|
« Exposure to Uncomfortable Truths About Your Host, Part Two (UPDATED) |
Main
| April 24, 2005
Sometimes the Comments are Worth Reading/Fighting Populist Instinct and Oversimplification
Posted by Bill Some of my latter commments under "A Cautionary Note On Obesity" might be worth reading, as I field a couple of slow grounders from folks that either perceive my post as too light on the government (while others ironically think that I'm piling on the attack of the CDC) or fault me because the dissemination of finger-wagging public health information is "pointless." I guess that a common conservative/populist reaction to being lectured by health authorites, especially the government, is that "we don't need your stinkin' meddlin' exagerrated nanny-statism that tries to take away my Frito Lay potato chips! Like my nana said, 'three squares a day, all things in moderation,' and that's by gosh darnit all the health advice that a good, common-sense, red-blooded American ever needs!" Of course, I exagerrate; but this seems like a common reaction (especially from blogger-pundits), taking apart weak or flawed science to prove a larger, opposite and reactionary point about nanny-statism and politically correct public health advisories. And while this instinct is not entirely unsound, what often winds up happening in the overreactive blowback is something different - an advocacy of ignorance, perceived "common sense" over detailed exposition of new, uncomfortable knowledge about health and wellness (or more generally, science), as well as the repetition of the exact offense that is criticized in the first place: the politicization and distortion of science in the service of an ideological, instinctive point. Narrowing my complaint a bit: the populist conservative reaction to the initial CDC report and subsequent shamefaced correction - or any dramatic public health advisory - that seems to be something along the lines of "screw the nanny statists trying to control our lives," seems counterproductive to me for a couple of reasons: 1. Making very specific health proclamations based on macro statistical analysis is an inherently dodgy exercise, requiring some very human assumptions and extrapolation from smaller studies, pure and simple. But while knowledge of this fudging properly demands skepticism, and definitive, highly specific and drastically wrong proclamations deserve derision, it doesn't make the exercise entirely useless, either. 2. Disseminating information, even via the government, is not nanny-statism. Conservatives and the biggest "L" Libertarians should want and applaud as much accurate information as possible, and chastising the government for incorrect public health information should not stray into condemnation of public health information in general, even when that information advocates uncomfortable change that may contradict your nana's nutritional advice. Bottom line: over the next 10 years (and now, if you choose to read avidly about health, nutrition and medicine), information will continue to dramatically seep into the public domain about how perhaps 80% or more of the foodstuffs in restaurants and grocery shelves are not particularly optimal for a longer, healthier human life (I'm seriously understating here), and how simple alternatives can both extend life expectancy, as well as enhance the quality of life via staving off preventable disease and deleterious metabolic processes. And as this happens, I'd advise everyone to avoid conflating the dissemination of information with some grinch-like social engineering designed to sap all of the tiny bits of culinary pleasure from your life. In short, open your minds a little bit - the market does not create adequate solutions without adequate information. UPDATE: An excellent example of the collision between the dissemination of nutritional information and public policy? The majority of food served to growing children in public schools is nutritionally bankrupt swill that permanently affects their growth and short and long-term physical and mental well-being. Public policy change that enhances the diet of schoolchildren should not be fought or derided in the public domain. In the absence of seemingly-revolutionary yet accurate health information, when the market has its way - and it largely has - children are fed budget-friendly frankenmeat and vending snacks. And they pay for it. Posted by Bill at April 24, 2005 09:59 AM | TrackBack (3) CommentsYou will have to pry my Count Chocula from my cold, dead heads! Which is ironic if you think about it because... oh I can't finish this. Posted by: Ghost of a flea If I had to pick the worst items at the local Safeway, Count Chocula might actually make the list ... Posted by: Bill from INDC They need to bring back Quisp. Posted by: rbj #1 - three squares a day and moderation is all things is dead-solid advice, no matter who gives it to you. Now, if you consider corn chips part of a square meal, all the public health information dissemination in the world isn't going to fix you. #2 - public health information dissemination is a problem, because, who do you trust? They missed it by 14x this time. What about last time, or the next time? And it's not even that they missed it, science being science and all, but the knock-on effects it has on public and private policy that does the most damage (lawsuits against KFC for making me fat). #3 - how long has CDC been in business? 10 years? More? Why is the next 10 years going to bring any more astonishing facts into evidence than the previous ten years? Outside of the normal 'march of science' business, that is. And even then, you better find an unbiased source to explain the meaning of the new findings...and I don't consider a tax-payer-supported agency to be unbiased. Anyhoo...finish those green beans. Posted by: Scott Chaffin Hear, hear. Good points both. Those general studies just create confusion. There are about 10 million very good studies out there on specific foodstuffs. Persnally, I want to make it to at least 100, hopefully 140ish, in good health, so I take the following twice every day: Life Extension Mix (http://www.lef.org/newshop/items/item00765.html for ingredients) Life Extension Herbal Mix (http://www.lef.org/newshop/items/item00298.html for ingredients) (LEF is a pretty good company, they add ingredients to their mixes based on good research) 1/4 teaspoon green tea extract (which is also in the above, but I like more; this is the equiv of 5 cups of green tea) 25 mg dihydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) Garlique aged garlic extract and on top of that: 75g protein shake every morning (15g ea of caseinate (goatsmilk) protein, egg, soy, whey, and one other I can never remember) ith flax seed 3 grams Vitamin C (1 gram at odd intervals) Dimethylaminoethanol (commonly known as DMAE; for mental acuity; prescribed in Europe for ADD) about 7 cups of green tea (stashtea.com has a great slection) brewed with a cinnamon stick. I brew it very strong, in 20 oz cups. This has a great effect on my disposition as well, I've noticed. I'm much calmer and better able to deal with my several hi-stress jobs and hobbies (I take 1/16 tsp theanine as well, if I'm expecting something especially stressful to come up; this is an amino acid in green tea that calms you (the Japanese actually spike their softdrinks with it)). I also take a growth hormone booster (which is basically a few grams of some amino acids in a certain ratio) for 3-4 days every couple weeks. This and the DHEA are more about bodybuildinbg, or least maintaining muscle/organ mass than disease prevention or anti-aging per se. And of course I work out with weights (I found the Arnold had some good exercises; my base is squats, skullbusters, bicep curls, dumbell rows, bent-over rows, deadlifts, and barbell military press plus some odds and ends; I rotate through so I hit each exercise at least once a week) and do slow inclined situps every morning, never miss. Even with all that, I could still keel over tomorrow, but I like to think I'm maximizing the odds in my favor. I'm 30 now and am fortunate enough to enjoy a very good income, and instead of living the high life I put away enough to be financially secure by 40, which plan really makes very little sense if I only live to be 39. So it's a financial common-sense decision as well. Posted by: TallDave You're my kind of hombre, Talldave. You know, in a non-gay way. Posted by: Bill from INDC Aww, you're sweet Bill (I mean that in a very masculine, heterosexual way of course). Sorry for the spelling and grammar atrocities I commited in my post; I was in too much of a hurry. I forgot to add, I also take about 2 grams a day of curcumin (anticancer and other health properties including healthier joints), and the cinnamon in the tea is specifically to keep blood sugar low. I also sprinkle it liberally (yes, that's right liberally) on anything sweet to avoid what I believe are probably damaging blood acidity spikes, and the insulin spikes that follow. It's amazing how little doctors know about this stuff. Mine kept muttering "unproven" when I brought it up. I should bring him a Google search. 5 cups a day of green tea beats any statin drug hands-down for efficacy in cancer and heart-attack prevention. I know you have an interest in these things, Bill; maybe you could post your own regimen, or even start a thread for anyone interested to post theirs. Posted by: TallDave Well, I used to take more suplementation, but that is the part that's soemwhat "unproven," (is having MORE raw materials always better?) and I'm lazy. What isn't unproven - and what doctors are mindbogglingly ignorant about - is how the average diet plays with blood sugar and toxins, and even the myriad ways that sugar screws up your body and advances aging (protein cross-linking, fat storage, inflammation, insulin resistance). I will say this - a basic regimen that would improve the health of 99.9% of folks would be the strict lowering of glycemic foods, exercise and no liquid passing the lips aside from water, green tea and the occasional glass of red wine. But I also lukewarmly agree with many of those supplements, especially DMAE and the arginine,etc before bedtime. Can achieve much of the same effect as the DMAE by eating wild alaskan salmon, btw.(which I'm sure that you know) Posted by: Bill from INDC Hehe, I'm lazy too, hence the mixes. Let them do the real research work. Thanks, I hadn't heard that about salmon, although I did know DMAE was fish-derived. I find the skepticism among doctors re green tea especially interesting, because most doctors are so sold on statins they take themselves as a preventative. (I take this as a sign doctors get too high a proportion of their information from drug companies.) There is certainly conflicting evidence out there on some vitamins as far as whether more is better, esp for E and A (though supplement companies have claimed for years this is due to differences between d-alpha and dl-alpha tocopheryl). But I'm sure you've heard of Nobel-winning chemist Linus Pauling's groundbreaking research on Vitamin C. I have found similar effects to what Pauling described with my total of 7 grams/day. I've pretty much avoided any but the mildest cough or flu symptoms since I started that a few years ago. There was an interesting follow-up to Pauling's work suggesting doses of 200 grams per day might be beneficial to people who are seriously ill, because of the body's high tolerance and the anti-radical effects. The interesting thing is, it should work for many illness, including most infections and even massive burns, because in a lot of illnesses most of the actual damage is from secondary effects of the infection/injury (toxins released by infections or dying tissue,) which damage is generally attributable to free radicals which Vitamin C's reducing equivalents can apparently deactivate. They actually have to hook up an IV drip to give you that much. I keep that one in mind for in extremis cases. I agree 100% on the high-glycemic foods and exercise, though the former is mostly theoretical and will likely remain so because the effects are mostly cumulative and thus resist clinical study. But once you study the theory and the diabetes/heart attack statistics, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that any blood sugar spike damages your circulatory system. Anyway, sorry to take up your whole thread with this. I can babble on about this stuff for hours. It's a minor obsession.
Posted by: TallDave |
Feed Me, Seymour
bill *at* indcjournal *dot* com
Support Our Advertisers
Search
Archives
June 2008May 2008 April 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004
Extras
PDARSD Atom RSS 2.0 RSS 1.0
Credits
Our Blogroll
|