I started writing this post pre European Union (EU) Referendum, and I never intended it to become linked. However, after Brexit brought about a surge of nationalism that allowed casual racism and xenophobia to rear its ugly head, I realised things really haven't changed that much in regard to our love of eugenics, although we now prefer to call it plain old genetics. It was also the biggest factor in my desire to remain in the EU, before you say it, I know I know, not every leave voter is/was racist. I just happen to have spoken with a great number of individuals who can't put forward any other reason, except "keeping them out", "we've got to look after our own" etc. Their were some who claimed that we had a bad deal (most couldn't specify why), but now we have no deal and a great deal of unknown till we find out exactly what the new deal is. Lot of deals there, but thats the way it is, and I'd be willing to place a bet on our deal being somewhat worse than we intend to leave behind. We'll no doubt still have the immigrants that upset Nigel, but what about the things we stand to lose? 

In the 1880s Sir Francis Galton concluded after studying the upper classes that their social standing and superior prospects were due to better genetics in comparison to those less socially able, otherwise known as the poor, the disabled, minority groups etc.[1] And so began Eugenics, in which proponents believed that selective breeding would improve the genetic qualities of the human race. If you haven't already thought it, yes it does sound pretty similar to Hitlers Nazi ideology, and for good reason.

Eugenics became an international movement founded on genetics, social theory and policy prescription. And right here in the United Kingdom we were at the forefront, however it soon spread to Germany, France, in fact most European countries, as well as the good old United States. From programs aimed at encouraging those considered "fit" to reproduce, through to marriage prohibition and even the sterilisation of those undesirable types with mental or physical disabilities, and naturally minority groups classed unfit to reproduce. That this seems strikingly similar to the Nazi eugenics program shouldn't surprise you. Indeed, those that attempted to defend themselves at the Nuremberg trials, tried to do so under the justification that Nazi eugenics policy was basically identical to the US programs.[2]

Following the war, the subsequent institution of human rights policies meant a was a gradual decline in the oh so blatent eugenics policies, although some states within the US continued a policy of sterilisation well in to the 1960s. Yet the modern world currently seems tainted by Eugenics, which has recently been amplified by the "send the buggers" back attitude as our nation, (or 52% of them) seemingly attempts to protect the race of "our" island. All this whilst completely ignoring our colonial past. Cries of make Britain great again completely ignores our previous convictions for empire building. Indeed, it is entirely plausible that the Great in Great Britain refers to our occupation of territories such as British India.

As we step out of the European Union (or at least shuffle towards the door having been abandoned by the two rats that conned a nation), it is becoming increasingly clear that the leave vote, was frequently more of a vote to seal up the borders. To protect 'our' national identity, in effect, keep 'them' out, and maintain our (allegedly) superior race. We're losing the empire that we once acquired, colonised or whatever other tag you wish to apply to our imperial reputation. Having plundered our way around the globe, now is the time to batten down the hatches before we suffer the same consequences. At it's height our British Empire consisted of a fifth of the global population and a quarter of all land, we were quite a force to be reckoned with. Yet despite millions of deaths due to famine, brutal detention camps, the massacres of civilians, 44 per cent of a YouGov Poll were proud of our colonial past, even David Cameron thinks it should be celebrated.[3] This blinkered view if our history, coupled with the fear purported by Murdock et al, that another race may do as we did, seems to be driving a huge surge of nationalism around the country. I know, it is good to be proud of your country, just maybe not when you want to block anyone that hasn't popped out of a Vagina in the right part of the globe, or to anyone rich enough. It may seem far fetched, but the Nazi campaign was founded upon Nationalism and Economic downturn...and where are we right now? A hate fuelled rhetoric led by Boris and Nige fuelling far right groups and facing more austerity and cuts for the lower classes. 

So, what is the selection criteria for entry to our imperial island? How do we select whom the superior immigrants are? Do we perform a medical examination? Will it be genetic based? Education? Career prospects? Wealth? Or any other number of methods for selecting who is desirable, whilst avoiding those who may not fit our criteria. Sounding much like the Third Reich yet?

As Bertrand Russell was quoted as saying in 1924; 

‘We may perhaps assume that, if people grow less superstitious, government will acquire the right to sterilise those who are not considered desirable as parents.’

Not the Bertrand Russell quotes that your used to I'd imagine, but it just goes to highlight how accepted eugenics had become.

Whilst our government is currently unable to implement such measures, due to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, they are able to do it much more slyly. Take for instance the government’s decision to limit a family’s child tax credits to two children, aimed at dissuading reproduction from those less attractive socio-economic groups. Their is however a clause that allows further payment if the child is the result of a rape (nice bonus touch government). And most of us happily accept this, maybe even nod our head in agreement, "why should we support those who can't afford it", and to some degree you may have a point. Yet it doesn't change the fact that it is a soft way of ensuring those with money can reproduce more easily than those from poor backgrounds

From the other side we are seeing IVF technology advancing to a stage in which we are able to screen for inherited diseases. Sounds great, but calls are afoot for the ability to choose your child right down to the sex or hair colour. Will it be the dystopian social groups that get to avoid the game of chance? The ruling class, those with money, power and elite status will no doubt be able to afford the ability to tinker with procreation. So whilst the elite will be able to ensure that they select preferable genetics, the lower classes will no doubt suffer testing for birth defects [5] and be meekly ushered towards the abortion pamphlets.

As Boris shuffled rather uncomfortably away from Number 10, we must remember that the man he seemed intent on modelling himself on, Sir Winston Churchill (the then Home Secretary), urged the Prime Minister of his day to stop the “multiplication of the unfit”, and we can start to see how close modern policy comes to our haunted past.

​As we snear at those immigrants for "coming over here and taking our benefits" we must turn to Dr Adam Perkins, a lecturer in the neurobiology of personality at King’s College London. Perkins is a social scientist that studies and no doubt holds the image of benefit Britain close to his heart. His academic research (if its possible to call it that) has looked at welfare traits and found that these traits are often inherited through generations, which in his mind helps explain why poverty has a tendency to be passed down from one generation to the next.

His argument rests upon the rise in welfare spending creating a burden upon the rest of us, and by allowing the birth of individuals with inherited laziness, propensity to commit crime, become alcoholics, abuse drugs etc society is further damaged. His remedy is for welfare restrictions to inhibit reproduction, ensuring decent hardworking human stock is allowed to prosper whilst the poor are phased out. Heil.

Perkins work is a complete fantasy, in all honesty he is simply a eugenist, [5] he considers that benefit payments should be restricted until "workless" households lower their birth rates is a Daily Mail dream. Yet his data is sloppy at best, more likely deceptive. His claims that ‘the higher the proportion of unemployed adults in a household, the greater the number of children – on average – it contains', only works if you exclude childless households. I mean I would of won more competitions this year, if you ignore the data from those that I didn't win. If you want to be so bold, you really need to include the full data. The whole thing stinks.

Howwever, that is forgetting one other thing. Genetics research is generally a total crock of %*$@. A $2.7 million crock of %*$@.[6] On that note, we refer to the bastion of knowledge that is Dr. Raymond Peat;

What this is basically saying, (for those who may need to reread Ray's words a few more times for it to sink in) is that life isn't some random genetic game of chance. Your destiny isn't specifically controlled by your genes, rather your genes adapt to your environment and can so do both ways. That your diet and lifestyle effect what happens, eat too much polyunsaturated fatty acids and bingo you may get diabetes. Eradicate the fat and reintroduce sugars, bingo bango, through the magic that is the Randle Cycle you can become undiabetic (a term suggested by one of my clients diabetes nurses, who claimed that he was genetically susceptible to "the diabetes", and that it couldn't be reversed). Do you really have bad genes? Or are they just being fed bad information? Yes we are born with inherited genes, but epiigenetics shows that genes can be turned on and off and that environmental issues such as poor diet, stress etc will affect us. If it were predetermined by our genes, nothing you do would matter. Yet it is evident all around you that people can adapt. We define our genes and shouldn't be defined by them, (unless you subscribe to genetic determinism, then good luck to you), via adequote nutrition, a life purpose, equality, a place in society and by feeling valued, we can effect our outcomes. If someone is forcing our hand through genetic beliefs, social theory and policy prescription this becomes increasingly hard.

So, what does this have to do with our recent EU referendum? Well, EU Charter of Fundamental Rights states;

"(b) the prohibition of eugenic practices, in particular those aiming at the selection of persons;
(c)
the prohibition on making the human body and its parts as such a source of financial gain;
(d)
the prohibition of the reproductive cloning of human beings." [8]

And post-referendum we must ensure these protections stay in place.

While sperm banks boast about screening for everything from autism to red hair [9], and you can pay to select your embryo or its sex. We futher attempt to hold the poor back by means of high education costs (£9000+ for University fees), criminalise those self medicating with drugs, classify them as addicts, restrict welfare despite promoting tax cuts for high earners and corporate welfare, attempt to ban those with different pigmentation or race. The implementation of various nutritional programs (the promotion of polyunsaturated fats, low calorie RDA etc).

For the public, at lot of this has been about race, yet we must remember that the biological differences between us all or practically unmeasurable. Colour cannot be seen by the human eye, it takes the brain to decide what you see.[10] And if that is the case, that means that that ideology about maintaining our imperial whiteness is a learned behaviour. And, much like your genes can adapt both ways, so can you. You can learn that no matter where on the globe someone is born, we are all fundamentally the same. For the race to prosper we need unity and togetherness. Post Brexit I think for the safety of all involved it would be wiser to keep these fundamental rights to life.

References;

1. Sir Francis Galton - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Galton - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Galton

2. Nazi eugenics history - http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1796​

3. British people are proud of colonialism. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/british-people-are-proud-of-colonialism-and-the-british-empire-poll-finds-a6821206.html
​
4. Birth defects can be diagnosed during pregnancy or after the baby is born, depending on the specific type of birth defect. http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/diagnosis.html​x.

5. Mr Perkins’ Welfare Traits http://londoninvestigates.uk/?p=669

6. The failure of the genome https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/apr/17/human-genome-genetics-twin-studies

​7. Peat, R. Genes, Carbon Dioxide and Adaptation http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/genes-carbon-dioxide-adaptation.shtml

8. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A12012P%2FTXT

9. Sperm bank turns down redheads http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/8768598/Sperm-bank-turns-down-redheads.html
​
10. Our brains, not eyes, see colour ​http://thefutureofthings.com/4180-our-brains-not-eyes-see-color/

I am going to go out on a limb and wager that you have arrived at this post hoping for the 8 top tips for burning fat. If you are looking for quick wins – what I call a ‘buy now, pay later’ approach to health, then you are probably better off redirecting your browser to menshealth.com, getshredded.net, or whatever sites are perpetuating the idea that burning fat is the best way to get lean. 
 
Back in the day, (I'm talking the late 90's) I first stumbled upon a dreadmill under the guidance of a gym instructor called Andy. After a short period of getting to know my new gym programme, I realised it was pretty much the same as every other members. And like the others, I noticed that the results didn't match my expectations. So, I set about my now infamous year of exercise experiment.
 
You may think that I have always been motivated to research and disprove things prior to engaging in them.  You'd be wrong, I came from a sports background, and in the land of sports you do as everyone has done before you. Whilst riding for Team GB I ate pasta like I was advised, and drank random drinks like a good little athlete. However, when I had a crash and injured my knee (someone crashed into my car), my weight gradually crept up and my knee began to deteriorate rapidly, (at this point I was only in my early 20's) so I did what everyone else does...I joined a gym to get fit. This was the beginning of my now famous n=1 experiments.

N=1 is a single subject experiment in which the lone participant (me in this case) is the sole unit of observation. The two things ideally needed are;

• Randomisation
• Repeated measures.

 
The randomisation came from asking a member at the gym to pull 4 sealed options out of a hat;

1. Cardio
2. Resistance Exercise
3. Cardio first followed by Resistance
4. Resistance first followed by cardio

 
The repeated measures simply came from repeating each option more than once to try and replicate the result.
 
Now let me make this implicitly clear, back in those days I had begun work as an Engineer at Rolls Royce. I approached this in a methodical way and not as a true scientist (although science isn’t as rigorous as it should be these days), so do not take this as gold standard research.
 
Despite criticism of n1 studies (such as you need a large group), I still believe to this day we all should to some degree, utilise n1 self experimentation as a strategy for individualising our own healthcare. As opposed to relying upon an authoritarian doctrine that is aimed at the masses. (1)

I find it very easy to commit to the discipline necessary to ensure as thorough experiment as possible, I can partly thank my ASD for that. In all I spent over a year (every single day, even Christmas day as it was a hotel gym, and such was my commitment to the cause) working through the process to conclude which worked best for me. I spent 4 hours a day at the gym (motivated by the experiment and by the hope that I'd regain my health enough to compete properly again).
 
Admittedly I didn't record it as well as I would if I were to redo it (not a chance in hell), but at the end of the period I was 4lbs lighter overall with little difference between the options in terms of results (in fact no noticeable difference). You could conclude (as the gym instructor tried to tell me), that muscle weighs more than fat, only I wasn't more muscular. You could argue that I was a little less flabby but I was fat (my mum called me chunky).
 
This led to the almost famous (it may not be Paris Hilton status but its been widely discussed in some forums on the net, and I did get known as the 6000 calorie diet man for a short period) n=1 diet experiment. I’ve already blogged about this here The No Diet Diet

Ray Peat Forum

180 Degree

Marks Daily Apple

It’s pretty weird to read about yourself online (I only found the top two today whilst searching for some others that I already knew of) and when reading about the 6k calories a day experiment and some of the comments about it, it makes me really concur with Ray Peat when he talks about the importance of taking things in context. Anyway, I digress (I do a lot of that).
 
So, back to the exercise. I was always curious about those heart rate target zones on treadmills. The guidance on the machines basically stated that low level activity, keeping your heart rate closer to 'normal' was the fat burning zone, and as you progress further away to the higher heart rate zones, you are looking at performance benefits and not fat burning, so probably more for athletes. 
 
Using fat, particularly in a gym was seen as the more desirable option, in fact it was the only option. The vast majority of people going to the gym are there for the specific purpose of burning fat. So why would anyone go there and want to use glucose as fuel?  That there was a vending machine selling energy drinks seemed laughable, seeing as it was the antithesis of what people are in the gym to do...this was a serious business and fat was and is the fuel of choice in most commercial gyms.

However this troubled me from the very beginning, and all my studying up until that point (still relatively little compared to now) showed me that glucose was the body’s preferred fuel for anything more strenuous than rest. Lay in bed and you can use lipolysis, in which fats are broken down to release fatty acids for fuel. (Click this link for a little more detail on which tissues prefer which fuel) During a resting state, 85% of your muscles fuel needs are met by fatty acid catabolism, as you move away from resting state this percentage progressively decreases. I just couldn't understand why why everyone was (and still are) completing such punishing exercise regimes with such a fearsome intensity. Why when it was clear that fat was used as low intensity fuel, did they push themselves so hard? Even the gym machines hinted at this very fact...

The reason is simple (although not entirely sensible).  In our quest for lean, the overriding desire is to deplete yourself of glycogen (stored form of glucose) on the basis that the body will then utilise fat instead. The great uneducated who are busy making a lot of dosh, peddling this science fiction and giving people a fast track to ill health say that this can be achieved even quicker by following a low carb diet, by training before breakfast (fasted training) or by consistently performing hard exercise that depletes glycogen stores. However the trade-off of this is that you will degrade your cellular respiration (especially if you are one of the endurance sports victims, I mean athletes). If you want to be fat burner whilst working in those higher zones (70% upwards) then you are going to need some metabolic adaption. I personally think your best place to burn fat is during the night when your asleep and able to maintain a resting state for a long period.
 
To understand your body and how it works, a little better, I’m going to science for a bit, I’m attempting to keep it relatively simple, but it is a fairly complex topic, for slightly more detail please follow this cellular respiration link.  Bear with me, it will be worth it as you will get to know your body better and in turn will not have to listen to the nonsense being peddled by various body coaches and personal drainers.

Cellular respiration is a three step process of how you generate energy, that very same energy that you'll use whilst training. In fact it happens to be the very same energy you'll use for everything your cells need to do, so its pretty important. Sadly it is ignored by most diet specialists who seem intent on blocking your ability to generate energy properly.

Glycolysis occurs within the cell and can occur with or without Oxygen (O2), meaning it can happen if you are sat down relaxing or doing CrossFit.

​It yields two Adenosine triphosphate (ATP).

The Citric Acid Cycle (or Krebs Cycle) occurs within the inner mitochondrial matrix, and is an aerobic process that can only work in the presence of O2. So if you're sat down relaxing it can still work, but, If you're getting out of breath during the Race for Life then it can't. If you remain able to ventilate well you've just got yourself another two ATP.​

The electron transport chain occurs within the mitochondria and is the most important and final stage of cellular respiration. The two stages were preparing for this part. Here our yield of ATP increases to 34 and yet again, oxygen must be present. So, you can see oxygen seems to be key, and without its presence you get stuck in glycolysis which yields much less ATP (energy).

Glucose and oxygen are both essential and hugely anti-stress, so in an ideal world we need to ensure that our body has easy access to both. These are foundational needs,no point in putting in fancy wallpaper in a house that is crumbling into the ground.  The same is true of your body, you need to get the basics right first before you try and do anything else. 
 
Unfortunately we live in a world where it is hipster to restrict both things in the belief that you can biohack yourself to a better body and life.As such what we commonly see in those that produce energy inefficiently via glycolysis, is an Increase in the blood levels of adrenaline, cortisol, and lactate (aka stress hormones) and issues with sugar and insulin regulation.

These are common issues that I see on a daily basis in those displaying symptoms such as diabetes, obesity, cancer, and general degeneration/ageing. These victims, I mean people, also tend to have a decreased respiratory quotient, which means they exhale less carbon dioxide on either my capnograph or my indirect calorimeter (used to measure resting metabolic rate). Measure any of these against a small child and you'll typically see that ageing and disease (along with obesity) correlates with a switch to using fats (free fatty acids to be exact) for fuel instead of glucose. You also tend to see alterations in body temp and pulse, but we've discussed that many times before and will again in the future – but just for a quick reference, body temperature and pulse tend to decline too.
 
What does all this translate to?  Well, in the absence of oxygen (such as when you go against the clock at CrassFit, or take part in the Race for Life (an ironic name if ever there was one), you push yourself into a hypoxic state (i.e. you starve yourself of O2, effectively strangling your cells) as you pant for breath. This causes a stress state, which your body helpfully responds to with adrenaline (and later cortisol), to assist in the hunt for energy.  The adrenaline liberates free fatty acids and tissue into your blood supply to use as fuel. Hurray, you've now achieved your goal, you're a fat burner.  But quite probably not in the way you want to be.
 
This is because the utilisation of free fatty acids (fat burning) does have some major drawbacks.  Firstly, less carbon dioxide is produced, and as I mentioned earlier, CO2 is a diagnostic measure of resting metabolic rate. So right away the evidence is building that breathless exercise is tanking your metabolism (because it is using fat as a fuel, rather than glucose, the same as when you do ‘low carb’). Sure we've all heard the stories that exercise boosts your metabolism, and yeah it does produce that effect temporarily, but as Dr. Peat once said, a better way to achieve that would be a warm bath. I recognise that this doesn’t make for such an interesting Facebook status but its better for you in the long run. 

Another factor in this temporary increase of ‘buy now, pay later’ metaboism is the previously mentioned increased adrenaline levels which stimulates metabolism via the stress reaction. Do you want to rely on stress to keep your metabolism raised? Believe or not, some people do attempt it. Some people are living with the consequences of doing exactly  – Sarah is a prime example, trashed her body with years of dieting and stress and now has an inflammatory bowel condition, more about that another time.
 
Anyway, back to the CO2. Without it you would really struggle to use glucose and oxygen properly. Think of middle to long distance runners and long distance cyclists, they are a group known for training at altitude, where CO2 concentrations are higher which aids recovery and performance. They're also prone to a little EPO (erythropoietin), but that is a whole different story. Dr. Brown who has been used by Nike athletes, is infamous for diagnosing sub-clinical hypothyroidism in athletes, which is is a funny coincidence seeing that you also need adequate thyroid hormone to produce CO2. (As a side note, it is always worth paying attention to the methods athletes will use to both enhance performance and protect their health, such as Maria Sharapova who was recently caught using a drug called Mildronate/Mildonium, which basically aims to help you maintain cellular respiration, something that you can do yourself if you stop participating in endurance exercise and maintain an adequate supply of energy.

The more you use fatty acids, the more you damage the cell and prevent it from being able to generate energy via the three steps mentioned above. This is again a factor in sport, as it takes time for an endurance athlete to adapt and become proficient in performing using free fatty acids rather than glucose. As such, it usually takes till 30+ before these athletes start peaking. And one of the things they train for, is to increase their lactate threshold (more on lactate/lactic acid another time). 
 
Similarly, in the average dieter/gym user it takes a while to adapt, but given the right environment (limit sugars, limit calories, increase exercise, use unsaturated fats, increase protein intake by way of protein shakes and millions of egg whites) by the time you're an adult then you should be doing a fantastic job of slowing things down and becoming that beast that is the hangry FAT BURNER (by now, Im hoping that you are coming to the realisation that the FB (Fat Burner) promise isn’t all it is cracked up to be!) 

Philip Randle, Peter Garland, Nick Hales, and Eric Newsholme proposed what became known as the Randle Cycle in 1963 (2), in which they proposed that a glucose-fatty acid cycle described the competition for fuel selection, specifically between that of glucose and fatty acids. Randle et al were able to identify that one nutrient was able to inhibit the other (3). In short they identified the biochemical mechanism by which fatty acids inhibits the use of glucose and the route which any number of Instanity, Zumba, CrossFit Wodders and numerous others wish to live their days, in an adapted state in which they assume a higher moral ground whilst living sub-standardly. That the randle cycle provides a highly plausible explanation of diabetes pathophysiology, in which energy metabolism becomes dysfunctional, makes you wonder why any Paleoer that can read would aspire to “fatty acid syndrome”. The inhibition of glucose by fatty acids blocks the cells ability to use glucose, which does look pretty damn similar to the description of diabetes, in which the ability for insulin to enable glucose uptake by muscle is inhibited.

Why though would glucose be spared by the body if it is the preferential fuel? Simple, the act of depriving the cell of glucose, such as in a fasted state (hello all you pre breakfast trainers), activates lipolysis and the inhibition of glucose oxidation provides a glucose-sparing effect that works as an essential survival mechanism for the brain during starvation. Yes thats right...fasted training means nothing more than starving yourself and having to use a survival mechanism to assist.   It’s the physiological equivalent of driving on the spare wheel.
 
You may claim you don't get breathless (and this may well be true, but that could just mean that you’re hyperventilating at rest), and that you don't starve yourself on your high protein, high fat, low carbohydrate diet. Yet exercise and a high fat intake have been shown to inhibit glucose use. The unoxidised glucose is even rerouted to glycogen which correlates nicely with the increase of glycogen evident in the muscles of those suffering both diabetes and starvation ​ (2).

“The antagonism between fat and sugar that Randle described can involve the suppression of sugar oxidation when the concentration of fats in the bloodstream is increased by eating fatty food, or by releasing fats from the tissues by lipolysis, but it can also involve the suppression of fat oxidation by inhibiting the release of fatty acids from the tissues, when a sufficient amount of sugar is eaten.” ~ Dr. Ray Peat 

Woah whoa whoa, so you mean to tell me that there is a way of halting this cell damage by simply eating glucose? (4), and it’s never too late to abandon the "lifestyle" and return to so called "dirty eating" aka being functionally nourished and happy?

The inhibition of lipolysis freaks people out, we have been conditioned to believe that we need to burn fats, by people who are making a living out of not understanding basic biology.  It never made sense to me to force our bodies into any state. From my initial days of study as a PT, restoration of metabolism always seemed logical and safe. Would you force a baby to eat fried bacon and bulletproof coffee, with a side of boiled egg whites, to put it into a fatty acid state? I certainly hope not. 
 
We can never use just one fuel, some tissues will prefer fats and some glucose. And so the best thing to do is to give the body a mix of both and then it has everything available at its disposal.  Simples. 

1. Lillie EO, Patay B, Diamant, Issell B, Topol EJ, & Schork NJ. The n-of-1 clinical trial: the ultimate strategy for individualizing medicine? Per Med. 8(2): 161–173, 2012 

2. Randle PJ, Garland PB, Hales CN, & Newsholme EA. The glucose fatty-acid cycle. Its role in insulin sensitivity and the metabolic disturbances of diabetes mellitus. Lancet 1: 785–789, 1963.

3. Randle PJ, Newsholme EA, Garland PB. Regulation of glucose uptake by muscle. 8. Effects of fatty acids, ketone bodies and pyruvate, and of alloxan-diabetes and starvation, on the uptake and metabolic fate of glucose in rat heart and diaphragm muscles. Biochem J 93: 652–665, 1964.

4. Taegtmeyer H, Hems R, Krebs HA. Utilization of energy providing substrates in the isolated working rat heart. Biochem J 186: 701–711, 1980.

​C6H12O6 + 6O2 --> 6 CO2 + 6H2O + 38 ATP may or may not make much sense to you, but the equation is basically cellular respiration.

You may not even know what cellular respiration (CR) is, but that will hopefully become a little clearer. This is a fairly basic post aimed at non science based readers so please take that in to account.

CR is a three step process of how you generate energy, that very same energy that you use whilst training, or indeed resting. It happens to be the very same energy you'll use for everything, so its pretty important. Sadly it is currently ignored by most diet specialists who seem intent on in inhibiting its function. If the full process is allowed to occur, we can generate the most available energy from each molecule of glucose that we consume.
 
1. Glycolysis
Glycolysis occurs in the cytoplasm (the internal sub-structures of the cell) and in total is a 10 step process that converts each molecule of glucose into two pyruvic acid molecules.
 
Importantly this process occurs with or without Oxygen (O2), meaning it is an anaerobic process. Thus it can happen if you're sat down relaxing or doing CrossFit.
 
It yields a miserly two Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) per molecule of glucose, plus two NADH (nicotine adenine dinucleotide, which is a co-enzyme carrier for H+ ions that are liberated as the glucose is oxidised). Pyruvic acid moves into the mitochondria where it is prepared for the next stage of cellular respiration.
 
2. Citric Acid Cycle
The Citric Acid Cycle (or Krebs Cycle) occurs within the inner mitochondrial matrix of the cell, and the acetyl group detaches from co-enzyme A to enter the reaction cycle.
 
This process is aerobic, meaning that it that can only work in the presence of O2. So, if you're sat down relaxing and able to ventilate properly, it can still work (as people age or suffer disease, they do tend to suffer from hypoxia even at rest). If you're getting out of breath during the Race for Life, or mid WOD at CrawsFeet then it can't. If you remain able to breath effectively, thn you've just generated yourself another two ATP per glucose molecule (per 2 acetyl CoA), 6 NADH and 2 FADH2.

Electron Transport Chain - Step Three
The electron transport chain occurs within the mitochondria, and electrons are released from NADH and FADH2 which pass along a series of enzymes releasing energy to fuel. 
 
This is the most important and final stage of cellular respiration. The two stages prior to this were mainly a warm up to the main event, and the electron transport chain is where the real party happens. The majority of your ATP is created in this stage, and critically it also requires O2.
 
During this full process our yield of ATP increases to 34 per glucose molecule. So, you can see oxygen seems to be key, and without its presence you get stuck in glycolysis which yields much less ATP.
​
Somehow, the utilisation of glucose has got a bad rep and the mention of it sends the whole world crazy right now. Equally we aren't keen on oxygen, everything promoted in the mainstream media (and that's where most gym instructors and nutritionists gain their education), is about creating an oxygen debt, depleting glycogen (stored glucose) and burning fat. Hit the gym hard and the sweat is just your body crying. Think about it for a minute though, in reality it is complete Insanity (see what I did there).

The current ideology in the health industry is that through a variety of methods (dieting, exercising etc), one can "burn fat", or turn oneself into a "fat burner". To some degree this is true, but, and it is a big but (no pun intended) every organ is fuelled uniquely. This isn't some weird article about sci-fi diets like blood typing, or the metabolic typing diet, it is a brief explanation about the varying metabolic needs within the body.

Before we go any further it is imperative that you understand that adenosine triphosphate (ATP) is the currency of life, the biological source of energy. Not ad is assumed, calories, carbs, fats or protein.

ATP is generated via oxidation of various metabolic fuels, namely;

• Glucose (that nasty substance that Jamie Oliver and various others currently hate)
• Fatty Acids (fats), that substance they hated in the 80's.
• Amino Acids (proteins), the current darling of the macro-nutrients.

Your Brain
It is beyond doubt that the Brain is the most important organ you have, and glucose is the most important fuel it uses. It can use ketone bodies for fuel, but this happens during prolonged starvation, so it may be a worthwhile point to consider if you are engaged in a diet attempts to utilise ketone bodies or one that leave you with bad breath. Your brain is not able to store fuel, therefore relies upon a consistant supply of glucose (that nasty stuff remember). Your brain is quite gluttonous, and on average consumes around 120g of glucose per day (approx 400+ calories). For your brain to work properly it needs a glucose concentration of around 1mM, ultimately if it drops below that we can expect to see coma and brain death.Whilst fatty acids are not able to be utilised during starvation, the previously mentioned ketone bodies can act as a source if the brain is under a great enough degree of stress (starvation).

Your Heart
Your heart muscle is able to function aerobically and primarily uses fatty acids, but ketone bodies may used if needed.

Your Muscles
Muscle on the other hand is able to utilise glucose, fatty acids or ketone bodies, and it also has the ability to store glycogen, that can then be converted to glucose when energy is needed. As mentioned in the main article, during resting state, 85% of your muscles fuel needs are met by fatty acid catabolism. Which really makes you wonder why so many are draining themselves at the gym trying to burn fat.

Yesterday's headline on the BBC website looked so promising, 'Bubbly drink trial 'to boost cancer therapy', and for a moment I had hope that someone with some sense had made a breakthrough in mainstream science (I'd expect them to lose funding shortly after).The story (you can click the link above for the actual article) states that 'scientists are investigating whether bubbly drinks could boost the success of cancer treatments, after winning a Cancer Research UK award for ideas "outside the box".

And for a minute I thought that's it, carbonated drinks are being researched and Cancer Research are paying for it. My client Kim had told me the news and had pointed out that they were seemingly in agreement with research we've discussed for number of years.

The researchers from both Ulster and Oxford universities state that low oxygen levels in tumours is a key reason why radiotherapy and drugs fail. I'd counter that the hypoxia in the tissue is the reason the cancer is able to grow, not the reason 'treatments' have such poor success. Otto Warburg found that oxygen starved cells cannot utilise oxidative metabolism, and thus have to use lactate fermentation, in the absence of oxygen to generate energy. Of late that has been translated and misrepresented as sugar causes cancer by everyone from Jamie Oliver to the World Health Organisation (WHO), but the very presence of lactate in a cancer metabolism is evidence that the cells are deriving energy without oxygen, so it is a metabolic defect much like diabetes.

My thoughts soon turned the moment I realised that it was funded by Cancer Research. I couldn't comprehend that they were intending to fund carbon dioxide research, surely that wouldn't be profitable or patentable? And then I read further, the plan is to develop a drink that is "rich in oxygen micro-bubbles", aimed at targeting the specific cancer cells. No doubt this drink will come at a high cost and be treated as medicine. In some ways it's great that their is the potential for a less toxic agent to be used. However, my experience tells me that pumping oxygen into a cell that has stopped using isn't really the answer. As Dr. Peat has previously stated "Breathing pure oxygen lowers the oxygen content of tissues; breathing rarefied air, or air with carbon dioxide, oxygenates and energizes the tissues".

I wish them luck but if their has been a metabolic adaption and the individual is stuck in glycolysis, unable to perform the other stages of cellular metabolism, including the inability to produce CO2 as an end product, then it would seem wiser to address those issues rather than attempt to hyperventilate the cells with O2.

As discussed in previous posts, without Carbon dioxide (CO2), you can't use oxygen efficiently. If you're an athlete that wants to increase the oxygenation, go train at altitude, sleep in an altitude tent or any other way you can increase the % of CO2 you breath in. Other methods could be drinking carbonated drinks, bag breathing (like you would in a panic attack), using sodium bicarbonate, ensuring you have enough glucose in your diet (and active thyroid hormone), or even using the drug diamox which helps retain CO2, and is used in those suffering altitude sickness or high blood pressure.

In short, it is great that they've looked outside the box. It's just a shame they're looking out of a box that was supplied by the medical industry, which still has a back to front mechanistic view of biology.

She told me her name was Billy Gene, as she caused a scene
Then every head turned with eyes that dreamed of being the one
Who will dance on the floor in the round

People always told me be careful of what you do
And don't go around breaking peoples' hearts
And mother always told me be careful of who you love
And be careful of what you do 'cause the lie becomes the truth

Billy Gene is not my lover
She's just a girl who claims that I am the one
But the kid is not my son
She says I am the one, but the kid is not my son

For forty days and forty nights
The law was on her side
But who can stand when she's in demand
Her schemes and plans
'Cause we danced on the floor in the round
So take my strong advice, just remember to always think twice

A weak way to begin a post but how many chances will I ever get to write about genes, to be honest quite a lot.

There can be no doubting that the Human Genome Project has caused quite a scene.
Every head turned as they dreamed of this sequence being the one.

Despite huge amounts of criticism and many many years since the human genome was sequenced. Hardly a day goes by without some Daily Mail headline heralding the latest genetic breakthrough in the fight against Alzheimer's, Cancer, and Diabetes, in fact pretty much anything. Despite billions of dollars the genetic research on Heart Disease, Cancer, Alzheimer's etc is so insignificant that it is laughable. Well it would be if it weren't for the deep crisis which looms over science as it meanders out of control down the genetics pathway, desperately searching a reason to say I told you so. Yet more often than not falling dangerously close to being filled away in the Science Fiction section of every town library.

Have a little click on this link, unsurprisingly, everything other than the title is hidden away from view of the public.  

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21142536

If you were able to access it fully you'd find that it reported that little correlation exists between obesity, diabetes, and your genes.That it is basically a huge steaming pile of *%@^ that does not warrant neither anymore time nor investment.

I had intended to comment originally on the attempts to harvest human organs in pigs labeled gene editing. However, I thought I'd let the remarkable and much missed Ma-Wan Ho explain why the Human Genome is a total washout in this rather brilliant article she wrote.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/humangenome.php

"The fallacy of genetic determinism is widely recognized (18). Genuine genetic diseases that can be attributed to single genes constitute less than 2% of all diseases. And more and more geneticists are coming around to the view that even those are subject to so many other genetic and environmental influences that there is simply no such thing as a single-gene condition. For the rest, the association between the condition and the specific genes or genetic markers reduces to tenuous ‘predispositions’ or ‘susceptibility’. 
‘Predipositions’ to cancer for example, conceals the fact that important environmental factors are left out of consideration. These include the hundreds of acknowledged industrial carcinogens polluting our environment. It is well-known that the incidence of cancer increases with industrialization and with the use of pesticides. Women in non-industrialized Asian countries have a much lower incidence of breast cancer than the women living in the industrialized west. However, when Asian women emigrate to Europe and the United States, their incidence of cancer jumps to that of the white European women within a single generation. Similarly, when DDT and other pesticides were phased out in Israel, breast cancer mortality in pre-menopausal women dropped by 30%. The overwhelming causes of ill-health are environmental and social. That is the conclusion of a growing body of research findings. Environmental influences swamp even large genetic differences. 
The genetic determinist approach of the human genome programme is pernicious because it diverts attention and resources away from addressing the real causes of ill-health, while at the same time stigmatizing the victims and fueling eugenic tendencies in society. The health of nations will be infinitely better served by devoting resources to preventing environmental pollution and to phasing out agrochemicals, rather than by identifying all the genes that ‘predispose’ people to ill-health. The UK Royal Society produced a report in July, calling for national and international coordination to deal with the dangers posed to humans and wildlife by endocrine-disrupting chemicals, substances thought to mimic or block natural hormones in amounts too minute to trigger a conventional toxic response (19).
But it is the inherent complexity of the human organism and the lack of a concept of the organism as a coherent whole that will continue to frustrate all attempts at understanding health and disease within the dominant, reductionist framework."

Sugar is evil, that nasty white substance is responsible for everything from obesity to cancer. Sugar is identified as a 'food' source that has no nutritional value, and recent World Health Organisation (WHO) advice is that we reduced it despite the actual evidence being weak. There are even calls from celebrity guru's and evangelist chefs encouraging us to completely eradicate it from our diets. The western world is seemingly on an impossible mission to detox from it, and beat their addiction to the Devils food.

Yet despite all the bad press (and the science fiction from Lustig et al), glucose is essential for life. The much maligned substance is actually one of the most important elements of our diet. Remember though, I'm only suggesting that it forms part of our diet and that it shouldn't be feared, not that you should ingest nothing but sugar.

I have previously covered the topic when I looked at some of the hysteria surrounding Jamie Oliver and his unjust crusade to implement sugar taxation. You can review that here. For this post I thought I'd take a look at some of the so called facts around sugar and compare them to that other substance that is devoid of nutrition...H2O.

• One of the main reasons we are told not to consume sugar is that it is has no nutrients and therefore has no benefit and is not needed. So, how does water compare? Well right away we can see that unless you add something to it (like you also could with sugar) then water is devoid of any nutrients. Yet we are still told to drink set amounts such as 8 glasses or 2 litres per day. One individual who consulted with me was consuming a massive 8 litres per day under the instruction of fairly well known guru. At that amount it caused a host of issues, as may drinking huge amounts of sugared drinks. Equally, avoiding either isn't wise. FYI you can get plenty of water from actual food, unless that is you're living on dried food.
• This neatly brings us to point number two, one which all of you sugar hating' water guzzlers out there will no doubt be screaming. That water is important for a multitude of various bodily functions, which is correct, without water your future doesn't look to bright. However, sugar, in particular glucose is essential. Metabolism is a series of organic reactions in order to produce the energy known as Adenosine Triphosphate (ATP) via the degradation of fuel. Many people seem to be under the illusion that what you eat is what you 'burn', ignoring the very complex processes which encompass the metabolism and its generation of energy. Metabolism itself is often thought of simply as how much you can eat. And it is common to hear people discussing others being lucky due to their high metabolism. Metabolism is the sum total of all the enzymatic reactions that occur within the cells, which has four main functions; Extract energy from organic nutrients, convert nutrients for use as building blocks within the cells, assemble the building blocks into other cellular structures form and degrade the biomolecules that perform special functions within cells. So, the energy utilised by your body is ATP and sugars are preferentially catabolised in order to form ATP. Limit your energy or make your body struggle due to the belief that carbs need to be complex, and you're on the way to the slow metabolism that you fear so much.

• Water helps you to lose weight. Typically people are encouraged to drink water before a meal to ensure they aren't mistaking thirst for hunger. You never hear it the other way round, someone being advised that maybe, just maybe their extreme thirst is malnourishment otherwise known as hunger. Personally I'd suggest that proper cellular metabolism, as in a body fuelled via oxidative metabolism at rest as opposed to fatty acid synthesis is a far wiser way to lose weight.
• It helps endurance athletes fight fatigue. Water is attributed as an essential part activity to prevent dehydration during long workouts. Those in the "know" often talk about drinking water treated with carbohydrates in order to maintain maintain fluid balance. What they mean by treated with carbohydrate is that it has been poisoned with that deadly white stuff, probably along with that other white product that suffered many years of bad press...no not cocaine, thats still acceptable, I meant sodium. I hands down guarantee that sugar will be the more effective than water in the fight against fatigue. While both are supposedly nutrient deficient, sugar is at least packed with vital energy. Combine the two and you have a winning recipe, stick in some coffee and may even taste nice.

The evidence doesn't stack up against sugar and the attempt to link it with obesity or tooth decay. The argument that it is unneeded and devoid of nutrients just isn't backed by science. The only thing it seems guilty of is calories, that thing everyone focused on in the '80's. Consume it as part of a varied diet, don't over indulge much the same as water.

150g of Dark Choc (I used Seed & Bean)

71g of Coconut butter (normal unsalted butter is fine)

5 Large Eggs

1/4 of cup of Cane Sugar plus an extra 3 tablespoons for later in the recipe

1 teaspoon of Vanilla Extract

1/8th teaspoon Sea Salt

Heat the oven to 180 deg C

Lightly butter a large cake tin that has a removable base.

Melt the chocolate and butter in a glass bowl over boiling water then leave to cool slightly.

Seperate the eggs.

Mix the yolks and 1/4 cup of sugar till it thickens then mix in the vanilla and the sea salt.

Slowly mix in the chocolate and butter now it has cooled slightly.

Using an electric mixer (or a hand one if you're feeling energetic), mix the egg whites with 3 tablespoons of sugar till it begins to peak.

Slowly add in the egg whites bit by bit to the chocolate mix and continue to mix until the consistency is equal.

Pour into the cake tin and transfer to the oven. Bake for around 25 mins but check that a knife comes out clean.

Once baked, remove from the oven, run a knife round the edge and remove from the tin.

​Once cooled enjoy a slice with cream, ice cream or whatever takes your fancy.