Rubber ducky or not...I think bathing is important to health. Its just one of those things that I kind of take for granted as a part of daily (or every-other day) routine, so it kind of surprised me to see a section on bathing in The Science of Health by Dr. Florence L. Meredith. Meredith presents a more-or-less even view on the topic of personal hygiene: if you bathe, you wont smell.
There is a surprisingly large amount of articles negating the necessity of a daily bath. One woman mentioned in the New York Times article, The Great Unwashed, mentioned that she never showers but simply wipes herself clean with a soapy washcloth under her arms, between her legs and under her feet. This article also mentions many other people who abstain from traditional deodorants, shampoos, and soaps (or abstain from using any at all) who prefer to "smell like themselves" rather than flowers and synthesized products.
Compared to washcloth wiping, daily showers are probably easier for maintaining personal hygiene, so for successfully cleaning away sweat and sebum (an odorless substance that keeps skin and hair supple but produces an odor when it breaks down) to prevent or get rid of bodily odors. However showering (or bathing/washing yourself in some way) is also important to maintain health. Bathing can be useful to remove dead skin and dirt that may irritate the skin and cause dryness or eczema (however sometimes over bathing or using certain bath products can cause irritation and dryness in the skin).
Note: Meredith refers to this dirt and dry skin as "debris" that "constitutes both a social and sanitary hazard."
Dr. Richard Gallo from the University of California, San Diego, published an article in 2010 entitled Commensal skin bacteria as the probiotic of the cutaneous immune response. This article is referred to in the New York Times piece as evidence that it may not be necessary to shower every day, especially for those who complain of dry skin, since we may be "removing some of the good bacteria that help maintain a healthy balance of skin." Dr Gallo found that good bacteria exist on the surface of the skin, and this bacteria
aids skin cells in creating their own antibiotics. Think probiotics in
your gut, but on your skin! However, I did not find any conclusive evidence in the article or in separate searches that bathing daily removes the beneficial bacteria Dr. Gallo refers to.
Meredith refers to some experiments in the chapter where 90-95% of bacteria placed on clean skin were killed compared to bacteria thriving in a dirty environment. Since this book was published in 1942, I'm not sure whether the bacteria mentioned in this study refers to the probiotics Gallo discusses or actual bad bacteria. I also not sure the details or methodology in the study, but cleaner people probably do have less surface bacteria on their skin, I'll give you that much Dr. Meredith.
Soap is also mentioned in the chapter as having an "antisepctic and germicidal effect." Yes. Soap is good and will help you get clean.
So to bathe or not to bathe?
Its a personal choice, and that's why they call it personal hygiene. My suggestion is to maintain a not-so-smelly presence and wash yourself as often or as little as your body requires. Most people generally figure out a good routine for themselves by the time they are in high school.
*Note: Don't forget the potential meditative and therapeutic aspects of bathing. A warm bath can do wonders for a stressed (mentally and physically) body, and sometimes I appreciate my five minute shower as the the only quiet time to myself.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Thursday, April 18, 2013
EyePost.
I feel like my eye-sight has significantly worsened in the last month. Maybe I'm just doing too much homework, or maybe I'm just getting old... It seems like I can't even stare at my computer for more than 2 minutes without needing to put on my reading glasses!
Therefore, I have decided to dedicate today's post to EYES.
The eye is in fact a bodily organ, and I feel like it is sometimes forgotten about or ignored in many health instances. There are many deformities of the eye than can occur biologically, as well as many environmentally caused illnesses or problems. There are also many ways to protect your eyes, as you would the skin, heart, or any other organ that is important in your daily life (e.g. ALL OF THEM).
Alfred Buice, the author of Health Science and Health Education has a few pointers on how to protect your eyes. I compared some of his tips to Eye Care America's Facts & Myths and also some articles found in the popular press to see what was true and what was false.
Apparently, there is a difference between eye fatigue and eye damage. Eye fatigue, or eyestrain, is characterized by a heaviness of the eyelids or forehead, blurred and double vision, or headaches. Eye damage, however, is more permanent damage, like cataracts, blindness, and myopia (i.e. nearsightedness).
Many of the complaints from working with computers and video display screens apparently do not result in permanent eye damage. According to the Eye Care Facts & Myths, when using a computer or staring at a screen, users tend to blink less which makes their eyes dry and results in feelings of eyestrain or fatigue. A Japanese study found that people blink about 22 times per minute in conversation, but only about 10 times while reading and 7 times while using the computer.
However, some studies have found an increase in myopia in children who use computers frequently, which maybe because their vision systems are not fully developed. Although there is little evidence of long-term damage from computer screens, it must also be noted that computers haven't been around for all that long, so these studies may come out in the near future as the first generation of full-time computer users ages. I think the evidence of eyestrain and eye fatigue should be enough to behaviorally confirm that using computers for a long time can have some detrimental effects on the eyes, even if they aren't permanent.
Buice provides a useful tip for reducing eye fatigue and dry eyes: taking a few seconds during intense or close eye work to look out in the distance or outside. This is also supported in Eye Care Facts, and is definitely a good idea when working on a computer for a long time. Buice also mentions that reading, sewing, or similar fine word should happen in bright light, however numerous studies are inconclusive on the fact that dim light can cause permanent eye damage. Good light isn't necessary for this work in terms of preventing eye damage (or so the studies say), but it may help in terms of making the task easier and preventing eye fatigue.
There is a slight mention in Buice's section to "tinted glasses" as "advantageous for use in bright sunlight or while snow is upon the ground." These tinted-, or sun-glasses, I conclude are actually the most important tool for preventing permanent eye damage. A recent survey found that only 63% of people realize that UV rays are harmful to their eyes. So, wear sunglasses to not only prevent squinting (which causes eye fatigue), but to protect your eyes from harmful UV rays which can cause cumulative damage to the eyes (you'll also look cool too!)
Keep an EYE out for more posts next week!
Therefore, I have decided to dedicate today's post to EYES.
The eye is in fact a bodily organ, and I feel like it is sometimes forgotten about or ignored in many health instances. There are many deformities of the eye than can occur biologically, as well as many environmentally caused illnesses or problems. There are also many ways to protect your eyes, as you would the skin, heart, or any other organ that is important in your daily life (e.g. ALL OF THEM).
Alfred Buice, the author of Health Science and Health Education has a few pointers on how to protect your eyes. I compared some of his tips to Eye Care America's Facts & Myths and also some articles found in the popular press to see what was true and what was false.
Apparently, there is a difference between eye fatigue and eye damage. Eye fatigue, or eyestrain, is characterized by a heaviness of the eyelids or forehead, blurred and double vision, or headaches. Eye damage, however, is more permanent damage, like cataracts, blindness, and myopia (i.e. nearsightedness).
Many of the complaints from working with computers and video display screens apparently do not result in permanent eye damage. According to the Eye Care Facts & Myths, when using a computer or staring at a screen, users tend to blink less which makes their eyes dry and results in feelings of eyestrain or fatigue. A Japanese study found that people blink about 22 times per minute in conversation, but only about 10 times while reading and 7 times while using the computer.
However, some studies have found an increase in myopia in children who use computers frequently, which maybe because their vision systems are not fully developed. Although there is little evidence of long-term damage from computer screens, it must also be noted that computers haven't been around for all that long, so these studies may come out in the near future as the first generation of full-time computer users ages. I think the evidence of eyestrain and eye fatigue should be enough to behaviorally confirm that using computers for a long time can have some detrimental effects on the eyes, even if they aren't permanent.
Buice provides a useful tip for reducing eye fatigue and dry eyes: taking a few seconds during intense or close eye work to look out in the distance or outside. This is also supported in Eye Care Facts, and is definitely a good idea when working on a computer for a long time. Buice also mentions that reading, sewing, or similar fine word should happen in bright light, however numerous studies are inconclusive on the fact that dim light can cause permanent eye damage. Good light isn't necessary for this work in terms of preventing eye damage (or so the studies say), but it may help in terms of making the task easier and preventing eye fatigue.
There is a slight mention in Buice's section to "tinted glasses" as "advantageous for use in bright sunlight or while snow is upon the ground." These tinted-, or sun-glasses, I conclude are actually the most important tool for preventing permanent eye damage. A recent survey found that only 63% of people realize that UV rays are harmful to their eyes. So, wear sunglasses to not only prevent squinting (which causes eye fatigue), but to protect your eyes from harmful UV rays which can cause cumulative damage to the eyes (you'll also look cool too!)
Keep an EYE out for more posts next week!
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
What is Love?
...baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more...
Now that I got that out of my system, I should make it clear that I didn't just choose the title "What is Love?" to implant that song in your internal phonological loop. I actually took it verbatim from the title of the section on love in The Science of Health by Dr. Florence L. Meredith, published in 1942.
Meredith talks about love in such a beautifully simple way, I had to just put the whole quote here:
Diagnosis: LOVE Scientists are teasing out this tangle of chemistry, biology, emotion and experience by Susan Brink briefly covers the many different scientific facets to the study of love in an easy to understand and summarizing way.
Attraction can be considered both a social and experience-driven desire as well as a molecular one. On the social side, having "chemistry" means having things in common with the other person and sharing a personal history. Our experience, so, our parents, movies we've seen, books we've read, etc...all have a role in determining who we fall in love with.
That being said, the biology of love cannot be ignored. Initial attraction has a biological and psychological basis. Women tend to prefer men who have symmetrical faces and men prefer a certain hip to waist ratio for their women. Odors, both conscious and unconscious also play a role in determining attraction. This is both from an experience stand point (smelling a cologne that was on a partner where things ended badly could conjure up strong negative emotions) and also a biological stand point (MHC, major histocompatability complex is an unconscious odor that dissuades people who are related to mate).
Looking past attraction, both social and physical, love exemplifies something more. It is a craving, an addition, a "can't-eat, can't-sleep, reach-for-the-stars, over-the-fence, World Series kind of stuff." (i hope you all understood that It Takes Two quote from one of my favorite childhood movies...)
One study involving fMRI found results in brain activity in participants who were in love similar to those of addicts of alcohol and drugs.
Another study found that those who were lovesick, (which was actually measured experimentally) when shown pictures of their loved ones exemplified similar brain activity in the ventral tegmental area and other regions of the brain associated with motivation, elation, and focused attention. This is the same part of the brain that is activated in smokers when reaching for another cigarette and gamblers when they think they are going to win more money.
Oh, and that altruistic component of love? Its basically because being in love is like being on drugs. People do crazy things in love and they do crazy things on drugs. Keep reading if you want an explanation...
A similar fMRI study at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine also found activity in the ventral tegmental area of the brain, and the author of this study describes love as "a high," where the brain releases chemicals such as dopamine, serotonin, and oxytocin to coordinate with other areas of the brain active in cravings. This initial neural activity sends messages to the caudate nucleus, a dopamine rich area in the basal ganglia, where unconscious habits are stored, thus turning the loved one into a habit and obsession.
This chemical reaction of LOVE can happen at any age, from young to old and with anyone, man or woman.
Now that I got that out of my system, I should make it clear that I didn't just choose the title "What is Love?" to implant that song in your internal phonological loop. I actually took it verbatim from the title of the section on love in The Science of Health by Dr. Florence L. Meredith, published in 1942.
Meredith talks about love in such a beautifully simple way, I had to just put the whole quote here:
"At a higher level of attraction is the emotion that deserves the name of love. Love is not "blind" as tradition has it, but clear-eyed. To be sure it idealizes, but does not exclude a concept of the real person. Since it does not depend entirely upon illusion, it is more likely to be lasting. Also, real love is sublimated beyond the sensory and selfish level, and is not only a sensual and romantic relationship, but a companionship as well. Finally, real love is altruistic. It seeks at all costs the welfare of the one who is loved. In those who are capable of it, such love throws a glory around life that is not dimmed even by the renunciation of all that is personal."Okay. So love is emotional, beyond the senses, physical, social, and altruistic. Got it. This must be the reason that studies of love draw from social sciences, evolution, biology, and psychology.
Diagnosis: LOVE Scientists are teasing out this tangle of chemistry, biology, emotion and experience by Susan Brink briefly covers the many different scientific facets to the study of love in an easy to understand and summarizing way.
Attraction can be considered both a social and experience-driven desire as well as a molecular one. On the social side, having "chemistry" means having things in common with the other person and sharing a personal history. Our experience, so, our parents, movies we've seen, books we've read, etc...all have a role in determining who we fall in love with.
That being said, the biology of love cannot be ignored. Initial attraction has a biological and psychological basis. Women tend to prefer men who have symmetrical faces and men prefer a certain hip to waist ratio for their women. Odors, both conscious and unconscious also play a role in determining attraction. This is both from an experience stand point (smelling a cologne that was on a partner where things ended badly could conjure up strong negative emotions) and also a biological stand point (MHC, major histocompatability complex is an unconscious odor that dissuades people who are related to mate).
Looking past attraction, both social and physical, love exemplifies something more. It is a craving, an addition, a "can't-eat, can't-sleep, reach-for-the-stars, over-the-fence, World Series kind of stuff." (i hope you all understood that It Takes Two quote from one of my favorite childhood movies...)
One study involving fMRI found results in brain activity in participants who were in love similar to those of addicts of alcohol and drugs.
Another study found that those who were lovesick, (which was actually measured experimentally) when shown pictures of their loved ones exemplified similar brain activity in the ventral tegmental area and other regions of the brain associated with motivation, elation, and focused attention. This is the same part of the brain that is activated in smokers when reaching for another cigarette and gamblers when they think they are going to win more money.
Oh, and that altruistic component of love? Its basically because being in love is like being on drugs. People do crazy things in love and they do crazy things on drugs. Keep reading if you want an explanation...
A similar fMRI study at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine also found activity in the ventral tegmental area of the brain, and the author of this study describes love as "a high," where the brain releases chemicals such as dopamine, serotonin, and oxytocin to coordinate with other areas of the brain active in cravings. This initial neural activity sends messages to the caudate nucleus, a dopamine rich area in the basal ganglia, where unconscious habits are stored, thus turning the loved one into a habit and obsession.
This chemical reaction of LOVE can happen at any age, from young to old and with anyone, man or woman.
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Irish Vinegar, Brain Shellac, That Slippery Serum.
Stutter Milk, Distillate of Dreamtime, The Sweet Tonic of Olde... No, I'm not talking about fancy names for cocktails, I'm talking about alcohol in general. The "noble experiment" of 1920-1933, also known as prohibition, did not stop anyone from drinking, and in fact, people are projected to have been drinking for over 3,000 years.
Drinking is a huge part of society, especially for a college student. Recently, a friend on facebook posted an article entitled 24 Things You Didn't Know About Beer by WearYourBeer.com. Many facts in the article seemed like a lot of silliness; some of the historical facts on beer seemed a little questionable and alcohol was praised a couple times for some of its health benefits.
Health In Your Daily Living by Rathbone, Bacon, and Keene (RBK) published in 1948 also present a chapter on alcohol. The first line is "alcohol as a narcotic and poison" so I don't think that RBK share the same view of beer as WearYourBeer.com. That being said, I did a little dig into the literature to determine which claims were correct.
I didn't bother to verify the historical and social beer facts, but some of the more interesting ones included "cenosillicaphobia" which is fear of an empty beer class; the first professional beer brewers were all women; and a quote from Benjamin Franklin, "Beer is proof that god loves us."
That being said, one of the questionable health facts included that beer prevents kidney stones. A study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology entitled Nutrient Intake and Use of Beverages and the Risk of Kidney Stones in Male Smokers (Hirvonen et al., 1999) found that beer consumption was inversely proportional with risk of kidney stones, and that every beer consumed per day was estimated to reduce risk of kidney stones by 40%. Magnesium intake was also inversely proportion with risk of kidney stones. The study refers to alcohol's suppression of excretion of vasopressin, which results in increased urine flow and more dilute urine, as a possible reason for decreased risk of kidney stones in alcohol drinkers.
The study by Hirvonen et al. also referenced another health claim from the WearYourBeer.com page; that beer strengthens your bones. Apparently, xanthohumol and humulone, active components in hops (the plant that beer is made of), have been shown to inhibit bone resorption, which could slow the release of calcium from bone and reduce calcium excretion, which in turn would "strengthen" bones, or at least decrease their weakening. I did not look into this study specifically, but it is cited in the kidney stone article.
Hirvonen et al.'s study has some major flaws, one of which is that it only sampled male smokers over the age of 50, so this population may have other habits that could reduce the risk of kidney stones other than beer consumption.
With this study in mind, I do not endorse the use of alcohol only as a preventative measure for kidney stones, nor as a substitute for calcium to aid in bone health. The negative effects of alcohol are probably a lot more detrimental than the potential to decrease risk of kidney stones and increase bone mass.
RBK mention many of the negative health effects of alcohol: that it deadens nerves; heavy drinkers tend to accumulate more fat, especially around the heart, liver, and kidneys; inhibits motor and cognitive functions when consumed in large amounts; and the rate of alcoholics; and increased risk of alcoholism with heavy drinking. I also note some other, more recently developed long term negative effects of drinking, such as liver disease, chronic pancreitis, fetal alcohol syndrome, Korsakoff syndrome (a thiamine deficiency), tremors, insomnia, and depressive disorders.
Cheers!
Drinking is a huge part of society, especially for a college student. Recently, a friend on facebook posted an article entitled 24 Things You Didn't Know About Beer by WearYourBeer.com. Many facts in the article seemed like a lot of silliness; some of the historical facts on beer seemed a little questionable and alcohol was praised a couple times for some of its health benefits.
Health In Your Daily Living by Rathbone, Bacon, and Keene (RBK) published in 1948 also present a chapter on alcohol. The first line is "alcohol as a narcotic and poison" so I don't think that RBK share the same view of beer as WearYourBeer.com. That being said, I did a little dig into the literature to determine which claims were correct.
I didn't bother to verify the historical and social beer facts, but some of the more interesting ones included "cenosillicaphobia" which is fear of an empty beer class; the first professional beer brewers were all women; and a quote from Benjamin Franklin, "Beer is proof that god loves us."
That being said, one of the questionable health facts included that beer prevents kidney stones. A study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology entitled Nutrient Intake and Use of Beverages and the Risk of Kidney Stones in Male Smokers (Hirvonen et al., 1999) found that beer consumption was inversely proportional with risk of kidney stones, and that every beer consumed per day was estimated to reduce risk of kidney stones by 40%. Magnesium intake was also inversely proportion with risk of kidney stones. The study refers to alcohol's suppression of excretion of vasopressin, which results in increased urine flow and more dilute urine, as a possible reason for decreased risk of kidney stones in alcohol drinkers.
The study by Hirvonen et al. also referenced another health claim from the WearYourBeer.com page; that beer strengthens your bones. Apparently, xanthohumol and humulone, active components in hops (the plant that beer is made of), have been shown to inhibit bone resorption, which could slow the release of calcium from bone and reduce calcium excretion, which in turn would "strengthen" bones, or at least decrease their weakening. I did not look into this study specifically, but it is cited in the kidney stone article.
Hirvonen et al.'s study has some major flaws, one of which is that it only sampled male smokers over the age of 50, so this population may have other habits that could reduce the risk of kidney stones other than beer consumption.
With this study in mind, I do not endorse the use of alcohol only as a preventative measure for kidney stones, nor as a substitute for calcium to aid in bone health. The negative effects of alcohol are probably a lot more detrimental than the potential to decrease risk of kidney stones and increase bone mass.
RBK mention many of the negative health effects of alcohol: that it deadens nerves; heavy drinkers tend to accumulate more fat, especially around the heart, liver, and kidneys; inhibits motor and cognitive functions when consumed in large amounts; and the rate of alcoholics; and increased risk of alcoholism with heavy drinking. I also note some other, more recently developed long term negative effects of drinking, such as liver disease, chronic pancreitis, fetal alcohol syndrome, Korsakoff syndrome (a thiamine deficiency), tremors, insomnia, and depressive disorders.
Cheers!
Thursday, April 4, 2013
S-s-s-speech Impediments
Bad habit or medical phenomena?
The Health of Youth by Florence Lyndon Meredith, published in 1928, has a whole section devoted to the voice. What caught my eye within this section was the paragraph on speech defects. As a former lisper, I guess I once had a speech defect. It was kind of cute as a six year old to tell people that my brother's name was "s-th-tanley" and that "s-th-ally s-th-old s-th-ea shells on the s-th-ea shore."
But more importantly, why did I develop this speech impediment? How did I correct it? What do speech pathologists believe and practice now? These are all answers that I hope to divulge to you in this post.
An article in Chatelain by Judith Bond (1993) entitled Common Speech Problems points to one of the most common speech problems as stuttering. Bond notes that while stuttering was once believed to be an emotional problem, the latest research points to physical problems. The emotional problems probably come as a result of the lack of confidence and inability to speak.
Many other speech problems include lisp (not being able to pronounce s's), rhotacism (not being able to pronouns r's, which is also associated with not being able to pronounce the l's), misunderstanding speech, or enunciation problems.
Most of these problems are caused by a variety or combination of factors including physical, psychological, environmental, and genetic. Hutchinson notes some physical defects, saying that difficulty with enunciation may be due to the band of tissue under the tongue being unusually short or missing or protruding teeth. Stammering and stuttering, however, are "usually habits copied from another member of the family or playmate...or shyness or some other personality trait." While this may be true, Dr. Hutchinson, there are also many physical, molecular, and genetic reasons for speech defects.
The genetic defects are further explained in Dissection of molecular mechanisms underlying speech and language disorders, an article by Simon Fisher in 2005 from Applied Psycholinguistics. Fisher points to the heritable defects common in speech. His analysis boils down to a mutation of the FOXP2 gene, which causes a rare form of speech and language disorders from early on in development. Although this gene is not the "speech gene" (since genes rarely cause one phenomenon in isolation), it does play a central role in the development of many tissues in mammal embryonic development, and may be an important piece in the speech puzzle.
However, many common speech problems, such as enunciation problems, stutters, lisps, and rhotacism can be corrected with speech therapy and practice, as seen in my own speech development and that of King George VI in The King's Speech (a great movie if you haven't seen it.)
Th-th-th-th-thats all folks!
The Health of Youth by Florence Lyndon Meredith, published in 1928, has a whole section devoted to the voice. What caught my eye within this section was the paragraph on speech defects. As a former lisper, I guess I once had a speech defect. It was kind of cute as a six year old to tell people that my brother's name was "s-th-tanley" and that "s-th-ally s-th-old s-th-ea shells on the s-th-ea shore."
But more importantly, why did I develop this speech impediment? How did I correct it? What do speech pathologists believe and practice now? These are all answers that I hope to divulge to you in this post.
An article in Chatelain by Judith Bond (1993) entitled Common Speech Problems points to one of the most common speech problems as stuttering. Bond notes that while stuttering was once believed to be an emotional problem, the latest research points to physical problems. The emotional problems probably come as a result of the lack of confidence and inability to speak.
Many other speech problems include lisp (not being able to pronounce s's), rhotacism (not being able to pronouns r's, which is also associated with not being able to pronounce the l's), misunderstanding speech, or enunciation problems.
Most of these problems are caused by a variety or combination of factors including physical, psychological, environmental, and genetic. Hutchinson notes some physical defects, saying that difficulty with enunciation may be due to the band of tissue under the tongue being unusually short or missing or protruding teeth. Stammering and stuttering, however, are "usually habits copied from another member of the family or playmate...or shyness or some other personality trait." While this may be true, Dr. Hutchinson, there are also many physical, molecular, and genetic reasons for speech defects.
The genetic defects are further explained in Dissection of molecular mechanisms underlying speech and language disorders, an article by Simon Fisher in 2005 from Applied Psycholinguistics. Fisher points to the heritable defects common in speech. His analysis boils down to a mutation of the FOXP2 gene, which causes a rare form of speech and language disorders from early on in development. Although this gene is not the "speech gene" (since genes rarely cause one phenomenon in isolation), it does play a central role in the development of many tissues in mammal embryonic development, and may be an important piece in the speech puzzle.
However, many common speech problems, such as enunciation problems, stutters, lisps, and rhotacism can be corrected with speech therapy and practice, as seen in my own speech development and that of King George VI in The King's Speech (a great movie if you haven't seen it.)
Th-th-th-th-thats all folks!
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Cooking For Health
Browsing through Hutchinson's Handbook for Health by Dr. Woods Hutchinson himself, I found a funny chapter on cooking. Obviously there are ways to cook your food that are healthier than others. For example, deep frying immediately comes to mind as an unhealthy way to cook food while steaming presents itself as a much healthier option. But what did the doctors say about this back in 1911? Lets find out!
I LOVE cooking, so I hope I can manage to be informative and not go completely over the top spewing recipes left and right and describing my favorite dishes to cook, flavors to blend, and cooking methods.
Anyway, Hutchinson mentions three cooking methods: baking, boiling, and frying. Frying, although it "develops the appetizing flavors of the food to a very high degree" is also the unhealthiest option, since "some form of fat has to be used to keep the food from burning." In fact, Hutchinson praises frying when one knows how to do it right (a method similar to searing) and also chastises it as "one of the most effective ways ever invented of spoiling good food and ruining digestion."
Roasting, he says is the "highest form of the art of cooking" but it takes a long time and cannot be done in a hurry and if it is done for too long, "it may waste a great deal of the food material." In other words, it will burn.
Boiling is regarded as the "easiest of all forms of cookery, and within the grasp of the lowest intelligence." I disagree with Hutchinson here, I think anyone can learn to cook with any method, if they just follow the directions and take things slow. However, boiling food is pretty darn easy. Burner on, boil, top on, simmer. Done.
The modern literature does have something to say on cooking and health. Food, Cooking Skills, and Health: A Literature Review by Rachel Engler-Stringer published in the Canadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research in 2010 observes the shift in North American food practice and assess the role of cooking as a factor in the shift to unhealthier eating habits.
Engler-Stringer breaks cooking down into many components; organizational (properly planning meals is a huge deterrent to healthy cooking, or cooking at all), contextual situation (socioeconomic factors and family life), confidence in cooking, knowledge, and our approach to cooking. Her review of the literature revealed very little on food preparation and cooking skills. However, it is noted that people who cooked food with more intricate steps typically had healthier diets. This is probably due to the fact that using fresh food rather than pre-prepared food involves more steps, but is overall healthier.
The solution Engler-Stringer points out mirrors that of Hutchinson; programs to encourage cooking that aid people to better understand where their food comes from and that give them confidence in their cooking. This, both surmise, will help combat the health issue of eating poorly due to lack of cooking, or lack of cooking with fresh ingredients. Hutchinson states this more plainly and from an earlier age, saying that "every boy and every girl ought to know how to cook. Cooking is a most interesting art, and a knowledge of it is a valuable part of a good education."
Happy cooking!
I LOVE cooking, so I hope I can manage to be informative and not go completely over the top spewing recipes left and right and describing my favorite dishes to cook, flavors to blend, and cooking methods.
Anyway, Hutchinson mentions three cooking methods: baking, boiling, and frying. Frying, although it "develops the appetizing flavors of the food to a very high degree" is also the unhealthiest option, since "some form of fat has to be used to keep the food from burning." In fact, Hutchinson praises frying when one knows how to do it right (a method similar to searing) and also chastises it as "one of the most effective ways ever invented of spoiling good food and ruining digestion."
Roasting, he says is the "highest form of the art of cooking" but it takes a long time and cannot be done in a hurry and if it is done for too long, "it may waste a great deal of the food material." In other words, it will burn.
Boiling is regarded as the "easiest of all forms of cookery, and within the grasp of the lowest intelligence." I disagree with Hutchinson here, I think anyone can learn to cook with any method, if they just follow the directions and take things slow. However, boiling food is pretty darn easy. Burner on, boil, top on, simmer. Done.
The modern literature does have something to say on cooking and health. Food, Cooking Skills, and Health: A Literature Review by Rachel Engler-Stringer published in the Canadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research in 2010 observes the shift in North American food practice and assess the role of cooking as a factor in the shift to unhealthier eating habits.
Engler-Stringer breaks cooking down into many components; organizational (properly planning meals is a huge deterrent to healthy cooking, or cooking at all), contextual situation (socioeconomic factors and family life), confidence in cooking, knowledge, and our approach to cooking. Her review of the literature revealed very little on food preparation and cooking skills. However, it is noted that people who cooked food with more intricate steps typically had healthier diets. This is probably due to the fact that using fresh food rather than pre-prepared food involves more steps, but is overall healthier.
The solution Engler-Stringer points out mirrors that of Hutchinson; programs to encourage cooking that aid people to better understand where their food comes from and that give them confidence in their cooking. This, both surmise, will help combat the health issue of eating poorly due to lack of cooking, or lack of cooking with fresh ingredients. Hutchinson states this more plainly and from an earlier age, saying that "every boy and every girl ought to know how to cook. Cooking is a most interesting art, and a knowledge of it is a valuable part of a good education."
Happy cooking!
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Saliva. Spit. Digestion.
This post isn't much of a debunking since Hutchinson's Handbook of Health by Woods Hutchinson, published in 1911 actually got the saliva and digestion thing right. I guess chemistry was already advanced enough back then to understand this. I will just outline the basic steps and maybe supplement with some new information.
According to Dr. Hutchinson, the process of digestion begins before we even eat anything. That delicious and sometimes annoying sensation when your mouth begins to 'water' at the sight and/or smell of food...that's the beginning of digestion, and that's all due to your saliva!
Saliva is produced in the mouth by salivary glands and its primary function is to aid in digestion. The saliva not only prepares the digestive system to break down the food, but also "brings word to the juices [in the stomach] to be ready." Hutchinson also says that the saliva initiates a cascade to innervate the stomach nerves so the stomach can prepare its digestive juice, also known as "appetite juice."
I am now always going to refer to what is going in my stomach before I eat as my "appetite juices." Anyway, one point of contention that Hutchinson mentions is that the attractive appearance of food and a good appetite are important in food, because if our "appetite juices" are not secreted, "the food may lie in the stomach for hours before the proper process of digestion, or melting, begins."
First of all, food doesn't really melt. And secondly, even if food isn't attractive, I still get hungry, and I think that, unless you have some serious GI problems, even if you don't have a good appetite or think your food looks pretty, you will still digest it.
However, this may be why we feel more bloated or heavy when we eat when we're not actually hungry-- because the juices aren't secreted and we don't have a "good appetite," so the food seems to sit in the stomach longer before it is digested.
One thing that I learned from reading this chapter is that saliva is meant to break down the starches in food. Saliva contains ptyalin, a "ferment, or digestive substance" (now known as a protein/enzyme) that breaks down the starch in food, which is a polysaccharide (a long chain of sugars) and turns it into glucose, which can be more easily broken down by the body. (This information is courtesy of wisegeek.org).
Hutchinson also says that particularly starchy foods, like bread, biscuits, crackers, and pastries require "thorough and elaborate chewing," so that the ptyalin has time to break down the food. However, the ptyalin actually continues to act on the chewed-up food even after it enters the stomach, AND the pancreas and acids in the stomach finish the job that the saliva started. So you really don't need to chew your bread any more than your meat or eggs, since your body has a mechanism to prevent you from looking like a cow every time you eat your toast.
I couldn't find any scholarly articles to support this next claim, but wisegeek.org also mentions that ptyalin amounts in humans vary based on ethnic origin, and since Asian cultures consumed more starch, they typically have more of the enzyme than people with Northern European ancestry. This was found from "genetic studies" but I couldn't find any specific ones, although there are lots of genetic studies involving ptyalin if you want to learn more about this really cool enzyme.
More on digestion next time! And now a joke to end this week's post...
What is half of a digestive system?
*(Scroll down for the answer)*
a semi-colon!
According to Dr. Hutchinson, the process of digestion begins before we even eat anything. That delicious and sometimes annoying sensation when your mouth begins to 'water' at the sight and/or smell of food...that's the beginning of digestion, and that's all due to your saliva!
Saliva is produced in the mouth by salivary glands and its primary function is to aid in digestion. The saliva not only prepares the digestive system to break down the food, but also "brings word to the juices [in the stomach] to be ready." Hutchinson also says that the saliva initiates a cascade to innervate the stomach nerves so the stomach can prepare its digestive juice, also known as "appetite juice."
I am now always going to refer to what is going in my stomach before I eat as my "appetite juices." Anyway, one point of contention that Hutchinson mentions is that the attractive appearance of food and a good appetite are important in food, because if our "appetite juices" are not secreted, "the food may lie in the stomach for hours before the proper process of digestion, or melting, begins."
First of all, food doesn't really melt. And secondly, even if food isn't attractive, I still get hungry, and I think that, unless you have some serious GI problems, even if you don't have a good appetite or think your food looks pretty, you will still digest it.
However, this may be why we feel more bloated or heavy when we eat when we're not actually hungry-- because the juices aren't secreted and we don't have a "good appetite," so the food seems to sit in the stomach longer before it is digested.
One thing that I learned from reading this chapter is that saliva is meant to break down the starches in food. Saliva contains ptyalin, a "ferment, or digestive substance" (now known as a protein/enzyme) that breaks down the starch in food, which is a polysaccharide (a long chain of sugars) and turns it into glucose, which can be more easily broken down by the body. (This information is courtesy of wisegeek.org).
Hutchinson also says that particularly starchy foods, like bread, biscuits, crackers, and pastries require "thorough and elaborate chewing," so that the ptyalin has time to break down the food. However, the ptyalin actually continues to act on the chewed-up food even after it enters the stomach, AND the pancreas and acids in the stomach finish the job that the saliva started. So you really don't need to chew your bread any more than your meat or eggs, since your body has a mechanism to prevent you from looking like a cow every time you eat your toast.
I couldn't find any scholarly articles to support this next claim, but wisegeek.org also mentions that ptyalin amounts in humans vary based on ethnic origin, and since Asian cultures consumed more starch, they typically have more of the enzyme than people with Northern European ancestry. This was found from "genetic studies" but I couldn't find any specific ones, although there are lots of genetic studies involving ptyalin if you want to learn more about this really cool enzyme.
More on digestion next time! And now a joke to end this week's post...
What is half of a digestive system?
*(Scroll down for the answer)*
a semi-colon!
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
The Common Cold
Health In Your Daily Living by Rathbone, Bacon, and Keene is actually one of the more recent books I have to reference, as it was published in 1948. However, some of its claims on this week's topic, For The Common Cold (dun dun duuuuuuun) are not true compared to more recent science. So lets get into it shall we?!
For starters, I should probably mention that I have a cold, big surprise! And this isn't just a little stuffy nose cold. This is a full-on case of coryza (the medical name for the common cold). My brain and head feel like they're full of Thanksgiving stuffing, my nose is stuffy and runny, I can feel the mucus from my nose actually dripping down into my throat, which already feels sore, and I have this icky smoker-esque cough. Yup. I got a cold.
How did I get this cold? How can I make it better? Well, those are the types of questions I hope to answer in this post.
The two articles that I will draw scientific information from are The Common Cold by Heikkinen and Jarvinen published in the The Lancet (2003). The other article is Diagnosis and treatment of the common cold in pediatric patients by Robohm and Ruff published in The Journal of the American Academy of Physician Assistants (2012).
The common cold does not actually have specific cause, it is usually a viral infection that is limited to the upper respiratory tract. More than 100 different kinds of rhinoviruses have been identified, and their prevalence varies based on geographical areas and passing of time. Rathbone, Bacon and Keene (RBK) touch on this a little bit, they call the illness a "cold infection, or virus" and say that it usually starts in the nose or throat (or the eye, which may be why I tend to get pink-eye when I have a cold, but don't worry, I don't have it this time). This claim is supported up by the literature, which says colds are typically viral infections of the nasal mucosa, which causes nasal obstruction and rhinorrhoea, more commonly known as a runny nose.
But how do we contract the cold in the first place? Well my dear readers, I will now debunk the greatest myth in common cold science. Heikkinen and Jarvinen state that: "the available evidence, albeit scarce, does not lend support to the popular belief that colds are associated with chilling or exposure to a cold environment." So no, if you are cold, you will not get a cold. This misconception may be due to the fact, as stated in RBK and the recent scientific literature that the most common times for contracting colds are in the fall and winter months. This, however, could be due to many other reasons, such as being inside and in close quarters with others, weather permitting an extended life of the virus, being more stressed or fatigued in the winter, etc...
Once the virus is contracted, incubation (when the virus multiplies and remains in your body without expressing overt symptoms), according to RBK, can last awhile without the person knowing that he or she is infected. Once their body gets "run down or chilled" the virus begins to cause symptoms. We know that when you are "chilled" you are not more likely to get the cold, however, being "run down" or tired is a possibility. When you are tired, your body's strength and therefore immune response are weakened, so this may aid the virus in replicating in your body. However, it may also just be a factor of already having the virus and be a symptom during the incubation period, since colds do cause physical fatigue.
We do now know that the incubation period of the cold varies greatly depending on the type of virus; some symptoms occur 10-12 hours after infection and others take a bit longer. However, in talking about the stages of the cold, RBK were more-or-less correct that the cold lasts about 7-10 days; tiredness and a sore throat permeate for the first few days; the second stage, lasting 2-3 days is the peak of the infection; and the third stage is where the nose is severely plugged; in the final stage, the cold wears itself out and maybe only a lingering cough is still present.
And now onto treatments for the common cold. The articles I read and RBK vary greatly in their suggestions for how to treat the common cold. Where RBK suggest taking "a warm bath and go[ing] to bed...staying in bed...eat[ing] lightly..." The literature suggests over the counter cold and cough remedies that can temporarily relieve symptoms (but not in children under 4), honey, saline, echinacea, vitamin C, and zinc. The efficacy of these treatments are somewhat debated, but since they are mostly harmless, the literature presents them as alternative treatments or symptom relievers for the common cold. They also mention that antibiotics will not help since the cold is typically a viral, not bacterial, infection (and aren't we given too many antibiotics these days anyway?)
It is a good idea, as RBK suggest, to keep yourself in general good health to prevent a cold and exercise regularly, since physical health improves immunity. Also, most of their suggestions, like resting and taking a warm bath are generally good ideas when you are sick, however eating lightly is not, since your body's immune system is fighting a virus and you need all the energy you can to help it fight the cold. Don't overeat when you have a cold (which is hard since a loss of appetite generally happens), but make sure to eat when you are hungry and drink lots of fluids!
So for now, my personal remedy is Sudafed in the day time (the cold drug that people make speed out of of), Benadryl at night (which knocks me out like a baby...and I only take half the dose), Robutussin (for the icky cough), tea in the morning, resting more than usual, homemade chicken matzo ball soup (also known as Jewish penicillin) for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and writing this blog to learn more about what I can do to be a healthier person.
For starters, I should probably mention that I have a cold, big surprise! And this isn't just a little stuffy nose cold. This is a full-on case of coryza (the medical name for the common cold). My brain and head feel like they're full of Thanksgiving stuffing, my nose is stuffy and runny, I can feel the mucus from my nose actually dripping down into my throat, which already feels sore, and I have this icky smoker-esque cough. Yup. I got a cold.
How did I get this cold? How can I make it better? Well, those are the types of questions I hope to answer in this post.
The two articles that I will draw scientific information from are The Common Cold by Heikkinen and Jarvinen published in the The Lancet (2003). The other article is Diagnosis and treatment of the common cold in pediatric patients by Robohm and Ruff published in The Journal of the American Academy of Physician Assistants (2012).
The common cold does not actually have specific cause, it is usually a viral infection that is limited to the upper respiratory tract. More than 100 different kinds of rhinoviruses have been identified, and their prevalence varies based on geographical areas and passing of time. Rathbone, Bacon and Keene (RBK) touch on this a little bit, they call the illness a "cold infection, or virus" and say that it usually starts in the nose or throat (or the eye, which may be why I tend to get pink-eye when I have a cold, but don't worry, I don't have it this time). This claim is supported up by the literature, which says colds are typically viral infections of the nasal mucosa, which causes nasal obstruction and rhinorrhoea, more commonly known as a runny nose.
But how do we contract the cold in the first place? Well my dear readers, I will now debunk the greatest myth in common cold science. Heikkinen and Jarvinen state that: "the available evidence, albeit scarce, does not lend support to the popular belief that colds are associated with chilling or exposure to a cold environment." So no, if you are cold, you will not get a cold. This misconception may be due to the fact, as stated in RBK and the recent scientific literature that the most common times for contracting colds are in the fall and winter months. This, however, could be due to many other reasons, such as being inside and in close quarters with others, weather permitting an extended life of the virus, being more stressed or fatigued in the winter, etc...
Once the virus is contracted, incubation (when the virus multiplies and remains in your body without expressing overt symptoms), according to RBK, can last awhile without the person knowing that he or she is infected. Once their body gets "run down or chilled" the virus begins to cause symptoms. We know that when you are "chilled" you are not more likely to get the cold, however, being "run down" or tired is a possibility. When you are tired, your body's strength and therefore immune response are weakened, so this may aid the virus in replicating in your body. However, it may also just be a factor of already having the virus and be a symptom during the incubation period, since colds do cause physical fatigue.
We do now know that the incubation period of the cold varies greatly depending on the type of virus; some symptoms occur 10-12 hours after infection and others take a bit longer. However, in talking about the stages of the cold, RBK were more-or-less correct that the cold lasts about 7-10 days; tiredness and a sore throat permeate for the first few days; the second stage, lasting 2-3 days is the peak of the infection; and the third stage is where the nose is severely plugged; in the final stage, the cold wears itself out and maybe only a lingering cough is still present.
And now onto treatments for the common cold. The articles I read and RBK vary greatly in their suggestions for how to treat the common cold. Where RBK suggest taking "a warm bath and go[ing] to bed...staying in bed...eat[ing] lightly..." The literature suggests over the counter cold and cough remedies that can temporarily relieve symptoms (but not in children under 4), honey, saline, echinacea, vitamin C, and zinc. The efficacy of these treatments are somewhat debated, but since they are mostly harmless, the literature presents them as alternative treatments or symptom relievers for the common cold. They also mention that antibiotics will not help since the cold is typically a viral, not bacterial, infection (and aren't we given too many antibiotics these days anyway?)
It is a good idea, as RBK suggest, to keep yourself in general good health to prevent a cold and exercise regularly, since physical health improves immunity. Also, most of their suggestions, like resting and taking a warm bath are generally good ideas when you are sick, however eating lightly is not, since your body's immune system is fighting a virus and you need all the energy you can to help it fight the cold. Don't overeat when you have a cold (which is hard since a loss of appetite generally happens), but make sure to eat when you are hungry and drink lots of fluids!
So for now, my personal remedy is Sudafed in the day time (the cold drug that people make speed out of of), Benadryl at night (which knocks me out like a baby...and I only take half the dose), Robutussin (for the icky cough), tea in the morning, resting more than usual, homemade chicken matzo ball soup (also known as Jewish penicillin) for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and writing this blog to learn more about what I can do to be a healthier person.
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
This one's for you, Pop. TEETH!
This next post is long overdue considering the family I come from. We're a family of teeth. Well not literally a family of teeth, but both my parents are in the teeth profession. My mom is a dental hygienist (like a cleaning lady for your teeth) and my dad will tell you he's a doctor, but really folks, he's a periodontist (which means he deals with people's gums). Growing up with parents in the tooth business has taught me a lot about teeth.
And I know without doing any research that taking care of your teeth is important for your health. But for your sakes, I will find some real facts to back this up.
Before I get into the health benefits, I want to mention that taking care of your teeth is also important in social settings. Teeth are one of the first things we notice about other people, especially when considering attractiveness. Not everyone likes teeth that are straight or perfect (sometimes a little crookedness or a chip is cute), but most people wont admit to being fans of dirty teeth (and by dirty I mean when you can visibly see a build-up of plaque and tartar, bad breath, food stuck in their teeth, etc...all signs of an unclean mouth). Nice teeth can also be a sign of financial stability; if you have money, you can afford to take care of and fix your teeth. So teeth not only have a function in our health, but also our social perception and interactions.
The Health and Growth Series: Health Knowledge by Charters, Smiley, and Strang, one of the books that I checked out that is part of the health series for children, has a whole section on "Aids to Good Teeth." In this section they talk about what teeth are made of, toothaches, and taking care of your teeth (and gums).
Charters, Smiley, and Strang (CSS) refer to several causes of irregular teeth. The most notable being thumb-sucking. Thumb-sucking has long been known to cause irregular teeth, and it makes sense: if you have your finger in your mouth for the majority of your childhood when your teeth are growing and forming, you are probably going to throw things off a bit. Not to mention children's hands go in dirty places and then into their mouths, which is just kind of gross. Sure there are psychological reasons behind thumb-sucking, but really if your kid is sucking his or her thumb after age 3, you should probably do something about it.
Heredity and enlarged adenoids are also mentioned as reasons for irregular teeth, both of which can affect how teeth grow in or the formation of the jaw. Apparently, enlarged adenoids cause breathing in through the mouth rather than the nose, which can make the mouth narrow "instead of well-developed and roomy."
However, teeth formation aside, one of the most important health-related topics involving teeth has nothing to do with aesthetics, chewing function, or teeth development. The first section on tooth care in the chapter discuss tooth abscesses, which happens when a cavity or toothache is left untreated, the bacteria causes the cavity to go deeper into the tooth, pus forms, and an abscess (or pus pocket) forms. The bacteria from the abscess may continue to reproduce and from here enters into the blood stream. According to basic biology, blood from one part of our body is recycled through the heart and travels to all of our different body parts. Back in CSS's day, the resulting bacterial spread from the tooth abscess "may cause trouble in the heart" and even rheumatism, which is a general term for problems affecting the joints and connective tissue.
Now-a-days it is proven fact that teeth abscesses and subsequent gum disease (or gingivitis, defined by the U.S. National Library of science as inflammation and infection that destroys the tissues that support the teeth, including the gums, the periodontal ligaments, and the tooth sockets (alveolar bone) which is caused by long-term plaque deposits on your teeth) can cause problems in the cardiovascular system.
An article in Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy by Ford et al. (2010) entitled Why should a doctor be interested in oral disease? covers the basics of periodontal disease and its relationship with cardiovascular disease. Ford et al. claim that cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in western society. Risk prevention is one of the easiest ways to proscribe the development of cardiovascular disease, and taking care of your teeth (economic standing and proper materials provided) is one of the easiest preventative measures to take. The authors cite numerous studies and report that individuals with severe and chronic periodontitis have a significantly increased risk in developing atherosclerosis, myocardial infarction, and stroke.
Two main bacteria responsible for common chronic human infections are mentioned as the potential causes of heart disease in relation to gum disease. "Chlamydia pneumoniae [is] a ubiquitous respiratory tract pathogen, and Porphyromonas gingivalis [is] a bacterium involved in chronic periodontal disease." Both pathogens are associated with an increased risk of developing cardiovascular disease and are highly associated with inflammatory cells. However, an epidemiological problem with determining the causation between periodontal disease and cardiovascular disease is that both share the same risk factors such as lifestyle, heredity, and diet.
That being said, monitoring and preventing periodontal disease is an easy process that could potentially lower the risk of cardiovascular disease later in life.
And now for the more silly facts about teeth mentioned in the book:
1. Toothpicks. These sticky little guys are mentioned as causing "mechanical injury" to the teeth. They are to be used "rarely and then with great care." As the Mayo Clinic puts it, toothpicks are for "hors d'oeuvres, not teeth." Also, a fun fact I read on Dentalgentlecare.com: a toothpick is the object most choked on by Americans.
2. Dental visits. CSS says to visit your dentist at least once a year. Now, most professionals would say to go twice a year. Some people should go more, and some could get away with less. But as CSS state, "only a dentist or dental hygienist can remove in a satisfactory way all the tartar which has collected on the teeth above the gums and under the gums."
3. Dentist to people ratio. Back in 1935 there were about 62,4000 dentists in the US. That's about one dentist to every 1,900 people. That number is more or less the same now for most industrialized countries.
5. Floss. It is barely mentioned in the CSS chapter, but it is just as, if not more, important for dental health than regular brushing.
4. Cost of dentistry. In 1935, the cost of filling a small cavity, as reported by CSS, was about $3. And it only cost about $15 if the cavity was neglected for some time and the root was exposed. Now, having a cavity filled, according to costhelper.com ranges from $50 to $4,500, depending on the type of filling, and what is included in the pre/post checkups and the filling appointment. If you are lucky to have dental insurance, this shouldn't be a big issue.
But all costs aside, taking care of your teeth by brushing twice a day, flossing, and seeing a dentist more-or-less regularly is a small price to pay for maintain your health.
And I know without doing any research that taking care of your teeth is important for your health. But for your sakes, I will find some real facts to back this up.
Before I get into the health benefits, I want to mention that taking care of your teeth is also important in social settings. Teeth are one of the first things we notice about other people, especially when considering attractiveness. Not everyone likes teeth that are straight or perfect (sometimes a little crookedness or a chip is cute), but most people wont admit to being fans of dirty teeth (and by dirty I mean when you can visibly see a build-up of plaque and tartar, bad breath, food stuck in their teeth, etc...all signs of an unclean mouth). Nice teeth can also be a sign of financial stability; if you have money, you can afford to take care of and fix your teeth. So teeth not only have a function in our health, but also our social perception and interactions.
The Health and Growth Series: Health Knowledge by Charters, Smiley, and Strang, one of the books that I checked out that is part of the health series for children, has a whole section on "Aids to Good Teeth." In this section they talk about what teeth are made of, toothaches, and taking care of your teeth (and gums).
Charters, Smiley, and Strang (CSS) refer to several causes of irregular teeth. The most notable being thumb-sucking. Thumb-sucking has long been known to cause irregular teeth, and it makes sense: if you have your finger in your mouth for the majority of your childhood when your teeth are growing and forming, you are probably going to throw things off a bit. Not to mention children's hands go in dirty places and then into their mouths, which is just kind of gross. Sure there are psychological reasons behind thumb-sucking, but really if your kid is sucking his or her thumb after age 3, you should probably do something about it.
Heredity and enlarged adenoids are also mentioned as reasons for irregular teeth, both of which can affect how teeth grow in or the formation of the jaw. Apparently, enlarged adenoids cause breathing in through the mouth rather than the nose, which can make the mouth narrow "instead of well-developed and roomy."
However, teeth formation aside, one of the most important health-related topics involving teeth has nothing to do with aesthetics, chewing function, or teeth development. The first section on tooth care in the chapter discuss tooth abscesses, which happens when a cavity or toothache is left untreated, the bacteria causes the cavity to go deeper into the tooth, pus forms, and an abscess (or pus pocket) forms. The bacteria from the abscess may continue to reproduce and from here enters into the blood stream. According to basic biology, blood from one part of our body is recycled through the heart and travels to all of our different body parts. Back in CSS's day, the resulting bacterial spread from the tooth abscess "may cause trouble in the heart" and even rheumatism, which is a general term for problems affecting the joints and connective tissue.
Now-a-days it is proven fact that teeth abscesses and subsequent gum disease (or gingivitis, defined by the U.S. National Library of science as inflammation and infection that destroys the tissues that support the teeth, including the gums, the periodontal ligaments, and the tooth sockets (alveolar bone) which is caused by long-term plaque deposits on your teeth) can cause problems in the cardiovascular system.
An article in Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy by Ford et al. (2010) entitled Why should a doctor be interested in oral disease? covers the basics of periodontal disease and its relationship with cardiovascular disease. Ford et al. claim that cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in western society. Risk prevention is one of the easiest ways to proscribe the development of cardiovascular disease, and taking care of your teeth (economic standing and proper materials provided) is one of the easiest preventative measures to take. The authors cite numerous studies and report that individuals with severe and chronic periodontitis have a significantly increased risk in developing atherosclerosis, myocardial infarction, and stroke.
Two main bacteria responsible for common chronic human infections are mentioned as the potential causes of heart disease in relation to gum disease. "Chlamydia pneumoniae [is] a ubiquitous respiratory tract pathogen, and Porphyromonas gingivalis [is] a bacterium involved in chronic periodontal disease." Both pathogens are associated with an increased risk of developing cardiovascular disease and are highly associated with inflammatory cells. However, an epidemiological problem with determining the causation between periodontal disease and cardiovascular disease is that both share the same risk factors such as lifestyle, heredity, and diet.
That being said, monitoring and preventing periodontal disease is an easy process that could potentially lower the risk of cardiovascular disease later in life.
And now for the more silly facts about teeth mentioned in the book:
1. Toothpicks. These sticky little guys are mentioned as causing "mechanical injury" to the teeth. They are to be used "rarely and then with great care." As the Mayo Clinic puts it, toothpicks are for "hors d'oeuvres, not teeth." Also, a fun fact I read on Dentalgentlecare.com: a toothpick is the object most choked on by Americans.
2. Dental visits. CSS says to visit your dentist at least once a year. Now, most professionals would say to go twice a year. Some people should go more, and some could get away with less. But as CSS state, "only a dentist or dental hygienist can remove in a satisfactory way all the tartar which has collected on the teeth above the gums and under the gums."
3. Dentist to people ratio. Back in 1935 there were about 62,4000 dentists in the US. That's about one dentist to every 1,900 people. That number is more or less the same now for most industrialized countries.
5. Floss. It is barely mentioned in the CSS chapter, but it is just as, if not more, important for dental health than regular brushing.
4. Cost of dentistry. In 1935, the cost of filling a small cavity, as reported by CSS, was about $3. And it only cost about $15 if the cavity was neglected for some time and the root was exposed. Now, having a cavity filled, according to costhelper.com ranges from $50 to $4,500, depending on the type of filling, and what is included in the pre/post checkups and the filling appointment. If you are lucky to have dental insurance, this shouldn't be a big issue.
But all costs aside, taking care of your teeth by brushing twice a day, flossing, and seeing a dentist more-or-less regularly is a small price to pay for maintain your health.
Friday, March 15, 2013
Posture, Posture, Posture
Inspiration for this next post again comes from the Health and Growth Series: Adventures in Health by Charters, Smiley and Strang, published in 1935.
The inspiration for this post came from reading the chapter title "He's Straight." Now, in my 21st century-trained eye, seeing the phrase, "He's striaght" immediately made me think gay rights, homosexuality, equality, or actually, since this was published in 1935, I considered homophobia and scientific techniques to turn gay people straight.
Boy was I wrong! There was actually no mention of homosexuality or gayness in this chapter. It was about posture!! Psh, DUH!
So anyway, in 1935, saying someone was straight meant he's honest and you can trust him. And apparently being honest and trustworthy can be further determined by your posture because "people who stand straight usually give the impression of being straight." Well, silly me!
Posture, defined as by my apple dashboard as "a position of a person's body when standing or sitting" actually has a large impact on physical (and mental) health.
CSS start with the advantages of maintaining good posture. For starters, sitting in a confident posture can make you look and feel more confident. An article in the European Journal of Social Psychology supports this claim. The article "Body posture effects on self-evaluation: A self-validation approach" by Briñol et al. (2009) states that the direction of thoughts in subjects during a self-validation analysis was more positive when subjects were sitting in a confident posture (chest pushed out) as compared to a doubtful posture (back curved).
Physically speaking, bad posture has many ill effects on the body.
Poor posture and fatigue share an interesting relationship. Their connection may be causal in both directions: bad posture can lead to fatigue and fatigue can lead to bad posture. I found numerous ergonomics studies involving truck drivers, surgeons, dentists, and even musicians that supported this claim.
More generally, ll the non-academic searches I looked for had the same quote from Nobel Prize winner Dr. Roger Sperry who reports "that the spine is the motor that drives the brain. According to his research, '90% of the stimulation and nutrition to the brain is generated by the movement of the spine.' Only 10% of our brain's energy goes into thinking, metabolism, immunity, and healing. Sperry demonstrated that 90% of brain energy goes into processing and maintaining the body's relationship with gravity (your posture)."
Here is the same quote in 3 different blogs:
Blog #1
Blog #2
Blog #3
The blogs also mention that lung capacity can be decreased by about 30% from poor postures, such as leaning or hunching forward. This can lead to problems oxygenating the blood, which amplifies into many more health issues such as asthmatic conditions, gastrointestinal issues resulting in a lack of nutrient absorption (I will get back to this later), and decreasing endorphin production which affects perception of pain.
Another study from the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society entitled Hyperkyphotic Posture Predicts Mortality in Older Community-Dwelling Men and Women: A Prospective Study by Kado et al. (2004) shows that hyperkyphotic posture (defined as requiring one or more blocks under the occiput to achieve a neutral head position while lying supine) causes a greater rate of mortality. Their study used older male and female subjects. Males are also more prone to hyperkyphotic posture.
CSS mention that "digestive disturbances and failure to gain weight" are related to poor posture. They mention this most likely since it is a children's book, and eating and digestive health are really important in children's development. One study I found about children's health problems and poor posture in the Journal of School Health entitled Prevalence and Risk Factors of Poor Posture in School Children in the Czech Republic (Kratenová, 2007) found that 38.8% of 7, 11, and 15 year old children had poor posture. These children reported headache and pain in their spine more frequently than other children. An interesting finding in the study actually connects CSS's claim of poor posture and failure to gain weight. Out of the children sampled, underweight children (48.5% of the children were categorized as underweight based on their BMI) had higher occurrences of poor posture compared to overweight children (33.6% percent of the children, who had a BMI over the 90th percentile). No other correlational studies were done on this fact, but the authors noted that higher fat tissue may stabilize the spine, thus resulting in better posture. So does poor posture cause a failure to gain weight, as CSS mention, or does obesity prevent poor posture, as Kratenová et al. reported?
I think this is a really interesting concundrum and I would love to look into it further, but no time right now, as its my birthday and I have to go eat some cake, increase my BMI, and therefore protect myself from bad posture and decrease my probability of mortality! Just kidding.
However, before I go, I ill leave you with this take-home message:
Kids, if you want to maintain a healthy weight AND good posture, go walk outside and play (children who played sports had a lower probability of poor posture.)
And adults, try to equip your workspace with ergonomic equipment (eg desk chair, desk height) as to maintain an upright spine and a straight back and decrease your chances of mortality. Or actually, just go out and play too!
Or if that doesn't sound good, just go grab a stack of books, plop it on your head and walk around. (The scientific credibility of this has yet to be looked into in this blog, but you'll look really cool doing it).
The inspiration for this post came from reading the chapter title "He's Straight." Now, in my 21st century-trained eye, seeing the phrase, "He's striaght" immediately made me think gay rights, homosexuality, equality, or actually, since this was published in 1935, I considered homophobia and scientific techniques to turn gay people straight.
Boy was I wrong! There was actually no mention of homosexuality or gayness in this chapter. It was about posture!! Psh, DUH!
So anyway, in 1935, saying someone was straight meant he's honest and you can trust him. And apparently being honest and trustworthy can be further determined by your posture because "people who stand straight usually give the impression of being straight." Well, silly me!
Posture, defined as by my apple dashboard as "a position of a person's body when standing or sitting" actually has a large impact on physical (and mental) health.
CSS start with the advantages of maintaining good posture. For starters, sitting in a confident posture can make you look and feel more confident. An article in the European Journal of Social Psychology supports this claim. The article "Body posture effects on self-evaluation: A self-validation approach" by Briñol et al. (2009) states that the direction of thoughts in subjects during a self-validation analysis was more positive when subjects were sitting in a confident posture (chest pushed out) as compared to a doubtful posture (back curved).
Physically speaking, bad posture has many ill effects on the body.
Poor posture and fatigue share an interesting relationship. Their connection may be causal in both directions: bad posture can lead to fatigue and fatigue can lead to bad posture. I found numerous ergonomics studies involving truck drivers, surgeons, dentists, and even musicians that supported this claim.
More generally, ll the non-academic searches I looked for had the same quote from Nobel Prize winner Dr. Roger Sperry who reports "that the spine is the motor that drives the brain. According to his research, '90% of the stimulation and nutrition to the brain is generated by the movement of the spine.' Only 10% of our brain's energy goes into thinking, metabolism, immunity, and healing. Sperry demonstrated that 90% of brain energy goes into processing and maintaining the body's relationship with gravity (your posture)."
Here is the same quote in 3 different blogs:
Blog #1
Blog #2
Blog #3
The blogs also mention that lung capacity can be decreased by about 30% from poor postures, such as leaning or hunching forward. This can lead to problems oxygenating the blood, which amplifies into many more health issues such as asthmatic conditions, gastrointestinal issues resulting in a lack of nutrient absorption (I will get back to this later), and decreasing endorphin production which affects perception of pain.
Another study from the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society entitled Hyperkyphotic Posture Predicts Mortality in Older Community-Dwelling Men and Women: A Prospective Study by Kado et al. (2004) shows that hyperkyphotic posture (defined as requiring one or more blocks under the occiput to achieve a neutral head position while lying supine) causes a greater rate of mortality. Their study used older male and female subjects. Males are also more prone to hyperkyphotic posture.
CSS mention that "digestive disturbances and failure to gain weight" are related to poor posture. They mention this most likely since it is a children's book, and eating and digestive health are really important in children's development. One study I found about children's health problems and poor posture in the Journal of School Health entitled Prevalence and Risk Factors of Poor Posture in School Children in the Czech Republic (Kratenová, 2007) found that 38.8% of 7, 11, and 15 year old children had poor posture. These children reported headache and pain in their spine more frequently than other children. An interesting finding in the study actually connects CSS's claim of poor posture and failure to gain weight. Out of the children sampled, underweight children (48.5% of the children were categorized as underweight based on their BMI) had higher occurrences of poor posture compared to overweight children (33.6% percent of the children, who had a BMI over the 90th percentile). No other correlational studies were done on this fact, but the authors noted that higher fat tissue may stabilize the spine, thus resulting in better posture. So does poor posture cause a failure to gain weight, as CSS mention, or does obesity prevent poor posture, as Kratenová et al. reported?
I think this is a really interesting concundrum and I would love to look into it further, but no time right now, as its my birthday and I have to go eat some cake, increase my BMI, and therefore protect myself from bad posture and decrease my probability of mortality! Just kidding.
However, before I go, I ill leave you with this take-home message:
Kids, if you want to maintain a healthy weight AND good posture, go walk outside and play (children who played sports had a lower probability of poor posture.)
And adults, try to equip your workspace with ergonomic equipment (eg desk chair, desk height) as to maintain an upright spine and a straight back and decrease your chances of mortality. Or actually, just go out and play too!
Or if that doesn't sound good, just go grab a stack of books, plop it on your head and walk around. (The scientific credibility of this has yet to be looked into in this blog, but you'll look really cool doing it).
Inheritable mental illness?
This post is a relatively touchy subject. I will try to be as politically correct as possible and simply report the facts, and I apologize for any misreading or misinterpretation on the subject.
While thumbing through the Table of Contents in W. Alfred Buice's book Health Science and Health Education (1929) I couldn't help but to stop at the section entitled "Eugenics."
Eugenics. Its just sounds discriminatory right?
Buice mentions that the public is generally misinformed about the purpose of eugenics, and it is "not to produce a race of super-men...but the object is the prevention by society, as far as possible, of the propagation of the physically and mentally defective." But is this something that we can morally control and prevent?
Buice comments that support of "physically and mentally defectives" and institutions for criminally disabled people and "the feeble-minded and insane" cost state and federal governments an exorbitant amount of money. $13,000,000 annually for Wisconsin, 1/4 of New York's state taxes and 100 million dollars for the US government, to be exact (circa 1929).
The sentence that really made my eyes twitch was when Buice said that "it has been shown previously that insanity and mental deficiency are inheritable." He talks about all that the government does to prevent the propagation of these type of people; restricting immigration, marriage licenses, sterilization, etc...
Is "insanity," or mental illness as we refer to it nowadays, inheritable? Can this really be prevented by restricting procreation of people with genes that will cause these 'problems'? Well, that is what I hope to find out in writing this post.
In my first Google search, I found an article from Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry By Peter Conrad from 2001 entitled "Genetic Optimism: Framing genes and mental illness in the news." This article aims to examine the news coverage of genetics and mental illness and the creation and persistence of "genetic optimism." Genetic optimism is described as the outlook which distorts many scientific findings to the public, and Conrad aims to balance the "hype and hope" in news stories connecting genetics and mental illness.
The process that leads to "genetic optimism" is as follows: a gene for the disorder is found to exist, it will be found, and it will be good. This frame became popular in the mid 1980s, and dominated the media that previously (pre the 1980's) reported cautiously on the role of heredity and genetics in mental illness.
Some of the diseases mentioned in the article include schizophrenia, depression, and color blindness, all of which have been shown to be genetically linked. However, we shouldn't read too much into this, because a) environment does play a large role in development of some of these diseases, b) each case is individually different and, c) if we look at these diseases as 'genetic deformities' it can lead to discriminatory and untrue claims. This last theory can be extended to homosexuality, as exemplified in the case of Dean Hamer, who discovered the "gay gene." When extended to other issues, like pre-screening for these diseases in pregnancy, it can cause people to get unwanted abortions if they think their child will inherit 'bad' genes.
Conrad points out that even though a gene exists, or a genetic marker is apparent that can show there is a genetic link for mental illnesses, this does not necessarily lead to successful forms of treatment; a feature that the media may promote. Genetic optimism, as Conrad explains, makes it easier for scientists to get funding, harder for critics to disagree with research findings, and therefore presents an unbalanced story. In addition, many of these studies which ignite genetic optimism cannot be replicated and therefore hold little scientific validity.
Some diseases that have been related to heritability time after time include cystic fibrosis, Huntington's disease and breast cancer. And although genes may play a role in the development of these diseases, it is important not to discount the interaction of genes, the environment's role in gene expression, or the fact that single genes rarely are able to directly impact behavior.
An article in Molecular Psychiatry entitled Gene–environment correlations: a review of the evidence and implications for prevention of mental illness goes over the methodological problems in considering the interaction between genes and the environment and their causal nature in diseases and disorders.
Another article in the same journal, The role of genetic variation in the causation of mental illness: an evolution-informed frameworkGenetic variation in the causation of mental illness by R. Uher suggests that not one theory on the role of genetics is satisfactory in explaining the causes of all mental illnesses, and rather, that these need to be tested on a case-by-case basis based on the type of mental disorder. Moreover, Uher says that common mental illness with mild reproductive disadvantages (depression, anxiety, etc...) are likely to have a large contribution from interaction between genes and the environment, whereas more severe mental disorders (schizophrenia, Down's syndrome, etc...) that confer strong reproductive disadvantages are likely to have a large and varied contribution. In other words, mental illness and heritability is a very complicated situation, and may involve a variety of environmental conditions and interactions with genes that are inherited.
One last article that I will harp on presents some actual facts about heritability of specific diseases. This article comes from Clinical Genetics and is entitled The potential impact of genetic counseling for mental illness by Austin and Honer. According to these guys, mental disorders when compared to other complex disorder are highly heritable. Schizophrenia and bipolar disorder affect about 1% and 1-2% of the population respectively. Schizophrenia has an estimated heritability of 60-85% and bipolar is about 70-85%, which is far higher than for medical illnesses such as breast cancer or heart disease. The article mentions that genetics has uncovered many genes that "seem to play a role in Schizophrenia susceptibility and have been deemed worthy of the label 'schizophrenia genes." The paper then goes on to address some of the concerns with genetic counseling, which goes along with Buice's idea of eugenics and trying to rid the population or prevent the propagation of people born with mental disorders. However, Austin and Honer conclude with the idea that genetic counseling for mental illnesses is just as complicated as trying to identify the genes for the diseases themselves.
In conclusion, I disagree with Mr. Buice's reporting of states that require "all persons proposing marriage shall have medical and mental examinations" or that "those who are mentally defective or who harbor venereal diseases are not permitted to marry." I also don't think I agree that people admitted to institutions for the "insane and feeble-minded shall be sterilized."
Times have a-changed, and although some mental illnesses show heritability, it really isn't as simple as Buice may have originally thought.
While thumbing through the Table of Contents in W. Alfred Buice's book Health Science and Health Education (1929) I couldn't help but to stop at the section entitled "Eugenics."
Eugenics. Its just sounds discriminatory right?
Buice mentions that the public is generally misinformed about the purpose of eugenics, and it is "not to produce a race of super-men...but the object is the prevention by society, as far as possible, of the propagation of the physically and mentally defective." But is this something that we can morally control and prevent?
Buice comments that support of "physically and mentally defectives" and institutions for criminally disabled people and "the feeble-minded and insane" cost state and federal governments an exorbitant amount of money. $13,000,000 annually for Wisconsin, 1/4 of New York's state taxes and 100 million dollars for the US government, to be exact (circa 1929).
The sentence that really made my eyes twitch was when Buice said that "it has been shown previously that insanity and mental deficiency are inheritable." He talks about all that the government does to prevent the propagation of these type of people; restricting immigration, marriage licenses, sterilization, etc...
Is "insanity," or mental illness as we refer to it nowadays, inheritable? Can this really be prevented by restricting procreation of people with genes that will cause these 'problems'? Well, that is what I hope to find out in writing this post.
In my first Google search, I found an article from Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry By Peter Conrad from 2001 entitled "Genetic Optimism: Framing genes and mental illness in the news." This article aims to examine the news coverage of genetics and mental illness and the creation and persistence of "genetic optimism." Genetic optimism is described as the outlook which distorts many scientific findings to the public, and Conrad aims to balance the "hype and hope" in news stories connecting genetics and mental illness.
The process that leads to "genetic optimism" is as follows: a gene for the disorder is found to exist, it will be found, and it will be good. This frame became popular in the mid 1980s, and dominated the media that previously (pre the 1980's) reported cautiously on the role of heredity and genetics in mental illness.
Some of the diseases mentioned in the article include schizophrenia, depression, and color blindness, all of which have been shown to be genetically linked. However, we shouldn't read too much into this, because a) environment does play a large role in development of some of these diseases, b) each case is individually different and, c) if we look at these diseases as 'genetic deformities' it can lead to discriminatory and untrue claims. This last theory can be extended to homosexuality, as exemplified in the case of Dean Hamer, who discovered the "gay gene." When extended to other issues, like pre-screening for these diseases in pregnancy, it can cause people to get unwanted abortions if they think their child will inherit 'bad' genes.
Conrad points out that even though a gene exists, or a genetic marker is apparent that can show there is a genetic link for mental illnesses, this does not necessarily lead to successful forms of treatment; a feature that the media may promote. Genetic optimism, as Conrad explains, makes it easier for scientists to get funding, harder for critics to disagree with research findings, and therefore presents an unbalanced story. In addition, many of these studies which ignite genetic optimism cannot be replicated and therefore hold little scientific validity.
Some diseases that have been related to heritability time after time include cystic fibrosis, Huntington's disease and breast cancer. And although genes may play a role in the development of these diseases, it is important not to discount the interaction of genes, the environment's role in gene expression, or the fact that single genes rarely are able to directly impact behavior.
An article in Molecular Psychiatry entitled Gene–environment correlations: a review of the evidence and implications for prevention of mental illness goes over the methodological problems in considering the interaction between genes and the environment and their causal nature in diseases and disorders.
Another article in the same journal, The role of genetic variation in the causation of mental illness: an evolution-informed frameworkGenetic variation in the causation of mental illness by R. Uher suggests that not one theory on the role of genetics is satisfactory in explaining the causes of all mental illnesses, and rather, that these need to be tested on a case-by-case basis based on the type of mental disorder. Moreover, Uher says that common mental illness with mild reproductive disadvantages (depression, anxiety, etc...) are likely to have a large contribution from interaction between genes and the environment, whereas more severe mental disorders (schizophrenia, Down's syndrome, etc...) that confer strong reproductive disadvantages are likely to have a large and varied contribution. In other words, mental illness and heritability is a very complicated situation, and may involve a variety of environmental conditions and interactions with genes that are inherited.
One last article that I will harp on presents some actual facts about heritability of specific diseases. This article comes from Clinical Genetics and is entitled The potential impact of genetic counseling for mental illness by Austin and Honer. According to these guys, mental disorders when compared to other complex disorder are highly heritable. Schizophrenia and bipolar disorder affect about 1% and 1-2% of the population respectively. Schizophrenia has an estimated heritability of 60-85% and bipolar is about 70-85%, which is far higher than for medical illnesses such as breast cancer or heart disease. The article mentions that genetics has uncovered many genes that "seem to play a role in Schizophrenia susceptibility and have been deemed worthy of the label 'schizophrenia genes." The paper then goes on to address some of the concerns with genetic counseling, which goes along with Buice's idea of eugenics and trying to rid the population or prevent the propagation of people born with mental disorders. However, Austin and Honer conclude with the idea that genetic counseling for mental illnesses is just as complicated as trying to identify the genes for the diseases themselves.
In conclusion, I disagree with Mr. Buice's reporting of states that require "all persons proposing marriage shall have medical and mental examinations" or that "those who are mentally defective or who harbor venereal diseases are not permitted to marry." I also don't think I agree that people admitted to institutions for the "insane and feeble-minded shall be sterilized."
Times have a-changed, and although some mental illnesses show heritability, it really isn't as simple as Buice may have originally thought.
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Veganism
Obviously, there is very little reference to this more recent diet fad/phenomenon (depending on who you talk to) in any of the books I have for this project. However, I found one teeeeeeensy little part in You're the Doctor by Victor Heiser regarding veganism. It might be a little contrived, but stick with me here.
To start, here is the quote from Heiser that ignited this whole post:
To us nowadays, the separation between vegetarian, pescatarian, and vegan is obvious, but back in 1939, the term vegan hadn't even been coined yet. Actually, in looking up the history of veganism, it was hard to separate it from vegetarianism in its early days.
According to an article in TIME from 2008, vegetarianism dates back to early East Asian and Mediterranean cultures, and is first mentioned historically in 500 BCE by Pythagoras (the triangle theory guy, also known as a Greek philosopher). His message, similar to that found in Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism was about the morals of inflicting pain on others, including animals, rather than not eating meat for health reasons. Today, people are vegan for a variety of reasons, which I will get into later.
Heiser mentions vegetarianism when he discusses eating a balanced diet. For example, he says why eat a "bale of hay," (referring to an infinite list of vegetables) to get enough "meat" protein when one can just eat "a thimbleful" of meat. And why eat pounds of meat to get vitamins, when a "few leaves of lettuce will furnish essential salts and minerals." In other words, eat in M-O-D-E-R-A-T-I-O-N. Unless you're a vegan, in which case try to maintain as balanced a diet as possible.
The religious promotion of vegetarianism has some threads in the west, although not nearly as many in the east. Apparently the Ephrata Cloister, a religious group in Pennsylvania advocated vegetarianism (and celibacy, and we know what that can do for your health) after its founding in 1732. The first vegetarian society was formed in 1847 in England and three years later, the Reverend Sylvester Graham (the father of Graham Crackers) co-founded the American vegetarian society, which must have been a big deal since vegetarians probably weren't as plentiful as they are now. Lo and behold, Graham was a Presbyterian minister, and his instructions for a virtuous life included vegetarianism, temperance, abstinence, and frequent bathing. BORING. Except maybe the bathing.
Anyway, vegetarianism must have continued to stick around in the following years (temperance and abstinence not so much...) but veganism wasn't even coined until 1944, when this British guy, Donald Watson, wanted to create a term for people who did not eat dairy or eggs. In his first society newsletter to his 25 followers, he explained that the word should be pronounced "veegan, not veejan." Watson, who died in 1995, actually lived to be 95, so maybe veganism is good for you after all.
Now, to clarify what being vegan means for us. A true vegan doesn't eat any products that come from animals: meat, poultry, fish, dairy, eggs, and fat. They also don't eat honey and avoid using products that are derived from animal products, such as leather, fur, silk, wool, and some cosmetics. The full definition can be found on the vegan website, www.vegan.org. The website claims a vegan lifestyle will benefit animals' lives (true), the environment (true), and our own health (sometimes true).
I can't debate that veganism is a benefit to animals' lives. Thats just obvious, and animal agriculture is a huge resource suck (water and transportation), not to mention what those cow farts do to our ozone layer. However, I don't think being vegan will change the number of animal deaths and the animal industry's effect on the environment that much unless the whole world went vegan. Fat chance.
However, the third point: that being vegan benefits our own health is true in some respects. It is a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol, and therefore can help anyone who is in jeopardy of heart disease. It is also relatively easy to be vegan these days; many restaurants sport vegan menus, our school cafeteria even has a "Meatless Monday"option as well as a variety of vegan cookies, breads, soy-products, and fake dairy things (soy milk being the only one I'm not a little bit wary of).
Full disclosure, I was a vegan once. I tried it out for like 2 weeks. It was awesome. I ate all the bread, rice, pasta and carbs I wanted!*
*Note: I wasn't a true vegan and probably still ate food with animal products (like milk or eggs in baked goods) I just didn't glaringly eat eggs, dairy, and meat. However, I did discover one of my favorite recipes for vegan banana bread, and I still sometimes prefer to bake vegan to lessen fat content and make me feel better about eating half the loaf.
But my version of veganism isn't a healthy vegan diet. Veganism can be healthy (see the articles below) but if you are a vegan and eat only processed grains and minimal vegetables, with no whole grains, legumes, leafy greens, or fats, you will have a hard time leading a healthy lifestyle. The trick to being vegan and succeeding is to make sure you hit all the major vitamins and minerals and food groups available to you. You must maintain a diet consisting of food sources in order to get enough protein, calcium, iron, zinc, and fat from beans, whole grains, nuts, leafy greens, vegetable oils, and fortified food products.
Veganism can be helpful if you have the following conditions or are at risk for these conditions:
According to the literature, if you want to lose weight (A Two-Year Randomized Weight Loss Trial Comparing a Vegan Diet to a More Moderate Low-Fat Diet), have type 2 diabetes (Usefulness of Vegetarian and Vegan Diets for Treating Type 2 Diabetes), are at risk for cardiovascular disease )Vegetarian Dietary Patterns as a Means to Achieve Reduction in Cardiovascular Disease and Diabetes Risk Factors), or just really don't like to kill animals, veganism is for you.
Also if you are at risk for any of the previous mentioned health issues, you don't need to be strictly vegan. You could maintain a mildly vegan lifestlye, without being strictly vegan but moderating your normal diet to eat less red meat and processed fats and focus more on wholesome grains, oils, and fruits and vegetables.
But as a Jew, I have to present this little carrot for thought: what does a vegan do on passover???
Oy, I wouldn't even want to consider it.
So there it is on veganism. And now I'm going to go eat a steak.
To start, here is the quote from Heiser that ignited this whole post:
"They claim they are vegetarians, but in all my travels I have never met a hundred-per-center. Invariably when I ask,
Well Dr. Heiser, you have never met a vegan.'Do you drink milk?''Oh, yes," comes the answer.
'And do you eat eggs?'
'Why, certainly.'
'Then you aren't true vegetarians,' I assure them."
To us nowadays, the separation between vegetarian, pescatarian, and vegan is obvious, but back in 1939, the term vegan hadn't even been coined yet. Actually, in looking up the history of veganism, it was hard to separate it from vegetarianism in its early days.
According to an article in TIME from 2008, vegetarianism dates back to early East Asian and Mediterranean cultures, and is first mentioned historically in 500 BCE by Pythagoras (the triangle theory guy, also known as a Greek philosopher). His message, similar to that found in Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism was about the morals of inflicting pain on others, including animals, rather than not eating meat for health reasons. Today, people are vegan for a variety of reasons, which I will get into later.
Heiser mentions vegetarianism when he discusses eating a balanced diet. For example, he says why eat a "bale of hay," (referring to an infinite list of vegetables) to get enough "meat" protein when one can just eat "a thimbleful" of meat. And why eat pounds of meat to get vitamins, when a "few leaves of lettuce will furnish essential salts and minerals." In other words, eat in M-O-D-E-R-A-T-I-O-N. Unless you're a vegan, in which case try to maintain as balanced a diet as possible.
The religious promotion of vegetarianism has some threads in the west, although not nearly as many in the east. Apparently the Ephrata Cloister, a religious group in Pennsylvania advocated vegetarianism (and celibacy, and we know what that can do for your health) after its founding in 1732. The first vegetarian society was formed in 1847 in England and three years later, the Reverend Sylvester Graham (the father of Graham Crackers) co-founded the American vegetarian society, which must have been a big deal since vegetarians probably weren't as plentiful as they are now. Lo and behold, Graham was a Presbyterian minister, and his instructions for a virtuous life included vegetarianism, temperance, abstinence, and frequent bathing. BORING. Except maybe the bathing.
Anyway, vegetarianism must have continued to stick around in the following years (temperance and abstinence not so much...) but veganism wasn't even coined until 1944, when this British guy, Donald Watson, wanted to create a term for people who did not eat dairy or eggs. In his first society newsletter to his 25 followers, he explained that the word should be pronounced "veegan, not veejan." Watson, who died in 1995, actually lived to be 95, so maybe veganism is good for you after all.
Now, to clarify what being vegan means for us. A true vegan doesn't eat any products that come from animals: meat, poultry, fish, dairy, eggs, and fat. They also don't eat honey and avoid using products that are derived from animal products, such as leather, fur, silk, wool, and some cosmetics. The full definition can be found on the vegan website, www.vegan.org. The website claims a vegan lifestyle will benefit animals' lives (true), the environment (true), and our own health (sometimes true).
I can't debate that veganism is a benefit to animals' lives. Thats just obvious, and animal agriculture is a huge resource suck (water and transportation), not to mention what those cow farts do to our ozone layer. However, I don't think being vegan will change the number of animal deaths and the animal industry's effect on the environment that much unless the whole world went vegan. Fat chance.
However, the third point: that being vegan benefits our own health is true in some respects. It is a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol, and therefore can help anyone who is in jeopardy of heart disease. It is also relatively easy to be vegan these days; many restaurants sport vegan menus, our school cafeteria even has a "Meatless Monday"option as well as a variety of vegan cookies, breads, soy-products, and fake dairy things (soy milk being the only one I'm not a little bit wary of).
Full disclosure, I was a vegan once. I tried it out for like 2 weeks. It was awesome. I ate all the bread, rice, pasta and carbs I wanted!*
*Note: I wasn't a true vegan and probably still ate food with animal products (like milk or eggs in baked goods) I just didn't glaringly eat eggs, dairy, and meat. However, I did discover one of my favorite recipes for vegan banana bread, and I still sometimes prefer to bake vegan to lessen fat content and make me feel better about eating half the loaf.
But my version of veganism isn't a healthy vegan diet. Veganism can be healthy (see the articles below) but if you are a vegan and eat only processed grains and minimal vegetables, with no whole grains, legumes, leafy greens, or fats, you will have a hard time leading a healthy lifestyle. The trick to being vegan and succeeding is to make sure you hit all the major vitamins and minerals and food groups available to you. You must maintain a diet consisting of food sources in order to get enough protein, calcium, iron, zinc, and fat from beans, whole grains, nuts, leafy greens, vegetable oils, and fortified food products.
Veganism can be helpful if you have the following conditions or are at risk for these conditions:
According to the literature, if you want to lose weight (A Two-Year Randomized Weight Loss Trial Comparing a Vegan Diet to a More Moderate Low-Fat Diet), have type 2 diabetes (Usefulness of Vegetarian and Vegan Diets for Treating Type 2 Diabetes), are at risk for cardiovascular disease )Vegetarian Dietary Patterns as a Means to Achieve Reduction in Cardiovascular Disease and Diabetes Risk Factors), or just really don't like to kill animals, veganism is for you.
Also if you are at risk for any of the previous mentioned health issues, you don't need to be strictly vegan. You could maintain a mildly vegan lifestlye, without being strictly vegan but moderating your normal diet to eat less red meat and processed fats and focus more on wholesome grains, oils, and fruits and vegetables.
But as a Jew, I have to present this little carrot for thought: what does a vegan do on passover???
Oy, I wouldn't even want to consider it.
So there it is on veganism. And now I'm going to go eat a steak.
Sunday, March 3, 2013
And So To Bed
This post is from a book with my favorite chapter titles out
of all the books I have checked out… I had such gems to choose from as “Bones,
Flesh, and Dinners,” “A Little Poison Now and Then,” “How Now, Brown Cow,” and
“Where’re I Roam.” The book, by the way, is You’re the Doctor by Victor
Heiser published in 1939. However, I chose to draw from the chapter for which this post is entitled, “And So To Bed,”
because (drumroll please………)! I’ve been having trouble sleeping.
You know those nights when you try to go to bed early and it
just doesn’t work? And when you finally DO go to bed, you wake up at
approximately 3:08 am wiiiiiide awake and “ready or not here I come” to seize
the day? And no matter how much classical music you listen to, sheep you count,
light reading you engage in, and rearranging of pillows, you just don’t fall
back asleep until maybe 2 hours later, at which point you wake up before your
alarm anyway and then just give up?
Well, I do.
And recently, I have been knowing those nights well. So I am going to see what Dr. Victor Heiser,
M.D. has to say on the subject. A little advice from 1939 never hurt
anyone….yet.
Dr. Heiser starts out with what I will call his 1/3
thesis…Life = 1/3 work + 1/3 play + 1/3 sleep. Or it should. Ha. But actually,
according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics “American Time Use Survey, 2011,” The average American is getting about 8, if not more, daily hours of sleep. The BLS reported that the weekday
average for adult sleep is 8.5 hours and the weekend average is a hefty 9.4 hours. Too bad
we can’t all be average. (See table below for stats)
I don’t really believe the Bureau of Labor Statistics (sorry
US government…), so I checked up on some other facts, and according to the
National Sleep Foundation in an article also published in 2011, “About two-thirds (63%) of Americans say their
sleep needs are not being met during the week. Most say they need about seven
and a half hours of sleep to feel their best, but report getting about six
hours and 55 minutes of sleep on average weeknights. About 15% of adults
between 19 and 64 and 7% of 13-18 year olds say they sleep less than six hours
on weeknights.” So who do we believe? Personally, from what I observe and hear from those around me, I will say that the National Sleep Foundation is more correct and the BLS may be slightly disillusioned on how much Americans actually sleep. But you, dear reader, can form your own opinion.
And now back to the all-knowing Dr.
Heiser:
According to this dude,
sleep is necessary for a variety of reasons as explained by a couple theories. Some of the
more notable ones include...
- During the day acid products accumulate which bring oxygen starvation (how sleep helps this I am not sure…)
- Circulatory: pulsebeats are observable in the hand of a sleeper, but are not there when he is awake (so you need to sleep to make sure you have a pulse...?)
- Connections with the dark (no explanation offered here)
- The neuron theory: “according to which impulses to the brain are automatically cut off” (How this would be beneficial, I also do not understand.)
I don't know about the first three, and I think I will propose a neural theory of my own. Well, actually, its from an NPR report, but whose checking...
Sleep is actually necessary for a
variety of vital bodily functions. The most notable neural need for sleep is in forming and consolidating memory. This specific piece, "The Science of Slumber”, featured on Science Friday
(believe-it-or-not my favorite NPR show) discusses the correlation and
possible causal relationship between declining sleep with age and declining
memory with age. However, if we follow the table above from the BLS exactly and follow this correlation logic from NPR, our
memories should actually decline and then improve again…but I wont get into
that, since that's probably not how it works.
One of the featured specialists on the show, Robert Stickgold, says that sleep is involved in many functions; immunity, endocrine
regulation, and memory. He says that “memory is the only one we've come up
with that has a strong argument of why you have to become so disconnected from
the rest of the world.” Sleep is important in the consolidation of memory, so when short-term memories are encoded as long-term memories, a process which takes place in the hippocampus. The piece also
mentions that humans put too much symbolism on physical processes; we want to- we have to know why certain processes happen, for example, sleep. He uses the analogy
of a tiger; the tiger sleeps just like the human, and he sleeps so he can be faster than the antelope,
so he can attack it and eat it. Basically, sleep is involved in many
functions for all animals: physiological, developmental, learning, and
attention, immunity, dealing with stress, etc…
*Funny fact: I listened to this NPR show last night when I
was actually having trouble sleeping in an attempt to help me go back to sleep.
Too bad I thought it was really interesting and therefore failed in my attempt
to go back to sleep, but at least you all got a good reference out of it! It is a really fantastic and
interesting segment, and I suggest everyone listens to it when they have the
time (maybe next time you can’t sleep…)
Anyway, the last point I will harp on goes back to that
article I mentioned earlier by the National Sleep Foundation about technology
use and sleep. This article mentions the
many distraction in our daily lives that prevent us from sleeping or lead to troubled sleep: watching TV before bed, cell phones,
computers, basically any technology use before bed, especially technology that
is active (like surfing the internet or playing video games).
The article offers suggestions that will help if you are
having sleep problems: avoid large meals before bedtime, exercise regularly, create a
comfortable sleeping environment free from distractions, no nightcaps, and many
more...
Heiser offers some similar suggestions of his own: right
before bed listen to quiet music rather than swing, the physical effort of
walking is more calming than the mental strain of driving a car in traffic,
read rather than playing bridge before bedtime, and don’t play chess in the evening.
Thats all folks! G'night.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Brain Power Part II
Last time I
ranted all about physical activity and the brain; now I want to focus
more on what people put in their bodies and how it affects the brain and what
kinds/how many of these nutrients people need to keep their brains
running. Or thinking.
Meredith sings
to my moderation song when she says that it is not necessary to eat any special
foods to enhance brain power, but mainly to eat a balanced diet. For the facts I use in this post to both support and refute
Meredith, I cite an article from Scientific American by Jerris Fabr from 2012.
Meredith and Fabr both agree that the “brain worker” (in Meredith’s words)
needs little more food than if he were to have "one very lazy day of no activity" (in Fabr's words). The brain already requires a huge amount of blood,
oxygen, and nutrients (mainly glucose) to function, and extra mental effort (ie
thinking) requires little more energy consumption than this already huge baseline. According to Fabr, the brain, which only
weights 2% of our body weight (on average) requires about 20% of our resting
metabolic rate (RMR) which is the total energy our bodies expend even if we are just sitting on our tush playing video games (in my words). In an average human, this is about 1,300 calories. Awesome right? We
burn calories even when we’re not doing ANYTHING.
So, what should we put into our bodies exactly to keep this giant energy and calorie suck functioning?
Meredith says
that “clinically it is evident that if a faulty diet (or other causes) lowers
the percentage of sugar in the blood the brain is impaired in its functions.”
However, according to Fabr, it really isn’t as simple as direct logic of if A
then B, in regards to putting sugar into our brain and therefore having it function properly and efficiently. Working harder and using more
glucose before expending more than normal brain energy or mental effort may not
actually impair brain function. In one study cited, it is noted that the brain
requires so much baseline energy and is constantly maintaining a complicated
balance of nutrients and neuronal maintenance, that the brain has enough energy
already to add a little extra work (even if that work is in the form of your really really really dense philosophy reading).
Relating this to
the workout ideas from the previous post, one study showed that children who
walked for 20 minutes on a treadmill performed better on an academic
achievement test compared to children who read quietly before the exam. I wont get into the physical benefits of the workout for the treadmill group, but in terms of glucose, the children walking were using more energy,
and therefore burning more glucose, so if mental ability was a matter of
increased vs. decreased glucose, the children who expended more energy before
the test should have performed worse. Although individual differences are
obviously a factor, the simple idea that more or less available glucose affects
mental effort is not necessarily correct.
Physical
symptoms, however can affect our ability and efficiency in studying. A huge
part of mental exhaustion and fatigue, especially during taking important,
stressful tests, like the SAT, is caused by physical stress (measured by
increased cortisol and heart rate). Diet also physically affects mental ability, and if one were to eat a diet that makes him or her physically feel unwell (like if you had a stomach ache from eating bad chicken tenders),
or does not contain proper nutrients (you only eat potatoes), this will surely affect concentration and focus, if not in the short term, than in the long term.
If you are
hungry (or tired, or have any other form of physical ailment) while trying to study, you wont be able to study as
efficiently. This is probably not only due to lack of nutrition or proper health, but distraction. Sometimes, it really is just a mental thing: you are distracted by paying attention, focusing mental effort, fixating, etc. on your physical symptoms rather than the homework in front of you. Or, you are simply looking for an excuse not to continue studying. Being more aware of your grumbling tummy or closing eye lids is probably why you can't study, rather than your brain
being completely depleted of nutrients and physically unable to carry on. Because if that were you case, you would probably be dead.
In terms of
food, one of my favorite topics is “brain foods.” Fish is brain food! Eating nuts will help you think better. Avocados will make you a genius! Well...not really. These claims mainly exist because these foods have
nutrients that the body and brain need to continue normal functioning. Although food obviously affects and plays an important
role in body functions, including brain functions, don’t expect that eating
walnuts, olive oil, berries, fish, coffee, leafy greens, avocadoes, chocolate,
and garlic (according to the Huffington Post) will make you smarter or able to
concentrate way better than normal.
Basically, these foods contain omega-3 fatty acids (“good fat”),
antioxidants, zinc, vitamin E, and a whole host of other nutrients that are
important for all types of body functioning.
What you should really do is eat in moderation; make sure these foods are a part of your healthy,
balanced, and nutritious diet most of the time, and I think you’ll be okay. In other words, making a walnut, avocado, and spinach sandwich, washing it down with a latte and expecting to turn into a super-dee-duper braniac is not really how it works.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)