seems to be similar among hunter-gatherers and non-industrial agriculturists and pastoralists.
- Women may have played a key role in food procurement through foraging. This is illustrated by a group of modern hunter-gatherers called the Hadza. While men most often hunt, which supplies important nutrients intermittently, women provide a steady stream of calories by foraging for tubers.
- We have probably been eating starchy tubers for between 1.5 and 2 million years, which precedes our species. Around that time, digging tools, (controversial) evidence of controlled fire and changes in digestive anatomy all point to use of tubers and cooked food in general. Tubers make sense because they are a source of calories that is much more easily exploited than wild grains in most places.
- Our trajectory as a species has been to consume a diet with more calories per unit fiber. As compared to chimps, who eat leaves and fruit all day and thus eat a lot of fiber to get enough calories, our species and its recent ancestors ate a diet much lower in fiber.
- Homo sapiens has always eaten meat.
They consider the diet composition of modern hunter-gatherers that eat low-fat diets, but don't include data on others with high-fat diets like the Inuit.
There's some good information in the book, if you're willing to dig through a lot of esoteric data on the isotope ratios of extinct hominids and that sort of thing.
Book Review: "The Human Diet: Its Origins and Evolution"
I recently read this book after discovering it on another health site. It's a compilation of chapters written by several researchers in the fields of comparative biology, paleontology, archaeology and zoology. It's sometimes used as a textbook. I've learned some interesting things, but overall it was pretty disappointing. The format is disjointed, with no logical flow between chapters. I also would not call it comprehensive, which is one of the things I look for in a textbook. Here are some of the interesting points:
- Humans in industrial societies are the only mammals to commonly develop hypertension, and are the only free-living primates to become overweight.
- The adoption of grains as a primary source of calories correlated with a major decrease in stature, decrease in oral health, decrease in bone density, and other problems. This is true for wheat, rice, corn and other grains.
- Cranial capacity has also declined 11% since the late paleolithic, correlating with a decrease in the consumption of animal foods and an increase in grains.
- According to carbon isotope ratios of teeth, corn did not play a major role in the diet of native Americans until 800 AD. Over 15% of the teeth of post-corn South American cultures showed tooth decay, compared with less than 5% for pre-corn cultures (many of which were already agricultural, just not eating corn).
- Childhood mortality seems to be similar among hunter-gatherers and non-industrial agriculturists and pastoralists.
- Women may have played a key role in food procurement through foraging. This is illustrated by a group of modern hunter-gatherers called the Hadza. While men most often hunt, which supplies important nutrients intermittently, women provide a steady stream of calories by foraging for tubers.
- We have probably been eating starchy tubers for between 1.5 and 2 million years, which precedes our species. Around that time, digging tools, (controversial) evidence of controlled fire and changes in digestive anatomy all point to use of tubers and cooked food in general. Tubers make sense because they are a source of calories that is much more easily exploited than wild grains in most places.
- Our trajectory as a species has been to consume a diet with more calories per unit fiber. As compared to chimps, who eat leaves and fruit all day and thus eat a lot of fiber to get enough calories, our species and its recent ancestors ate a diet much lower in fiber.
- Homo sapiens has always eaten meat.
They consider the diet composition of modern hunter-gatherers that eat low-fat diets, but don't include data on others with high-fat diets like the Inuit.
There's some good information in the book, if you're willing to dig through a lot of esoteric data on the isotope ratios of extinct hominids and that sort of thing.
Stale mate
I really thank you for you comments, and I totally agree. I am back in the whole "its easier to stay as things are" phase again.
I haven't put on weight this week, nor have I gained any thank God. I deserve to though. I have had numerous bottles of wine, including the sweet Tokaj wine from Hungary which I love and a whole bar of cadburys dairy milk and sweets and crisps galore.
What I need to do is get into a routine. I don't have a food that I can routinely eat and not be ill with, but this week I have had a lot less problems with HMS'ing.
I have had to HMS twice, no, three times that I can remember. 2 were yesterday. I had one of those snack pots like Philadelphia with bread sticks but it was actually french toast and tomato salsa and cheese or something which they called a Brushetta Snack. I would use that phrase loosely to be honest, but I followed just 1 'brushetta' with a mouthful of pesto pasta ad it sat there and I had to get rid of it. Then yesterday evening we had a massive meal cooked by the Hungarian section of the family - chicken soup followed by breaded meat filled pancakes with herb potatoes followed by Bakewell tart made by Sue. Wow, there was no way I could eat all that. I had the soup which was thin chicken stock basically with little bits of pasta floating in it, then I had half a pancake and 1/4 of a potato. Then I had to HMS. Then I had a spoonful of custard and a taste on the tip of my tongue of bakewell tart. That was yesterday.
I find that in the morning I cant eat anything to be honest. If I do, it just gives me grief with burping and that heavy stuck feeling on my chest. Lunch I can usually manage something like soup or dairylea dunkers eaten slowly or a little pasta with a wet sauce. Dinner I can do. I cant do much of it, but I can at least do it.
What I am trying to do is eat too much. I don't need a fill, I just need to forget the way I used to and want to eat. Its impossible and just makes me miserable. If I struggle to eat all day, by the end of the day I ALWAYS will have something foodie to make myself feel better like wine, or chocolate or ice cream, and this has got to stop.
I figure that if I stop trying to be a fucking idiot and eat what I know I CAN eat, then by the evening I will feel good about the days eating and not feel like I want to have a sugar fest.
This week, I am going to make a concerted effort to just eat what I know I can and not be a prick and try and eat a whole pancake or even a half! I had to admit that I am writing this revelation as I am chocking on a bite of gluten free pancake made by DS and Lili the Hungarian. They wanted me to try their master piece, and I regret it. So I am going to HMS and then just go with the flow. I am also not going to have wine until my brothers wedding as I expect that I will lost 2 dress sizes just cutting out that crap.
I am under no stress now, work has finished for the summer hols and I am at home all day doing what I love best... nothing! So I am going to get my head together and work my arse off to make sure that next summer I am a scrawny bint.
I haven't put on weight this week, nor have I gained any thank God. I deserve to though. I have had numerous bottles of wine, including the sweet Tokaj wine from Hungary which I love and a whole bar of cadburys dairy milk and sweets and crisps galore.
What I need to do is get into a routine. I don't have a food that I can routinely eat and not be ill with, but this week I have had a lot less problems with HMS'ing.
I have had to HMS twice, no, three times that I can remember. 2 were yesterday. I had one of those snack pots like Philadelphia with bread sticks but it was actually french toast and tomato salsa and cheese or something which they called a Brushetta Snack. I would use that phrase loosely to be honest, but I followed just 1 'brushetta' with a mouthful of pesto pasta ad it sat there and I had to get rid of it. Then yesterday evening we had a massive meal cooked by the Hungarian section of the family - chicken soup followed by breaded meat filled pancakes with herb potatoes followed by Bakewell tart made by Sue. Wow, there was no way I could eat all that. I had the soup which was thin chicken stock basically with little bits of pasta floating in it, then I had half a pancake and 1/4 of a potato. Then I had to HMS. Then I had a spoonful of custard and a taste on the tip of my tongue of bakewell tart. That was yesterday.
I find that in the morning I cant eat anything to be honest. If I do, it just gives me grief with burping and that heavy stuck feeling on my chest. Lunch I can usually manage something like soup or dairylea dunkers eaten slowly or a little pasta with a wet sauce. Dinner I can do. I cant do much of it, but I can at least do it.
What I am trying to do is eat too much. I don't need a fill, I just need to forget the way I used to and want to eat. Its impossible and just makes me miserable. If I struggle to eat all day, by the end of the day I ALWAYS will have something foodie to make myself feel better like wine, or chocolate or ice cream, and this has got to stop.
I figure that if I stop trying to be a fucking idiot and eat what I know I CAN eat, then by the evening I will feel good about the days eating and not feel like I want to have a sugar fest.
This week, I am going to make a concerted effort to just eat what I know I can and not be a prick and try and eat a whole pancake or even a half! I had to admit that I am writing this revelation as I am chocking on a bite of gluten free pancake made by DS and Lili the Hungarian. They wanted me to try their master piece, and I regret it. So I am going to HMS and then just go with the flow. I am also not going to have wine until my brothers wedding as I expect that I will lost 2 dress sizes just cutting out that crap.
I am under no stress now, work has finished for the summer hols and I am at home all day doing what I love best... nothing! So I am going to get my head together and work my arse off to make sure that next summer I am a scrawny bint.
Kamis, 17 Juli 2008
New Low-carb Study
I know you’ve all heard the news about the new low-carb study in the New England Journal of Medicine by now, but I have to chime in. I‘m going to try to offer you a different perspective of the study that you may not have found elsewhere. First of all, this is a Rolls Royce of a study. It was large, well-controlled, and two years long. It was partly funded by the Atkins foundation, but it's a peer-reviewed study in a good journal and if anything the study design is slanted against the low-carbohydrate diet.
The study compared the weights and various health parameters of 322 overweight subjects put on one of three diets: a “low-fat diet”, a Mediterranean diet and a “low-carbohydrate diet”. The first two were calorie-restricted while the low-carb diet was not. First of all, the “low-fat” diet was not particularly low in fat. It was 30% fat by calories, only a few percent short of the US average. What they call low-fat in the study is actually a calorie-restricted version of the American Heart Association diet recommendation, which suggests:
“…30% of calories from fat, 10% calories from saturated fat, and an intake of 300 mg of cholesterol per day. The Participants were counseled to consume low-fat grains, vegetables, fruits, and legumes and to limit their consumption of additional fats, sweets and high-fat snacks.”
So henceforth, I’ll refer to it as the AHA diet rather than the low-fat diet.
The “low-carb” diet wasn’t particularly low in carbohydrate either. The low-carb group was only getting 10% fewer calories from carbohydrate than the low-fat or Mediterranean diet groups. Despite these problems, the low-carbohydrate diet was the most effective overall. It caused a weight loss of 5.5 kg (12 lb), compared to 4.6 kg (10 lb) and 3.3 kg (7.4 lb) for the Mediterranean and AHA diets, respectively.
One of the most amazing aspects of the study is that the low-carb diet was the only one that wasn’t calorie-restricted, yet it caused the most weight loss. People in the low-carb group naturally reduced their calorie intake over the course of the study, ending up with an intake similar to the AHA group.
The low-carb diet also came out on top in most of the markers of health they examined. It caused the largest drop in HbA1c, a measure of average blood glucose level. It caused the largest drop in C-reactive protein, a measure of inflammation (the Mediterranean diet also did well). And finally, it caused the biggest improvement in the triglyceride:HDL ratio. This ratio is the best blood lipid predictor of heart disease risk I’m aware of in modern Western populations. The lower, the better. They didn't calculate it in the study so I had to do it myself. Here's a graph of the change in trig:HDL ratio for each group over the course of the study:
Other interesting findings: despite the calorie restriction, diabetic participants on the AHA group actually saw a significant increase in fasting blood glucose.
I've speculated before that wheat and sugar may cause hyperphagia, or excessive eating. We can see from these results that reducing carbohydrate (and probably wheat) reduces overall caloric intake quite significantly. This squares with the findings of the recent Chinese study that showed an increase in calorie intake and weight, correlating with the replacement of rice with wheat as the primary carbohydrate. It also squares with diet trends in the US, where wheat consumption has risen alongside calorie intake and weight.
I'd love to know what the results would have looked like if they had gone on a true low-carbohydrate diet, or even simply eliminated grains and sugar.
The study compared the weights and various health parameters of 322 overweight subjects put on one of three diets: a “low-fat diet”, a Mediterranean diet and a “low-carbohydrate diet”. The first two were calorie-restricted while the low-carb diet was not. First of all, the “low-fat” diet was not particularly low in fat. It was 30% fat by calories, only a few percent short of the US average. What they call low-fat in the study is actually a calorie-restricted version of the American Heart Association diet recommendation, which suggests:
“…30% of calories from fat, 10% calories from saturated fat, and an intake of 300 mg of cholesterol per day. The Participants were counseled to consume low-fat grains, vegetables, fruits, and legumes and to limit their consumption of additional fats, sweets and high-fat snacks.”
So henceforth, I’ll refer to it as the AHA diet rather than the low-fat diet.
The “low-carb” diet wasn’t particularly low in carbohydrate either. The low-carb group was only getting 10% fewer calories from carbohydrate than the low-fat or Mediterranean diet groups. Despite these problems, the low-carbohydrate diet was the most effective overall. It caused a weight loss of 5.5 kg (12 lb), compared to 4.6 kg (10 lb) and 3.3 kg (7.4 lb) for the Mediterranean and AHA diets, respectively.
One of the most amazing aspects of the study is that the low-carb diet was the only one that wasn’t calorie-restricted, yet it caused the most weight loss. People in the low-carb group naturally reduced their calorie intake over the course of the study, ending up with an intake similar to the AHA group.
The low-carb diet also came out on top in most of the markers of health they examined. It caused the largest drop in HbA1c, a measure of average blood glucose level. It caused the largest drop in C-reactive protein, a measure of inflammation (the Mediterranean diet also did well). And finally, it caused the biggest improvement in the triglyceride:HDL ratio. This ratio is the best blood lipid predictor of heart disease risk I’m aware of in modern Western populations. The lower, the better. They didn't calculate it in the study so I had to do it myself. Here's a graph of the change in trig:HDL ratio for each group over the course of the study:
Other interesting findings: despite the calorie restriction, diabetic participants on the AHA group actually saw a significant increase in fasting blood glucose.
I've speculated before that wheat and sugar may cause hyperphagia, or excessive eating. We can see from these results that reducing carbohydrate (and probably wheat) reduces overall caloric intake quite significantly. This squares with the findings of the recent Chinese study that showed an increase in calorie intake and weight, correlating with the replacement of rice with wheat as the primary carbohydrate. It also squares with diet trends in the US, where wheat consumption has risen alongside calorie intake and weight.
I'd love to know what the results would have looked like if they had gone on a true low-carbohydrate diet, or even simply eliminated grains and sugar.
New Low-carb Study
I know you’ve all heard the news about the new low-carb study in the New England Journal of Medicine by now, but I have to chime in. I‘m going to try to offer you a different perspective of the study that you may not have found elsewhere. First of all, this is a Rolls Royce of a study. It was large, well-controlled, and two years long. It was partly funded by the Atkins foundation, but it's a peer-reviewed study in a good journal and if anything the study design is slanted against the low-carbohydrate diet.
The study compared the weights and various health parameters of 322 overweight subjects put on one of three diets: a “low-fat diet”, a Mediterranean diet and a “low-carbohydrate diet”. The first two were calorie-restricted while the low-carb diet was not. First of all, the “low-fat” diet was not particularly low in fat. It was 30% fat by calories, only a few percent short of the US average. What they call low-fat in the study is actually a calorie-restricted version of the American Heart Association diet recommendation, which suggests:
“…30% of calories from fat, 10% calories from saturated fat, and an intake of 300 mg of cholesterol per day. The Participants were counseled to consume low-fat grains, vegetables, fruits, and legumes and to limit their consumption of additional fats, sweets and high-fat snacks.”
So henceforth, I’ll refer to it as the AHA diet rather than the low-fat diet.
The “low-carb” diet wasn’t particularly low in carbohydrate either. The low-carb group was only getting 10% fewer calories from carbohydrate than the low-fat or Mediterranean diet groups. Despite these problems, the low-carbohydrate diet was the most effective overall. It caused a weight loss of 5.5 kg (12 lb), compared to 4.6 kg (10 lb) and 3.3 kg (7.4 lb) for the Mediterranean and AHA diets, respectively.
One of the most amazing aspects of the study is that the low-carb diet was the only one that wasn’t calorie-restricted, yet it caused the most weight loss. People in the low-carb group naturally reduced their calorie intake over the course of the study, ending up with an intake similar to the AHA group.
The low-carb diet also came out on top in most of the markers of health they examined. It caused the largest drop in HbA1c, a measure of average blood glucose level. It caused the largest drop in C-reactive protein, a measure of inflammation (the Mediterranean diet also did well). And finally, it caused the biggest improvement in the triglyceride:HDL ratio. This ratio is the best blood lipid predictor of heart disease risk I’m aware of in modern Western populations. The lower, the better. They didn't calculate it in the study so I had to do it myself. Here's a graph of the change in trig:HDL ratio for each group over the course of the study:
Other interesting findings: despite the calorie restriction, diabetic participants on the AHA group actually saw a significant increase in fasting blood glucose.
I've speculated before that wheat and sugar may cause hyperphagia, or excessive eating. We can see from these results that reducing carbohydrate (and probably wheat) reduces overall caloric intake quite significantly. This squares with the findings of the recent Chinese study that showed an increase in calorie intake and weight, correlating with the replacement of rice with wheat as the primary carbohydrate. It also squares with diet trends in the US, where wheat consumption has risen alongside calorie intake and weight.
I'd love to know what the results would have looked like if they had gone on a true low-carbohydrate diet, or even simply eliminated grains and sugar.
The study compared the weights and various health parameters of 322 overweight subjects put on one of three diets: a “low-fat diet”, a Mediterranean diet and a “low-carbohydrate diet”. The first two were calorie-restricted while the low-carb diet was not. First of all, the “low-fat” diet was not particularly low in fat. It was 30% fat by calories, only a few percent short of the US average. What they call low-fat in the study is actually a calorie-restricted version of the American Heart Association diet recommendation, which suggests:
“…30% of calories from fat, 10% calories from saturated fat, and an intake of 300 mg of cholesterol per day. The Participants were counseled to consume low-fat grains, vegetables, fruits, and legumes and to limit their consumption of additional fats, sweets and high-fat snacks.”
So henceforth, I’ll refer to it as the AHA diet rather than the low-fat diet.
The “low-carb” diet wasn’t particularly low in carbohydrate either. The low-carb group was only getting 10% fewer calories from carbohydrate than the low-fat or Mediterranean diet groups. Despite these problems, the low-carbohydrate diet was the most effective overall. It caused a weight loss of 5.5 kg (12 lb), compared to 4.6 kg (10 lb) and 3.3 kg (7.4 lb) for the Mediterranean and AHA diets, respectively.
One of the most amazing aspects of the study is that the low-carb diet was the only one that wasn’t calorie-restricted, yet it caused the most weight loss. People in the low-carb group naturally reduced their calorie intake over the course of the study, ending up with an intake similar to the AHA group.
The low-carb diet also came out on top in most of the markers of health they examined. It caused the largest drop in HbA1c, a measure of average blood glucose level. It caused the largest drop in C-reactive protein, a measure of inflammation (the Mediterranean diet also did well). And finally, it caused the biggest improvement in the triglyceride:HDL ratio. This ratio is the best blood lipid predictor of heart disease risk I’m aware of in modern Western populations. The lower, the better. They didn't calculate it in the study so I had to do it myself. Here's a graph of the change in trig:HDL ratio for each group over the course of the study:
Other interesting findings: despite the calorie restriction, diabetic participants on the AHA group actually saw a significant increase in fasting blood glucose.
I've speculated before that wheat and sugar may cause hyperphagia, or excessive eating. We can see from these results that reducing carbohydrate (and probably wheat) reduces overall caloric intake quite significantly. This squares with the findings of the recent Chinese study that showed an increase in calorie intake and weight, correlating with the replacement of rice with wheat as the primary carbohydrate. It also squares with diet trends in the US, where wheat consumption has risen alongside calorie intake and weight.
I'd love to know what the results would have looked like if they had gone on a true low-carbohydrate diet, or even simply eliminated grains and sugar.
Is that a Tumor or a Belly?
I couldn't believe this story today, but a woman recently lost a whopping 140 pounds by having two tumors removed from her midsection. She had gone to the doctor for many years but the tumor had grown undetected. See the 140 pound tumor story here. The unrelated photo here is by Gaetan Lee.
Rabu, 16 Juli 2008
Sunscreen and Melanoma
Melanoma is the most deadly type of skin cancer, accounting for most skin cancer deaths in the US. As Ross pointed out in the comments section of the last post, there is an association between severe sunburn at a young age and later development of melanoma. Darker-skinned people are also more resistant to melanoma. The association isn't complete, however, since melanoma sometimes occurs on the soles of the feet and even in the intestine. This may be due to the fact that there are several types of melanoma, potentially with different causes.
Another thing that associates with melanoma is the use of sunscreen above a latitude of 40 degrees from the equator. In the Northern hemisphere, 40 degrees draws a line between New York city and Beijing. A recent meta-analysis found consistently that sunscreen users above 40 degrees are at a higher risk of melanoma than people who don't use sunscreen, even when differences in skin color are taken into account. Wearing sunscreen decreased melanoma risk in studies closer to the equator. It sounds confusing, but it makes sense once you know a little bit more about UV rays, sunscreen and the biology of melanoma.
The UV light that reaches the Earth's surface is composed of UVA (longer) and UVB (shorter) wavelengths. UVB causes sunburn, while they both cause tanning. Sunscreen blocks UVB, preventing burns, but most brands only weakly block UVA. Sunscreen allows a person to spend more time in the sun than they would otherwise, and attenuates tanning. Tanning is a protective response (among several) by the skin that protects it against both UVA and UVB. Burning is a protective response that tells you to get out of the sun. The result of diminishing both is that sunblock tends to increase a person's exposure to UVA rays.
It turns out that UVA rays are more closely associated with melanoma than UVB rays, and typical sunscreen fails to prevent melanoma in laboratory animals. It's also worth mentioning that sunscreen does prevent more common (and less lethal) types of skin cancer.
Modern tanning beds produce a lot of UVA and not much UVB, in an attempt to deliver the maximum tan without causing a burn. Putting on sunscreen essentially does the same thing: gives you a large dose of UVA without much UVB.
The authors of the meta-analysis suggest an explanation for the fact that the association changes at 40 degrees of latitude: populations further from the equator tend to have lighter skin. Melanin blocks UVA very effectively, and the pre-tan melanin of someone with olive skin is enough to block most of the UVA that sunscreen lets through. The fair-skinned among us don't have that luxury, so our melanocytes get bombarded by UVA, leading to melanoma. This may explain the incredible rise in melanoma incidence in the US in the last 35 years, as people have also increased the use of sunscreen. It may also have to do with tanning beds, since melanoma incidence has risen particularly in women.
In my opinion, the best way to treat your skin is to tan gradually, without burning. Use clothing and a wide-brimmed hat if you think you'll be in the sun past your burn threshold. If you want to use sunscreen, make sure it blocks UVA effectively. Don't rely on the manufacturer's word; look at the ingredients list. It should contain at least one of the following: titanium dioxide, zinc oxide, avobenzone (Parsol 1789), Mexoryl SX (Tinosorb). It's best if it's also paraben-free.
Fortunately, as an external cancer, melanoma is easy to diagnose. If caught early, it can be removed without any trouble. If caught a bit later, surgeons may have to remove lymph nodes, which makes your face look like John McCain's. Later than that and you're probably a goner. If you have any questions about a growth, especially one with irregular borders that's getting larger, ask your doctor about it immediately!
Another thing that associates with melanoma is the use of sunscreen above a latitude of 40 degrees from the equator. In the Northern hemisphere, 40 degrees draws a line between New York city and Beijing. A recent meta-analysis found consistently that sunscreen users above 40 degrees are at a higher risk of melanoma than people who don't use sunscreen, even when differences in skin color are taken into account. Wearing sunscreen decreased melanoma risk in studies closer to the equator. It sounds confusing, but it makes sense once you know a little bit more about UV rays, sunscreen and the biology of melanoma.
The UV light that reaches the Earth's surface is composed of UVA (longer) and UVB (shorter) wavelengths. UVB causes sunburn, while they both cause tanning. Sunscreen blocks UVB, preventing burns, but most brands only weakly block UVA. Sunscreen allows a person to spend more time in the sun than they would otherwise, and attenuates tanning. Tanning is a protective response (among several) by the skin that protects it against both UVA and UVB. Burning is a protective response that tells you to get out of the sun. The result of diminishing both is that sunblock tends to increase a person's exposure to UVA rays.
It turns out that UVA rays are more closely associated with melanoma than UVB rays, and typical sunscreen fails to prevent melanoma in laboratory animals. It's also worth mentioning that sunscreen does prevent more common (and less lethal) types of skin cancer.
Modern tanning beds produce a lot of UVA and not much UVB, in an attempt to deliver the maximum tan without causing a burn. Putting on sunscreen essentially does the same thing: gives you a large dose of UVA without much UVB.
The authors of the meta-analysis suggest an explanation for the fact that the association changes at 40 degrees of latitude: populations further from the equator tend to have lighter skin. Melanin blocks UVA very effectively, and the pre-tan melanin of someone with olive skin is enough to block most of the UVA that sunscreen lets through. The fair-skinned among us don't have that luxury, so our melanocytes get bombarded by UVA, leading to melanoma. This may explain the incredible rise in melanoma incidence in the US in the last 35 years, as people have also increased the use of sunscreen. It may also have to do with tanning beds, since melanoma incidence has risen particularly in women.
In my opinion, the best way to treat your skin is to tan gradually, without burning. Use clothing and a wide-brimmed hat if you think you'll be in the sun past your burn threshold. If you want to use sunscreen, make sure it blocks UVA effectively. Don't rely on the manufacturer's word; look at the ingredients list. It should contain at least one of the following: titanium dioxide, zinc oxide, avobenzone (Parsol 1789), Mexoryl SX (Tinosorb). It's best if it's also paraben-free.
Fortunately, as an external cancer, melanoma is easy to diagnose. If caught early, it can be removed without any trouble. If caught a bit later, surgeons may have to remove lymph nodes, which makes your face look like John McCain's. Later than that and you're probably a goner. If you have any questions about a growth, especially one with irregular borders that's getting larger, ask your doctor about it immediately!
Sunscreen and Melanoma
Melanoma is the most deadly type of skin cancer, accounting for most skin cancer deaths in the US. As Ross pointed out in the comments section of the last post, there is an association between severe sunburn at a young age and later development of melanoma. Darker-skinned people are also more resistant to melanoma. The association isn't complete, however, since melanoma sometimes occurs on the soles of the feet and even in the intestine. This may be due to the fact that there are several types of melanoma, potentially with different causes.
Another thing that associates with melanoma is the use of sunscreen above a latitude of 40 degrees from the equator. In the Northern hemisphere, 40 degrees draws a line between New York city and Beijing. A recent meta-analysis found consistently that sunscreen users above 40 degrees are at a higher risk of melanoma than people who don't use sunscreen, even when differences in skin color are taken into account. Wearing sunscreen decreased melanoma risk in studies closer to the equator. It sounds confusing, but it makes sense once you know a little bit more about UV rays, sunscreen and the biology of melanoma.
The UV light that reaches the Earth's surface is composed of UVA (longer) and UVB (shorter) wavelengths. UVB causes sunburn, while they both cause tanning. Sunscreen blocks UVB, preventing burns, but most brands only weakly block UVA. Sunscreen allows a person to spend more time in the sun than they would otherwise, and attenuates tanning. Tanning is a protective response (among several) by the skin that protects it against both UVA and UVB. Burning is a protective response that tells you to get out of the sun. The result of diminishing both is that sunblock tends to increase a person's exposure to UVA rays.
It turns out that UVA rays are more closely associated with melanoma than UVB rays, and typical sunscreen fails to prevent melanoma in laboratory animals. It's also worth mentioning that sunscreen does prevent more common (and less lethal) types of skin cancer.
Modern tanning beds produce a lot of UVA and not much UVB, in an attempt to deliver the maximum tan without causing a burn. Putting on sunscreen essentially does the same thing: gives you a large dose of UVA without much UVB.
The authors of the meta-analysis suggest an explanation for the fact that the association changes at 40 degrees of latitude: populations further from the equator tend to have lighter skin. Melanin blocks UVA very effectively, and the pre-tan melanin of someone with olive skin is enough to block most of the UVA that sunscreen lets through. The fair-skinned among us don't have that luxury, so our melanocytes get bombarded by UVA, leading to melanoma. This may explain the incredible rise in melanoma incidence in the US in the last 35 years, as people have also increased the use of sunscreen. It may also have to do with tanning beds, since melanoma incidence has risen particularly in women.
In my opinion, the best way to treat your skin is to tan gradually, without burning. Use clothing and a wide-brimmed hat if you think you'll be in the sun past your burn threshold. If you want to use sunscreen, make sure it blocks UVA effectively. Don't rely on the manufacturer's word; look at the ingredients list. It should contain at least one of the following: titanium dioxide, zinc oxide, avobenzone (Parsol 1789), Mexoryl SX (Tinosorb). It's best if it's also paraben-free.
Fortunately, as an external cancer, melanoma is easy to diagnose. If caught early, it can be removed without any trouble. If caught a bit later, surgeons may have to remove lymph nodes, which makes your face look like John McCain's. Later than that and you're probably a goner. If you have any questions about a growth, especially one with irregular borders that's getting larger, ask your doctor about it immediately!
Another thing that associates with melanoma is the use of sunscreen above a latitude of 40 degrees from the equator. In the Northern hemisphere, 40 degrees draws a line between New York city and Beijing. A recent meta-analysis found consistently that sunscreen users above 40 degrees are at a higher risk of melanoma than people who don't use sunscreen, even when differences in skin color are taken into account. Wearing sunscreen decreased melanoma risk in studies closer to the equator. It sounds confusing, but it makes sense once you know a little bit more about UV rays, sunscreen and the biology of melanoma.
The UV light that reaches the Earth's surface is composed of UVA (longer) and UVB (shorter) wavelengths. UVB causes sunburn, while they both cause tanning. Sunscreen blocks UVB, preventing burns, but most brands only weakly block UVA. Sunscreen allows a person to spend more time in the sun than they would otherwise, and attenuates tanning. Tanning is a protective response (among several) by the skin that protects it against both UVA and UVB. Burning is a protective response that tells you to get out of the sun. The result of diminishing both is that sunblock tends to increase a person's exposure to UVA rays.
It turns out that UVA rays are more closely associated with melanoma than UVB rays, and typical sunscreen fails to prevent melanoma in laboratory animals. It's also worth mentioning that sunscreen does prevent more common (and less lethal) types of skin cancer.
Modern tanning beds produce a lot of UVA and not much UVB, in an attempt to deliver the maximum tan without causing a burn. Putting on sunscreen essentially does the same thing: gives you a large dose of UVA without much UVB.
The authors of the meta-analysis suggest an explanation for the fact that the association changes at 40 degrees of latitude: populations further from the equator tend to have lighter skin. Melanin blocks UVA very effectively, and the pre-tan melanin of someone with olive skin is enough to block most of the UVA that sunscreen lets through. The fair-skinned among us don't have that luxury, so our melanocytes get bombarded by UVA, leading to melanoma. This may explain the incredible rise in melanoma incidence in the US in the last 35 years, as people have also increased the use of sunscreen. It may also have to do with tanning beds, since melanoma incidence has risen particularly in women.
In my opinion, the best way to treat your skin is to tan gradually, without burning. Use clothing and a wide-brimmed hat if you think you'll be in the sun past your burn threshold. If you want to use sunscreen, make sure it blocks UVA effectively. Don't rely on the manufacturer's word; look at the ingredients list. It should contain at least one of the following: titanium dioxide, zinc oxide, avobenzone (Parsol 1789), Mexoryl SX (Tinosorb). It's best if it's also paraben-free.
Fortunately, as an external cancer, melanoma is easy to diagnose. If caught early, it can be removed without any trouble. If caught a bit later, surgeons may have to remove lymph nodes, which makes your face look like John McCain's. Later than that and you're probably a goner. If you have any questions about a growth, especially one with irregular borders that's getting larger, ask your doctor about it immediately!
New Vitamin Bundle at Bariceuticals
Silvia Demeter, our friend and founder of the made-just-for-us Bariceuticals™ liquid vitamins has put together a new product bundle. Called "Cathy's Choice" the kit includes a 30 Day Supply of our famous liquid multi-vitamins and our pharmaceutical grade sublingual B-12 complex spray. You will also receive 30 day supply of our exclusive iron tabs. In this kit you will so receive a free sample of
Selasa, 15 Juli 2008
Losing the Last 20 Pounds
Candace, age 36, was forty pounds heavier after giving birth to her third child than she had been before children. She lost the first twenty pounds after going on a series of different diets but she was not able to lose the last twenty pounds of 'baby weight' even though her youngest child was now four years old.But after starting a regular exercise program she has succeeded in losing the last twenty pounds. She started by taking classes at the YMCA and by lifting weights but the pounds really started melting when she started running with a friend. It was really difficult to do the three mile run initially but she saw results quickly and this was very encouraging.
She's gone below her pre-pregnancy weight and now weighs 115 pounds at her height of 5'5". See her story and photo here.
Photo of jogger via Eleanza
I have hit the wall
I have dreams about NOT having my band. I dream I can eat whatever I want and I can eat it quickly. Donuts especially.
I am in a real mess guys. I have no will power left and all I can think about is BLOODY FOOD.
I don't need it... I WANT it. I just keep wanting something tasty, something savory, something sweet... just anything.
I need some advice to help me psychologically about this as its my mind doing overtime.
Here are some things that I think are niggling me and making me want food:
Money - just worried non specifically about not having enough really
My pupils exam results - especially a grade 8 student
Finishing work for the summer - on Saturday I wrap up for the year... which also brings us back to money or the lack of for 6 weeks.
DS's home education - next year its year 5 work. VERY worried about his handwriting.
My brothers wedding on 9th August and what I will look like, feel like and who I will be seen by (eg B'hurst People from school who I haven't seen for years and who last saw me at 9 stone something and don't want to look like a fat gone to pot, let myself go mother - which indeed I am!)
About the amount of people in the house - 8! Us three and Sue, Lotse, Csilla, Lilli and Trish and the fact that people are living on our drive in a caravan for heavens sake and we only have 1 loo in the whole house!
My hair. It's awful.
Theres a starter for you... come on then, sort me out.
I am in a real mess guys. I have no will power left and all I can think about is BLOODY FOOD.
I don't need it... I WANT it. I just keep wanting something tasty, something savory, something sweet... just anything.
I need some advice to help me psychologically about this as its my mind doing overtime.
Here are some things that I think are niggling me and making me want food:
Money - just worried non specifically about not having enough really
My pupils exam results - especially a grade 8 student
Finishing work for the summer - on Saturday I wrap up for the year... which also brings us back to money or the lack of for 6 weeks.
DS's home education - next year its year 5 work. VERY worried about his handwriting.
My brothers wedding on 9th August and what I will look like, feel like and who I will be seen by (eg B'hurst People from school who I haven't seen for years and who last saw me at 9 stone something and don't want to look like a fat gone to pot, let myself go mother - which indeed I am!)
About the amount of people in the house - 8! Us three and Sue, Lotse, Csilla, Lilli and Trish and the fact that people are living on our drive in a caravan for heavens sake and we only have 1 loo in the whole house!
My hair. It's awful.
Theres a starter for you... come on then, sort me out.
Senin, 14 Juli 2008
How to Cause a Cancer Epidemic
A report came out recently showing that melanoma incidence has increased dramatically in the US since 1973, particularly among women. The authors suggested the rise could be due to increasing sun exposure, which I am highly skeptical of. The data he cites to support that idea are quite weak. I think the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in this country suggests otherwise.
Melanoma is the most deadly form of skin cancer, and the only type that is commonly life-threatening. Its link to sun exposure is tenuous at best. For example, it often occurs on the least sun-exposed parts of the body, and its incidence is lower in outdoor workers.
What is the solution to rising melanoma incidence? Sunblock! Slather it on, ladies and gentlemen! No matter that we evolved outdoors! No matter that it may do nothing for melanoma incidence or mortality! No matter that you'll be vitamin D deficient! No matter that it contains known carcinogens! 30+ SPF, the more the better. Don't let one single deadly UV photon through.
The irony of all this is that if you believe the data on vitamin D, avoiding the sun would cause many more cancers than it would prevent, even if all melanoma were due to sun exposure.
Melanoma is the most deadly form of skin cancer, and the only type that is commonly life-threatening. Its link to sun exposure is tenuous at best. For example, it often occurs on the least sun-exposed parts of the body, and its incidence is lower in outdoor workers.
What is the solution to rising melanoma incidence? Sunblock! Slather it on, ladies and gentlemen! No matter that we evolved outdoors! No matter that it may do nothing for melanoma incidence or mortality! No matter that you'll be vitamin D deficient! No matter that it contains known carcinogens! 30+ SPF, the more the better. Don't let one single deadly UV photon through.
The irony of all this is that if you believe the data on vitamin D, avoiding the sun would cause many more cancers than it would prevent, even if all melanoma were due to sun exposure.
How to Cause a Cancer Epidemic
A report came out recently showing that melanoma incidence has increased dramatically in the US since 1973, particularly among women. The authors suggested the rise could be due to increasing sun exposure, which I am highly skeptical of. The data he cites to support that idea are quite weak. I think the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in this country suggests otherwise.
Melanoma is the most deadly form of skin cancer, and the only type that is commonly life-threatening. Its link to sun exposure is tenuous at best. For example, it often occurs on the least sun-exposed parts of the body, and its incidence is lower in outdoor workers.
What is the solution to rising melanoma incidence? Sunblock! Slather it on, ladies and gentlemen! No matter that we evolved outdoors! No matter that it may do nothing for melanoma incidence or mortality! No matter that you'll be vitamin D deficient! No matter that it contains known carcinogens! 30+ SPF, the more the better. Don't let one single deadly UV photon through.
The irony of all this is that if you believe the data on vitamin D, avoiding the sun would cause many more cancers than it would prevent, even if all melanoma were due to sun exposure.
Melanoma is the most deadly form of skin cancer, and the only type that is commonly life-threatening. Its link to sun exposure is tenuous at best. For example, it often occurs on the least sun-exposed parts of the body, and its incidence is lower in outdoor workers.
What is the solution to rising melanoma incidence? Sunblock! Slather it on, ladies and gentlemen! No matter that we evolved outdoors! No matter that it may do nothing for melanoma incidence or mortality! No matter that you'll be vitamin D deficient! No matter that it contains known carcinogens! 30+ SPF, the more the better. Don't let one single deadly UV photon through.
The irony of all this is that if you believe the data on vitamin D, avoiding the sun would cause many more cancers than it would prevent, even if all melanoma were due to sun exposure.
Minggu, 13 Juli 2008
Fish Oil and Asthma Weirdness
I read an interesting study today on fish oil and asthma. It's the result of a randomized controlled trial, the kind that can actually tell us about cause and effect.In 1990, researchers assembled a group of 533 pregnant women and divided them into three groups. One group received 4g/day fish oil in capsules, one group got 4g/day of olive oil in capsules, and the third group got no oil. They were told to take the capsules from gestational week 30 until delivery. The 16 year-old children of women who took fish oil capsules during pregnancy had a 63% lower rate of asthma than the olive oil group, and an 87% lower rate of allergic asthma. Pretty straightforward.
Now for the weirdness. The no oil group actually did better than the other two groups, with a 71% lower asthma rate than the olive oil group, and no cases of allergic asthma whatsoever! The result was not statistically different from the fish oil group however. So we have just gone from a result that suggests fish oil is protective, to one that suggests fish oil is neutral and olive oil is detrimental!
The result is really hard to believe, especially since Mediterranean countries with high olive oil intakes don't have elevated rates of asthma. It was also hard for the authors to believe, so they invoked a concept called "contamination bias". In this case, what that means is that the no oil group may have been eating more fish than the olive oil group.
It could have happened because they had been informed of the study's hypothesis (this was required by the Danish Scientific Ethical Committee System). They knew they weren't getting fish oil, they knew there was preliminary evidence that fish oil protects against preterm birth and heart disease (in the Inuit, incidentally), so the authors speculate that they went out and started eating fish. This didn't happen in the olive oil group because according to a questionnaire, half of them thought they were getting fish oil already!
I will say, in favor of this hypothesis, that the no oil group looks remarkably like the fish oil group in terms of the rate and age of onset of asthma. I think the result needs to be replicated before we can really say what happened. It's unfortunate, because it was a large, well-designed study. In the meantime, keep on eating fish.
Thanks to snowriderguy for the CC photo
Fish Oil and Asthma Weirdness
I read an interesting study today on fish oil and asthma. It's the result of a randomized controlled trial, the kind that can actually tell us about cause and effect.In 1990, researchers assembled a group of 533 pregnant women and divided them into three groups. One group received 4g/day fish oil in capsules, one group got 4g/day of olive oil in capsules, and the third group got no oil. They were told to take the capsules from gestational week 30 until delivery. The 16 year-old children of women who took fish oil capsules during pregnancy had a 63% lower rate of asthma than the olive oil group, and an 87% lower rate of allergic asthma. Pretty straightforward.
Now for the weirdness. The no oil group actually did better than the other two groups, with a 71% lower asthma rate than the olive oil group, and no cases of allergic asthma whatsoever! The result was not statistically different from the fish oil group however. So we have just gone from a result that suggests fish oil is protective, to one that suggests fish oil is neutral and olive oil is detrimental!
The result is really hard to believe, especially since Mediterranean countries with high olive oil intakes don't have elevated rates of asthma. It was also hard for the authors to believe, so they invoked a concept called "contamination bias". In this case, what that means is that the no oil group may have been eating more fish than the olive oil group.
It could have happened because they had been informed of the study's hypothesis (this was required by the Danish Scientific Ethical Committee System). They knew they weren't getting fish oil, they knew there was preliminary evidence that fish oil protects against preterm birth and heart disease (in the Inuit, incidentally), so the authors speculate that they went out and started eating fish. This didn't happen in the olive oil group because according to a questionnaire, half of them thought they were getting fish oil already!
I will say, in favor of this hypothesis, that the no oil group looks remarkably like the fish oil group in terms of the rate and age of onset of asthma. I think the result needs to be replicated before we can really say what happened. It's unfortunate, because it was a large, well-designed study. In the meantime, keep on eating fish.
Thanks to snowriderguy for the CC photo
Jumat, 11 Juli 2008
How to Dress to Minimize a Large Bust
Here's a nice video by Katie Stiles on how to dress to minimize and flatter a very large bust. She shows us five before and after outfits and tops.Via Before and After TV
Kamis, 10 Juli 2008
Grains and Human Evolution
You've heard me say that I believe grains aren't an ideal food for humans. Part of the reason rests on the assertion that we have not been eating grains for long enough to have adapted to them. In this post, I'll go over what I know about the human diet before and after agriculture, and the timeline of our shift to a grain-based diet. I'm not an archaeologist so I won't claim that all these numbers are exact, but I think they are close enough to make my point.
As hunter-gatherers, we ate some combination of the following: land mammals (including organs, fat and marrow), cooked tubers, seafood (fish, mammals, shellfish, seaweed), eggs, nuts, fruit, honey, "vegetables" (stems, leaves, etc.), mushrooms, assorted land animals, birds and insects. The proportion of each food varied widely between groups and even seasons. This is pretty much what we've been living on since we evolved as a species, and even before, for a total of 1.5 million years or so (this number is controversial but is supported by multiple lines of evidence). There are minor exceptions, including the use of wild grains in a few areas, but for the most part, that's it.
The first evidence of a calorically important domesticated crop I'm aware of was about 11,500 years ago in the fertile crescent. They were cultivating an early ancestor of wheat called emmer. Other grains popped up independently in what is now China (rice; ~10,000 years ago), and central America (corn; ~9,000 years ago). That's why people say humans have been eating grains for about 10,000 years.
The story is more complicated than the dates suggest, however. Although wheat had its origin 11,500 years ago, it didn't become widespread in Western Europe for another 4,500 years. So if you're of European descent, your ancestors have been eating grains for roughly 7,000 years. Corn was domesticated 9,000 years ago, but according to the carbon ratios of human teeth, it didn't become a major source of calories until about 1,200 years ago! Many American groups did not adopt a grain-based diet until 100-300 years ago, and in a few cases they still have not. If you are of African descent, your ancestors have been eating grains for 9,000 to 0 years, depending on your heritage. The change to grains was accompanied by a marked decrease in dental health that shows up clearly in the archaeological record.
Practically every plant food contains some kind of toxin, but grains produce a number of nasty ones that humans are not well adapted to. Grains contain a large amount of phytic acid for example, which strongly inhibits the absorption of a number of important minerals. Tubers, which were our main carbohydrate source for about 1.5 million years before agriculture, contain less of it. This may have been a major reason why stature decreased when humans adopted grain-based agriculture. There are a number of toxins that occur in grains but not in tubers, such as certain heat-resistant lectins.
Non-industrial cultures often treated their seeds, including grains, differently than we do today. They used soaking, sprouting and long fermentation to decrease the amount of toxins found in grains, making them more nutritious and digestible. Most grain staples are not treated in this way today, and so we bear the brunt of their toxins even more than our ancestors did.
From an evolutionary standpoint, even 11,500 years is the blink of an eye. Add to that the fact that many people descend from groups that have been eating grains for far less time than that, and you begin to see the problem. There is no doubt that we have begun adapting genetically to grains. All you have to do to understand this is look back at the archaeological record, to see the severe selective pressure (read: disease) that grains placed on its early adopters. But the question is, have we had time to adapt sufficiently to make it a healthy food? I would argue the answer is no.
There are a few genetic adaptations I'm aware of that might pertain to grains: the duplication of the salivary amylase gene, and polymorphisms in the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) and apolipoprotein B genes. Some groups duplicated a gene that secretes the enzyme amylase into the saliva, increasing its production. Amylase breaks down starch, indicating a possible increase in its consumption. The problem is that we were getting starch from tubers before we got it from grains, so it doesn't really argue for either side in my opinion. The ACE and apolipoprotein B genes may be more pertinent, because they relate to blood pressure and LDL cholesterol. Blood pressure and blood cholesterol are both factors that respond well to low-carbohydrate (and thus low-grain) diets, suggesting that the polymorphisms may be a protective adaptation against the cardiovascular effects of grains.
The fact that up to 1% of people of European descent may have full-blown celiac disease attests to the fact that 7,000 years have not been enough time to fully adapt to wheat on a population level. Add to that the fact that nearly half of genetic Europeans carry genes that are associated with celiac, and you can see that we haven't been weeded out thoroughly enough to tolerate wheat, the oldest grain!
Based on my reading, discussions and observations, I believe that rice is the least problematic grain, wheat is the worst, and everything else is somewhere in between. If you want to eat grains, it's best to soak, sprout or ferment them. This activates enzymes that break down most of the toxins. You can soak rice, barley and other grains overnight before cooking them. Sourdough bread is better than normal white bread. Unfermented, unsprouted whole wheat bread may actually be the worst of all.
As hunter-gatherers, we ate some combination of the following: land mammals (including organs, fat and marrow), cooked tubers, seafood (fish, mammals, shellfish, seaweed), eggs, nuts, fruit, honey, "vegetables" (stems, leaves, etc.), mushrooms, assorted land animals, birds and insects. The proportion of each food varied widely between groups and even seasons. This is pretty much what we've been living on since we evolved as a species, and even before, for a total of 1.5 million years or so (this number is controversial but is supported by multiple lines of evidence). There are minor exceptions, including the use of wild grains in a few areas, but for the most part, that's it.
The first evidence of a calorically important domesticated crop I'm aware of was about 11,500 years ago in the fertile crescent. They were cultivating an early ancestor of wheat called emmer. Other grains popped up independently in what is now China (rice; ~10,000 years ago), and central America (corn; ~9,000 years ago). That's why people say humans have been eating grains for about 10,000 years.
The story is more complicated than the dates suggest, however. Although wheat had its origin 11,500 years ago, it didn't become widespread in Western Europe for another 4,500 years. So if you're of European descent, your ancestors have been eating grains for roughly 7,000 years. Corn was domesticated 9,000 years ago, but according to the carbon ratios of human teeth, it didn't become a major source of calories until about 1,200 years ago! Many American groups did not adopt a grain-based diet until 100-300 years ago, and in a few cases they still have not. If you are of African descent, your ancestors have been eating grains for 9,000 to 0 years, depending on your heritage. The change to grains was accompanied by a marked decrease in dental health that shows up clearly in the archaeological record.
Practically every plant food contains some kind of toxin, but grains produce a number of nasty ones that humans are not well adapted to. Grains contain a large amount of phytic acid for example, which strongly inhibits the absorption of a number of important minerals. Tubers, which were our main carbohydrate source for about 1.5 million years before agriculture, contain less of it. This may have been a major reason why stature decreased when humans adopted grain-based agriculture. There are a number of toxins that occur in grains but not in tubers, such as certain heat-resistant lectins.
Non-industrial cultures often treated their seeds, including grains, differently than we do today. They used soaking, sprouting and long fermentation to decrease the amount of toxins found in grains, making them more nutritious and digestible. Most grain staples are not treated in this way today, and so we bear the brunt of their toxins even more than our ancestors did.
From an evolutionary standpoint, even 11,500 years is the blink of an eye. Add to that the fact that many people descend from groups that have been eating grains for far less time than that, and you begin to see the problem. There is no doubt that we have begun adapting genetically to grains. All you have to do to understand this is look back at the archaeological record, to see the severe selective pressure (read: disease) that grains placed on its early adopters. But the question is, have we had time to adapt sufficiently to make it a healthy food? I would argue the answer is no.
There are a few genetic adaptations I'm aware of that might pertain to grains: the duplication of the salivary amylase gene, and polymorphisms in the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) and apolipoprotein B genes. Some groups duplicated a gene that secretes the enzyme amylase into the saliva, increasing its production. Amylase breaks down starch, indicating a possible increase in its consumption. The problem is that we were getting starch from tubers before we got it from grains, so it doesn't really argue for either side in my opinion. The ACE and apolipoprotein B genes may be more pertinent, because they relate to blood pressure and LDL cholesterol. Blood pressure and blood cholesterol are both factors that respond well to low-carbohydrate (and thus low-grain) diets, suggesting that the polymorphisms may be a protective adaptation against the cardiovascular effects of grains.
The fact that up to 1% of people of European descent may have full-blown celiac disease attests to the fact that 7,000 years have not been enough time to fully adapt to wheat on a population level. Add to that the fact that nearly half of genetic Europeans carry genes that are associated with celiac, and you can see that we haven't been weeded out thoroughly enough to tolerate wheat, the oldest grain!
Based on my reading, discussions and observations, I believe that rice is the least problematic grain, wheat is the worst, and everything else is somewhere in between. If you want to eat grains, it's best to soak, sprout or ferment them. This activates enzymes that break down most of the toxins. You can soak rice, barley and other grains overnight before cooking them. Sourdough bread is better than normal white bread. Unfermented, unsprouted whole wheat bread may actually be the worst of all.
Grains and Human Evolution
You've heard me say that I believe grains aren't an ideal food for humans. Part of the reason rests on the assertion that we have not been eating grains for long enough to have adapted to them. In this post, I'll go over what I know about the human diet before and after agriculture, and the timeline of our shift to a grain-based diet. I'm not an archaeologist so I won't claim that all these numbers are exact, but I think they are close enough to make my point.
As hunter-gatherers, we ate some combination of the following: land mammals (including organs, fat and marrow), cooked tubers, seafood (fish, mammals, shellfish, seaweed), eggs, nuts, fruit, honey, "vegetables" (stems, leaves, etc.), mushrooms, assorted land animals, birds and insects. The proportion of each food varied widely between groups and even seasons. This is pretty much what we've been living on since we evolved as a species, and even before, for a total of 1.5 million years or so (this number is controversial but is supported by multiple lines of evidence). There are minor exceptions, including the use of wild grains in a few areas, but for the most part, that's it.
The first evidence of a calorically important domesticated crop I'm aware of was about 11,500 years ago in the fertile crescent. They were cultivating an early ancestor of wheat called emmer. Other grains popped up independently in what is now China (rice; ~10,000 years ago), and central America (corn; ~9,000 years ago). That's why people say humans have been eating grains for about 10,000 years.
The story is more complicated than the dates suggest, however. Although wheat had its origin 11,500 years ago, it didn't become widespread in Western Europe for another 4,500 years. So if you're of European descent, your ancestors have been eating grains for roughly 7,000 years. Corn was domesticated 9,000 years ago, but according to the carbon ratios of human teeth, it didn't become a major source of calories until about 1,200 years ago! Many American groups did not adopt a grain-based diet until 100-300 years ago, and in a few cases they still have not. If you are of African descent, your ancestors have been eating grains for 9,000 to 0 years, depending on your heritage. The change to grains was accompanied by a marked decrease in dental health that shows up clearly in the archaeological record.
Practically every plant food contains some kind of toxin, but grains produce a number of nasty ones that humans are not well adapted to. Grains contain a large amount of phytic acid for example, which strongly inhibits the absorption of a number of important minerals. Tubers, which were our main carbohydrate source for about 1.5 million years before agriculture, contain less of it. This may have been a major reason why stature decreased when humans adopted grain-based agriculture. There are a number of toxins that occur in grains but not in tubers, such as certain heat-resistant lectins.
Non-industrial cultures often treated their seeds, including grains, differently than we do today. They used soaking, sprouting and long fermentation to decrease the amount of toxins found in grains, making them more nutritious and digestible. Most grain staples are not treated in this way today, and so we bear the brunt of their toxins even more than our ancestors did.
From an evolutionary standpoint, even 11,500 years is the blink of an eye. Add to that the fact that many people descend from groups that have been eating grains for far less time than that, and you begin to see the problem. There is no doubt that we have begun adapting genetically to grains. All you have to do to understand this is look back at the archaeological record, to see the severe selective pressure (read: disease) that grains placed on its early adopters. But the question is, have we had time to adapt sufficiently to make it a healthy food? I would argue the answer is no.
There are a few genetic adaptations I'm aware of that might pertain to grains: the duplication of the salivary amylase gene, and polymorphisms in the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) and apolipoprotein B genes. Some groups duplicated a gene that secretes the enzyme amylase into the saliva, increasing its production. Amylase breaks down starch, indicating a possible increase in its consumption. The problem is that we were getting starch from tubers before we got it from grains, so it doesn't really argue for either side in my opinion. The ACE and apolipoprotein B genes may be more pertinent, because they relate to blood pressure and LDL cholesterol. Blood pressure and blood cholesterol are both factors that respond well to low-carbohydrate (and thus low-grain) diets, suggesting that the polymorphisms may be a protective adaptation against the cardiovascular effects of grains.
The fact that up to 1% of people of European descent may have full-blown celiac disease attests to the fact that 7,000 years have not been enough time to fully adapt to wheat on a population level. Add to that the fact that nearly half of genetic Europeans carry genes that are associated with celiac, and you can see that we haven't been weeded out thoroughly enough to tolerate wheat, the oldest grain!
Based on my reading, discussions and observations, I believe that rice is the least problematic grain, wheat is the worst, and everything else is somewhere in between. If you want to eat grains, it's best to soak, sprout or ferment them. This activates enzymes that break down most of the toxins. You can soak rice, barley and other grains overnight before cooking them. Sourdough bread is better than normal white bread. Unfermented, unsprouted whole wheat bread may actually be the worst of all.
As hunter-gatherers, we ate some combination of the following: land mammals (including organs, fat and marrow), cooked tubers, seafood (fish, mammals, shellfish, seaweed), eggs, nuts, fruit, honey, "vegetables" (stems, leaves, etc.), mushrooms, assorted land animals, birds and insects. The proportion of each food varied widely between groups and even seasons. This is pretty much what we've been living on since we evolved as a species, and even before, for a total of 1.5 million years or so (this number is controversial but is supported by multiple lines of evidence). There are minor exceptions, including the use of wild grains in a few areas, but for the most part, that's it.
The first evidence of a calorically important domesticated crop I'm aware of was about 11,500 years ago in the fertile crescent. They were cultivating an early ancestor of wheat called emmer. Other grains popped up independently in what is now China (rice; ~10,000 years ago), and central America (corn; ~9,000 years ago). That's why people say humans have been eating grains for about 10,000 years.
The story is more complicated than the dates suggest, however. Although wheat had its origin 11,500 years ago, it didn't become widespread in Western Europe for another 4,500 years. So if you're of European descent, your ancestors have been eating grains for roughly 7,000 years. Corn was domesticated 9,000 years ago, but according to the carbon ratios of human teeth, it didn't become a major source of calories until about 1,200 years ago! Many American groups did not adopt a grain-based diet until 100-300 years ago, and in a few cases they still have not. If you are of African descent, your ancestors have been eating grains for 9,000 to 0 years, depending on your heritage. The change to grains was accompanied by a marked decrease in dental health that shows up clearly in the archaeological record.
Practically every plant food contains some kind of toxin, but grains produce a number of nasty ones that humans are not well adapted to. Grains contain a large amount of phytic acid for example, which strongly inhibits the absorption of a number of important minerals. Tubers, which were our main carbohydrate source for about 1.5 million years before agriculture, contain less of it. This may have been a major reason why stature decreased when humans adopted grain-based agriculture. There are a number of toxins that occur in grains but not in tubers, such as certain heat-resistant lectins.
Non-industrial cultures often treated their seeds, including grains, differently than we do today. They used soaking, sprouting and long fermentation to decrease the amount of toxins found in grains, making them more nutritious and digestible. Most grain staples are not treated in this way today, and so we bear the brunt of their toxins even more than our ancestors did.
From an evolutionary standpoint, even 11,500 years is the blink of an eye. Add to that the fact that many people descend from groups that have been eating grains for far less time than that, and you begin to see the problem. There is no doubt that we have begun adapting genetically to grains. All you have to do to understand this is look back at the archaeological record, to see the severe selective pressure (read: disease) that grains placed on its early adopters. But the question is, have we had time to adapt sufficiently to make it a healthy food? I would argue the answer is no.
There are a few genetic adaptations I'm aware of that might pertain to grains: the duplication of the salivary amylase gene, and polymorphisms in the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) and apolipoprotein B genes. Some groups duplicated a gene that secretes the enzyme amylase into the saliva, increasing its production. Amylase breaks down starch, indicating a possible increase in its consumption. The problem is that we were getting starch from tubers before we got it from grains, so it doesn't really argue for either side in my opinion. The ACE and apolipoprotein B genes may be more pertinent, because they relate to blood pressure and LDL cholesterol. Blood pressure and blood cholesterol are both factors that respond well to low-carbohydrate (and thus low-grain) diets, suggesting that the polymorphisms may be a protective adaptation against the cardiovascular effects of grains.
The fact that up to 1% of people of European descent may have full-blown celiac disease attests to the fact that 7,000 years have not been enough time to fully adapt to wheat on a population level. Add to that the fact that nearly half of genetic Europeans carry genes that are associated with celiac, and you can see that we haven't been weeded out thoroughly enough to tolerate wheat, the oldest grain!
Based on my reading, discussions and observations, I believe that rice is the least problematic grain, wheat is the worst, and everything else is somewhere in between. If you want to eat grains, it's best to soak, sprout or ferment them. This activates enzymes that break down most of the toxins. You can soak rice, barley and other grains overnight before cooking them. Sourdough bread is better than normal white bread. Unfermented, unsprouted whole wheat bread may actually be the worst of all.
Rabu, 09 Juli 2008
Another China Tidbit
A final note about the Chinese study in the previous post: the overweight vegetable-eaters (read: wheat eaters) exercised more than their non-vegetable-eating, thin neighbors. So although their average calorie intake was a bit higher, their expenditure was as well. So much for 'calories in, calories out'...
Although I speculated in the last post that affluent people might be eating more wheat and fresh vegetables, the data don't support that. Participants with the highest income level actually adhered to the wheat and vegetable-rich pattern the least, while low-income participants were most likely to eat this way.
Interestingly, education showed a (weaker) trend in the opposite direction. More educated participants were more likely to eat the wheat-vegetable pattern, while the opposite was true of less educated participants. Thus, it looks like wheat makes people more educated. Just kidding, that's exactly the logic we have to avoid when interpreting this type of study!
Although I speculated in the last post that affluent people might be eating more wheat and fresh vegetables, the data don't support that. Participants with the highest income level actually adhered to the wheat and vegetable-rich pattern the least, while low-income participants were most likely to eat this way.
Interestingly, education showed a (weaker) trend in the opposite direction. More educated participants were more likely to eat the wheat-vegetable pattern, while the opposite was true of less educated participants. Thus, it looks like wheat makes people more educated. Just kidding, that's exactly the logic we have to avoid when interpreting this type of study!
Another China Tidbit
A final note about the Chinese study in the previous post: the overweight vegetable-eaters (read: wheat eaters) exercised more than their non-vegetable-eating, thin neighbors. So although their average calorie intake was a bit higher, their expenditure was as well. So much for 'calories in, calories out'...
Although I speculated in the last post that affluent people might be eating more wheat and fresh vegetables, the data don't support that. Participants with the highest income level actually adhered to the wheat and vegetable-rich pattern the least, while low-income participants were most likely to eat this way.
Interestingly, education showed a (weaker) trend in the opposite direction. More educated participants were more likely to eat the wheat-vegetable pattern, while the opposite was true of less educated participants. Thus, it looks like wheat makes people more educated. Just kidding, that's exactly the logic we have to avoid when interpreting this type of study!
Although I speculated in the last post that affluent people might be eating more wheat and fresh vegetables, the data don't support that. Participants with the highest income level actually adhered to the wheat and vegetable-rich pattern the least, while low-income participants were most likely to eat this way.
Interestingly, education showed a (weaker) trend in the opposite direction. More educated participants were more likely to eat the wheat-vegetable pattern, while the opposite was true of less educated participants. Thus, it looks like wheat makes people more educated. Just kidding, that's exactly the logic we have to avoid when interpreting this type of study!
Sugar Tolerance: Does it Change
Over at the LivingAfterWLS Neighborhood we had a great question from our Neighbor Paula. She wants to know if our tolerance for sugar can change with the 5 Day Pouch Test. Take a look:Question from Paula:"Before the 5DPT, I could eat almost anything and not have a problem. (Which is where part of my problem came in and why I did the 5dpt.) The other night I ate a graham cracker with some peanut
Selasa, 08 Juli 2008
Wheat in China
Dr. Michael Eades linked to an interesting study yesterday on his Health and Nutrition blog. It's entitled "Vegetable-Rich Food Pattern is Related to Obesity in China."
It's one of these epidemiological studies where they try to divide subjects into different categories of eating patterns and see how health problems associate with each one. They identified four patterns: the 'macho' diet high in meat and alcohol; the 'traditional' diet high in rice and vegetables; the 'sweet tooth' pattern high in cake, dairy and various drinks; and the 'vegetable rich' diet high in wheat, vegetables, fruit and tofu. The only pattern that associated with obesity was the vegetable-rich diet. The 25% of people eating closest to the vegetable-rich pattern were more than twice as likely to be obese as the 25% adhering the least.
The authors of the paper try to blame the increased obesity on a higher intake of vegetable oil from stir-frying the vegetables, but that explanation is juvenile and misleading. A cursory glance at table 3 reveals that the vegetable-eaters weren't eating any more fat than their thinner neighbors. Dr. Eades suggests that their higher carbohydrate intake (+10%) and higher calorie intake (+120 kcal/day) are responsible for the weight gain, but I wasn't satisfied with that explanation so I took a closer look.
One of the most striking elements of the 'vegetable-rich' food pattern is its replacement of rice with wheat flour. The 25% of the study population that adhered the least to the vegetable-rich food pattern ate 7.3 times more rice than wheat, whereas the 25% sticking most closely to the vegetable-rich pattern ate 1.2 times more wheat than rice! In other words, wheat flour had replaced rice as their single largest source of calories. This association was much stronger than the increase in vegetable consumption itself!
All of a sudden, the data make perfect sense. Wheat seems to destroy the metabolism of cultures wherever it goes. I think the reason we don't see the same type of association in American epidemiological studies is that everyone eats wheat. Only in a culture that has a true diversity of diet can you find a robust association like this. The replacement of rice with wheat may have caused the increase in calorie intake as well, subsequent to metabolic dysfunction. Clinical trials of low-carbohydrate diets as well as 'paleolithic diets' have shown good metabolic outcomes from wheat avoidance, although one can't be sure that wheat is the only culprit from those data.
I don't think the vegetables had anything to do with the weight gain, they were just incidentally associated with wheat consumption. But I do think these data argue against the commonly-held idea that vegetables protect against overweight.
It's one of these epidemiological studies where they try to divide subjects into different categories of eating patterns and see how health problems associate with each one. They identified four patterns: the 'macho' diet high in meat and alcohol; the 'traditional' diet high in rice and vegetables; the 'sweet tooth' pattern high in cake, dairy and various drinks; and the 'vegetable rich' diet high in wheat, vegetables, fruit and tofu. The only pattern that associated with obesity was the vegetable-rich diet. The 25% of people eating closest to the vegetable-rich pattern were more than twice as likely to be obese as the 25% adhering the least.
The authors of the paper try to blame the increased obesity on a higher intake of vegetable oil from stir-frying the vegetables, but that explanation is juvenile and misleading. A cursory glance at table 3 reveals that the vegetable-eaters weren't eating any more fat than their thinner neighbors. Dr. Eades suggests that their higher carbohydrate intake (+10%) and higher calorie intake (+120 kcal/day) are responsible for the weight gain, but I wasn't satisfied with that explanation so I took a closer look.
One of the most striking elements of the 'vegetable-rich' food pattern is its replacement of rice with wheat flour. The 25% of the study population that adhered the least to the vegetable-rich food pattern ate 7.3 times more rice than wheat, whereas the 25% sticking most closely to the vegetable-rich pattern ate 1.2 times more wheat than rice! In other words, wheat flour had replaced rice as their single largest source of calories. This association was much stronger than the increase in vegetable consumption itself!
All of a sudden, the data make perfect sense. Wheat seems to destroy the metabolism of cultures wherever it goes. I think the reason we don't see the same type of association in American epidemiological studies is that everyone eats wheat. Only in a culture that has a true diversity of diet can you find a robust association like this. The replacement of rice with wheat may have caused the increase in calorie intake as well, subsequent to metabolic dysfunction. Clinical trials of low-carbohydrate diets as well as 'paleolithic diets' have shown good metabolic outcomes from wheat avoidance, although one can't be sure that wheat is the only culprit from those data.
I don't think the vegetables had anything to do with the weight gain, they were just incidentally associated with wheat consumption. But I do think these data argue against the commonly-held idea that vegetables protect against overweight.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)