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!
Sunday, March 31, 2013
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)