From Herdsman to Statesman:
"In the warm summer, it was difficult to herd [the] sheep in the stony desert pastures of the steppe because many of the flocks went to distant areas, and I had to run after them, barefoot... Running barefoot long distances over the black earth at first cracked the bottom of my feet and made them sore, but in due course they became hardened and tough. 'Learn toughness, not rights' I had heard my mother say from time to time..."
How ancestral is Mongolian pastoralism?
Obviously, anthropologists classify the nomadic pastoralism of Mongolian peoples differently from the hunter-gatherer groups that characterize the ancestral milieu of the Paleolithic.
However, in some ways, nomadic pastoralism has more in common with hunting-gathering than with sedentary pastoralism. Although contemporary Mongolians are living in a partially modernized state and trade and purchase for modern goods and foodstuffs, my impression from an initial shallow reading of Mongolian history is that the steppe lifestyle was fairly unchanged from its introduction up until the 20th century and that today's nomads still have quite a few similarities with their forebears. Their nomadic pastoralism did not always include the raising of domesticated animals for food. They continued to hunt. The Tsaatan reindeer herders do not eat the reindeer except in extremity, and I imagine the reindeer are only partially domesticated. The extent to which they gathered was severely limited by the climate. The accumulation of belongings must be very restricted for nomads, more akin to hunter-gatherers I would imagine than sedentary pastoralists/agriculturists.
Although there are people in cold climates that are more pure in hunting-gathering, I wonder how difficult, in the pre-modern world, it really would have been for Mongolian nomadic pastoralists to convert to a model based more purely on hunting? Would they have been able to more or less maintain their lifestyle?
I think the interesting question here is not so much about how food is obtained as about population density. The Mongolian steppe peoples maintained a very low population density. In terms of the number of available calories the steppe could provide in animals, I wonder if the population was comparable to the density maintained in hunter-gatherer groups.
If you see Mongolian nomads as more akin to hunter-gatherer groups than to farming/ranching agriculturalists, the history of the Mongol peoples really changes your view of ancestral man.
However, in some ways, nomadic pastoralism has more in common with hunting-gathering than with sedentary pastoralism. Although contemporary Mongolians are living in a partially modernized state and trade and purchase for modern goods and foodstuffs, my impression from an initial shallow reading of Mongolian history is that the steppe lifestyle was fairly unchanged from its introduction up until the 20th century and that today's nomads still have quite a few similarities with their forebears. Their nomadic pastoralism did not always include the raising of domesticated animals for food. They continued to hunt. The Tsaatan reindeer herders do not eat the reindeer except in extremity, and I imagine the reindeer are only partially domesticated. The extent to which they gathered was severely limited by the climate. The accumulation of belongings must be very restricted for nomads, more akin to hunter-gatherers I would imagine than sedentary pastoralists/agriculturists.
Although there are people in cold climates that are more pure in hunting-gathering, I wonder how difficult, in the pre-modern world, it really would have been for Mongolian nomadic pastoralists to convert to a model based more purely on hunting? Would they have been able to more or less maintain their lifestyle?
I think the interesting question here is not so much about how food is obtained as about population density. The Mongolian steppe peoples maintained a very low population density. In terms of the number of available calories the steppe could provide in animals, I wonder if the population was comparable to the density maintained in hunter-gatherer groups.
If you see Mongolian nomads as more akin to hunter-gatherer groups than to farming/ranching agriculturalists, the history of the Mongol peoples really changes your view of ancestral man.
Better Off review
On my recent cruise, I met someone from St. Louis, Missouri, and the meeting sparked my memory of reading Better Off: Flipping the Switch on Technology by Eric Brende. Brende was a Yale and MIT student who rejected technology and went to live with an Amish-type community for a year before moving to St. Louis. Better Off is the story of that experience.
So why am I writing about this book on this blog? I think it has relevance to those interested in paleo/ancestral health.
I'm aware that most of the ancestral health community is not anti-technology. If anything, the Paleo crowd seems to be especially pro-science and pro-technology. For example, John Durant's tagline, "how to live wild in the modern world," is pretty much a repudiation of Brende's back-to-the-farm-life philosophy. Some people might even accuse Brende of advocating "paleo reenactment."
And then there's the fact that the type of agrarianism Brende explores in this book as an alternative to modern life is most definitely not Paleo and is based around grain cultivation.
However, it's also true that many Paleo practitioners count Joel Salatin, a farmer, as one of their heroes. And agrarianism has some rhythms of life (up and to bed with the sun, more walking and manual labor, etc) parallel with hunter-gatherer life.
Aside from these considerations, Brende makes one specific point in Better Off that I thought was interesting and deserved repeating. His concern throughout his Year of Living Amishly is to determine just how little people need to get by. He counts his community's single most important pieces of "technology" to be its horses. Horses are used in his community primarily for turning grindstones grain and for traversing the long distances between homes created by the large-scale farming. Yet, he determines that the horses also use a significant portion of the community's cultivated grain. He suggests that the horse is actually the solution to its own problem, and that farm sizes and farm labor could be significantly reduced by simply getting rid of the horses. This is an interesting observation related to population density, which is ultimately what the rise of agriculture was about.
Regardless of what you think about the relationship of technology to ancestral health issues, you may find Better Off a good read. Brende tells his story well and earnestly. As of 2008, he was still living in St. Louis with his family and living his low-tech, low-cost lifestyle:
So why am I writing about this book on this blog? I think it has relevance to those interested in paleo/ancestral health.I'm aware that most of the ancestral health community is not anti-technology. If anything, the Paleo crowd seems to be especially pro-science and pro-technology. For example, John Durant's tagline, "how to live wild in the modern world," is pretty much a repudiation of Brende's back-to-the-farm-life philosophy. Some people might even accuse Brende of advocating "paleo reenactment."
And then there's the fact that the type of agrarianism Brende explores in this book as an alternative to modern life is most definitely not Paleo and is based around grain cultivation.
However, it's also true that many Paleo practitioners count Joel Salatin, a farmer, as one of their heroes. And agrarianism has some rhythms of life (up and to bed with the sun, more walking and manual labor, etc) parallel with hunter-gatherer life.
Aside from these considerations, Brende makes one specific point in Better Off that I thought was interesting and deserved repeating. His concern throughout his Year of Living Amishly is to determine just how little people need to get by. He counts his community's single most important pieces of "technology" to be its horses. Horses are used in his community primarily for turning grindstones grain and for traversing the long distances between homes created by the large-scale farming. Yet, he determines that the horses also use a significant portion of the community's cultivated grain. He suggests that the horse is actually the solution to its own problem, and that farm sizes and farm labor could be significantly reduced by simply getting rid of the horses. This is an interesting observation related to population density, which is ultimately what the rise of agriculture was about.
Regardless of what you think about the relationship of technology to ancestral health issues, you may find Better Off a good read. Brende tells his story well and earnestly. As of 2008, he was still living in St. Louis with his family and living his low-tech, low-cost lifestyle:
Brende's biggest income nowadays comes from Hermann Handmade Soap, which he makes — from his in-laws' family recipe — and his wife sells at Soulard Farmers Market. For several years soap sales doubled annually. Now the Brendes have to decide how far they want to go with the soap business. Sometimes Brende sounds like any other businessman who would like to grow — he plans to add several new products, including natural laundry detergent. But because he's "opposed to encouraging more Internet shopping," he says he has no plans to begin a website, which many would consider a must for any entrepreneur. In the summer Brende operates St. Louis Rickshaw, pedaling tourists to sites in downtown, Soulard, Lafayette Square, McKinley Heights and Benton Park. He likes the work, especially the exercise, although he could do without the occasional abusive drunk. But he admits that the money side of the rickshaw business is almost a wash. "The problem is that my rickshaw is a prototype, so it has a lot of mechanical problems," he says. "I spend a lot of time replacing parts and doing maintenance. I'm a little bit ahead of breaking even, maybe a thousand dollars a year, but it's close." For Brende, career slashing serves a larger goal of simplicity. Pace the March Wall Street Journal piece, Brende doesn't insist on a "distinct career path." Instead of identifying himself by any one of his occupations or even as a career slasher, he calls himself simply a "householder." Growing the soap business past a certain point would "betray my entire reason for living," he says. It also might put an end to one of his other fulfilling jobs — like tutoring home-schooled kids in music (he paid part of his way through Yale playing piano in bars).
Bachelor cooking disaster
Tonight's dinner was shrimp wrapped in fresh basil wrapped in bacon with soup of curried butternut squash.
The recipe called for the shrimp to be skewerred on wood picks. I didn't have picks. What do you do? Of course, you assume that the picks are superfluous!!
As you can see, the bacon started to come undone on the grill. Ultimately, while the shrimp was cooked adequately, the bacon was unevenly finished, ranging from burned to slightly undercooked. Luckily, I wasn't entertaining. (h/t Steven Raichlen for shrimp and Silver Palate for soup.)
The recipe called for the shrimp to be skewerred on wood picks. I didn't have picks. What do you do? Of course, you assume that the picks are superfluous!!
As you can see, the bacon started to come undone on the grill. Ultimately, while the shrimp was cooked adequately, the bacon was unevenly finished, ranging from burned to slightly undercooked. Luckily, I wasn't entertaining. (h/t Steven Raichlen for shrimp and Silver Palate for soup.)
Duck and sauerkraut
Dinner this night: roast duckling with sauerkraut stuffing, and sweet potato, beet greens, and a Gewürztraminer. The duck was "farm raised."
It turned out to be something of a disappointment. The sauerkraut dressing recipe is in an older edition of the Joy of Cooking if you want. It includes kraut, apple, currants, onion, garlic... I left out the brown sugar. The recipe for roast duck in the Joy of Cooking says that, if you don't want a stuffing, you should at least stuff the duck with a cubed potato to absorb malsavory (is that a word?... malgustory?) flavors. Instead the kraut absorbed them. It wasn't terrible, but it had an off flavor that was absent form the duck. The duck per se was quite good, with crispiness and tender fat, etc. But the stuffing was just not right. I'm tempted to throw out the drippings next time, but otherwise, how do you get duck fat?
It turned out to be something of a disappointment. The sauerkraut dressing recipe is in an older edition of the Joy of Cooking if you want. It includes kraut, apple, currants, onion, garlic... I left out the brown sugar. The recipe for roast duck in the Joy of Cooking says that, if you don't want a stuffing, you should at least stuff the duck with a cubed potato to absorb malsavory (is that a word?... malgustory?) flavors. Instead the kraut absorbed them. It wasn't terrible, but it had an off flavor that was absent form the duck. The duck per se was quite good, with crispiness and tender fat, etc. But the stuffing was just not right. I'm tempted to throw out the drippings next time, but otherwise, how do you get duck fat?
Paul Jaminet on obesity's Higgs boson
In physics, it's accepted to create a model and hypothesize something never observed in nature in order to make nature fit the model. The Higgs boson is a famous example. Planets are also hypothesized to exist based on "shadows" in gravity.
Now Paul Jaminet of Perfect Health Diet hypothesizes never before observed* functions of the nervous system in order to fit the body to his theory of obesity. In a January 5 post, he suggests that the body regulates food cravings and energy partition based largely on its lean mass. In order to do this, it would have to monitor lean mass somehow. And since we don't know of any way that the body does this, and since, according to Jaminet, hormones are inadequate for this purpose, the body must get feedback about lean mass through the nerves. Specifically, Jaminet writes " there are no known hormones for this and I think it’s obvious that hormones could not do the job. So it must be via nerves, by process of exclusion." So nervous system feedback is the Higgs boson of obesity--a hypothesized physiological function waiting to be found in order to confirm a theory of obesity.
To be honest, I haven't read PHD, so I can't speak to it. But since Jaminet is rolling out his theory of obesity now on his blog, I assume it isn't central to the diet. But I agree I should read the book now. Nonetheless, here are some thoughts on obesity's Higgs boson...
theoretical problems
Terminological deficit: "quantity and quality of lean tissue". In order to make this theory whole, Jaminet needs to define what he means by his remarks on lean mass. What constitutes lean mass? Only skeletal muscle? What about internal organs? What about bones? What does quality mean? Since Jaminet's post uses Tara Parker-Pope's article as a starting point, is he implying that quality means Type II muscle fibers, instead of the Type I fibers that the article says the body defers to under weight loss conditions? And what about quantity? Is he suggesting that the nervous system reports on absolute quantity or only relative changes in anabolism and catabolism?
If lean mass is that important, getting hungry only after muscle wasting is not good. Jaminet proposes a theory that makes lean mass a priori very important. As opposed to the hormonal systems, neurons are very fast. If lean mass is so important, why would the body develop a fast system that up-regulates hunger in response to muscle wasting? Muscle wasting = already too late. This would be like if your reaction to touching a hot stove kicked in only after you were on your way to second-degree burns.
How would the body distinguish between relative and absolute muscle mass vis-a-vis work? I don't mean mechanistically, I mean conceptually. In other words, a strong massive man who loses weight is still, after some muscle wasting, able to perform much more work than a mousey thin woman with stable muscle mass. Would it really be in a body's interest to drive the man to eat more? (Remember that in evolutionary terms, hunger=drive to kill a mammoth, or at least run down antelope, not drive to grab bag o'chips from kitchen.) Is the body so dumb that it can't distinguish?
If muscle wasting is that important, why does the body prefer burning muscle before fat? As you probably know if you read about Atkins or ketogenic diets, the body's fat-burning mechanisms don't really get ramped up until starvation is established. Before that, the body preferentially catabolizes muscle. If lean mass was--a priori--so important, doesn't it seem likely that the body would preferentially burn fat stores?
If the body does monitor lean mass, why not with hormones? Jaminet says that hormones aren't accurate enough to monitor lean mass, but why, when hormones are sufficient to monitor fat mass?
observational problems
Let's briefly review the A&P of the nervous system. The brain is connected to the body via the peripheral nervous system (PNS). Much of the PNS is related to the brain's effects on the body: moving your hand, fight or flight, breathing, etc. Some of it is related to feedback from the body: the senses, pain, heat, etc.
Much sensory input is from specialized and localized nerves. For example, taste is found only in the oral-nasal space of the head. You can't taste with your toes.
Even the sensory input that is less specialized is still localized. You can feel pain with your toes, but only if a needle is sticking your toes. If the needle is sticking your thigh, you can't feel pain with the toes.
This makes the nervous system much different from hormones, which think globally, even when they act locally. For example, insulin production, although occurring in the pancreas, is regulated by sampling global blood sugar. Leptin, produced in adipose tissue, regulates energy input for the whole organism.
The nervous system is also different from hormones in being confined to tracts of neurons. When you want to move your arm, only certain neurons will do the trick, whereas if you want to run away from a tiger, your adrenals will dump on all your tissues.
One of the characteristics of neuronal tracts is that they can be mapped, which is why a nice chart like the one above is possible. Hormones can hide out because we don't necessarily know how to chart them or where to look for them if we don't know they exist. This is why Leptin wasn't discovered until 1994. But the PNS starts or ends in the brain/spinal chord.
Although there are some lesser known aspects of the nervous system, such as the enteric nervous system (which you might not even cover in A&P), the PNS is pretty well mapped out and explained by physiologists, just because it can be mapped out. Even brain tracts are mapped onto the PNS. For example, achey pain and the Paleospinothalamic tract.
If there is a completely formerly unrealized function to the nervous system, such as monitoring of lean mass, it is problematic that the nervous system is, by odds, more thoroughly described than the hormonal system. Although there are some aspects, such as proprioception and delayed onset muscle soreness, that are a little bit outside our normal nociception, the idea that there are whole functional categories that we don't know about is unlikely.
In addition to physiological considerations, there are questions from pathophysiology, too. For example, if satiety is connected to the "quantity and quality of lean tissue," wouldn't people with degenerative diseases like muscular dystrophy be in a state of constant hunger, or least more frequently hungry and less satisfied by food? Or what about rhabdomyolisis? Wouldn't people in rhabdo be observed to have increased appetites?
And what of brain lesions? If lean mass is monitored by the nervous system, then there are tracts in the brain that relate this somatosensory information to satiety. And that means that it should be possible to induce decreased satiety through lesions. Is there any evidence of this?
Finally, it seems like bodybuilding would have definite effects on satiety. Either bodybuilders, by constantly breaking down muscle, would be in a satiety deficit, or, by constantly rebuilding muscle and by virtue of their mass, would be in a constant satiety surfeit. As far as I know from experience and reading, although bodybuilders may have cravings for things they won't let themselves eat, they aren't constantly hungry. And it seems very unlikely to me that their cravings are due to malnutrition considering the amount of supplementation and the fact of anabolism.
methodological** problems
Jaminet writes in the comments section "Evidence – it’s clear to me from personal experience that the brain does sense tissue quality." I.e., evidence=anecdote. I'm all for self-experimentation a la n=1 philosophy. However, it's not science. Proposing new, undiscovered territory in physiology on the basis of "personal experience" is somewhere between audacious and foolish.
indirect evidence of obesity's Higgs boson
Like the Higgs boson, the way to test Jaminet's theory is to look for the hypothesized, the nervous function related to monitoring lean mass. This is the equivalent of building the LHC. But there is an indirect and much easier way to see if there is anything in this theory.
If Jaminet is correct, it seems to me that the weight-loss-induced-hormonal changes that correlate with weight-loss-induced-hunger and weight-loss-induced-caloric-efficiency, mentioned in Parker-Pope's article, should be absent in people who have lost weight on the PHD. So a relatively simple study could be performed comparing the hormonal profiles of PHD dieters with those of other types. The null hypothesis would be lack of difference in hormonal response to weight loss. If we can accept the hypothesis, then the likelihood of monitoring by lean mass very low.
* As far as I know. I could, of course, be wrong. But Jaminet doesn't seem to know of these nervous functions, either.
** Although it's now January 7 (one day after Epiphany, or Three Kings Day, the 12th day of Christmas), the Chritmas tree is still up. As I'm writing this, I'm enjoying the lights and one... two glasses of post-prandial port (following pre-prandial martini and prandial Tutidi) and was racking my brain trying to think how to categorize this: I was about to write "science-y problems". I hope the rest of this post isn't unintelligible. My apologies if it is.
Now Paul Jaminet of Perfect Health Diet hypothesizes never before observed* functions of the nervous system in order to fit the body to his theory of obesity. In a January 5 post, he suggests that the body regulates food cravings and energy partition based largely on its lean mass. In order to do this, it would have to monitor lean mass somehow. And since we don't know of any way that the body does this, and since, according to Jaminet, hormones are inadequate for this purpose, the body must get feedback about lean mass through the nerves. Specifically, Jaminet writes " there are no known hormones for this and I think it’s obvious that hormones could not do the job. So it must be via nerves, by process of exclusion." So nervous system feedback is the Higgs boson of obesity--a hypothesized physiological function waiting to be found in order to confirm a theory of obesity.
To be honest, I haven't read PHD, so I can't speak to it. But since Jaminet is rolling out his theory of obesity now on his blog, I assume it isn't central to the diet. But I agree I should read the book now. Nonetheless, here are some thoughts on obesity's Higgs boson...
theoretical problems
Terminological deficit: "quantity and quality of lean tissue". In order to make this theory whole, Jaminet needs to define what he means by his remarks on lean mass. What constitutes lean mass? Only skeletal muscle? What about internal organs? What about bones? What does quality mean? Since Jaminet's post uses Tara Parker-Pope's article as a starting point, is he implying that quality means Type II muscle fibers, instead of the Type I fibers that the article says the body defers to under weight loss conditions? And what about quantity? Is he suggesting that the nervous system reports on absolute quantity or only relative changes in anabolism and catabolism?
If lean mass is that important, getting hungry only after muscle wasting is not good. Jaminet proposes a theory that makes lean mass a priori very important. As opposed to the hormonal systems, neurons are very fast. If lean mass is so important, why would the body develop a fast system that up-regulates hunger in response to muscle wasting? Muscle wasting = already too late. This would be like if your reaction to touching a hot stove kicked in only after you were on your way to second-degree burns.
How would the body distinguish between relative and absolute muscle mass vis-a-vis work? I don't mean mechanistically, I mean conceptually. In other words, a strong massive man who loses weight is still, after some muscle wasting, able to perform much more work than a mousey thin woman with stable muscle mass. Would it really be in a body's interest to drive the man to eat more? (Remember that in evolutionary terms, hunger=drive to kill a mammoth, or at least run down antelope, not drive to grab bag o'chips from kitchen.) Is the body so dumb that it can't distinguish?
If muscle wasting is that important, why does the body prefer burning muscle before fat? As you probably know if you read about Atkins or ketogenic diets, the body's fat-burning mechanisms don't really get ramped up until starvation is established. Before that, the body preferentially catabolizes muscle. If lean mass was--a priori--so important, doesn't it seem likely that the body would preferentially burn fat stores?
If the body does monitor lean mass, why not with hormones? Jaminet says that hormones aren't accurate enough to monitor lean mass, but why, when hormones are sufficient to monitor fat mass?
observational problems
Let's briefly review the A&P of the nervous system. The brain is connected to the body via the peripheral nervous system (PNS). Much of the PNS is related to the brain's effects on the body: moving your hand, fight or flight, breathing, etc. Some of it is related to feedback from the body: the senses, pain, heat, etc.
Much sensory input is from specialized and localized nerves. For example, taste is found only in the oral-nasal space of the head. You can't taste with your toes.
Even the sensory input that is less specialized is still localized. You can feel pain with your toes, but only if a needle is sticking your toes. If the needle is sticking your thigh, you can't feel pain with the toes.
This makes the nervous system much different from hormones, which think globally, even when they act locally. For example, insulin production, although occurring in the pancreas, is regulated by sampling global blood sugar. Leptin, produced in adipose tissue, regulates energy input for the whole organism.
The nervous system is also different from hormones in being confined to tracts of neurons. When you want to move your arm, only certain neurons will do the trick, whereas if you want to run away from a tiger, your adrenals will dump on all your tissues.
One of the characteristics of neuronal tracts is that they can be mapped, which is why a nice chart like the one above is possible. Hormones can hide out because we don't necessarily know how to chart them or where to look for them if we don't know they exist. This is why Leptin wasn't discovered until 1994. But the PNS starts or ends in the brain/spinal chord.
Although there are some lesser known aspects of the nervous system, such as the enteric nervous system (which you might not even cover in A&P), the PNS is pretty well mapped out and explained by physiologists, just because it can be mapped out. Even brain tracts are mapped onto the PNS. For example, achey pain and the Paleospinothalamic tract.
If there is a completely formerly unrealized function to the nervous system, such as monitoring of lean mass, it is problematic that the nervous system is, by odds, more thoroughly described than the hormonal system. Although there are some aspects, such as proprioception and delayed onset muscle soreness, that are a little bit outside our normal nociception, the idea that there are whole functional categories that we don't know about is unlikely.
In addition to physiological considerations, there are questions from pathophysiology, too. For example, if satiety is connected to the "quantity and quality of lean tissue," wouldn't people with degenerative diseases like muscular dystrophy be in a state of constant hunger, or least more frequently hungry and less satisfied by food? Or what about rhabdomyolisis? Wouldn't people in rhabdo be observed to have increased appetites?
And what of brain lesions? If lean mass is monitored by the nervous system, then there are tracts in the brain that relate this somatosensory information to satiety. And that means that it should be possible to induce decreased satiety through lesions. Is there any evidence of this?
Finally, it seems like bodybuilding would have definite effects on satiety. Either bodybuilders, by constantly breaking down muscle, would be in a satiety deficit, or, by constantly rebuilding muscle and by virtue of their mass, would be in a constant satiety surfeit. As far as I know from experience and reading, although bodybuilders may have cravings for things they won't let themselves eat, they aren't constantly hungry. And it seems very unlikely to me that their cravings are due to malnutrition considering the amount of supplementation and the fact of anabolism.
methodological** problems
Jaminet writes in the comments section "Evidence – it’s clear to me from personal experience that the brain does sense tissue quality." I.e., evidence=anecdote. I'm all for self-experimentation a la n=1 philosophy. However, it's not science. Proposing new, undiscovered territory in physiology on the basis of "personal experience" is somewhere between audacious and foolish.
indirect evidence of obesity's Higgs boson
Like the Higgs boson, the way to test Jaminet's theory is to look for the hypothesized, the nervous function related to monitoring lean mass. This is the equivalent of building the LHC. But there is an indirect and much easier way to see if there is anything in this theory.
If Jaminet is correct, it seems to me that the weight-loss-induced-hormonal changes that correlate with weight-loss-induced-hunger and weight-loss-induced-caloric-efficiency, mentioned in Parker-Pope's article, should be absent in people who have lost weight on the PHD. So a relatively simple study could be performed comparing the hormonal profiles of PHD dieters with those of other types. The null hypothesis would be lack of difference in hormonal response to weight loss. If we can accept the hypothesis, then the likelihood of monitoring by lean mass very low.
* As far as I know. I could, of course, be wrong. But Jaminet doesn't seem to know of these nervous functions, either.
** Although it's now January 7 (one day after Epiphany, or Three Kings Day, the 12th day of Christmas), the Chritmas tree is still up. As I'm writing this, I'm enjoying the lights and one... two glasses of post-prandial port (following pre-prandial martini and prandial Tutidi) and was racking my brain trying to think how to categorize this: I was about to write "science-y problems". I hope the rest of this post isn't unintelligible. My apologies if it is.
Images of positive Allen test due to lack of collateral circulation
I've decided to try to write a publishable peer-review article. In the course of doing initial online research, I came across this case study from Circulation:
I had never seen a positive Allen Test before.
A 27-year-old surgical resident from South America noticed occasional tingling in her right hand on awakening. She performed a modified Allen test on her own hands and noticed a subtle line of demarcation on the palm of her right hand accompanied by induction of similar tingling sensations. The demarcation was not seen on the left hand. We suspected an incomplete palmar arch, and to better demonstrate these findings, we wrapped the patient’s right hand with a latex bandage to exsanguinate the extremity. Assistants applied pressure to both the radial and ulnar arteries at the wrist as the latex bandage was removed...After performing this Allen Test, the assistants were able to obtain the following results. Normally there is an anastamosis between the medial and lateral circulation called the Palmar Arch. Apparently, this subject's Palmar Arch was poorly developed!
I had never seen a positive Allen Test before.
The Fat Trap - NYTimes on fat loss
The NYTimes has a long article on the sciene of weight loss. Much of it covers similar issues as Gina Kolata's Rethinking Thin, in addressing research that shows that the calorie-in-calorie-out model of weight loss is too simplistic as a model.
Fetal cells last in mother's body
Fascinating short article at bOINGbOING about the fact that some fetal cells that cross the placenta to the mother's body continue to live and reproduce for the long term...
I'm a caveman, not a grok
Last year, I had my genetic material tested by 23andMe. Actually, it was pretty boring, uneventful, and uninformative. Guess what... I'm at increased risk for DM2 and heart disease, which I could have figured out by looking at my family tree!
Recently, however, 23andMe added a feature to determine the amount of Neanderthal genes in your mix, which varies from ~1% to ~4%. Razib Khan reported his as ~2.4%. I was pretty sure I was higher than that. Despite eating okay and working out regularly with CrossFit, spinning, and weightlifting, I'm still a pale, hairy, 252 lbs. When I exercise, I seem to be able to add weight and get broader, but never lose weight and get svelt unless I starve myself at the same time. I was hoping this represented an ancestral genetic propensity to add bulk, which you would assume is Neanderthalish from the forensic recreations of those peoples.
It turns out I'm ~2.7%, only the 68th percentile. I'm a little disappointed: apparently, I'm just fat, not representin' a different lineage. On the other hand, I'm taller than average and have seemingly small nasal passages, which tells you...
On the other hand, I'm not a grok. I learned recently that "grok" is actually a term invented by a sci-fi great, Robert Heinlein. It essentially means to copy something. That explains why Grok became the early Paleo logo, but also why it became despised by those who wanted to reject Paleo reenactment.
Well, anyhow, happy DNA hunting. If I might suggest--if you have red hair, please marry another red-head. Thanks.
Recently, however, 23andMe added a feature to determine the amount of Neanderthal genes in your mix, which varies from ~1% to ~4%. Razib Khan reported his as ~2.4%. I was pretty sure I was higher than that. Despite eating okay and working out regularly with CrossFit, spinning, and weightlifting, I'm still a pale, hairy, 252 lbs. When I exercise, I seem to be able to add weight and get broader, but never lose weight and get svelt unless I starve myself at the same time. I was hoping this represented an ancestral genetic propensity to add bulk, which you would assume is Neanderthalish from the forensic recreations of those peoples.
It turns out I'm ~2.7%, only the 68th percentile. I'm a little disappointed: apparently, I'm just fat, not representin' a different lineage. On the other hand, I'm taller than average and have seemingly small nasal passages, which tells you...
On the other hand, I'm not a grok. I learned recently that "grok" is actually a term invented by a sci-fi great, Robert Heinlein. It essentially means to copy something. That explains why Grok became the early Paleo logo, but also why it became despised by those who wanted to reject Paleo reenactment.
Well, anyhow, happy DNA hunting. If I might suggest--if you have red hair, please marry another red-head. Thanks.
More medical technology, please?
Chariot of Reaction suggests that Lasik eye surgery is a model for healthcare success. I know other people who have said the same: price transparency, technological innovation, onward and upward!
Technological innovation in healthcare is a double-edged sword. It pushes down overall costs if efficiency gains overcome new costs. I would guess that many of the theoretical gains don't materialize: in the hospital I used to work at, they didn't stop printing a piece of paper for every lab result despite the fact that all results are in the computer--the paper goes straight to the recycling bin. When it comes to medical items like MRIs, I suspect that some diagnoses are better but many just arrived at more easily, with the addition of expensive machines.
But it does seem like R&D should have the ability to bring down costs in the long run, doesn't it? I'm not so sure, unless you are talking about a Fountain of Youth pill that will make older people productive workers like when they were young. If you "cure" DM2 and cancer and find a universal and effective antibiotic, your gains are going to be offset by an increase in non-productive end-of-life years when people are depleting wealth.
For the Edge question this year, Aubrey de Grey has suggested that generalized comfort with risk would improve biotech research.
Part of what drives up healthcare costs is the high reliability of equipment. When was the last time you got an X-ray and it accidentially emitted too much radiation? Have you ever removed a needle from its packaging and discovered it was blunt? Doesn't happen. Cost control in these arenas would involve using new tools in a hospital and having some of them fail periodically and not litigating.
On the other hand, the type of research de Grey is talking about is related to new therapies. A magic pill that would prevent cancer would be a big financial boon to society in the short run. In the long run, it might prove highly problematic and costly.
There aren't good answers to cost control in healthcare. None that I know of at any rate.
Technological innovation in healthcare is a double-edged sword. It pushes down overall costs if efficiency gains overcome new costs. I would guess that many of the theoretical gains don't materialize: in the hospital I used to work at, they didn't stop printing a piece of paper for every lab result despite the fact that all results are in the computer--the paper goes straight to the recycling bin. When it comes to medical items like MRIs, I suspect that some diagnoses are better but many just arrived at more easily, with the addition of expensive machines.
But it does seem like R&D should have the ability to bring down costs in the long run, doesn't it? I'm not so sure, unless you are talking about a Fountain of Youth pill that will make older people productive workers like when they were young. If you "cure" DM2 and cancer and find a universal and effective antibiotic, your gains are going to be offset by an increase in non-productive end-of-life years when people are depleting wealth.
For the Edge question this year, Aubrey de Grey has suggested that generalized comfort with risk would improve biotech research.
Part of what drives up healthcare costs is the high reliability of equipment. When was the last time you got an X-ray and it accidentially emitted too much radiation? Have you ever removed a needle from its packaging and discovered it was blunt? Doesn't happen. Cost control in these arenas would involve using new tools in a hospital and having some of them fail periodically and not litigating.
On the other hand, the type of research de Grey is talking about is related to new therapies. A magic pill that would prevent cancer would be a big financial boon to society in the short run. In the long run, it might prove highly problematic and costly.
There aren't good answers to cost control in healthcare. None that I know of at any rate.
DEA constraining pharmaceutical production
The NYTimes reports that there are nationwide shortages of Ritalin and Adderall. Apparently, the DEA constrains the production of active ingredients used in a variety of medications. I had no idea this was the case, and it is perhaps one of the worst aspects of our national war on drugs.
Some problems with the war on drugs are on display over at Mangan's. Commenters are generally ignorant about pharmaceuticals and attention deficit problems and the entire tone is dismissive of the issue.
It may be that there is over-prescribing of Adderall, but I would submit that the problem is that, when people who think they may have ADD or ADHD take Adderall, it makes them feel great. If they have ADD, they don't know what "normal" feels like, and, if they don't have ADD, they don't know that ADD feels like, but they do know what better-than-normal feels like. So who's going to report a failure in cessation of symptoms?
Having taken Adderall before, I can say that it is not an unpleasant experience and would probably improve most people's lives. Frankly, I don't care if it is overprescribed.
Some problems with the war on drugs are on display over at Mangan's. Commenters are generally ignorant about pharmaceuticals and attention deficit problems and the entire tone is dismissive of the issue.
It may be that there is over-prescribing of Adderall, but I would submit that the problem is that, when people who think they may have ADD or ADHD take Adderall, it makes them feel great. If they have ADD, they don't know what "normal" feels like, and, if they don't have ADD, they don't know that ADD feels like, but they do know what better-than-normal feels like. So who's going to report a failure in cessation of symptoms?
Having taken Adderall before, I can say that it is not an unpleasant experience and would probably improve most people's lives. Frankly, I don't care if it is overprescribed.
New Year's resolutions
Since I quit my job and returned from my cruise, some things have been going well, but some haven't...
While I was on the cruise, I drank a full glass of cognac and didn't get even a buzz. As there is alcoholism in my family, I'm clearly drinking too much. So I am trying to cut back since I returned.
I started CrossFit since getting back from the cruise. But since starting, I have experienced a weight gain of 6 lbs!! as well as a loss of strength. And my knees are starting to show their age by intermittent pain. As I feel great after a CrossFit beat-down, I'm not sure what to do about the apparent fitness regression. One thing I know, however, is that I need to reduce my weight, primarily fat weight, but perhaps some muscle, too. (My goal is 225 Lbs, a loss of 30 lbs at the current time.)
My hometown is virtually devoid of professional/romantic/sexual opportunities for me, and I need to get out. I've quit my job, which is an obvious first step, but I need to move as well, before my $$ runs out. Also, I am bored.
Ergo, New Year's resolutions (which I have never really made before)...
(1) To drink less. Specifically:
(3) To eat more seaweed and kale
I really like seaweed, actually, especially sushi nori, which I buy from the grocery store's sushi chef, who is incredulous that I want to buy nori...
(4) To eat grain-based foods (other than #2) only 4 times!!
Wow, four! On the one hand, once every 3 months doesn't seem like very much sacrifice, as time can fly quickly. On the other hand, it is very common for me to engage in seasonal eating, such as pizza/beer in late summer. This will be a challenge.
(5) To stop watching television
I don't watch much now, and if I lived by myself could easily not own a TV. But I do currently watch shows with other people to be sociable...
I have really poor sleep habits (e.g., I just slept for 10 hours last night after being up for 2 days straight), and I know it effects my recovery, mental alertness, and long-term health.
(7) To blog less/better
Pointless blogging takes up a lot of time.
(8) To reduce possessions further.
My ideal would be to own only my clothes, some books, some kitchen and table ware, toilettries, a few home furnishings, and my bike. I'm a lot closer to this ideal than I am to most people's level of acquisition, but over time, odds and ends build up somehow. I understand my humidor, but why did I buy glass decanturs? Will my dead grandmother really care if I get rid of the things she gave me when I was 10?
(9) To read a minimum 50 non-fiction books (~1/wk), and read less Internet
It's not like I watch YouTube videos and LOLcat humor when online, but books are better.
(10) To finish a project
I've started a lot of hobby-related projects in the past, from novels to small businesses, but I've never finished one/made it profitable.
While I was on the cruise, I drank a full glass of cognac and didn't get even a buzz. As there is alcoholism in my family, I'm clearly drinking too much. So I am trying to cut back since I returned.
I started CrossFit since getting back from the cruise. But since starting, I have experienced a weight gain of 6 lbs!! as well as a loss of strength. And my knees are starting to show their age by intermittent pain. As I feel great after a CrossFit beat-down, I'm not sure what to do about the apparent fitness regression. One thing I know, however, is that I need to reduce my weight, primarily fat weight, but perhaps some muscle, too. (My goal is 225 Lbs, a loss of 30 lbs at the current time.)
My hometown is virtually devoid of professional/romantic/sexual opportunities for me, and I need to get out. I've quit my job, which is an obvious first step, but I need to move as well, before my $$ runs out. Also, I am bored.
Ergo, New Year's resolutions (which I have never really made before)...
(1) To drink less. Specifically:
- To drink my wonderful Tanqueray dirty martini's only on the weekends (or with company or with fillet mignon lunches, which I do not anticipate in the next year, but enjoyed immensely in the past two...)...
- To drink Gin-&-Tonics only in summer...
- To have the Back-&-Forth (my own concoction of Tanqueray Rangpur and Stone's Ginger Wine on the rocks) only occasionally (objective assessment to be determined)...
- To stop drinking Mata Hari's (too much sugar)...
- To reduce the frequency of after-dinner cognac (objective assessment to be determined)...
- To drink margaritas (mine: 2 parts Don Julio anejo tequila to one part Cointreau and one part fresh-squeezed lime juice, on the rocks, no salt) only before Mexican food...
- To not buy another bottle of Nob Creek or Maker's Mark...
- To not drink wine with every meal, and to buy only wine I know I will enjoy...
- To not add other drinks to my repertoire...
- birthdays of my family members and me (x4--June, July, October, November)
- summer ice cream (homemade ice cream occurs once or twice a year)
- Thanksgiving
- Little Christmas Eve (gingerbread)
- Christmas Day
- + 6 other occasions
(3) To eat more seaweed and kale
I really like seaweed, actually, especially sushi nori, which I buy from the grocery store's sushi chef, who is incredulous that I want to buy nori...
(4) To eat grain-based foods (other than #2) only 4 times!!
Wow, four! On the one hand, once every 3 months doesn't seem like very much sacrifice, as time can fly quickly. On the other hand, it is very common for me to engage in seasonal eating, such as pizza/beer in late summer. This will be a challenge.
(5) To stop watching television
I don't watch much now, and if I lived by myself could easily not own a TV. But I do currently watch shows with other people to be sociable...
- Except for (1) The McLaughlin Group and (2) Blue Bloods while at home.
- Not to include movies, which should also be reduced in frequency.
- Starting after Downton Abbey finishes
- When I move, to not have TV at all!
I have really poor sleep habits (e.g., I just slept for 10 hours last night after being up for 2 days straight), and I know it effects my recovery, mental alertness, and long-term health.
(7) To blog less/better
Pointless blogging takes up a lot of time.
(8) To reduce possessions further.
My ideal would be to own only my clothes, some books, some kitchen and table ware, toilettries, a few home furnishings, and my bike. I'm a lot closer to this ideal than I am to most people's level of acquisition, but over time, odds and ends build up somehow. I understand my humidor, but why did I buy glass decanturs? Will my dead grandmother really care if I get rid of the things she gave me when I was 10?
(9) To read a minimum 50 non-fiction books (~1/wk), and read less Internet
It's not like I watch YouTube videos and LOLcat humor when online, but books are better.
(10) To finish a project
I've started a lot of hobby-related projects in the past, from novels to small businesses, but I've never finished one/made it profitable.
2011 year in review: did I write anything worth reading?
Blogging can take up a lot of time. For an amateur, who doesn't blog as a way of making money/promoting himself, there isn't much justification or rationale for blogging unless the writing is valuable in itself. For most us, this isn't the case. The number of bloggers who benefit the world beyond the satisfying of others' attention deficit problems, like Denise Minger, is very small.
So in this spirit, I review cxlxmxrx over the last year and ask whether I wrote anything that might be worth reading...
So in this spirit, I review cxlxmxrx over the last year and ask whether I wrote anything that might be worth reading...
- March: genetic testing & FDA regulation: If you can't tell, I actually enjoy arguing.
- April: hospital trash: The amount of trash produced in health care is outrageous. I should have followed up this post by researching the question to see if my estimates are correct.
- July: ancestral responses to ancestral relationship issues: It's one thing to investigate the social and sexual arrangements of our ancestors. But in trying to apply the knowledge to modern times, it's instructive to consider how people closer in time to those ancestors dealt with the issues raised by our sexual and social impulses.
- September: Cepacol & FDA regulation: My first foray into anything like original reporting.
- September: 9/11 Commemoration: This year was the 10th anniversary of the NYC Trade Towers bombing.
- September: Critiquing NR's review of The Bond I & II: Against sentimentalism in vegetarianism.
- December: Better Angels of Our Nature book review: There were a lot of what I thought were pretty crappy reviews of this interesting book written by academics and journalists who didn't really deal with the book's arguments. While my writing may not be the best, I think the question I asked--whether the pacification of man might not have a trade-off--is the only really relevant response to the book.
Bookmarks: genetics & critical care & psych
For new year's, I'm cleaning out the bookmarks I acquired over the last year and haven't addressed.
Bookmarks: meat & grain & animals
For new year's, I'm cleaning out the bookmarks I acquired over the last year and haven't addressed.
- socialists are against low-carb
- lost art of buying from butchers
- Christmas pig (hey, we're still in the 12-day window!) is not paleo (photo above and more after hyperlink)
- hunter-gatherers hardwired for density
- man the fat-hunter
- which ancient megafauna did we wipe out?
- why I hunt
- neo-medievalism of the upper classes
- to Grok: what means it?
- the roots of perennial wheat
- JAMA: lack of association between cholesterol and CHD
- cholesterol crystals activate inflammasome in macrophages
- cholesterol's activity in the membrane
- great ape phylogenetics
- apes and long, slow life histories
- metabolic theory
Bookmarks: science
For new year's, I'm cleaning out the bookmarks I acquired over the last year and haven't addressed.
- what is peer review?
- don't trust small studies
- how to get academic papers for free
- field notes on science
- biology and medicine
- science is hard
- should virologists be paid like investment bankers?
- what I learned at Cold Springs Harbor
- why science is failing us
- a bad day for science
- top discoveries of 2011
- top scandals of 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)