Does chocolate give you spots?

Long time now since I wrote anything. Unfortunately I been a little busy.

I read an interesting article on BBC News (Does chocolate give you spots?) about acne. You know spots. The question is if it is a link between chocolate and spots. Some people think so and other do not. According to the article is the verdict still out there.

What fascinated me with the article was not so much if chocolate actually cause spots or not. But the discussion about scientific result. How can one be sure that the studies are correct and do not have flaws in them. When it comes to food is there so many different things that can and should be taken into account. So even the simple act of finding out the effect of chocolate, is hard.

One thing that is it says:

Until the 1960s, the view that chocolate exacerbated the problem was widely held in the scientific community. It was thought that acne sufferers had an impaired tolerance of glucose, the sugar which our bodies convert carbohydrates into for distribution in the bloodstream. Popular textbooks of the 1940s and 1950s counseled against sugary food and drink – including chocolate – as part of acne treatment.

I think I take my guess on old honest wisdom. Just as everybody knew that carbohydrate made you rounder. They also very likely had it right about this.

Will a cola kill you?

Of course will not a cola kill you. But according to an article in Time. Sugary Beverages Linked to 180,000 Deaths Worldwide Could a 12 oz can of soda a day be harmful for you.

The study does fall into the category, observational. And I would not count on to much on it. But it is nice that again I can hear the wind is changing.

Thinking of that it is not only  the sugary drinks that contains sugar. Today at lunch did we discuss weather the fish not only was coated with crushed almond but also if it contained  some sugar. We agreed that it was very tasty. So that meant it had to contain sugar.

Do you get smarter by eating egg?

Today did the Swedish paper SvD have an article about that one get smarter by eating eggs. Not that it was referring to any new study or so. It just stated that the short time memory is getting better with some of the nutrients it has.

Another thing mentioned, was that egg have gone from a cholesterol filled deadly bomb to something of the most cleverest to eat. Of course when one think off that an egg contains all necessary to create living being. Then one have to come to believe that eggs seems to be an hell of a smart thing to eat.

So even though it was not referring to any bad or good science. Do I think that something is changing in society. The wind do seem to change.

Study on a healthy Nordic diet

Well again do we have a study that according to the Swedish newspaper  DN.  Proves we should ditch the butter and go for the margarine. So it  is time to try to find the study and see what it says, and how it was done.

A much better article about the study, and in English is at New study on a healthy Nordic diet.

Unfortunately when it came to the study itself. Does it cost to read it at Journal of Internal Medicine. But the abstract has some information.

To begin with, is it an observational or intervention study? It was an intervention, that is good. Did they check for compliance? As much as one can expect when they not inhouse. They used ”4-day food diaries and fatty acid composition of serum phospholipids”. Last thing, means as I understand taking blood samples to verify what they eat.

How about drop outs? ”Altogether 309 individuals were screened, 200 started the intervention after 4-week run-in period, and 96 (proportion of drop outs 7.9%) and 70 individuals (drop outs 27%) completed the study, in the Healthy diet and Control diet groups, respectively”. So it says that they only had 7.9 % drop out in the intervention group. While in the control group did they lose nearly 30 %. Why? Did they die? Then what about the 109 (309-200) that did not continue the study. Why where they excluded? Hopefully is it possible to read that in the full paper.

Who where the subjects? ”individuals with features of metabolic syndrome…..BMI 31.6”. And even though BMI is not a best way to measure health. Do I guess that these where not the average health club visitor.

So did they change one variable for the intervention group. Of course not. The intervention group where to eat following ”A healthy Nordic diet can also be composed according to the principle of locally-sourced foods. Hard animal fat and milk fat are replaced by rapeseed oil and plant oil based margarine, fat-free or low fat dairy products are recommended, eat plenty of domestic seasonal fruits, which in the Nordic countries means apples, pears or plumbs, berries, vegetables, root vegetables, legumes and cabbage, plus wholegrain products made from rye, barley or oats every day. Nuts can also be part of the diet. Eat fish and fatty fish 2–3 times a week, plus game and poultry. Red meat and sausages should be eaten in moderation.”. I used the text from the english article mention above as it was more complete. And it seemed to be written in collaboration  with 2 of those involved in the study.(some of it would any one on low carb agree that it is good for you)

From the abstract: ”An average Nordic diet served as a Control diet” What does that mean? To me does it sound as they asked the control group to change their diet according to the scientist request. If so, not only did they not only change more than one parameter on the intervention group. They actually changed the control group. But to what? Maybe this was the reason of the high drop out with the ”control” group. They could not stomach the diet.

So here we have a group of people who very likely was eating white bread, pasta, french fries, sausages and maybe whatever junk you can imagine. And then changed to eat more vegetables, nuts, fish (even fatty) and so on.

Their weight did not change (if I understand right from other articles, this was on purpose), and ”no significant changes were observed in insulin sensitivity or blood pressure”.

Well! I find it significant that many who starts with LCHF, reports that they can stop, or reduce the insulin and blood pressure lowering drugs. And here nothing happened.

It all boils down to this: An example of a study, that is as you would ask a bunch of smokers who are smoking unfiltered cigarettes to  change to filtered. Also ask them to take up exercising and other changes. Then observe how many get lung cancer. Would you say the filtered protects you from lung cancer? And everybody should start to smoke them.

By the way, noticed the bold text. It is my way of pointing out that the scientists who did this already had an opinion on what is healthy. It makes at least me wondering if they are objective.

Update: diabetes.dochas written in Swedish his findings of reading the full article.

 

Fat % what about it?

So the word is getting around that BMI is not the best way to define if a person is unhealthy or not. But is a calculation of the body fat better? I assume it should be.

Unfortunately, it is a little hard to measure it. I myself have a scale at home that besides the weight also gives me a fat %, muscle % and water % of my body.

Of course a consumer scale is not something one should trust completly. But I think I can trust it when reporting a change over long time. I think that when I started lower my  weight was the fat closer to 25 % than I think was comfortable, But I do not remember any real values. I do remember that I did see more change as I started with LCHF. That is, the more fat I ate. The more did the fat % decrease. Now I am around 17-18 %.

But what is a good value? And how did they come to know it is good? Looking around on the net did I come accross some data on wikipedia, seen below. On other places did I also find tables that also divided people into age groups.

And guess what. If you are older can you have more fat. Again how did they come to that conclusion? Is it just as with BMI, that you can have high fat %. But by staying fit and excercise regurarly, do you have a better chance in life.

I used to think that gaining some fat with age was normal, not anymore. That it is common yes, but not normal. To me, do I think that is a way of our bodies to tell us something.

And that is that you have started to become ”allergic” to carbohydrates. Because the body do like to regulate itself. And will do good job if you do not give it much work, for a too long time.

Description      Women      Men
Essential fat*    10–13%      2–5%
Athletes            14–20%      6–13%
Fitness             21–24%     14–17%
Average            25–31%      18–24%
Obese              32%+           25%+

*Essential fat is the level below which physical and physiological health would be negatively affected.

How to green the world’s deserts and reverse climate change

This is a fantastic talk by a guy named: Allan Savory
He talks about the problem with deforestation. And how to solve it.
One comment on youtube did say something like ”In your face vegans”
Because that what it is. Some people claim that the meat production is bad for the climate.

This guy proves them wrong To save the land from deforestation, cattle is the answer.
Because clearly slash an burning have not done it.

And the idea to mimic nature is to me fantastic. It how the world evolved.
How to green the world’s deserts and reverse climate change

It is well worth to listen do.

Is the glass half full or half empty?

Today did I find this uplifting talk about positive thinking. Many of the things he talks about, is something I think I felt a lot before. One thing is,, that if you look on things from a positive angle then in general, are you a much more content and therefore happier person.

And it is important to feel content in life. That why the search for more wealth and status always make you unhappy, And makes people to  look into different aspect of Buddhism. Usually run by people who just like to make money

Is the glass half full or half empty? The final proof! Leo Bormans at TEDxGhent

 

BBC News warning of Processed meat

Again today has it been a warning of eating processed meat, red meat and fat. This time I found the article in BCC News.
They warn that you will die young!!! If you eat the stuff.

To begin with, do I like to say that I agree that one should stay away from processed food. It is just that this does not prove anything.

So let us see what it was. We got a link to the abstract. BMC Medicine where we can get a version of the paper itself.

First thing you can see is that is an observational study. That is they asked people what they for maybe last 6 months. And they check now 13 years later to see how many still lives. It is more to that. But I just give the short version of it.

For me is it no question about it i shit in shit out. If you look at any of this questionairs. And then ask yourself. How accurate would you fill it out? Or maybe, how would others fair? Do you rely think you would write truthfully?

We all know that people underestimate how much we rely eat. And on top of that, is it not that people who want to live healthy, would overestimate some things. While others with other priorities would underestimate same stuff. The mere fact that they would differ in how they over/underestimate things would mean: Who can be sure of anything?

Fundamentally one should ask How could some peoples opinion/memory of past eating have any correlating with what they have eaten and will be eating next coming 10 years?

It seemed a litte odd to me to find that they mixed in high fat suddenly. Till I read the study. And found that they made the assumption that process meat is high fat meat. To me have the sausages been low fat for the last 20 years.

According to the article so ”It showed people who ate a lot of processed meat were also more likely to smoke, be obese and have other behaviours known to damage health.

But of course did the scientist say that they took it in account. Just one slight problem, besides my above mentioning of how the input was gathered. They have not taken in account of the consumption of neither wheat, sugar or other starches.

To end do I just have to link to at the moment the latest blog post that rawfoodsos had. She do not write often, but the stuff is good.

It from there I got the link about the example questionnaire.