All Categories - #whatwouldBillysay?

Tortilla time

19/9/2017

Masa Harina Tortillas

2 cups Bob's Red Mill Masa Harina Flour
1 tsp Sea Salt
1-1/2 to 2 cups Hot Water

Mix salt into the masa harina and then gradually add the hot water to the dough until you have a consistency is firm and springy. If it is too dry simply add more water. If you've added too much water and the dough becomes sticky the add a dash more flour. Cover and leave to rest, although I've used it immediately when time was short.
Preheat a non stick pan or griddle and then using a flat surface separate the dough into 3 inch balls. Flatten between two pieces of greaseproof/waxed paper, and roll till it is a suitable thickness. Or if you're flash flatten it in your tortilla press...check my pictures and you'll know I'm not an owner of a press. Heat it in your pan or griddle until it looks like you like your tortillas. I like mine a little crispy. Flip, repeat and eat with your filling/topping of choice.

Milk Powder Bake

27/7/2017

From around 1999-2004 milk was a major part of my diet, some might say that my increased consumption (I'd always been a fan) was a factor in my incredibly high metabolism during that period (for those that are unaware, you may wish to seek out my articles and podcasts discussing my 6000 kcal intake). For those that are fans of the work of rebellious scientist and philosopher Dr Ray Peat, the milk consumption coupled with my jelly sweet consumption, love of coffee and general carbaholic status gives good evidence of the effects of a so called "peatatarian" diet.

Whilst I had an awareness of Ray via my studies of Broda Barnes, I had yet to fully immerse myself in the Fan Girling whirlwind that encircles Ray...although he is totally unaware of his celebrity status. What happened next was a few years of hell that eventually brought me full circle and ensconced me in Ray's work. A place that not only felt comfortable and reassuring, but a place that reaffirmed how close I'd been way back when. It showed me that my time in the whacky paleo/metabolic typing/CHEK world was damaging but the ultimate experiment/lesson.

And so it came to pass that I once again began consuming milk (I gave it up during faileo as I couldn't get raw pasture raised). And with it I returned to my milk powder bake. As ever it was a Ray statement about milk powder pancakes that sparked the memory, so I adapted my recipe to use his ideas, but baked it my old way rather than frying in a pan.

Enjoy

Ingredients

1 cup of milk powder (I use Organic Skimmed)
1/3 cup of Milk (I use Organic Skimmed)
2-3 tablespoons of sugar
1 egg

Directions

Mix all the ingredients in a bowl to a smooth consistency. Pour into a dish that is suitable for the over (I use the glass lid from a casserole dish)
Bake in the oven at 180-200 degrees C for around 15-20 mins, or until golden brown. Around 10 minutes slice a cross to allow the inner part to cook.

Serve with Greek yogurt, cream or Ice Cream

Pavlov's Dieter

16/4/2017

Why did I turn down a PhD position at my local university? I met with the two professors in “charge”, and it became apparent that they were not really in charge. In fact one of them worked for the people who were really pulling the strings, global diet business who were allowing access to a data set collected from their member base. In theory I was free to utilise this data as I wished, so I drew up a proposal and it hit brick wall after brick wall. My research intentions were not particularly controversial. After finding issues with funding test equipment (despite the fact I already own it) they eventually simply stopped replying and began ignoring me.
The main bone of contention was that they wished me to modify my research in order that it became focused on behaviorism. To put it plainly, they wanted me to conduct some research that would assist dieters adherence to dieting, something that is particularly useful in an industry founded on guided starvation. I have never been a fan of either starvation or behaviourism, in fact the words of John B. Watson haunted me from the moment I started in this industry.

“Give me a baby and I can make any kind of man.” - John B. Watson, the founder of Behaviorism. (1)

Watson’s belief was that an organisms behavior is predictable, and therefore controllable. He investigated this at John Hopkins University in 1920 when he experimented on babies ranging from three months to a year old. During numerous experiments he would show the infants lit candles to assess their reaction to fire, and bring in animals in to see if they were frightened by them.
One subject became synonymous with Watsons work, known as Little Albert, he initially found delight in touching a rabbit. However, when Watson elicited loud noises behind the infants head (using a steel rod and a claw hammer) whenever he touched the rabbit, his reaction naturally switched from delight to terror. It then became apparent that even the mere sight of the rabbit would leave the child in a state of fear, even without any loud noise. Watson reached a rather radical conclusion that has defined political, industrial and social engineering in the 20th century. His belief was that fear is the driving force within society.

Ivan Pavlov a man most people are aware of, begun his work on the “conditioned reflex” in dogs, realising that a dog would salivate when it began to associate a stimulus such as a ringing bell with food. While most are aware of this research, maybe even finding it mildly amusing during our school days, not many of us are aware that we are as conditioned as Pavlov’s dog.

We are all bought, sold, conned, shared and used everyday to make other people money. We are owned yet we believe, mainly because that is what we are told, that we live in a free society. We are continually told that we can escape our obesity by signing up to the latest fad diet that is usually nothing more than a repackaged version of the previous semi starvation fad. When these products come to market it is critical that they utilise various behavioural strategies to alter your behaviour and make you adhere. You may think Joe Wicks (star of Mean in 15) is the latest lifestyle guru, in reality he is well versed in behaviour modification. Shaming your fat self on instagrim with the hashtag #fitfam is just a way of trying to modify your behaviour and stop your “weak willpower” taking hold when your hunger kicks in.

Behaviourism relies upon the principles of operant conditioning, the principles of which have more recently become known as behaviour modification. Whilst it is a fascinating area of study that allows us to analyse behaviours and their effects upon both health and wellness, it is also frequently utilised as a scheme to shape the behaviours of other, often without their fully conscious awareness.

Behaviourism relies upon the notion that behaviour rather than the physiological and thought processes driving these behaviours are more important. Thus the use of various kinds of techniques to modify behaviours trains you and makes you compliant. Take the diet industry, the philosophy of dieting is deceptively simple. It works upon the notion that we are mechanistic flesh and blood machines. That we require fuel, that if we are over fuelled we simply need to be restricted and put to work for a specific cause, namely burn some calories, yet this never seems to work as planned. As is well documented, humans struggle to achieve this goal of semi starvation (eat less - move more) due to a thing we call “weak willpower”, and the obesity epidemic rages on.

My area of study is that weak willpower does not exist, that compensatory health behaviours are just that, a compensation for a physiological action. Hold your breath and you will hyperventilate for a while when you restart breathing. The same goes for dieting, it drives a physiological compensation, namely you “overeat” because you have been starved. Naturally in response to our gluttony, guilt will rise and you're likely to feel compelled to restrict or starve oneself again….and so the struggle continues.

Luckily for those of us that are weak willed, behaviourism considers that we can be repaired, redesigned or conditioned with new and superior behaviours. It helps to think back to the breathing example to consider how ludicrous this is, if you're struggling to limit your breathing, behaviourism would seek to adapt your behaviours to help you achieve your goals. This may take the form of an app for your iPhone that reminds you to hold your breath, a breath watchers club where you receive the support of your leader and the rest of the group, maybe receiving a sticker or similar when you achieve specify breath hold targets. Maybe you’d sign up to instagrim and hashtag shame yourself when you over breathed #o2syn or patted yourself on the back #turningblue

This and only this (unless they just don’t like me, which is plausible) seems to be the reason for my academic knock backs. If this was educational tinder they are continually swiping left once they see my research interests. Do I want work on developing strategies to create dietary adherence? Do I want to compel people to perform like monkeys at the circus because I helped develop an app for a global diet cult? If I wanted money and to climb the corporate career ladder then maybe, if I want to maintain integrity and fulfil my legacy then nope. Do I want to starve people and teach them to ignore physiological signals indicating that energy is needed? No, what we need is a scientific explanation that is understandable within the general population, yet not one that ignores the complex needs of the human organism.

Whilst human behaviour has long been intriguing, the era of capitalist industrialisation at the turn of the 19th century (2) was when we really began to consider that we could control living organisms (in particular humans) in the same way they that we control machines. Admittedly industrialisation brought many advantages, but the disadvantages were equal if not greater, where there is a light side there is usually a dark side in the deal.

Watson was indeed an interesting character and his influence on social science and the boom in advertising is significant, and on the face of it seemingly innocent and beneficial to society. However, his real manifesto for behaviourism, and the belief that human beings can be shaped in any way that a scientist desired is showed for what it is in his writings at the end of his life

"I sometimes think I regret that I could not have a group of infant farms where I could have brought up 30 pure-blooded Negroes on one, 30 pure blooded Anglo-Saxons on another, and 30 Chinese on a third all under similar conditions.” (3)

Behaviourism is the mechanism of control, you dictate to people what their behaviours should be. This may be glossed over as giving the individual control, for instance some diet groups sell the premise that you can regain control your life and be happy if only you limit your syns and attend group penance. Yet the entire task of starving oneself is broken down into specific aspects of the whole task rather than allowing a skilled person to decide how the entire task should be done, so theirs a very much control involved. Good foods and syns are labelled, and you are told how many times may syn. Poor behaviours are identified and weak willpower is treated by attempts to modify behaviours.

To the degree that this is involved your control is lost, and any skills/knowledge are no longer needed. Granted many diet club members become diet club leaders, but any attributable skills are simply the ability to repeat parrot like what the capitalist management dictate. And this removal of power makes dieters less likely to be rebellious, less likely to join or form a movement that operates against the system.

From a business perspective this is great idea, and mainstream science also believes it is good idea for dieters because the problem, “obesity” has been viewed from a reductionist stance. That it is purely a mechanistic problem, that fat people just need reprogramming. Henry Ford stated that he was too smart to have these kind of rational principles imposed upon him, but that he needed to impose those principles on the workers because they wouldn't know what to do if he didn’t. (4)

You may think the diet industry is not like Ford and his desire to increase productivity and profit, but business is business and a diet company really isn’t that interested in your goal, more ensuring you remain a client and supportive customer. Rationalism is embodied by Fordism, McDonaldisation, and Dietism. The principe is that those at the top want to impose on the bottom, but something they don't want to upset is profit. As Ford and Ronald McDonald wanted mindless workers working in a robot like fashion, so do WeightWatchers, they are reliant on members that put faith in the principles that are imposed on them by the industry and all that profiteer from it.

Stay tuned for part two.

References:

1. Watson, J., B. (1930). Behaviorism (revised edition). University of Chicago Press.
2. Burnham, P. (2003). Capitalism, the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
3. Watson, J. B. (1936). John Broadus Watson. In C. Murchison (Ed), A history of psychology in autobiography (Vol. 3, pp. 271–281). New York: Russell & Russell.
4. Ford, H., and Crowther, S. (1922). My life and work. Garden City, N.Y., Doubleday, Page & Co.

Infant sleep/feeding patterns and stress response

6/3/2017

A large part of my research focuses on child development and the adaptions that occur to ensure our safety, in particular that our metabolism is in-tune with our environment and adjusts accordingly to availability of food. It is well established that there is an intrinsic hormonal connection between mother and baby. (1, 2) Cortisol is a hormone that many people are now acutely aware of, the rise in low carbohydrate sugar phobic clean eaters, and the desire to punish oneself with CrossFit style workouts has happened alongside a rise in private cortisol testing, usually via saliva samples. Much is known about cortisol’s functions in adults, as expected in this type of situation we secrete adrenalin in order to supply glucose from the liver to breakdown fatty tissues. If or when these stores are depleted, (and many people currently exhibit inadequate stores of glucose to cope with stressors) cortisol is produced in order to catabolise amino acids to provide energy. (3)
We currently have Harry, an almost two year old who much to Jen’s dismay is still waking regularly in the night to feed. Much of my research stemmed from the birth of our daughter Daisy, and this is the point where my book changed from being a rebuke of dieting, to a full book on the physiology of human metabolism throughout lifespan.
In an attempt to pacify Jen’s upset at seeing other babies sleeping through the night from an early age I turned to my research. And from a metabolic point of view we have a neonate that has previously had 24 hour 7 day a week access to the maternal glucose pool. Upon birth they suddenly have to ask for energy, and over the next period of their life a cry will elicit various reactions from the immediate caregivers, such as checking the nappy, assessing if they are tired, maybe checking their temperature, but of greatest priority are they hungry? So we have to adapt from freely taking energy on demand, to requesting it. This happens regularly due to limited stores of energy, the high demand for glucose (in the womb growth restriction occurs if glucose supply to the brain risks becoming limited, during the early months this may still occur due to limited needs for physical development when the brain must grow and develop prior to learning to crawl, walk, talk etc), and an exceedingly high metabolic rate. (4) So, whilst the lack of ability to sleep through the night may prove frustrating for parents it does provide slower adaption of metabolic rate.

Also, during the night it is critical that your child awakens to feed, they're light sleepers initially due to the need to awaken if they're in danger. Humans are particularly vulnerable and dependent due to limitations in brain size (25% of adult brain volume). This gives rise to the high probability from an evolutionary perspective that infants slept near mothers to be nurtured which brings into question sleep training due to potential psychological damage and raised cortisol levels even when crying has subsided. (5, 6, 7, 8, 9)

And this led to my initial theory that their was a link between cortisol in mother and child. I had initially suspected that this was linked with breast feeding versus non-breast feeding and evidence does suggest this to be the case. (10) And that breast feeding leads to greater resilience to stress, leading to the assumption that small incidences of stress (cortisol) coupled with recovery (feeding, comfort etc) helps the infant develop to deal with the stress of adaption to the external environment. From the perspective of my own research this suggest that the little and often feeding pattern also allows from metabolic adaption to life outside the womb over a longer timescale. (4)
Yet I was interested in the phenomenon that sees my wife awaken prior to Harry (and Daisy when she still breast fed), and this led me to consider cortisol awakening response (CAR). Something my wife probably thinks I made up as I tend to have an answer for everything.

It is well established that the cortisol response we see in adult is not present at birth, but how it is established has been a grey area. and then right when I was seeing this phenomenon occurring with Daisy, a study appeared that showed that infants cortisol levels stay stable upon awakening and then decrease for half an hour afterward. Further to that cortisol levels remained constant following naps. Yet the research team did find a mother-infant cortisol psychological link that confirmed the correlation between mother and infant cortisol levels.

One of the research team stated that,
"In infancy, cortisol responses may be less dependent on hard-wired biological rhythms and more influenced by the HPA axis activity of the baby's immediate caregivers.” (9)
This opens up some fascinating possibilities into our ability to deal with stress in later life, is breast-feeding, the process of feeding regularly, and indeed being at hand to respond to distress (initiating and deactivating the cortisol response) part of a biological process to help us survive in the world? Research suggest that adults that received inconsistent care or mistreatment as a child have high levels of awakening cortisol and dampened response, which does seem to suggest that this bond between mother and child provided a critical role in childhood development. (11, 12)

References

Lothian, J, A, PhD. (2005). The Birth of a Breastfeeding Baby and Mother. J Perinat Educ. 14(1): 42–45.
Leuner, B., Glasper, E, R., and Gould, E. (2010). Parenting and plasticity. Trends Neurosci. 33(10): 465–473.
Goodwin, M, L, Ph.D. (2010). Blood Glucose Regulation during Prolonged, Submaximal, Continuous Exercise: A Guide for Clinicians. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 4(3): 694–705.
Craig, B. (2017). Consistent Eating, the metabolic adaption of humans in response to energy restriction. (unpublished)
Lee T. Gettler, L, T., and McKenna, J, J. (2011). Evolutionary Perspectives on Mother–Infant Sleep Proximity and Breastfeeding in a Laboratory Setting. Am J Phys Anthropol. 144(3): 454–462.
Bremner, J.D., (1998). The Effects of Stress on Memory and the Hippocampus Throughout the Life Cycle: Implication for Childhood Development and Aging. Developmental Psychology. Fall 10 (4): 871-85.
Bugental, Daphne Blunt; Martorell, Gabriela A.; Barraza, Veronica (2003). “The hormonal costs of subtle forms of infant maltreatment.” Hormones and Behavior, Vol 43(1), Jan 2003, 237-244.
Lyons et all. (2000). Stress-Level Cortisol Treatment Impairs Inhibitory Control of Behavior in Monkeys.” J. Neuroscience. October 15. 20 (20):7816–7821.
Cao, Y., Rao, S, D., Phillips, T, M., Umbach, D, M., Bernbaum, J, C., Archer, J, I., and Rogan, W, J. (2009). Are Breastfed Infants more Resilient?-Feeding Method and Cortisol in Infants. J Pediatr. 154(3): 452–454.
McEwen, B. S. (2003). Early life influences on life-long patterns of behavior and health. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 9(3), 149–154.Bright ,M, A., Granger, D, A., and Frick, J, E. (2012). Do infants show a cortisol awakening response? Dev Psychobiol. 54(7):736-43.
Carpenter, L, L. Tyrka, A, R., Ross, N, S., Khoury, L., Anderson, G, M., and Price, L, H. (2009). Effect of Childhood Emotional Abuse and Age on Cortisol Responsivity in Adulthood Biol Psychiatry. 66(1): 69–75.
Doom, J, R., Cicchetti, D., and Rogosch, F, A.(2014). Longitudinal Patterns of Cortisol Regulation Differ in Maltreated and Nonmaltreated Children. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 53(11): 1206–1215.

Change of Payment Service and Removal of Members area

5/1/2017

Over the Christmas period I suffered at the hands of a PayPal reverse transaction, I've had the odd occurence of being scammed in the past. From my agreement at Virgin Active to be repaid for a training course if I remained working at the company for a year (they blamed a change of finance team), through to a someone promising to pay me for some lab tests that I'd paid on their behalf.

I've long ago accepted that people will try and take advantage and as with life you have to take the rough with the smooth, but I always hoped I had the support of the company I used to accept payments, PayPal. Sadly it didn't work out that way, and over Chrismas I suffered a loss due to someone reversing subscrition payments. I'm not in this work to become a millionare, I value my time and my research more than profit as most will tell you. If it was about the money I'd work at GloboGym, sell a preprinted diet sheet, or work in the NHS.

The idea behind the subscription service was to allow users to access myself at a reduced rate for brief interactions by email (giving you priority in my email box), and to give you access to the members section which was password protected. My blog has 300+ free posts but the members area was targeted towards the needs of those subscribed. It also contained my database of 6000+ research articles catorgorised into differing health issues that made it easy to search for relevent material. It is also the only area I made video and audio content avaiable (TV and radio shows I've been part of, plus my own recordings) as I'm not too keen on this type of media and prefered it kept away from open viewing. The members area started from what was initially a "school" area, in which I trained numerous individual who worked in a variety of health releated jobs. Three years ago I opened it up to subscribers well aware that people would make copies and share my work. Yet I didn't expect to be quite this exposed.

PayPal state their terms to be;

11.10 What are examples of items/transactions/cases that are not eligible for PayPal seller protection?

Intangible items, licenses for digital content, and services.
Items that you deliver (or are picked up) in person (except for items for which you received payment through the PayPal Location Based Payments Functionality).
Transactions made through Zong, Website Payment Pro (PayPal Direct Payment and Virtual Terminal).
Claims, Chargebacks and Reversals for Significantly Not as Described; and/ or claims filed directly with eBay.
PayPal Business Payments.

So despite having spent a few days over Christmas attempting to protect my work, I have no option other than to suck it up and wait for PayPal to unblock my account. I've always viewed my independent research as an artistic outlet, so to have someone potentially use it, copy it, distribute it, then be able to gain a refund doesn't feel great.

As of today my site will run via stripe rather than PayPal which hopefully won't cause you any difficulties. I have also shut down the members area, stopped taking subcriptions and refunded those that were current members. My plan is to gradually transfer some of the work to Patreon, but as I'm sure you will appreciate this will mean reformatting and editing content to make it suitable.

Thank you to all my supporters, I'm sorry to make these changes but hopefully Patreon will work out and I'll get more time to dedicate to my research/book. As ever, I'm available for consults via my store.

Weight Watcher or Money Waster?

20/12/2016

The Christmas binge season is creeping up on us, and as ever it will be quickly followed the annual tradition of starving oneself as a penance for your syns (I know it's sins, I just borrowed a slumming world term). Metabolism is the basis of both my work and research, and it never ceases to amaze me how misunderstood the topic is.

I thought we’d look over an old article from the Daily Mirror. Not exactly PubMed but it is where most people will go for “expert opinion” once New Years Eve is in their hazy past. The article by Tanith Carey was titled “How many calories do you REALLY need to eat every day? We put six women to the test.” (1) In the article they want you to consider why some women can eat anything and not gain weight, whilst others gain weight just by looking at a piece of cake. Now that simply isn’t true, everyone has the potential to gain weight, our ability to survive thus far is most likely due to our ability to down-regulate our metabolism and store energy in order to survive periods of famine. (2, 3)

The article goes on to mention the dreaded NHS guidelines that the average female needs 2,000 calories a day. The problem is how we define average female.
Scientifically we know that we are individuals, and to use the term “average” is beyond useless, indeed, to follow some dictated policy shows an utter disregard for your individuality. With the scientific tools we have at our disposal we no longer need to conform ourselves to the system, we can define our own systems.

The article does touch on the number of calories “we can eat” varying from woman to woman. They then went onto measure oxygen inhalation and carbon dioxide exhalation to enable the calculation of resting metabolism in six “individuals. Dr Naufahu stated “As we get older, our metabolism tends to slow down, so unless we keep up our muscle mass with exercise, those extra calories get stored as fat, which is why so many middle-aged women battle with their weight.” Personally it leaves me astonished that no mention is made of food sustaining the metabolism, I've completed enough study over the years to conclude that you'll struggle to maintain or increase muscle mass without adequote food. As you'll see, metabolism seems to suffer most at the hands of the lieflong dieter.

One of those tested was a personal drainer called Jo who was 53 at time of publication, and needed 1,600 calories despite eating 1,942. Her various admissions;

“For most of my life I’ve yo-yo dieted.….In my teens, I lost the weight through dangerous crash dieting. But then I married and gained more pounds with each of my pregnancies until I went up to 15st….”

“I started exercising and eating no more than 1,200 calories a day. It took 22 months for me to lose five stone….”

“Now I’m happy with my body and keep my figure trim with exercise and eating healthily during the week – fruit, protein and salad but indulging at the weekends. I am particularly partial to red wine…..”

“The weight still comes off much more slowly than it used to in my younger days.”

This really sums up the metabolic adaption created by dieting or making incorrect assumptions about what your body needs in terms of its energy requirements.

Further into the article Dr Naufahu’s makes a childish error when she states that "To lose a pound of fat, you need a calorie deficit of 3,500-kcals each week.” She then states that Miss Average needs to cut down by 400 to 500 kcals a day. Yet the belief that a 3,500-kcal deficit will result in one pound of weight loss (about 0.45 kg) is misguided if not corrupt. It continues to be cited in “over 35 000 weight loss educational websites” plus copious amounts of academic textbooks, scientific articles and so called experts in diet and nutrition. (4) Even the British Dietetics Association pushes the totally unreferenced 3500-kcal rule. (5) Even if it was factual it fails to account for the metabolic adaption caused by dieting. To put it simply, the greater the degree of energy restriction to encounter, the more efficient you become as energy output is slowed to protect you. (6)

Then we meet Nicola who is 54 and eats 1,800 calories despite her RMR being 1,497, interestingly she claims to .

“eat more than half what I used to in my 30s and find it harder and harder to keep it off, especially since I turned 50."

“I had a hysterectomy at 42 and have been on HRT ever since. I think that keeps me heavier because it makes me suffer water retention."

“It’s very frustrating because I don’t eat a lot. I start the day with an omelette and have lots of fish and salads – with the odd cereal bar thrown in as a treat.”

So we can see the daily recommendation based on the “average woman” are pretty much worthless, and that random dieting seems to have often detrimental effects on the Resting Metabolic Rate (RMR). The next stage up from this guesswork would be predictive equations such as Mifflin-St Jeor, (7) which I used during my MSc dissertation due to the costs involved in utilising more accurate methods across a large study group.

Their can be no doubting that predictive formula provides a greater degree of individual understanding when developing and evaluating a nutrition plan, yet predictive equations may effect longterm outcome due errors in accuracy.(8, 9) Oshima et al, (10) concluded that indirect calorimetry was an important tool for nutritional therapy of patients, so it would seem logical to conclude that those looking to lose weight (often for health reasons) should utilise the best possible tools available to enable both long term success and evade future health problems.

That studies such as Fothergill et al, (11) describe poor weight-loss maintenance at 6 year follow up, coupled with RMR suppression, indicates the importance of knowing individual RMR in order to maintain health and longevity whilst attempting to attain weight-loss goals. (12) Whilst costs may seem prohibitive it must be noted that during a study funded by Weight-Watchers, 5 year weight-loss maintenance was reported as 16.2 percent. Whilst this seems to make it plausible it must be considered that by the studies own admission the participants were made up of only the most successful members, and is no indication of actual success rates amongst all all members. It is also worth pointing out that the study was looking at “success” measured in terms of members who managed to maintain 5 percent of their weight-loss over 1, 2 and 5 year periods. Ask yourself would you really be happy being one of the 16.2 percent in an elite group that after 5 years had managed to maintain only 5 percent of your weight-loss? Thought not.

So, at the cheapest rate for online access you’d be paying £122.68 for a year, right through to £325 a year to attend group meeting.(13) Cheap enough to risk it for those unaware of their chance of “success” and a great business model for repeat customers tricked into thinking their outcome was due to poor willpower.

So how would I tackle the issue of weight loss?

Firstly you need to know your own energy requirements, not those of Miss Average.

Option 1. Select a formula, work out your RMR and add on your activity to give you a better estimation of your needs.

Option 2. Book in for an RMR test and gain a more accurate picture of your needs.

After completing option 2 I would then suggest (or I do it for you if you visit me) that you complete option 1 to see how your actual RMR compares against what standardised formula suggests you need.

Next you need to consider the fact that after most RMR tests are completed the individual is then subjected to the 3,500 calorie deficit rule. We already know this isn’t backed up by evidence, and cannot work long-term due to metabolic adaption. So my suggestion would be to eat the amount your body needs and begin to restore your youthful metabolism. If you are supplying the correct amount of energy you will benefit from not needing extreme willpower, and over time you’ll see the RMR begin to raise as the metabolism adapts in response to the consistent supply of energy.

Any questions, leave a comment.

References:

1. Carey, T. (2013). How many calories do you REALLY need to eat every day? We put six women to the test.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/lifestyle/health/how-many-calories-you-really-2161639 published 14 Aug 2013 and updated 27 Jun 2016

2. Galgani, J., & Ravussin, E. (2008). Energy metabolism, fuel selection and body weight regulation. International Journal of Obesity (2005), 32(Suppl 7), S109–S119. http://doi.org/10.1038/ijo.2008.246

3. Mattes, R, D., Pierce, C, B., and Friedman, M, I. (1988). Daily caloric intake of normal-weight adults: response to changes in dietary energy density of a luncheon meal. Am J Clin Nutr, 48(2):214-9.

4. Thomas, D, M., Martin, C, K,. Lettieri, S., Bredlau, C., Kaiser, K., Church, T., Bouchard, C., and Heymsfield, S, B. (2013). Can a weight loss of one pound a week be achieved with a 3500-kcal deficit? Commentary on a commonly accepted rule. International Journal of Obesity (2013) 37, 1611–1613; doi:10.1038/ijo.2013.51; published online 30 April 2013.

5. BDA Food Facts Sheet https://www.bda.uk.com/foodfacts/Want2LoseWeight.pdf accessed 20th December 2016.

6. Luke, A., and Schoeller, D, D. (1992). Basal metabolic rate, fat-free mass, and body cell mass during energy restriction Metabolism - Clinical and Experimental , Volume 41 , Issue 4 , 450 - 4566.
7. Mifflin, M, D., St-Jeor, S, T., Hill, L, A., Scott, B, J., Daugherty, S, A., and Koh, Y, O. (2005). A new predictive equation for resting energy expenditure in healthy individuals. Am J Clin Nutr. 1990 Feb;51(2):241-7.

8. Frankenfield D., Roth-Yousey, L., & Compher C. Comparison of predictive equations for resting metabolic rate in healthy nonobese and obese adults: a systematic review. J Am Diet Assoc. 2005 May;105(5):775-89.

9. Aliasgharzadeh, S., Mahdavi, R., Asghari Jafarabadi, M., & Namazi, N. Comparison of Indirect Calorimetry and Predictive Equations in Estimating Resting Metabolic Rate in Underweight Females. Iran J Public Health, Vol. 44, No.6, Jun 2015, pp.822-829

10. Oshima, T., Berger, M, M., De Waele, E., Guttormsen, A, B., Heidegger, C, P., Hiesmayr, M., Singer, P., Wernerman, J., & Pichard, C. (2016). Indirect calorimetry in nutritional therapy. A position paper by the ICALIC study group. Clin Nutr. 2016 Jun 22. pii: S0261-5614(16)30142-X. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2016.06.010. [Epub ahead of print]

11. Fothergill, E., Guo, J., Howard, L., Kerns, J. C., Knuth, N. D., Brychta, R., Chen, K. Y., Skarulis, M. C., Walter, M., Walter, P. J. and Hall, K. D. (2016), Persistent metabolic adaptation 6 years after “The Biggest Loser” competition. Obesity, 24: 1612–1619. doi:10.1002/oby.21538

12. Rizzo, M, R., Mari, D., Barbieri, M., Ragno, E., Grella, R., Provenzano, R., Villa, I., Esposito, K., Giugliano, D., & Paolisso, G. (2005). Resting Metabolic Rate and Respiratory Quotient in Human Longevity. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 2005 90:1, 409-413

13. Weight Watchers Pricing structure. Accessed 20th December 2016 https://www.weightwatchers.com/uk/weight-loss-plans?

Social Conformity

13/10/2016

From an early age I was acutely aware that life appears to be about social conformity, that we change in response to either physical or imagined pressure to meet the expectations of the group, we yield to the perceived social norms (1). It always seemed odd (and still does) that we agree to do things we'd rather not to in order that we fit in with the perceived desires of the majority (how can we be sure the majority aren't all agreeing for the same reason), so that we can fit in and be liked by the group. In effect we take our role in society in order to claim our identity and make sure other like us.

Three differing types of conformity seem to occur:

Compliance, Internalisation, and Ingratiational

Compliance occurs when our behaviour adapts in order to gain approval and/or avoid disapproval by conforming. (2) For example you may take part in bullying behaviour, or sing at a karaoke night to conform with the group, despite not actually agreeing with it. This can happen at all levels, from agreeing to those drinks you'd rather not have, trying smoking when you really didn't want to. Right through to agreeing to bombing another country when you really don't think we should (I think with most politicians they are most likely careerists that internalise or identify as discussed below).

With internalisation we genuinely accept the group norms because of reward. Kelman (2) states that this is high level conformity due to the group beliefs becoming part of the individual’s own beliefs, therefore the behaviour tends to become permanent. Sherif (3) found that people conform to the group norms when they are unsure, as such this tends to occur when we view the group to have authority over us. We yield to the super knowledge, as an example I see numerous clients that comply with their Doctor despite being either unsure or unhappy with the advice. We might conform to government policy on health and nutrition because the authority said that saturated fat was dangerous and polyunsaturated was healthy. We may not have the knowledge to challenge authority, and under the belief that we are rewarded with health we genuinely accept the belief.

Identification happens when we want to establish a relationship with a person or a role within a group, (2) as displayed in the Zimbardo Prison Study in which those involved in the experiment as prison guards complied to the perception of the role. Do we comply in our role as the fat, sick and stressed once we assign ourself that identity? Take genetics, if we are fed the theory that we are genetically predisposed to a condition do we accept or even manifest it to maintain our identity. I see a lot of this on Facebook within health groups set up to supposedly support others, typically it becomes a battle to fit in and be the best/worst case.

So why do we conform? As I discussed earlier I was acutely aware of social conformity from an early age, in fact I began to suspect that extroverted and introverted personalities were often simply differing degrees of conformity. Whilst I'm typically classed as an introvert I often felt it was simply the fact that I'm more than happy to say no. My desire to be myself and do what I want tends to create the appearance of an introvert, in reality I know my own mind and won't agree to conform, not even to authority if I can prove them wrong.

Deutsch and Gerrard (4) discussed Normative and Informational conformity. Normative being the desire to fit in with group for fear of rejection despite privately disagreeing with the group. Taking drugs or getting drunk when you'd rather not out of fear that you'll be ostracised from the group is a good example, and one that most people can relate to. Informational conformity is when we lack the knowledge and look to the group or authority, usually we then adopt this behaviour as our new norm. This often seen in the health industry, from dieters following diet gurus, happy to accept preprinted diet plans, spending cash on yet more editions of the blobby coaches mean in 15 books. Right through to our acceptance of government and scientific/industry policy without question. The promise of reward (skinny/health) in response to submitting to the group ideology has us conforming with something purely based on trust. Two of my friends are soon to release a long awaited documentary that I backed via kickstarted called "On the Back of a Tiger".(5) The film looks at the work of a group of renegade non conformist scientists and considers the conformation for industry rewards that is rife in the scientific community, this will also be the topic for my next blog.

So what makes some of us fail to conform to the social pressure?
What makes a freethinker think for themselves?
Are we taught conform?
Does public policy on food and drugs help with conformity? Are we drugged droids?
Is freethinking a risk to the authority/ruling class?

All these will be covered in up and coming posts, but please feel free to comment below and add your voice to guide future posts.

As you may of noticed some of my post have started going via Patreon, the main reason for this is due to my desire to remain independent and not conform. Some of you may know that the previous year has seen a battle with three Universities who have all been keen to explore my research. Yet at the final hurdle I have time and time again failed to secure PhD funding when I refused to alter my proposal to conform. Two academics privately praised my intention but stated that the institution receives funding from industry that opposes my ideas.

I will not climb on the back of the tiger simply to gain acceptance and would rather go it alone. Patreon isn't expensive and my ultimate plan is that rather than purchasing a small online consult with me (currently £8 a day, £30 a week) you will use Patreon at a much cheaper price and the questions will be answered (maintaining your anonymity) in a group post which enables you all to see the Q&A's.

All the monies generated from this method will go towards furthering my research, and it is my intention that the research will be transmitted live so that you can make suggestions, ask questions and generally get involved.

References;

1. Crutchfield, R. (1955). Conformity and Character. American Psychologist, 10, 191-198.

2. Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization: three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 51–60.

3. Sherif, M. (1935). A study of some social factors in perception. Archives of Psychology, 27(187) .

4. Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. The journal of abnormal and social psychology, 51(3), 629.

5. The Production Journal for: On the Back of a Tiger. Perceive Think Act http://perceivethinkact.com

Masa Harina Pancakes

6/10/2016

Corn is pretty popular as a food but what makes Masa Harina different? Traditionally eaten by Mexican Indians after being nixtamalized (boiled with an alkaline chemical that changes both its physical and chemical structure.[1] As Dr. Ray Peat reported;

"In 1979 some of my students in Mexico wanted a project to do in the lab. Since several traditional foods are made with corn that has been boiled in alkali, I thought it would be valuable to see whether this treatment reduced the ability of the starch grains to be persorbed. For breakfast one day, they ate only atole, tamales, and tortillas, all made from the alkali treated corn. None of the students could find any starch grains after centrifuging their blood and urine. That led me to substitute those foods whenever possible for other starches."[2]

References:

Cerqueira MT, Fry MM, Connor WE. The food and nutrient intakes of the Tarahumara Indians of Mexico. Am J Clin Nutr. 1979 Apr;32(4):905-15. PMID: 433816.
http://raypeat.com/articles/nutrition/carrageenan.shtml

Ingredients

75g Masa Harina
¼ tsp salt
2 eggs
200ml whole milk
75ml water
50g refined coconut butter (you can use normal butter)
50-100g of sugar depending on how sweet you'd like them.

Makes around 6-8 pancakes

Perfect with squeezed orange juice and either maple syrup or sugar sprinkled on top. A personal favourite is strained Greek yogurt or ice cream with stewed apple.

Place the masa harina, sugar and salt into a mixing bowl, making a well in which you break the the eggs into. Scramble the mix and then add both the milk and water.
Mix till you have a smooth batter.
Use 2 tbsp of butter in the batter and continue to mix.
Heat a frying pan over medium to high heat. Drizzle a little melted butter in the pan before adding 2 tbsp batter. Circle it round so that the batter spreads evenly.
Cook till golden brown underneath before flipping and cooking the other side.
Repeat as desired or store the batter in the fridge for use another day.
Add your toppings and enjoy.

Be patient

16/9/2016

Doctors have patients I have...people, friends, I don't know what else to call them? They're just people that ask for help, maybe because they read my blog, saw something I posted on Facebook or somebody suggested they chat to me. From my very beginnings in they health industry I hated the word patient. At one point I had a desire to become a Doctor, with one or two caveats, I neither wanted patients nor did I want to dish out pills in an authoritative manner without the "patient" being involved in the diagnostic process. Hence I didn't get past the Med School interview and I'm not a Doctor.

My love of diagnostic processes, a desire to collate data prior to making an informed decision, and the above all that I present my findings to the individual, explain the differential diagnostic process and allow them to draw their own conclusions. It is important that I do not diagnose, partly because I'm not allowed to as I've not ticked the right boxes and attained the correct title, but more importantly because nobody should be a greater authority then the person themselves.I meet two types of people in my work, the anti-authoritarians and the patients. The patients typically struggle with my methods, they want me to be the authority, I want them to fix themselves (with some guidance). They want a diet sheet, I want them to learn, to understand, to take ownership, to realise that things change. And that unless they take the wheel, they may veer wildly off course without even realising it.

authority NOUN

The power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.
‘he had absolute authority over his subordinates’
‘a rebellion against those in authority’

As a nation we are incredibly impatient in so many aspects of our lives, from instantly downloading books and expecting next day delivery (and impending same day drone drops if the media can be believed), through to ready meals that ping out the microwave. Yet when it comes to our health we are prepared to patiently wait for care, so stoic in our acceptance of our illness the we patiently accept whatever our Doctor tells us without question. Admittedly aren't patient with the long wait to see a doctor, venture in any waiting room and you'll hear disgruntled snorts, tuts, sighs, and a fair bit of moaning about the inability to book an appointment. Yet when it comes down to actually sitting face to face with the doctor we become the patient, submissive and compliant. Suddenly we accept whatever we are told and trudge back for test after test, repeat prescription after repeat prescription, popping pill after pill usually with a distinct lack of progress, and more often than not a refusal to discuss anything you may bring up. If the Doctor gives the condition a name, we love it and take ownership like a new baby, often telling our friends and family about it. Often when given a named condition we'll be referred to a specialist in that specific named condition, at which point we are able to claim ownership of "my rheumatologist" or whatever specialist it is. We treat them like Gods and frequently sign our bodies away for medical experimentation without a second thought.

From an early age I always had a problem with authority, it wasn't that I grew up a screaming anarchist hell bent on fighting the power, I just never saw why somebody, indeed anybody could hold a position of authority over me. Surely we should be able to challenge any person and their views, beliefs and actions. Our early days in school are all about discipline, conformity, disempowerment, fitting in and ultimately becoming dependent upon the system. You tick the boxes, they give you the credentials that you need to progress in the system and so forth. Once this compliance with authority is established it can extend to all areas of your life, an overwhelming desire to comply, to do as your told. The Doctor knows best, and you mustn't challenge their authority. Compliance and a willingness to submit to the statins, diabetes drugs, the endless painkillers, antidepressants and the ever growing cocktail of pharmaceutical concoctions that numb our very existence. And despite all this we never ask why? What does it do? Will it help?

Next time you visit your Doctor, do your research, ask some questions. Typically they hate it, they may lash out and ridicule your attempt to engage in your health. Stand your ground, ask questions, get explanations that you can understand. It's your body and nobody has a right to take ownership of what happens with it, especially in a 7 minute consulatation.

It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence. It biases the judgment. - SH

References:
(1) http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/patient

(2) https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/authority

Addicted to the Poison

4/8/2016

I got the poison.
I got the remedy.
I got the pulsating rhythmical remedy.
I got the poison.
I got the remedy.
I got the pulsating rhythmical remedy.
I got the poison.
I got the remedy.
I got the pulsating rhythmical remedy.
I got the poison.
I got the remedy.
I got the poison. I got the poison. I got the poison.
Yeah... Yeah... Yeah...
Yeah... (Boom...) Yeah... (Bah...

We turn up our noses and sneer at those dastardly low-life drug addicts that blight our society. They've got the poison and we think we know the remedy...abstinence, therapy or better still, a criminal record. Yet our streets are lined with Starbucks and Pubs, they're legal and we love it. So why when the worlds most popular drugs are street legal, do we hold such disregard for those seemingly "addicted" to less socially acceptable (depending on the circles you move in) drugs such as heroin or meth?

Are we better addicts? Do we deserve to live a better life? To be loved despite our self-medication? Their can be no doubt that suffering is a part of life, and our ability to adapt to this is what shapes us. Yet their can also be little doubt that "addiction" is a form of suffering, and that If we attach the tag "addict" because you have a beer or bottle of wine every night, does that increase the belief that you need the substance and that you're suffering an infliction? Addiction may not even exist, it may just be a biological response to some sort of suffering, a way to numb the pain, be it physical or emotional. Bang your knee and you'll self-medicate by rubbing it better. Starve yourself of food or a particular macronutrient under the guidance of any number of foodie/nutritionalists and you're likely to self-medicate with any number of "treats" when it all gets too much. You may label this an addiction, a cheat day, call it flexible dieting or even ignore it and promise to get back on the wagon tomorrow.

In the 1970's Dr. Bruce Alexander ran his now famous Rat Park experiments, tracking white laboratory rats housed in cages in close proximity to one another, separated by the steel sides, only engaging in contact when lab staff brought food, water etc, basically solitary confinement. At other times they suffered prolonged starvation and were confined to skinner boxes which allowed for punishments and rewards (limited feeding and electric shocks etc). Inside the skinner boxes the rats reward themselves with pellets by pushing a lever on the side of the box. The metal allowed for administration of electric shocks in order to punish rather than reward. Eventually they considered addiction, and the rats were allowed to inject drugs by pressing the lever, a process that involving being tethered, cathetered (to allow the drug to enter the bloodstream). The results showed that the rats continued to use the lever to self administer heroin, morphine, amphetamine, etc. Thus it came to pass that drugs were labelled addictive to rats and naturally to humans as well. And so began the War on Drugs, and with it, harsh retribution for anyone caught with anything not allowed by the authoritarian state.

Alexander however realised that rats are highly social, and that solitary confinement may drive them crazy which may increase the desire to self-medicate. He also realised that while isolated they had no real options, they couldn't escape the cage and pushing the lever if for no other reason than to stem the boredom seemed inevitable. Along with colleagues he undertook studies to compare the drug usage of rats in a fairly normal environment versus those in isolation. To do this he built a park environment filled with things to climb on, hide in, other rats (of both sexes) and adequate nutrition. Pretty much every experiment they ran showed that the isolated rats consumed more drugs no matter what variables they ran.

Despite the findings being replicated by other researchers it was largely ignored, and continues to be to this day. Addiction is an irresistible disease, something we're all susceptible to, something is claimed to have genetic risk factors. Is it too profitable to turn our backs on expensive long-term drug treatments and therapy, when it may be more useful to consider the socio-economic environment? Why do human become "addicted"? Do things make us feel caged or isolated?

Alexander went further, sadly he couldn't conduct Human Park studies due to ethical reasons, but he was to look back at historical data. Such as when our ancestors colonised various native tribes in Western Canada during the 18th and 19th century. The natives were broken, both economically and culturally, losing their homes and being forced to abandon their language. History shows us that alcoholism became rife, which was explained by the settlers as genetic vulnerability. In effect the natives were the rats, isolated, forced into a new culture and basically caged in an environment that they didn't wish to be in.

What causes your "addictions"? Do you need that wine to numb the pain of working in a job you detest? Is that drug addict that you look down on really just numbing the social and economic pain of being isolated in an environment that basically leaves them with no obvious way out. Are your food issues caused by the likes of Joe Wicks, Davina McCall, Weight Watchers or any other diet club or guru caging you in an environment that leaves you undernourished? Is Jamie Oliver freaking you out about sugar, causing you to create a cage in you restrain yourself from consuming an important fuel?

Are your addictions due to a cage that you have created for yourself? Or even one you have let someone create for you? It's time to escape your cages...

Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose a three-piece suite on hire purchase in a range of fucking fabrics. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourself.
Choose your future.
Choose life. - John Hodge

Reference:

Alexander, B. (2010). The Globalization of Addiction: A study in poverty of the spirit. Oxford Univ. Press.

Cancer: Thousands surviving in UK decades after diagnosis

1/8/2016

The news that "more than 170,000 people in the UK who were diagnosed with cancer up to 40 years ago are still alive", is a positive step forward suggests Macmillan Cancer.[1] Apparently "people are twice as likely to survive for at least a decade after being diagnosed than they were at the start of the 1970s". This it is suggested is due to better treatments and diagnoses. The report [2] Cancer Then and Now, suggests that long-term issues are a major factor in 'survival' and I would suggest that these long-term issues may become a factor in the future.

I've previously written about the "war on cancer" [3] and the statement from Macmillan just doesn't sit well with me;

"People are now twice as likely to survive at least 10 years after being diagnosed with cancer than they were at the start of the 1970s"

For a start, the statement is referenced with the Quaresma, Coleman, and Rachet's (2015) study, in which the assessment of progress in cancer control was based upon an observational study. In "patients diagnosed in 1971-72, the index of net survival was 50% at 1 year after diagnosis. 40 years later, the same value of 50% was predicted at 10 years after diagnosis."

"Predicted 10-year net survival adjusted for age and sex for patients diagnosed between 2010 and 2011 ranged from 1·1% for pancreatic cancer to 98·2% for testicular cancer."

"Net survival for the oldest patients (75-99 years) was persistently lower than for the youngest (15-44 years), even after adjustment for the much higher mortality from causes other than cancer in elderly people."

"The very wide differences in survival for different cancers, and the persistent age gap in survival, suggest the need for renewed efforts to improve cancer outcomes."
FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

Further into the report, they "estimate that at least 170,000 people are living with cancer who were diagnosed in the 1970s and 1980s."
Despite all these estimates, the death rates among adults seem to be steadily rising other than when you jiggle the figures and use age restandardisation, a point Ray brought up previously in his article on Breast Cancer. [5]

"Government officials, editors of the big medical journals, professors and broadcasters, have been able to get away with this huge statistical fraud. I suspect that they will soon feel encouraged to simply make up the data that they want, because eventually “age standardization” isn’t going to work to hide the actual increases in mortality. Since people with cancer usually die of something else, such as a stroke or heart failure, it will be no trick at all to make cancer mortality decline to be replaced by other causes of death. The precedent for such fabulizing of data exists in the FDA’s approval of AZT, and other less notorious drugs." - RP

Whilst I'd like to bring the news that the headline is full of bright prospects, it is seemingly a propaganda piece aimed at keeping us focused on fighting the war on cancer. To keep morale high and convince us that we are succeeding. As I've stated previously, unless mainstream science admits some huge failings, the war will continue.

References

1. Cancer: Thousands surviving in UK decades after diagnosis http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-36925974

2. Macmillian Cancer Then and Now report http://www.macmillan.org.uk/documents/campaigns/cancer-then-now-report-final-online.pdf

3. Craig, B. War on Cancer http://www.billycraig.co.uk/blog/war-on-cancer

4. Quaresma M, Coleman MP, Rachet B. (2015). 40-year trends in an index of survival for all cancers combined and survival adjusted for age and sex for each cancer in England and Wales, 1971-2011: a population-based study. Lancet. 2015 Mar 28;385(9974):1206-18. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61396-9. Epub 2014 Dec 3 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25479696

5. Peat, R. Breast Cancer http://raypeat.com/articles/aging/breastcancer.shtml

EU-genics

29/6/2016

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?

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."
CS Lewis

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;

"The Central Dogma of the molecular geneticists, in their own words, was that information flows only from DNA to RNA, and from RNA to protein, never in the other direction. The Central Dogma was formulated to suppress forever the Lamarckian idea of the inheritance of acquired characters, that Weismann's amputation of the tails of a multitude of mice had attempted to deal with earlier in the history of genetics.
The Central Dogma continues to be influential, even after a series of revisions. Until the 1990s, the only "practical" fruit of genetics had been genocide, but now it has become possible to insert genes into bacteria, and to use the bacteria to produce industrial quantities of specific proteins. In principle, that could be useful, although bovine growth hormone poses a threat to the health of both people and cows, human growth hormone poses a threat to athletes and old people, and human insulin could increase the number of treated diabetics. A deranged culture will put anything cheap to bad use. The ability to make organisms produce foreign proteins confirms that information can flow from DNA to protein, but as that technology was being developed, the discovery of retroviruses showed that the Central Dogma of molecular genetics was wrong, RNA is a very significant template for the production of DNA. And the scrapie prion shows that proteins can be infectious, passing along information without nucleic acids as the agent of transmission. The directed mutations demonstrated by John Cairns and others have thoroughly destroyed the Central Dogma of molecular genetics, even as it applied to the simplest organisms, but molecular genetics survives as an industrial and forensic technology." [7]

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.htmlx.

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/

Becoming a Fat Burner

27/6/2016

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;

Cardio
Resistance Exercise
Cardio first followed by Resistance
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

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 - Step One

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).

Citric Acid Cycle - Step Two

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.

Electron Transport Chain - Step Three

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.

References:

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.

Cellular Respiration

20/6/2016

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).

Fat for fuel

20/6/2016

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.

Bubbly drink trial 'to boost cancer therapy'

9/6/2016

Yesterday's headline on the BBC website looked so promising, 'Bubbly drink trial 'to b oost 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.

Billy Gene

6/6/2016

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 versus Water

5/6/2016

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.

No flour chocolate cake

4/6/2016

Ingredients

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

Instructions

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.

Hayfever Part one. Cholesterol, Polyunsaturated Fats and Sugar

22/4/2016

For years I suffered the fate of hayfever whenever winter abated and the sun reared its head. For me, summer was filled with dread as I awaited the sniffly eyes, the runny nose and the sore throat.

I tried everything the doctor could throw at me, nasal sprays that felt like they were freezing my brain, antihistamines that felt useless, and even steroids (you never saw Arnie sneezing did you).

In my early twenties I became focused on studying health and began working in the "industry", eventually becoming a nutrition guru (I apologise). I flirted with many ideas around solving my allergies, and truly believed that by being "healthy", I deserved some sort of reward in the form of less itchy eyes or a throat that didn't feel like I'd swallowed a thousand razor blades.

Over the years rapeseed (canola) became more and more abundant in the surrounding countryside, which became a real problem for me every year. This was my first real problem with the crop which I now consider one of the dirtiest of the lot. Yet it took me several more years before I linked it (in fact all polyunsaturated oils) to allergies.

"a high ratio of n-6/n-3 PUFA increased the serum HDL-C level"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19729862/

On the face of it that seems good, the so called heart healthy oils raise the "good" HDL cholesterol. However....

"...positive linear associations were found between HDL cholesterol levels and allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (AR), atopic eczema (AE) and, furthermore, between the intake of PUFA and allergic sensitization in men (P<0.01). After adjustment, an increasing risk for atopic diseases with increasing levels of HDL cholesterol and an increasing risk for allergic sensitization with increasing intakes of PUFA remained statistically significant."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/14519141/

I wasn't a major consumer of polyunsaturated fats but my HDL (the so called good cholesterol) was high, which at the time I was proud of, taking it as evidence of my healthy heart. Thanks to the work of some renegade scientists (Ray and co.), we now know (at least those of us separated from media and industry propaganda) that HDL isn't as good as we were told.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6278/1126

HDL raises in response to toxins. So the mechanism by which flora spread probably works, is that it causes stress/damage/inflammation which causes a rise in the so called good HDL which then ferries the toxins to your liver in order to excrete them.

According to the advert, "reducing your consumption of saturated fat contributes to the maintenance of normal blood cholesterol levels", that would be the "normal" levels that firstly show no benefit in reducing cardiovascular events, and secondly the ones mentioned above that are simply a response to a toxin.

My own high HDL level was most likely a result of the low carbohydrate diet I followed for many years and the subsequent high cortisol levels.

"...HDL (the so called good cholesterol) concentrations were higher (P<.05) in the carbohydrate restriction (CR) groups compared to the control groups. In contrast, high dietary cholesterol (CR-H and control-H) resulted in higher concentrations of total and LDL (the one thats actually good) cholesterol compared to those guinea pigs fed the low-cholesterol diets (P<.01). Dietary cholesterol significantly increased the total number of LDL particles (P<.001) and the number of small LDL (P<.001), as determined by nuclear magnetic resonance. In contrast, carbohydrate restriction (CR-L and CR-H) resulted in lower concentrations of medium very-low-density lipoprotein and small LDL particles compared to the high-carbohydrate groups"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18495466

"Cortisol...showed a positive correlation (r = .21) with high density lipoprotein cholesterol. The relationship between cortisol and high density lipoprotein cholesterol persisted after adjustment for gender, body mass index, waist-hip ratio, cigarette and alcohol use, triglyceride level, and diabetes."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7490384

"...cortisol concentrations were consistently lower during the high carbohydrate diet than during the high protein diet (7.74 ± 0.71 μg/d1 vs. 10.6 ± 0.4 μg/d1 respectively, p<0.05), and there were parallel changes in corticosteroid binding globulin concentrations (635 ± 60 nmol/1 vs. 754 ± 31 nmol/1 respectively p<0.05). The diets were equal in total calories and fat. These consistent and reciprocal changes suggest that the ratio of protein to carbohydrate in the human diet is an important regulatory factor for steroid hormone plasma levels and for liver-derived hormone binding proteins."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0024320587900865

As a good paleolitic eater I avoided sugar as I knew it was a poisonous toxin way back before Jamie Oliver was still sipping Coca Cola totally unaware of the propaganda train he was to push many years later. Despite my avoidance, my cortisol levels continued to be raised, an issue which I ignored for some time due to it not making much paleo sense.

"Sucrose, but not aspartame, consumption associated with reduced (P = .024) stress-induced cortisol. The sucrose group also had a lower reactivity to naltrexone, significantly (P = .041) lower nausea, and a trend (P = .080) toward lower cortisol."
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/10.1210/jc.2014-4353

So after many years in the low carb wilderness things just weren't making sense and I made a decision to open my books and become a little more scientific which lead me back to my pre-paleo diet and a variety of super scientists that inspired me to dig further.

As it turned out, a high-carbohydrate diet increases TG levels and decreases HDL-C (HDL cholesterol) as well as HDL apoA-I.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2682989/

And the severity of anaphyLACTIC shock in both rats and mice is altered by the concentration of glucose in the blood. Hypoglycaemia (as is common in the low carb world) increases the effect whereas shock severity is decreased or halted by a hyperglycaemia induced state in which 'excess' glucose is administered.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1557370/pdf/bripharmchem00014-0149.pdf

Some year ago I wrote about the absurdity of attempting to treat hayfever (a histamine issue) with local honey, as though it was a virus and immunity could be built up somehow via consuming the honey. That some people claim it works was attributed to the placebo effect. Yet I am now more drawn to the theory that it is the sugar that simply reduces catecholamines (stress hormones) and with it the inflammation and HDL leading to a reduction is symptoms.

As final note, this may be a factor in the relief claimed by some who receive homeopathic hayfever treatment. Less a placebo and more an actual benefit from the sugar pill.

Authoritarian Totalitarian Living

24/3/2016

We are ever moving towards a totalitarian superstate that exercises power and control over our lives, as envisaged by both George Orwell and Aldus Huxley. Authoritarianism shrouds our society and the transition towards a dystopian world happens from the moment you are born. The recent threat to tax sugar is an attempt to punish behaviors by an authoritarian government with a history of poor health advice. Claims made about sugar in regard to both obesity and health are backed up by what is labeled as weak evidence (i.e. not evidence).

As Orwell stated, “ignorance becomes strength” and via the mainstream media, our educational system, we slip into either learned helplessness in which we feel powerless to oppose, or we become ignorant/oblivious to alternatives. As a political tool controlling dissent and critical thought give power or indeed, authority.

As Huxley suggested, social control and ignorance has been introduced via the methods of pleasure and distraction. A world obsessed with celebrity, happily watching reality shows while eschewing actual reality. Chasing identities sold to us by the media sources that we freely trust without question. Allowing industry to freely show us what commodities are necessary to conform be it in social standing or even in the role of sick patient.

Critical thinking is dead, and if I’m honest I think it is squeezed out of us the moment childhood ends and education begins. From the very moment we dampen the inquisitive nature of our children and begin to focus them on curriculum criteria, we begin to kill the possibility freethinking. Daring to oppose the mainstream (group think) opinion risks being ostracisied from the jobs, educational settings and risks your ability to tick the boxes needed to move forward in society.

By the time we become adults we've often lost the ability to ask "why?". Oppression via distractions, diversions and the illusion the authority needs to be respected. Yet we soak it up and shirk at the thought of being asked to stand on our own two feet, to think for ourself and draw our own conclusions away from the vile contrived opinions of the Daily Mail. From sugar hating right through to the deadly C, we happily read and fall inline with all that we are told without question. Often by the time I meet a client they are swimming in a swimming pool of learned helplessness unable to stop themselves from drowning despite being told the water isn't deep, stand up and you can save yourself. Time and time again I throw out pubmed studies and suggest people confront their physician with their own evidence, to be hit back with "my doctor didn't want to discuss it", or "I don't want to upset them".

From a young age we constantly ask our parents “why?” and at times it can be frustrating to constantly receive the same question to every little thing that pops in their inquisitive minds. However, you’re empowering them more than any education they will ever receive, by simply engaging in the question. Help them look for real answers. Encourage the why, standby them if they challenge authority and above all question everything. For it is a dire state to be in when someone is no longer interested standing up and challenging authority. Do the same yourself,be a kid and question everything.

War on Cancer

24/12/2015

Prior to reading this article please be aware that in no way do I intend to offend anyone who has or wishes to raise money for the various cancer charities, I have the upmost respect for anyone who has dedicated their time and effort to a cause in which they believed would help. The criticism is focused on an industry that continues ‘research’ poor theories whilst avoiding biological evidence that won’t generate profit. Countless money is being wasted on an un-winnable war.

The War on Cancer was intended as an effort to research the biology of cancer with the aim of developing ‘effective’ cancer treatments. President Nixon declared War on Cancer when he signed the National Cancer Act of 1971, yet it is a war which ultimately has no end insight with no real progress by the allies in attacking the so called enemy. Forget about ISIS, the War on Cancer has cost the public dear, both in terms of lost life and wasted financial investment. Just like War’s in far away lands, the only benefits seem currently to be those who can profit from an enduring battle. Yesterday was the Anniversary of the Great War (December 23, 1971), is it time we declared peace, stopped fighting and directed our efforts at a scientific evidence based understanding of cancer metabolism?

How much has this war cost us? And what, if anything, has it achieved?
161,823 died of cancer in the UK during 2012 http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/content/cancer-mortality-statistics#heading-Zero and the financial costs were no less startling, estimated at ‘over £15 billion’ per year. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20222759

Year upon year we spend more and more on cancer treatment, we raised £522 million for Cancer Research here in the UK between 2014 and 2015 http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/sites/default/files/annual_report_and_accounts_2014-15.pdf
Sadly, despite their claims that we’re beating cancer sooner, we aren’t. As Kolata (2009) discussed, the cancer death rate, adjusted for the size and age of the population, has only decreased by 5 percent since the 50’s, and even that is debatable. (Read this article about how industry plays with the figures to both keep us donating and impress upon us that progress is being made in the war http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/cancer-disorder-energy.shtml). Cancer remains a major cause of death, and an unknown attacker despite 40+ years of ‘research’. Currently the war efforts are directed towards the Human Genome Project, which is intended to expose the genetic factors that cause cancer. As ever this is currently unable to progress the frontline battle and our frontline troops face an uncertain future as they raise money for research and keep their fingers crossed that aren’t one of the unlucky ones that gets dragged into a dirty war. For more on the gene mutation theory, have a look at this fantastic article by Ray http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/the-cancer-matrix.shtml

I have a confession, to my knowledge I have never donated to a Cancer Charity, other than ones set up directly by families in which I know they money is helping them directly at a very difficult time (either to seek treatment not paid for via the National Health Service or just to maintain their ability to survive during tough times). I have donated many hours to assist those in need (if they wish my advice) and will continue to do so. However, I will not put a penny in the pot if it goes towards junk research, as I stated earlier I totally respect anyone who has engaged in actively trying to help but for me the effort is unjustified from two major points.

The majority of Cancer research is so poor that it is never going to establish a cure or even prevention. Look at how many years this has been ongoing without any progress. We can fire a bomb that goes directly to an address, we can fire a man into space but when it comes to disease (especially cancer) it is down to luck of the draw. You either get it or you don’t. If you do then it needs killing…burn it, cut it out, chop of the effected area and basically maim the person to eradicate the disease. How long you then survive is down to how serious your treatment was, but a tick goes in the ‘Cancer Survivor” box.
Running a race, or indeed anything that causes the inability to work aerobically puts you at risk of developing a Cancer Metabolism.

So, should you run the race for life, or is it in fact putting you in the firing line? Lactate is produced during aerobic glycolysis when glucose is broken down and oxidized. During intense exercise (anaerobic glycolysis) when oxygen levels are lower, there is increased production of lactate.

‘High rate of glycolysis is a metabolic hallmark of cancer, and anaerobic glycolysis promotes energy production under hypoxia (inadequate oxygen in the tissue). Indeed, lactate is associated with poor clinical outcome in several cancers, and whilst initially considered an indicator of the glycolytic flux, we now know that lactic acid directly contributes to tumor growth and progression.’ (Dhup, Dadhich, Porporato, & Sonveaux. (2012). Cellular respiration refers to the metabolic processes occurring within the cells that convert food into adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and waste products. Large molecules are broken down into smaller molecules that releases the energy that we need. Sugar, fatty acids and amino acids are all utilised and oxidised with oxygen (O2).

Aerobic respiration requires that we have O2 available in order that we can generate ATP. Pyruvate enters the mitochondria to be fully oxidized by the Krebs cycle resulting in the ‘so called’ waste product ‘carbon dioxide’ as well as water (H2O). The energy produced then breaks the bonds in Adenosine diphosphate (ADP) adding a third phosphate to form the ATP via the metabolic reaction known as substrate-level phosphorylation. NADH is also oxidized to NAD+, yielding 2.5 ATPs and FADH2 (flavin adenine dinucleotide) yields 1.5 ATPs during oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS), which provides most of the ATP produced via cellular respiration.

The potential of NADH and FADH2 is converted to more ATP via the electron transport chain in which oxygen is the terminal electron acceptor. In theory 38 ATP molecules can be produced via cellular respiration (2 via glycolysis, 2 via Krebs cycle, and about 34 via the electron transport system). However, the yield can be lower due to various factors and may be anywhere between 29 to 30 ATP per glucose. Aerobic metabolism is much more efficient than anaerobic metabolism (which yields 2 molecules ATP per 1 molecule glucose).

Glycolysis is a pathway that can function both with and without oxygen. As discussed above, aerobic conditions produce pyruvate and anaerobic conditions produces lactate.

However, without oxygen pyruvate is not metabolised via cellular respiration and instead undergoes fermentation. Pyruvate is no longer transported into the mitochondria, instead it remains in the cytoplasm and is converted to waste products so that it can be removed from the cell. This works to oxidize the electron carriers allowing them to perform glycolysis and remove the excess pyruvate. Fermentation oxidizes the NADH to NAD+ so it can be re-used in glycolysis, which prevents a build up of NADH in the cytoplasm. This waste product is called lactic acid that occurs due to lactic acid fermentation. When your energy needs exceed your supply (such as when running a charity race), the respiratory chain is no longer able to process the hydrogen atoms that are joined by NADH. NAD+ regenerates when the pairs of hydrogen combine with the pyruvate and form the lactate. When oxygen becomes available again NAD+ attaches to hydrogen from the lactate and forms ATP. The fermentation process is far less efficient and produces only 2 ATP compared to the 29-38 ATP produced during aerobic respiration.

Otto Warburg's early work on Cancer Metabolism is often misrepresented (you’ll often see Warburg credited as finding that sugar causes Cancer) yet his main observation was that lactic acid was produced by cancer cells even when adequate oxygen was seemingly present. Over exertion (such as when running) depletes our reserves of glucose and we shift to producing lactic acid, which in turn increases cortisol (stress hormone) and causes you to shift to fat and protein as fuel rather than glucose (hurrah you here the fat burning gym junkies cry). How long you have the ability to run for without shifting to using fat or protein for fuel is an unknown factor, basically you could either run out of glucose stores (unless you have a very large rucksack to carry enough fuel for your required distance) or you may fail to consume enough oxygen. Either way its safe to assume that running any sort of distance puts you at an enhanced risk of fat/protein usage as opposed to the preferred source.

Forming lactic acid as a by-product of adapted energy metabolism is normal if one is running. For example, if you’re being chased by an attacker then it is far safer to produce fuel via an emergency mechanism if your either low on glucose or oxygen (such as when you’re losing the ability to breath properly mid chase). Long term its not a biomarker you wish to exhibit. Both Warburg and Albert Szent-Gyorgyi pioneered the understanding of respiratory defects being present in Cancer cases. Indeed Koch showed that the ability to efficiently use oxygen corrected a cancer metabolism.

References:

Kolata. (2009). In long drive to cure cancer, advances have been elusive. The New York Times, April 24.

Dhup., S, Dadhich., R, K, Porporato., P, E, & Sonveaux,. P. (2012). Multiple biological activities of lactic acid in cancer: influences on tumor growth, angiogenesis and metastasis. Curr Pharm Des;18(10):1319-30.)

Koch, W.F. (1921). The Survival Factor in Neoplastic and Viral Diseases. The Inter. Oxid. Instit., Priest River, Idaho, 83856.

Endorphin - Feel good?

17/12/2015

Endorphins are often referred to as the brain's "feel-good" chemicals. More often than not when I describe the lack of actual benefit from cardiovascular exercise, I'm confronted with the 'but it makes me feel good' stance.

Endorphin's are morphine like chemicals, your body's own stash of opiates that help decrease pain and create feelings of euphoria. A legal drug that is produced within your own body. From an evolutionary perspective it would seem that endorphins role is to allow us to persist despite some stressor.

The pituitary gland releases endorphins in response to stress, and that could be strenuous exercise, emotional stress, pain, and even under nourishment i.e.dieting.
Endorphins work to relieve pain and also induce euphoria, which leads to it playing a role in your brain's reward system. In exercisers this is the well known phenomenon "runner's high," which relates to the highs experienced post exercise, and the serious lows if they can't fit in that run or gym session.

From a clinical perspective these "feel-good" chemicals play a role in addiction to exercise and dieting, in which an individual habitually returns to starvation/fasting protocols despite poor previous results. When they discontinue a diet or can't train the stressor is removed and the endorphins are no longer released, leaving the individual with symptoms such as anxiety, pain, depression, guilt etc. Only when the stressor returns does the exerciser/dieter get their fix of opiate-like chemicals.

Slave to the Sugar

4/11/2015

Thanks to Emma for this propaganda article http://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/nutrition/sugar-how-we-came-to-crave-the-food-that-nobody-needs/ar-BBmM1g5?li=AA51YE&ocid=HPCDHP

For those of you that don't want to click on the link and give the site a payday, I've pasted parts of it below. In short they are once again stating that we don't need sugar when I think you'll find that we do. In fact the brain needs around 120g a day and cannot function without it (aside from during prolonged starvation when it reverts to a survival mechanism...oddly some diets attempt to keep you in this shock/stress state).

It seems as though no other substance occupies so much of the world’s land, for so little benefit to humanity, as sugar. According to the latest data, sugarcane is the world’s third most valuable crop after cereals and rice, and occupies 26,942,686 hectares of land across the globe. I think we've already covered this, sugar does is fairly valuable for humanity, it is what our cells rely upon for energy.

Its main output – apart from commercial profits – is a global public health crisis, which has been centuries in the making. I'd like to see the evidence for this...oddly I can't find any!

The obesity epidemic – along with related diseases including cancer, dementia, heart disease and diabetes – has spread across every nation where sugar-based carbohydrates have come to dominate to the food economy. Again I've yet to see any evidence for these bold claims. Correlation doesn't equals causation, I mean it would be daft for me to point the figure at polyunsaturated fatty acids and state that the increased intake of these oils also correlates fairly well with increases in various disease states.

The rest of the article rants on about the socioeconomic impact of sugar and even it's links to slavery. Nasty old sugar, that essential energy that your brain needs to survive has a shady past.

Jamie Oliver's unjust crusade against sugar

24/10/2015

As Jamie admits on his website, his team started looking into sugar consumption and decided they had enough to film a TV documentary. Now don't get me wrong, he may be well meaning, but the fact that he sees these devastating effects of sugar and decides to make a TV show just makes me think one thing, money, fame and attention. However lets play the game and imagine it was all for our benefit to scare us into becoming sugar-phobic like Davina McCall.

Jamie is pushing for a tax on sugary drinks, not the tax you already pay on many foods and beverages but another one just on drinks that contain added sugar (I'm fairly sure he's not including alcohol). He's not asking that you be taxed for indulging in his delicious sugary desserts, just drinks as far as I'm aware. I'm sure he'll still sell pavlova in his restaurants so don't panic just yet.

You can read this 'courageous, forward-thinking' document here Public Health England - Sugar Reduction, The Evidence for Action. Sadly this great document doesn't really contain anything new and just refers to The Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) report, Carbohydrate and Health which we'll cover in more detail later.

My belief is that the SACN report is based upon the World Health Organisation (WHO) Guidelines: Sugar Intake for Adults and Children which I covered in my previous blog post.

As you can see above, the WHO recommendations are based upon low quality and moderate quality evidence in relation to body weight, and very low and moderate quality evidence for dental caries. Basically it's not evidence that any self respecting scientist would dare use to make such bold statements.

However, as we know Jamie is using the SACN guidance for his campaign. So I thought I'd have a look through it and see what the evidence looks like.

The Science Behind SACN’s review contains the 'evidence' on page 15-18 and it makes for an interesting read. For the full review click the link above.

SACN’s claim the review was comprehensive and includes systematic reviews of the literature in order to identify 'relevant' studies.

Their 'objective was to identify the best quality evidence' so they restricted it to 'evidence from randomised controlled trials (which have the potential to demonstrate a causal relationship, e.g. between an aspect of diet and a risk factor for disease) and prospective cohort studies (which reveal associations, e.g. between an aspect of diet and a disease risk factor or endpoint) as these are considered the most robust study designs for diet and health research.'

Here are a few gems taken from this comprehensive review about the dangers of sugar. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions about the quality of evidence upon which Mr Oliver has based his latest campaign.

'Very few studies on the effects of individual sugars, such as glucose, fructose or sucrose, met the inclusion criteria. There was also insufficient evidence of appropriate quality to draw conclusions on the impact of sugars intake on the majority of cardio- metabolic outcomes in adults, including body weight.
Few trials on fructose met the inclusion criteria for the SACN report because many were either not randomised or they were of insufficient duration. No studies specifically investigating the effects of high fructose corn syrup were identified that met the inclusion criteria. However, as concern has been expressed around fructose consumption and its implications for cardio-metabolic health, evidence from trials that did not meet the inclusion criteria for SACN’s report were considered. It was concluded that, on balance, there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that fructose intake, at levels consumed in the normal UK diet, leads to adverse health outcomes independently of any effects related to fructose’s presence as a component of total and free sugars.'

'There was a lack of evidence to assess the impact of sugars intake on oral health in adults; evidence for a relationship comes from studies in children and adolescents. Most of the evidence on sugars and on sugars-sweetened foods and beverages considered in SACN’s report is derived from prospective cohort studies.'

'Prospective cohort studies are observational in nature rather than involving an intervention and so cannot demonstrate a causal relationship, only an association. Generally, evidence from three or more such studies was used to judge whether an association existed, where possible supported by a meta-analysis of the combined data.'

'Expert judgement was also applied and where an association appeared to exist, the evidence was graded as adequate, moderate or limited (details of the evidence grading system used by SACN can be found in Annex 2 of the SACN report).'

The evidence for a relationship between sugars intake and tooth decay comes from mainly prospective cohort studies and some trials, conducted in children and adolescents. Studies that adjusted results for tooth brushing frequency were given more weight during the assessment because oral hygiene practices may have affected results. SACN concluded that decreased consumption of free sugars would help to lower the risk of dental decay, which continues to be a problem in the UK.
In children and adolescents:

Cardiovascular disease, colorectal cancer and type 2 diabetes
The findings from prospective studies were:

 there is insufficient evidence to enable conclusions to be drawn in relation to cardiovascular disease risk factors or endpoints (events) (see paragraphs 6.6-6.17 of the SACN report)
 sugars or sugars-sweetened beverage intake are not associated with the incidence of colorectal cancer (see paragraphs 6.38-6.39 of the SACN report)
 there is no association between the incidence of type 2 diabetes and total or individual sugars intake (see paragraphs 6.23-6.34 of the SACN report)

 but a greater risk of type 2 diabetes is associated with a higher intake of sugars- sweetened beverages. This finding was not supported by the limited evidence from randomised trials, which showed no effect of diets differing in sugars content on blood sugar and insulin levels or on insulin resistance (see paragraphs 6.25-6.28 of the SACN report)

SACN comments that the reason for this discrepancy with type 2 diabetes, between the results of prospective studies and randomised controlled trials, is not clear. Presumably the increased risk might reflect higher energy intakes among those with higher intakes of sugars-sweetened drinks. In a meta-analysis of prospective (observational) cohort studies, incidence of type 2 diabetes increased by 23% for each additional 330ml/day of sugars- sweetened drinks consumed (see paragraphs 6.35-6.37 of the SACN report).

Randomised controlled trials
Although most of the evidence available that met SACN’s inclusion criteria came from prospective, observational cohort studies, some randomised controlled trials also met the inclusion criteria. Randomised controlled trials can provide evidence of causal relationships rather than associations. Generally, there needed to be three or more randomised controlled trials to determine whether or not there was evidence of an effect. Where an effect appeared to be present, the evidence was graded by SACN as adequate, moderate or limited.

Cardio-metabolic outcomes
Randomised controlled trials examining cardiovascular risk factors, body weight, inflammatory markers and risk factors for type 2 diabetes demonstrate no effects of increasing sugars intake.
There is also insufficient evidence to assess the link between individual sugars and sugars-sweetened foods and drinks and cardio-metabolic outcomes.

I'm not totally against Jamie's desire to shift people towards a more wholesome diet, but his demonisation of sugar in drinks whilst continuing to sell sweet desserts ironically leaves me with a bitter taste in my mouth. As I've stated before, sugar is neither toxic (unless consumed in massive doses, which applies to most substances) or addictive. It is essential, (especially for brain function it would appear) and pretty disgusting if consumed alone (take the sugar challenge and see how many spoonfuls of table sugar you want to consume). I admit that when food processors get their hands on sugar and fat they are able to induce sometimes uncontrollable cravings, but as a chef surely that is Jamie's role? To create dishes that entice our tastebuds and leave us desiring more?

So is it a 'courageous, forward-thinking' document with evidence for action.....or a cowardly, backward-thinking attack with action without evidence that Jamie doesn't fully understand?

Offering nutritional consultation, dietary and health analysis, CHEK practitioner, exercise coach, personal trainer, and neuromuscular therapy services worldwide via online consultation but based in the East Midlands, Derby, Nottingham, Burton areas. Cover all areas including Willington, Repton, Findern, Milton, Duffield, Allestree, Darley Abbey, Littleover, Mackworth, Quarndon, Mickleover, Alvaston, Chellaston, Chaddesden and the surrounding areas. I have clients that travel from all over the UK and Europe so please get in touch to discuss how I can help you.