I was recently a guest on the Body IO FM podcast.  You can listen to that episode here.

The hosts of Body IO FM are John Kiefer and Dr. Rocky Patel.  I became aware of them more than a year ago when they were the guests on an episode of Jimmy Moore’s Ask the Low Carb Experts.  It was a 90-minute Q & A with lots of good information, but their basic message came down to this:  ketosis is great, but most people get better results if they cycle in and out by having a “carb nite” once per week.  You can read an overview of the theory by visiting the CarbNite website.

That’s more or less what I’ve been doing for the past couple of years.  I stay pretty low-carb on most days, but on Saturday nights we usually go out to a nearby Mexican diner we like.  I’ll eat the corn tortillas, rice and beans with that meal.

Share

Comments 40 Comments »

I’m not sick or dead or anything.  I’m just swamped – and I mean absolutely swamped – with the programming gig right now.  I put in 76 hours last week.  It’s Wednesday, and I’ve already put in 37 hours this week.  On Sunday, I worked right up until the Super Bowl kickoff, watched the game, then worked until midnight.  I don’t suppose this is doing my cortisol levels any good, but that’s the situation.  We’ve got a bit of an IT emergency going on, and I landed the job of solving it.

Obviously, I don’t much have much time for posting, but I did come across an interesting tidbit that I’ll share while I wait for my test program to finish running:

Remember the big hubbub when the half-baked brains at Julian Bakery made a ham-handed attempt at fat-shaming Jimmy Moore and Diane Sanfilippo?  It was high comedy.  Jimmy and Diane both reported that Julian Bakery’s (ahem) low-carb bread spikes blood sugar as high as any other bread – a fact that several other people have reported.

Outraged that bloggers were reporting facts, Gary Collins and Heath Squealer … er, Squier … acted like the dumb jocks they are:  they figured if they fat-shamed Jimmy and Diane, this would somehow convince people their bread doesn’t spike blood sugar like any other bread, and people would run out and buy it.   It was a particularly stupid move making Diane a target of fat-shaming, since she appears in public frequently and anyone with eyes can see she isn’t fat.

When I wrote a post calling them dumb jocks and adolescents, the semi-literate Mr. Collins (who assured me he “rights” his own books) attempted to rebut that opinion by:

  1. Calling me a coward for attacking him from behind a computer … after he and Mr. Squealer attacked Jimmy and Diane from behind a computer.
  2. Accusing me of having no respect for the military because by gosh, he put his life on the line to protect my freedom of speech.  (My lack of respect for the military would come as a shock to my Ranger nephew, who served two tours in Iraq.)
  3. Threatening to find me at a conference someday and commit some sort of violence – thus proving how truly proud he is of putting his life on the line to protect my freedom of speech.

Yup, he replied by acting like an adolescent dumb jock.  You can’t make this stuff up.

In a follow-up post, I wrote this:

So Mr. Squealer’s qualifications come down to being born 1) naturally lean, and 2) to a mommy who started a bakery and was willing to make him the CEO.  (Given his recent behavior, that might prove to be a bad decision.)

At the time, I meant that his adolescent, dumb-jock behavior could turn off his potential buyers.  But it looks as if there’s another reason his mommy will regret the decision:  Julian Bakery apparently doesn’t pay its bills, at least according to a lawsuit by FedEx.

FedEx claims that Julian Bakery established a credit account for delivery of its products and ran up a bill of $241,274,27.  FedEx claims it has sent invoices and demanded payment, but Julian Bakery refuses to pay.

Yup, making your dumb-jock son the CEO of your company was probably a bad move, Mom.  (But hey, he and Mr. Collins have abs!!  They’re quick to point that out as proof of their superior knowledge … because it’s not as if they’re natural mesomorphs or anything.)

After the idiotic and ham-handed attempt at fat-shaming, many of you said it would serve these bozos right if Julian Bakery went out of business.  If the FedEx lawsuit is any indication, you may get your wish.

Think of it as low-karb karma.

Back to the programming …

Share

Comments 43 Comments »

I had a longer post in mind for tonight, but I’m up to my ears in a programming project that’s due Monday.  It’s 11:30 PM and the only reason I’m writing a post at all is that my program takes 20 to 30 minutes to test each time I run it.

Anyway, I saw something at a grocery store recently that reminded me of what I wrote in a post titled The Wisdom of Crowds Is On The Menu:

A lot of us have very legitimate complaints about the food supply, with all its processed garbage and meats that come from grain-fed animals raised in what amount to meat factories.  A question I’m asked now and then is How do we change this horrible system?

We don’t have to change the system.  All we have to do is buy foods that enhance health and help spread the word to the crowd.  You can complain all you want about the evils of capitalism, but even the greediest capitalist can only sell you what you’re willing to buy  — the exception being when government takes your money and does your buying for you.

Remember when every damned thing on the grocery shelves was labeled low-fat or zero cholesterol?  That was the market responding to consumer demand.  Yes, the federal government helped create that demand with lousy dietary advice, but it was nonetheless consumer purchases driving what was produced.

That’s still how it works.  But now the Wisdom of Crowds effect is kicking in and changing what people demand.  When food trucks are offering grass-fed burgers, it means somebody in management noticed a change in consumer preference.  When restaurants add a new Gluten Free section to their menus, it means somebody in management noticed a change in consumer preference.  As more and more people choose grass-fed meats and other healthier foods, that’s what the producers will produce.

Here’s what I saw that reminded me of that post:

Yup, this store wants you to know you’re buying locally sourced produce.  They even have pictures of the nice folks who grow it.

Now, that doesn’t necessarily mean the nice folks are growing organic produce. (Personally, I think the “organic” label is overrated.)  But if you live here, it’s nice to know your squash wasn’t shipped from California to Tennessee.  According to Google Maps, Elora (the red A on the map) is about 90 miles from Franklin.

Given my druthers, I’d still rather get my squash from Chareva’s garden, but you get the point.  Those big signs featuring pictures of the local farmers cost money.  If the store went to the effort and expense, it means someone in management decided consumers want locally grown produce.  So what was this store?  Whole Foods?

Nope.  These signs were in our local Kroger.  Not exactly a store for the soy-cheese and Birkenstock crowd.

But crowd is still the operative word here.  The Wisdom of Crowds effect is continuing to change what consumers demand, and in turn what producers sell.

Now back to that pesky code.  It’s going to be a long night yet …

Share

Comments 91 Comments »

As you know if you’re a regular reader, I’ve been yelling and screaming for years about the lousy science that convinced Americans heart disease is caused by eating too much fat and cholesterol.  From Ancel Keys on down, researchers jumped to conclusions based on weak associations.  Big muckety-mucks in our government bought into the lousy science, and the rest is history.

So it’s refreshing to learn that researchers are revisiting the whole “what causes heart disease?” issue and applying rigorous scientific thinking for a change.  Here are some quotes about an enlightening new study as reported in Medical Daily online:

Over the years, researchers have gathered several risk factors for heart disease ranging from not making a lot of money, to smoking, to stress. Now, a new study shows just how the use of Twitter can help dictate what populations are at risk of coronary heart disease: by identifying which users are tweeting about negative emotions like anger, stress, or fatigue.

A few of my blog readers and Twitter followers have complained that I don’t tweet often enough.  Well, now you know why.  I’ve suspected for a long time that tweeting causes heart disease, but I kept that suspicion to myself – meaning I didn’t tweet about it.

If you’re a health and history buff like I am, you know that heart disease in America plummeted during World War Two, then spiked after the war ended.  But you may not have connected that dot to the fact that the Defense Department restricted tweeting during the war.  I’m a pro-freedom type of guy, but I understand their reasons.  General Eisenhower couldn’t afford to have soldiers sending out tweets like:

The military didn’t prohibit tweeting entirely at first.  But soldiers pretty much gave up after seeing their tweets go into the world like this:

The final clampdown on tweeting came after the other side started engaging in what became known as Dirty Twitter Tricks.

So tweeting plummeted and, interestingly, so did heart disease.  After the war, tweeting skyrocketed and, again, so did heart disease.  So I think these researchers are on to something.

The study, led by Johannes Eichstaedt at the University of Pennsylvania (in collaboration with others) and published in the journal Psychological Science, found that a county’s tweets about negative emotions were associated with a higher risk of heart disease for that community, while tweets that were more positive were associated with a lower risk.

Okay, so it’s angry or negative tweets doing the damage here, not tweeting in general.  I stand corrected.  Nonetheless, I believe my observations about tweeting and heart disease both spiking in the years after World War Two are still relevant.

McCarthy died at age 48.  Let that be a warning to all you angry tweeters out there.

Here’s how the researchers made this discovery:

The researchers studied public tweets from 2009-2010, scattered across 1,300 counties. Language considered negative — such as the word “hate” or swear words — were associated with heart disease mortality, while more positive messages involving words like “friends” or “wonderful” were linked to a lower risk of heart disease mortality.

Just wanted to protect my heart a bit before moving on.

It wasn’t necessarily the people writing negative tweets who were dying of heart disease, however: rather, the tweets were indicative of a higher rate in certain communities.

Wait a minute … you mean this stuff doesn’t affect the person actually doing the tweeting?!

“The relationship between language and mortality is particularly surprising,” H. Andrew Schwartz, an author of the study, said, “since the people tweeting angry words and topics are in general not the ones dying of heart disease. But that means if many of your neighbors are angry, you are more likely to die of heart disease.”

Well, hell’s bells!  All these years, I’ve been operating on the theory that if you’re surrounded by angry neighbors, you’re more likely to die of a gunshot wound.  Now it turns out those neighbors sitting at their computers and sending angry tweets all day can give you heart disease.

I’m reminded of something Rocky Angelucci wrote in his book Don’t Die Early:  predicting your odds of suffering a heart attack based on your cholesterol score is like predicting your odds of a suffering a heart attack based on your zip code.  And here I thought he was making fun of cholesterol scores.  Turns out he was ahead of the curve on the neighbors give you heart disease theory.

Well, that’s it, then.  I’m going to start following my neighbors on Twitter.  If I see angry or negative tweets, I’ll respond with something like Knock it off, ass@#$%!! You’re raising my risk of a heart attack, dumb-@#$%!!

“Psychological states have long been thought to have an effect on coronary heart disease,” Margaret Kern, assistant professor at the University of Melbourne and an author of the study, said in the press release. “For example, hostility and depression have been linked with heart disease at the individual level through biological effects. But negative emotions can also trigger behavioral and social responses; you are also more likely to drink, eat poorly and be isolated from other people which can indirectly lead to heart disease.”

So let me follow the logic here … hostility and depression are linked to heart disease.  Check.  People who send angry tweets are more likely to be angry and depressed.  Check.  So in counties where lots of people are sending angry tweets, the rate of heart disease is higher, even though it’s not the tweeters who are having the heart attacks.  Check.  Add it all up, and you get the conclusion if many of your neighbors are angry, you are more likely to die of heart disease.

Well then, you’d better move out of that angry county as soon as possible.  Move to a county where people are nice and friendly – like ours, for example.  I remember visiting a bank to set up our accounts shortly after we moved here.  By the time the new-accounts manager and I were done, I knew her children’s names and the fact that her husband collects unusual knives.  She was so sweet, I felt a little guilty for not hugging her on the way out.  And as our local paper once pointed out, this county has the highest longevity in Tennessee – which prompted the writer to suggest the state should find a way to move more poor people here so their health would improve.

Of course, there’s another way to look at it:  positive people are more likely to be both financially successful and healthier.  They move to counties that are considered “nice” and are also more expensive.  Negative people are more likely to end up with bad health and bad finances.  They live in the less-desirable areas they can afford.  So angry tweets and heart disease end up being correlated if you divvy up the data by county.  Same old, same old:  it’s adherers vs. non-adherers.

Which means …

But I don’t consider that an angry tweet or anything.

Share

Comments 58 Comments »

Readers send me links to articles all the time.  (Bless all of you who do.)  Some articles are particularly newsworthy or timely and become fodder for blog posts.  Others don’t and end up in what I now think of as the Cold Case Files.  They’re old, but still worth digging out now and then for a second look.

I just came across one that deserves a second look because it relates to my recent posts on how U.S. News ranked the popular diets and The Rider And The Elephant.  I poked fun at how U.S. News ranked the Slim Fast diet #13 while placing the paleo diet 35th out of 35 – because it’s just so darned hard to follow, you see.  What I didn’t mention in that post is that the Biggest Loser diet was ranked #9.  The U.S. News panel of experts had this to say about eating like a Biggest Loser:

The diet received high marks for short-term weight loss, safety and soundness as a regimen for diabetes, and it was rated moderately effective for heart health.

Good for short-term weight loss — and it must not be hard to follow, because according to the (ahem) logic the panelists cited while putting paleo at the bottom of the list, a difficult diet should earn a bad score.

We know the Biggest Loser diet is good for short-term weight loss because we see people losing impressive amounts of weight during weekly weigh-ins on the TV show, right? Uh-huh … so let’s take a look at an article from an Australian news service I found in my Cold Case Files:

Andrew ‘Cosi’ Costello was a contestant on the Biggest Loser in 2008 … Today, Cosi writes exclusively for news.com.au about what contestants really have to go through on the hit Channel 10 show.

“The only thing that really disappoints me about the Biggest Loser is the length of time between the weigh-ins. Have you ever wondered how the contestants manage to lose a staggering 12 kilos in a single week? We don’t. In my series a weekly weigh-in was NEVER filmed after just one week of working out. In fact the longest gap from one weigh-in to the next was three and a half weeks. That’s 25 days between weigh-ins, not seven. That “week” I lost more than nine kilos. I had to stand on the scales and was asked to say the line, “wow, it’s a great result, I’ve worked really hard this week”. The producers made sure that we never gave this secret away, because if we did, it created a nightmare for them in the editing suite. The shortest gap from weigh-in to weigh-in during our series was 16 days. That’s a fact.”

So that short-tem weight loss isn’t as impressive as the U.S. News panelists think it is.

“The thing is, overweight people get inspired by watching the Biggest Loser. They get off the couch and they hit the gym. But after a week in the real world, some people might only lose 1kg so they feel like they’ve failed and they give up.  That’s where the show is misleading. You need to remember it’s a TV show, it’s not all real. In fact, not even the scales we stood on were real.”

Awesome.  So people watching the show try starving themselves and horsewhipping themselves into hours of exercise so they can achieve a similarly awesome seven-day weight loss … except the weight loss might have actually required 25 days and was measured on a not-real scale, at least while the cameras were rolling.

“I would say that about 75 per cent of the contestants from my series in 2008 are back to their starting weight. About 25 per cent had had gastric banding or surgery.”

If 75 percent are back to the their starting weight and 25 percent had bariatric surgery, that would leave … hang on, let me get out the calculator … almost nobody achieving long-term weight loss.

Yes, but … uh … the short-term weight loss is good.  Just ask the experts consulted by U.S. News.

“Anyone can lose weight in a controlled environment; I’d say it’s almost impossible not to lose weight on the Biggest Loser.  But the show doesn’t address the reasons why people like me are so obsessed and addicted to eating excess amounts of food; it doesn’t get to the root of the problem.”

Bingo.  People who go on The Biggest Loser are (as the article makes clear) agreeing to be in lockdown.  Same goes for people who participate in metabolic ward studies.  And yes, under those circumstances, you can probably demonstrate that all weight-loss diets work as long as the dieter sticks to the diet, as some internet cowboys like to point out.  So what?  All that tells us is that if you lock the elephant in a cell, he doesn’t run away — because he can’t.  But he’ll be miserable the whole time, and when he’s no longer in lockdown, he won’t be hanging around for long – even if the rider thinks he should.

When Ancel Keys conducted his semi-starvation study in the 1940s, the participants were in lockdown.  Yup, they lost weight.  They also lost their energy, their ability to concentrate, their sex drive, their desire to talk about much of anything besides food, and – in a couple of cases – their sanity.  One man bit off his own finger to get released from the study.  That’s an elephant being pretty damned determined to run away.  Soon after the study ended, all of the men regained the lost weight, and some gained more than they’d lost.  After being starved, the elephant wanted to protect itself against future starvation.

So again, I don’t give a rat’s rear-end what the (ahem) experts consulted by U.S. News consider a good diet.  A good diet is a diet that keeps the elephant happy instead of dragging him to a place he doesn’t want to go.  And I doubt the Biggest Loser diet fits that definition for most people.

Share

Comments 37 Comments »

I didn’t post yesterday because I had my every-five-year colonoscopy, which means undergoing general anesthesia, which means feeling a bit dopey and tired for the rest of the day.  I elected to spend the evening relaxing and watching some Netflix series I’ve been meaning to check out.

I don’t consider myself a cancer candidate, but since my dad had colon cancer, I get the peek-inside procedure done every five years.  No use being stupid about it.

The peek inside showed no cancer or warning signs of cancer, by the way.  That might be a disappointment to the vegan evangelists who occasionally show up in comments to warn me that red meat causes cancer.  They’ve seen some studies, by gosh, and they just know my meaty diet is going to kill me at a young age.

I once pointed out to a vegan troll who was making that argument that Linda McCartney died of cancer after more than 20 years of being a vegetarian.  He replied that she didn’t become a vegetarian until she was in her 30s, so the damage had already been done.  So I replied that I’m in my 50s, which means according to his theory, the damage has already been done.  So there’s really no point in me giving up meat at this point.  May as well enjoy my diet and my life until the cancer set in motion decades ago by eating meat finally flares up and kills me.

That actually shut up him, which was a bit of surprise.

Now I’m off to enjoy a skirt steak for dinner.

Share

Comments 56 Comments »