USDA Helps and Hurts

Fascinating angle on the interaction between crony politics and weight gain.  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/22/new-report-links-agricultural-subsidies-to-childhood-obesity/#ixzz1ZHq1YPBG

But the real problem is the fact that the USDA insists on weighing in about what foods are or are not healthy, but lacks to science to back up their assertions.

Statin Trifecta

http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/why_statins_dont_really_work.html

This is a long, brilliantly written post, with a very interesting conclusion, that lives up to its title (How Statins Really Work Explains Why They Don't Work):

So, in my view, the best way to avoid heart disease is to assure an abundance of an alternative supply of cholesterol sulfate. First of all, this means eating foods that are rich in both cholesterol and sulfur. Eggs are an optimal food, as they are well supplied with both of these nutrients. But secondly, this means making sure you get plenty of sun exposure to the skin. This idea flies in the face of the advice from medical experts in the United States to avoid the sun for fear of skin cancer. I believe that the excessive use of sunscreen has contributed significantly, along with excess fructose consumption, to the current epidemic in heart disease. And the natural tan that develops upon sun exposure offers far better protection from skin cancer than the chemicals in sunscreens.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/06/22/new-study-show-using-statins-actually-worsens-your-heart-function.aspx?np=true

I wouldn't say that Dr. Mercola's site is an unbiased source for information but that's probably to the good in this case, because his site will publicize information like this:

A study found that statin drugs are associated with decreased myocardial (heart muscle) function.

Statin use is known to be associated with myopathy, muscle weakness and rhabdomyolysis, a breakdown of muscle fibers resulting in the release of muscle fiber contents into the bloodstream. For the study, myocardial function was evaluated in 28 patients.
According to Green Med Info:

“There was significantly better function noted ... in the control group vs the statin group”.

A study found that statin drugs are associated with decreased myocardial (heart muscle) function.

Statin use is known to be associated with myopathy, muscle weakness and rhabdomyolysis, a breakdown of muscle fibers resulting in the release of muscle fiber contents into the bloodstream. For the study, myocardial function was evaluated in 28 patients.
According to Green Med Info:

“There was significantly better function noted ... in the control group vs the statin group”.

http://www.drbriffa.com/2011/08/10/scientists-sometimes-shift-the-scientific-goalposts/

Dr. Briffa is also refreshing for his "biased" reporting:

It’s easy to believe that statins have dramatic life-saving properties. The reality is, however, that for the majority of people who take them, they don’t. In the biggest and best review published to date, statins were not found to reduce overall risk of death in individuals with no previous history of cardiovascular disease [1]. What this study shows is that for great majority of people who take statins, the chances of them saving their life are, essentially, nil (just so you know).

Wheat Growers Should Be Arrested In The Drug Wars

Almost without exception, all people on earth today are sustained by agriculture. With a minute number of exceptions, no other species is a farmer. Essentially all of the arable land in the world is under cultivation. Yet agriculture began just a few thousand years ago, long after the appearance of anatomically modern humans.
Given the rate and the scope of this revolution in human biology, it is quite extraordinary that there is no generally accepted model accounting for the origin of agriculture. Indeed, an increasing array of arguments over recent years has suggested that agriculture, far from being a natural and upward step, in fact led commonly to a lower quality of life. Hunter-gatherers typically do less work for the same amount of food, are healthier, and are less prone to famine than primitive farmers (Lee & DeVore 1968, Cohen 1977, 1989). A biological assessment of what has been called the puzzle of agriculture might phrase it in simple ethological terms: why was this behaviour (agriculture) reinforced (and hence selected for) if it was not offering adaptive rewards surpassing those accruing to hunter-gathering or foraging economies?
This paradox is responsible for a profusion of models of the origin of agriculture. 'Few topics in prehistory', noted Hayden (1990) 'have engendered as much discussion and resulted in so few satisfying answers as the attempt to explain why hunter/gatherers began to cultivate plants and raise animals. Climatic change, population pressure, sedentism, resource concentration from desertification, girls' hormones, land ownership, geniuses, rituals, scheduling conflicts, random genetic kicks, natural selection, broad spectrum adaptation and multicausal retreats from explanation have all been proffered to explain domestication. All have major flaws ... the data do not accord well with any one of these models.'
Recent discoveries of potentially psychoactive substances in certain agricultural products -- cereals and milk -- suggest an additional perspective on the adoption of agriculture and the behavioural changes ('civilisation') that followed it. In this paper we review the evidence for the drug-like properties of these foods, and then show how they can help to solve the biological puzzle just described.

http://disweb.dis.unimelb.edu.au/staff/gwadley/msc/WadleyMartinAgriculture.html

Really interesting points, and it seems like that they are correct that the addictive properties of grains played a significant role in their adoption - but I also think Diamond's answer is correct:  agriculture resulted in the "Guns, Germs and Steel" that allowed smaller, weaker, sicker agriculturalists to out breed hunter gatherers, and to out specialize and thus over power them.  Blacksmiths, politicians, religious leaders, wheel makers, etc.  By the time we agriculturalists began to study the hunter gathers with the idea of learning what made them so much healthier, they had already been pushed out of the most desirable areas, and the image we sustained of them, for the most part, was that "they are savages."  OK, but they also would easily outlive, outwork and outplay us - if they wanted to - and lived free of the fear of cancer, heart disease, and the other diseases of civilization.  There's no going back, and I wouldn't if I could, but it is foolish to try to understand human health without considering the fact that we are built to hunt and gather, eat with the seasons, get vitamin D from the sun, eat the essential fatty acids and micronutrients we need from the animals we kill, and sleep when it is dark.  Picking seeds and grinding them for bread or paste is not the yellow brick road for human health.

Jumping Is Big Money

Advice from an expert on preparation for learning the olympic lift (clean and jerk, and the snatch):

10. Correct flexibility problems before attempting to coach the Olympic lifts. 

11. One athletic skill should precede learning the Olympic lifts: jumping. The most important skill an athlete should bring to training is the ability to perform a technically sound vertical jump, preferably out of a full squat.

12. Holding a rack position for the clean should be learned before attempting to perform the squat

clean. The improvement of a rack position for the clean depends on the specific impeding problem. Many people can’t get their shoulders forward to rest the bar on the deltoids.  Others take the wrong grip width. Both of these can be experimented with. Figuring out how to front-squat properly will do much to teach the proper rack position. There are a few people who cannot ever rack for a variety of reasons.

http://library.crossfit.com/premium/pdf/CFJ_Takano_12tips.pdf?e=1317413793&h=b049e53ade564912e5a6a0be19625889

I point this info out because some will use it to get themselves ready to Oly lift, but also to make the point that Oly lifting is great for athleticism mainly because it allows one to jump with a load, which is otherwise difficult to do.  That said, if you are training a youngster, one of the absolute finest methods to use for them is to get them to jump.  Make it a game, vice work.  If you want to set up a way for them to jump to progressively higher levels, that's great too, but mostly kids need play.  Broad jumps, box jumps, rope jumping, drop jumps, speed jumps to low boxes, or repetitive jumps to higher boxes ... it is all fabulous, and relatively low risk (no risk training incurs a high risk of having no benefit at all) training for kids. 

What are the benefits?  Well, one is motor neuron recruitment for power output (there're are few of us who don't need this), bone density, coordination, balance and confidence in moving ourselves through space.  If you kids do any physical activity with an eye on performance, jumping is good training for them.  Make as many jumping games as you can.  Note their interest and when it is high, encourage them to play with jumping and give them mountains of attention for their jumping play.  Record their PRs, video their play, tell their grandparents what they've done lately when they can tell you are bragging on them. 

And whatever you do, don't let them get sucked down the black hole of endurance training until they are over 15 or so ... unless you think the gift of a lifetime of SLOW is good.

Some individuals are not ready to begin Oly lifts due to a lack of range of motion at the shoulders, hips and ankles, or a lack of torso strength or leg strength. Standing presses, flat-footed squats with a straight back and straight-legged, wide-stance good mornings will best remediate these issues before technique training can begin.

Of Course Not

When I first started reading this blog, I thought the posts were nice but boring.  But these folks are right on target - fabulous work, searing insight.
I used to work in some of these neighborhoods that are considered "food deserts"- the term that has been assigned by advocacy groups to areas where there is a lack of supermarkets and access to fresh food. Most of the programs designed to improve nutrition in these areas focus on bringing more fruits and vegetables to these families, either through increased vegetable markets and produce stands, food stamp programs that can be used at farmers markets, and education programs (teaching families to eat more fruits and vegetables). Ten years in and it doesn't seem like these food programs are really working since morbidity rates keep going up. This leads me to believe that simply providing more fruits and vegetables may not be the answer.

Obesity, diabetes, and other associated chronic diseases are associated with poverty. In the past, poor Americans suffered from being underweight due to malnutrition and food insecurity. Today, poor Americans suffer from being overweight due to malnutrition and food insecurity. Cheap, processed nutritionally poor foods (or food stuff) are more ubiquitous and abundant in the US then they ever have been in the history of this country. So are poor people eating more junk food? Probably, but bad choices are not the only reason and are only part of the picture. Poverty is associated with many determinants of bad health - it's not just about eating fast food. Other significant factors are stress (social, financial, work), lack of health care, lack of education, depression, disrupted routines because of familial or employment insecurity, cultural norms (i.e. - fear of food insecurity can cause parents to over feed children), lack of outdoor space for physical activity, lack of resources for any activity, and reliance on poor quality food either in “food desert” neighborhoods or in the form of food aid, to name just a few.

So while these programs are well-meaning, and I do think that increasing good supermarkets, farmers markets, and fruit and vegetable stands in food deserts are positive steps in the right direction, I think new approaches to food access and nutrition must address these other problems with multi-pronged strategies at different policy levels for improvement - not just teaching people "how to..."

First, I think it's paternalistic, elitist, and irresponsible for government or non-profit organizations to think they should "teach" people how to eat, and that lesson being: eat like a vegan. This is not to say that we, especially those of us with chronic diseases, shouldn't be provided with nutritional information and guidelines on what we should and shouldn't be eating (obviously no sugar and carbs for diabetics). But most of you already know where I stand on carb and protein intake - so you know where I'm going with this. Of course, convincing people to cut back on processed fast food and getting them to cook fresh food at home would be ideal. But trying to convince people to eat expensive organic fruits and vegetables to fill bellies that have been used to calorie-dense starchy, sugary carbs is not exactly the most satisfying alternative or realistic approach.

Along with plenty of vegetables and some fruits (but not for diabetics), part of these guidelines should also include healthy animal proteins and fats - which are both energy and nutritionally dense foods. They fill you up, give you energy, and won't cause insulin resistance or diabetes. Our present nutritional guidelines that are promoted both by government and non-government agencies are created from junk science, ideological trends, and advertising. They distract us from our traditional diets that have kept our ancestors healthy for generations. Until we start promoting REAL food again and stop believing there is a magic bullet (like non-fat, soy, spelt, gluten-free, whole grain, organic cane juice, agave sweetened, nugget/food/stuff), we will continue to get fat and sick. And until we approach the root causes of poverty and tackle the different problems associated with bad health outcomes, we will continue to see a rise in these chronic diseases and mortalities.
http://youarewhatieat.blogspot.com/2011/09/more-fruits-and-vegetables-is-not.html

Get Your Sulphur On

Fascinating concept:

"The macrophages in the plaque take up LDL, the small dense LDL particles that have been damaged by sugar... The liver cannot take them back because the receptor can't receive them, because they are gummed with sugar basically. So they're stuck floating in your body... Those macrophages in the plaque do a heroic job in taking that gummed up LDL out of the blood circulation, carefully extracting the cholesterol from it to save it – the cholesterol is important – and then exporting the cholesterol into HDL – HDL A1 in particular... That's the good guy, HDL.

The platelets in the plaque take in HDL A1 cholesterol and they won't take anything else... They take in sulfate, and they produce cholesterol sulfate in the plaque.

The sulfate actually comes from homocysteine. Elevated homocysteine is another risk factor for heart disease. Homocysteine is a source of sulfate. It also involves hemoglobin. You have to consume energy to produce a sulfate from homocysteine, and the red blood cells actually supply the ATP to the plaque.

So everything is there and the intent is to produce cholesterol sulfate and it's done in the arteries feeding the heart, becauseit's the heart that needs the cholesterol sulfate. If [cholesterol sulfate is not produced]... you end up with heart failure."

So, in a nutshell, high LDL appears to be a sign of cholesterol sulfate deficiency—it's your body's way of trying to maintain the correct balance by taking damaged LDL and turning it into plaque, within which the blood platelets produce the cholesterol sulfate your heart and brain needs for optimal function... What this also means is that when you artificially lower your cholesterol with a statin drug, which effectively reduces that plaque but doesn't address the root problem, your body is not able to compensate any longer, and as a result of lack of cholesterol sulfate you may end up with heart failure.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/09/17/stephanie-seneff-on-sulfur.aspx?e_cid=20110917_DNL_art_1

Kresser: GERD

I will present evidence demonstrating that, contrary to popular belief, heartburn and GERD are caused by too little (not too much) stomach acid. In the second article I’ll explain exactly how low stomach acid causes heartburn, GERD and other digestive conditions. In the third article I’ll discuss the important roles stomach acid plays in maintaining health and preventing disease, and the danger long-term use of acid suppressing drugs presents. In the final article, I’ll present simple dietary and lifestyle changes that can eliminate heartburn and GERD once and for all.

http://chriskresser.com/what-everybody-ought-to-know-but-doesnt-about-heartburn-gerd

Drugs for acid reflux and GERD are cash cows for the pharmaceutical companies. More than 60 million prescriptions for GERD were filled in 2004. Americans spent $13 billion on acid stopping medications in 2006. Nexium, the most popular, brought in $5.1 billion alone – making it the second highest selling drug behind Lipitor.
.... heartburn and GERD can have serious and even life-threatening complications, including scarring, constriction, ulceration, and ultimately, cancer of the esophagus.
Recent studies also show that the damage from poor stomach function and GERD not only extends upward to the sensitive esophageal lining, but also downward through the digestive tract, contributing to Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) and other gastrointestinal problems. IBS is now the second-leading cause of missed work, behind only the common cold.

Just as studies show acid secretion declines with age, it is also well established in the scientific literature that the risk of GERD increases with age.
If heartburn were caused by too much stomach acid, we’d have a bunch of teenagers popping Rolaids instead of elderly folks. But of course that’s the opposite of what we see.

Read Chris' article to find out why MORE stomach acid is good for you, and how you can cure GERD by adding more hydrocholric acid to your guts - and the rest of his series for how to treat your GERD.

If you are already eating meat, vegetables, nuts and seeds, little fruit and starch, and no sugar/wheat, you probably don't have GERD anyway.

As I was thinking about how this situation parallels the statin situation, I got to this part of the article:
Note: if you think this sounds strangely like the situation with the #1 selling drug, Lipitor, you’re correct. Lipitor arbitrarily lowers cholesterol across the board, even though evidence clearly indicates that high LDL cholesterol is not the cause of heart disease. What’s more, low cholesterol is associated with greater risk of death in the elderly population. Something is definitely wrong with our “healthcare” system when the #1 and #2 medications are actually contributing to the conditions they’re supposed to treat.

So, let's get this strait.  We didn't have the money (in the US Treasury), but passed a "prescription drug benefit" to make sure everyone could afford drugs, and the two most common are drugs which treat conditions which are nearly 100% preventable through a dietary intervention - so we then recommend a diet which does not help GERD, but which may exacerbate GERD, and diabetes ... yes, reverso world.