Many commentators have stated the surprising combination of both childhood malnutrition and parental obesity in the same family.
Mainly within deprived areas.
The answer is obvious, they cannot afford sufficient sources of quality proteins and fats and rely on cheap carbohydrate.
Carbs provide energy and will fatten the parents, but they are empty in terms of growing bone, muscle, brains and all of the rest that children need.
So the children are malnourished and emaciated, whilst the parents who are fully grown have excess blood sugar that is converted to fat via the release of Insulin.
So, instead of the parents wickedly starving their children and eating all of the food (which is not what parents in any species will do, but is the internal bias of the observer) it is a function of the cheap, carb-rich, diet that they eat.
Tuesday 12 June 2012
Monday 11 June 2012
Dope heads?
Wheat is alleged to have an opoid response on the brain which drives the consumption of wheat, or in other words, you stuff the pizza into your mouth because it is addictive.
What is the compound that is supposed to drive this addiction response? - something called Gliadin.
Gliadin is a glycoprotein, and together with Glutelin, combine to form Gluten, which forms some 80% of the protein to be found within the wheat seed.
The earliest study I can find comes from 1979 (some 33 years ago) where the final sentence on the abstract states " It is suggested that peptides derived from some food proteins may be of physiological importance."
So some 33 years ago researchers already had a clue that the digestive products from wheat consumption had "physiological importance" - namely addiction.
The abstract is here.
In 1984 researchers were looking for possible links between schizophrenia and celiac disease and thus interested in which wheat gluten proteins exibited an opioid-like activity.
The results were clear, and I quote "The most active peptides were derived from the gliadin fraction of the gluten complex." Thus was gliadin fingered as the culprit in the addictive nature of wheat.
The abstract is here.
The final nail in the coffin as far as I was concerned was when the FDA approved the process whereby a new drug called "Contrave" manufactured by a company called "Orexigen" could be approved for use within the United States of America. Orexigen need to conduct;
"a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled cardiovascular outcomes trial prior to approval. The objective of the trial is to demonstrate that Contrave does not unacceptably increase the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). The Company plans to initiate the Contrave outcomes trial late in the second quarter of 2012."
The press release is here.
Contrave is a combination of two approved drugs, bupropion and naltrexone. Bupropion is an anti-depressant, whereas Naltrexone is an opioid receptor antagonist. The two together means that Naltrexone will block the ability of gliadin to generate the addiction and thus the desire for wheat, and Buproprion will handle the psychological impact (depression) of not getting the "high" caused by wheat consumption.
Wonderful stuff - but let's just walk ourselves through this from a governance point of view.
What is the role of the FDA??
Its website has the tagline here that states "Protecting and promoting your health".
So, a US Government agency, supposedly focussed on protecting and enhancing the health of the citizens of the United States of America is prepared to licence a drug that deals with the reality that a major component of the SAD (Standard American Diet) is actually addictive.
This is where the conflict called 'double think' a term coined by George Orwell comes to mind. A state agency - knowing two things that are mutually incompatible, is still prepared to believe in both 'realities' knowing full well that they 'are' mutually contradictory.
i.e. Wheat is addictive and injurious to human health, yet nothing is mentioned, yet a drug that works because it targets the addictive nature of wheat is in the process of being licensed.
And I quote;
"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself – that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink."
If wheat was a new drug, would the FDA licence it knowing that it was both; one - addictive, and; two - leads to obesity due to both the blood-sugar spike - insulin release and the consequent fat storage mechanism.
I don't think that we need to know what the true answer is, we can already guess.
What is the compound that is supposed to drive this addiction response? - something called Gliadin.
Gliadin is a glycoprotein, and together with Glutelin, combine to form Gluten, which forms some 80% of the protein to be found within the wheat seed.
The earliest study I can find comes from 1979 (some 33 years ago) where the final sentence on the abstract states " It is suggested that peptides derived from some food proteins may be of physiological importance."
So some 33 years ago researchers already had a clue that the digestive products from wheat consumption had "physiological importance" - namely addiction.
The abstract is here.
In 1984 researchers were looking for possible links between schizophrenia and celiac disease and thus interested in which wheat gluten proteins exibited an opioid-like activity.
The results were clear, and I quote "The most active peptides were derived from the gliadin fraction of the gluten complex." Thus was gliadin fingered as the culprit in the addictive nature of wheat.
The abstract is here.
The final nail in the coffin as far as I was concerned was when the FDA approved the process whereby a new drug called "Contrave" manufactured by a company called "Orexigen" could be approved for use within the United States of America. Orexigen need to conduct;
"a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled cardiovascular outcomes trial prior to approval. The objective of the trial is to demonstrate that Contrave does not unacceptably increase the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). The Company plans to initiate the Contrave outcomes trial late in the second quarter of 2012."
The press release is here.
Contrave is a combination of two approved drugs, bupropion and naltrexone. Bupropion is an anti-depressant, whereas Naltrexone is an opioid receptor antagonist. The two together means that Naltrexone will block the ability of gliadin to generate the addiction and thus the desire for wheat, and Buproprion will handle the psychological impact (depression) of not getting the "high" caused by wheat consumption.
Wonderful stuff - but let's just walk ourselves through this from a governance point of view.
What is the role of the FDA??
Its website has the tagline here that states "Protecting and promoting your health".
So, a US Government agency, supposedly focussed on protecting and enhancing the health of the citizens of the United States of America is prepared to licence a drug that deals with the reality that a major component of the SAD (Standard American Diet) is actually addictive.
This is where the conflict called 'double think' a term coined by George Orwell comes to mind. A state agency - knowing two things that are mutually incompatible, is still prepared to believe in both 'realities' knowing full well that they 'are' mutually contradictory.
i.e. Wheat is addictive and injurious to human health, yet nothing is mentioned, yet a drug that works because it targets the addictive nature of wheat is in the process of being licensed.
And I quote;
"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself – that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink."
If wheat was a new drug, would the FDA licence it knowing that it was both; one - addictive, and; two - leads to obesity due to both the blood-sugar spike - insulin release and the consequent fat storage mechanism.
I don't think that we need to know what the true answer is, we can already guess.
Monday 4 June 2012
Scandinavian researchers blow another hole in the "Cholesterol is Bad" hypothesis.
Hat tip to Peter of Hyperlipid
Researchers from Norway, Iceland and Sweden reviewed data from the ten year Norwegian HUNT2 study to see whether the official guidance that high Cholesterol levels being a risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD) were valid.
Guess what - hilarious result - high levels of cholesterol is not linked to risks of CVD or Total Mortality.
In fact, for women, higher levels of Cholesterol are associated with increased longevity - sorry lads!.
See the study here in more detail.
They are circumspect in their language in that they say "clinical and public health recommendations regarding the ‘dangers’ of cholesterol should be revised" and initially I thought 'fantastic, brave guys, hooray' but then the Civil Servant in me (I was one for 14 years) began to read the 'Discussion' section and I got a bit peeved.
They are almost apologetic for their findings and try to come up with reasons why the results contradict the official guidance, which having read it a number of times maybe what was inserted was required to get it through the process of publication. So I think that they truely understand the enormity of what they have published.
What is great is the final paragraph
"‘Know your numbers’ (a concept pertaining to medical risk factor levels, including cholesterol) is currently considered part of responsible citizenship, as well as an essential element of preventive medical care. Many individuals who could otherwise call themselves healthy struggle conscientiously to push their cholesterol under the presumed ‘danger’ limit (i.e. the recommended cut-off point of 5 mmol L−1), coached by health personnel, personal trainers and caring family members. Massive commercial interests are linked to drugs and other remedies marketed for this purpose. It is therefore of immediate and wide interest to find out whether our results are generalizable to other populations. "
Damn right mate !
Researchers from Norway, Iceland and Sweden reviewed data from the ten year Norwegian HUNT2 study to see whether the official guidance that high Cholesterol levels being a risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD) were valid.
Guess what - hilarious result - high levels of cholesterol is not linked to risks of CVD or Total Mortality.
In fact, for women, higher levels of Cholesterol are associated with increased longevity - sorry lads!.
See the study here in more detail.
They are circumspect in their language in that they say "clinical and public health recommendations regarding the ‘dangers’ of cholesterol should be revised" and initially I thought 'fantastic, brave guys, hooray' but then the Civil Servant in me (I was one for 14 years) began to read the 'Discussion' section and I got a bit peeved.
They are almost apologetic for their findings and try to come up with reasons why the results contradict the official guidance, which having read it a number of times maybe what was inserted was required to get it through the process of publication. So I think that they truely understand the enormity of what they have published.
What is great is the final paragraph
"‘Know your numbers’ (a concept pertaining to medical risk factor levels, including cholesterol) is currently considered part of responsible citizenship, as well as an essential element of preventive medical care. Many individuals who could otherwise call themselves healthy struggle conscientiously to push their cholesterol under the presumed ‘danger’ limit (i.e. the recommended cut-off point of 5 mmol L−1), coached by health personnel, personal trainers and caring family members. Massive commercial interests are linked to drugs and other remedies marketed for this purpose. It is therefore of immediate and wide interest to find out whether our results are generalizable to other populations. "
Damn right mate !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)