Those most responsible for America’s obesity problem –

The experts, of course.

They recommend skim milk as a healthier alternative to whole milk and to soda.

Odd that nature never figured out that skim milk is healthier than whole milk.

Odd that nature configures our digestive tract to be fully capable of absorbing 500 grams of fat a day.

Odd that the experts do not seem to realize that by skimming milk they are pushing kids to drink more soda – after all, ’tis a competitive world, and taste rules.

The experts would never think of going the other way – adding cream to whole milk to make a beverage that can compete with soda in flavor.

No – that is bad for us!

While it has higher calories and more fat, this enriched milk tastes better and is more satisfying. Soda is low in fat and low in calories, but it stimulates appetite (especially the caffeinated ones), and its own consumption, and in several different ways.

Oh, I almost forgot a reference to the current opinion of the experts:

Ward ZJ, et al. N Engl J Med. 2017;doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1703860.

November 29, 2017

More than half of U.S. children will have obesity by age 35 years if current trends continue, according to results gathered from a simulation model projecting height and weight trajectories.

“Adult obesity is linked with increased risk of diseases, such as diabetes, heart disease and cancer,” Zachary J. Ward, MPH, programmer/analyst at the Center for Health Decision Science at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, said in a press release. “Our findings highlight the importance of prevention efforts for all children as they grow up, and of providing early interventions for children with obesity to minimize their risk of serious illness in the future.”

Ward and colleagues pooled height and weight data from five nationally representative longitudinal studies totaling 176,720 observations from 41,567 children and adults to estimate the risk for adult obesity. Researchers used the data to create 1,000 virtual populations of 1 million children to age 19 years to represent the U.S. population and then projected height and weight trajectories from childhood to age 35 years.

BMI 35 kg/m2 or higher in adults and 120% or more of the 95th percentile in children were used to define severe obesity.

Researchers projected that more than half (57.3%; 95% uncertainty interval [UI], 55.2-60) of children aged 2 to 19 years will have obesity by age 35 years on the basis of current trends for BMI and obesity.

Researchers observed that the probability that children with obesity who will still be obese at age 35 years increased from 74.9% at age 2 years to 88.2% at 19 years. The probability of obesity at age 35 years in children without obesity decreased from 57.8% at age 2 years to 44.4% at 19 years. Compared with children without obesity, children with obesity had increased RRs for obesity in adulthood of 1.3 (95% UI, 1.17-1.45) at age 2 years to 1.99 (95% UI, 1.8-2.17) at age 19 years.

Severe obesity in childhood significantly increased risks for adulthood obesity at age 35 years with the chances of not being obese ranging from 21% at age 2 years to 6.1% at 19 years.

“It is critically important to implement policies and programs to prevent excess weight gain, starting at an early age,” study researcher Steven L. Gortmaker, PhD, professor of the practice of health sociology in the department of social and behavioral sciences at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, said in the release. “Plenty of cost-effective strategies have been identified that promote healthy foods, beverages and physical activity within school and community settings.” – by Amber Cox

Disclosures: The authors report no relevant financial disclosures.”

—–

PS: don’t you just love these disclosures? To all of them, I want to append:

“and the fox reports that all of the hens are alive and well in the hen house.”

 

Advertisements

A dispositive contradiction

If proper nutrition = water + oxygen + the essential nutrients + sufficient energy, then why does an egg, for example, contain so many non-essential nutrients, nutrients that can be made from the essential nutrients?

Eggs contain water, essential nutrients, and energy sources. Oxygen is pulled through the shell and carbon dioxide is pushed out of  the shell. Heat is provided by the body of the hen. Yet eggs have so much more than this.  Why?

Could it be that proper nutrition contains large amounts of substances, which are already manufactured by the organism, but which are still needed because the organism cannot possibly make all of them in sufficient quantities?

If this is the case, then proper nutrition has been seriously misunderstood.

As a result, recommended human diets and animal chows are woefully inadequate. Many errors of interpretation and scientific artifacts have resulted from this single misconception, this gross error.

On the necessity of filtering data so as not to look like a fool

We would rather be intellectually dishonest than to be thought to be a fool. Me – I’m different; I would rather be thought a fool than commit intellectual fraud.

An illustration:

With the following requirements, could you write a sensible, peer-reviewed review of hypertension?

  1. You must begin with an admonishment about limiting salt intake.
  2. You must end by repeating the admonishment.
  3. Throughout you must hit all of the highpoints of the modern, misguided theory of hypertension.
  4. Finally, just before your conclusion, you must thoroughly discuss the hypertension studies on the Pima Indians.

If you can do this, I would like to see it. I think you would look like an idiot, which is exactly why no one even attempts this. Instead, if they even know about it, they sacrifice intellectual integrity so as not to look like a fool.

The facts are these:

  1. In their native country, eating their native diet, native Pima Indians consume as much salt as we do, while hypertension is all but non-existent among them.
  2. Lest any bonehead think this is due to genetic factors, Pima Indians who moved to the big city and adopt our Western lifestyles, transplanted Pima Indians, get hypertension about as often as we do.
  3. Not only do natives not get hypertension, native Pima Indians maintain their systole at the same level their entire natural lifespan, something rarely seen in modern America, where on average hypertension steadily increases with age.
  4. Not only that, but the systole of native Pima Indians is maintained for their lifetimes at about 100, a full 20 points lower than the accepted baseline in America, a value so low that many American doctors would be concerned about it.

Yahweh is my enemy

I hate Yahweh – with a passion. But I forgive 70×7 times the people who created this repulsive, elitist, psychotic god, who teaches us that slavery and genocide are A-OK.

To date, I have found only one thing that I share with this psychotic god –

we both hate whiners. I trust that this does not make me as psycho as Yahweh is.

PS: since Allah is Yahweh on steroids, I hate Allah more. I also forgive the people who outdid the psycho creator of the super-psycho Yahweh.

Barking up the wrong tree

When practiced properly, science is remarkable in its ability to find the right answers; however, science is rarely done properly, and thus scientists are remarkable only in their lack of ability to find the right answers.

The situation is so bad that it can be fairly said that as a rule, scientists, as a group, bark up the wrong tree.

For example:

Genetics 101: it takes thousands of years for major genetic changes to occur in the human genome. 10,000 years is a reasonable estimate.

Basic fact about major bowel disease: it has increased about 5 fold in the last 50 years or so.

If you were a scientist, would you look for the explanation of the basic fact re major bowel disease in genetic changes?

Only if you were both a scientist and a dumb ass – unfortunately, the two mostly go hand-in-hand.

What has happened in the last 50 years or so. Lots of things, both good and bad, and nothing simply good or bad.

Powerful anti-acid drugs, including antacids (Maalox, 1949), histamine H2 blockers (cimetidine, 1976), acid blockers (omeprazole, 1988), and low fat dieting (Pritikin, Pritikin Program for Diet and Exercise, 1979) have been introduced during the last 50 years or so.

Basic in vitro observation: acid plus free fatty acids is a potent germ killing combination. At a pH of 3.5 and a free fatty acid concentration of 1 mM, almost 6 logs of germ killing can occur in a test tube, over a period of an hour or so, at body temperature. To put that kind of germ killing into perspective, it is roughly as powerful as exposure of microbes to 100 ppm chlorine bleach for 30 seconds at room temperature.

Does this germ killing reaction occur in the human stomach? Don’t know. Gastric lipase has a pH optimum of around 3.5. Perhaps it does. Is it important to human health? Don’t know. Perhaps.

Could there be a connection between these rather recent developments and the increase in major bowel disease?

Probably not: Only if all of the above are true and nasty bacteria that would otherwise have been killed in the stomach without ant-acids and with a sensible and balanced diet, have aught to do with the development of bowel disease. The effect may be indirect. Germs that are normally killed in the stomach become an unwelcome immune system burden downstream. The mere preoccupation of the immune system with these living, multiplying pests may mean that something else has to give, something very basic to bowel health, something that seems highly unlikely at first thought.

Although improbable, the above idea is possible – at least a person would not be a dumb ass to suspect this, and to do some research.

If a person thinks he has thus uncovered the cause of the increase in major bowel disease, then he is still a dumb ass, because anyone with a functional brain knows that the concept of causation, the absurd idea that one thing is completely responsible for another thing, is yet another example of idiocy.

Unbalanced emotional exaggeration, a product of a mind undisciplined and un-ruled by reason  – that is causation!

A Nietzschean medicine

is a poison that if it does not kill you, it makes you stronger.

Was the medicinal conifer tea of arbor vitae that mysteriously and quickly cured Cartier’s sailors of scurvy and syphilis a Nietzschean medicine?

Compare the story of Mithridates VI, the King of Pontus, who used ever increasing doses of poison to give him immunity to ordinary doses of the poison. He used poison and made it act like a medicine.

Poison: Medicine = two sides of the same coin, as are dying: becoming stronger.

To heal, and in general, to become stronger, one must sometimes almost die. The cure for a malady may well proceed through tremendous torment.

The supreme importance of foundations

The more important something is, the less attention it tends to receive.

It is maximally ironic that on the most important matters, we spend the least time and effort.

Nothing can be more important than foundations. Secure your foundations, or forget even trying to build anything that lasts, and that includes intellectual creations, and among them, the big answers to big questions.

Definitions are foundational – considered merely stipulative, they are thus considered a trifle.

Dead wrong – define a term incorrectly and inappropriately, and you preclude finding the correct answer to a question.

For centuries, the wrong definitions of being, god, creator, and nothingness prevented any possible explanation of where our universe came from.

People assumed that our universe was a creation. Dead wrong, that begs the question. That requires a creator. Just as some children create an imago of their parents that sometimes persists through adulthood, these people further mythologized the creator as god, and that god had to be the prime mover, himself unmoved, and had to be eternal. Highly creative, but wrong, and not remotely possible. If our universe had a creator, he is long dead, and was certainly not an immortal god. He would have laughed uproariously at the notion that people worship the creator. He or she or it may have been a goofball graduate student in physics who never even secured a doctorate, who failed to create a proper universe according to the directives.

In 2017, the definition of life precludes ever finding an answer to the origin of life.

The correct definition is that which yields the correct answer. The incorrect definition yields confusion, and our perpetual confusion about things, even trifles, is a testimony to our failure to secure the foundations of thought.

In 2017, the definition of nutrition references only essential nutrients and calories. If that were so, people on total parenteral nutrition could thrive. They do not. By rule, by the correct definition, nutrition needs to reference nearly everything the body is trying to absorb, because that is what the body needs. Included in that are all of the nutrients the body cannot make at all, the so-called “essential” nutrients. But included in that are also hundreds of nutrients that the body makes, but does not make enough of them to meet all of its needs. Failure to supply these “non-essential” needs implies that penalties must be paid. Because we are the sophisticated products of four billion years of evolution, the penalties have been reduced by, among other things, redistribution and better retention, but they are not non-existent.

Anselm’s faulty definition of existence as a perfection led to his faulty proof of the existence of god. Did Plato assume the same faulty definition of existence in his faulty proof of the existence of Forms? Defined properly, to exist is to be imperfect. To exist is to have qualities and qualities are necessarily imperfect. One can be only so beautiful or so smart. Perfection cannot exist. Perfection, like infinity, is correctly defined as an asymptote. We aspire to perfection, but by definition, we will never achieve it.

Etc. Etc. – there is no end to examples.