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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)