OK TO BE FAT IF YOU ARE OLD

The journal article abstracted below is a lot of fun. It starts out admitting that among older people your weight has little or no bearing on how long you will live. Being greatly dissatisfied with that pesky truth, however, they say that maybe fatties are sicker, even if they don't die. But even their findings there were pretty pesky. What they found is in fact the usual finding: That people of MIDDLING weight are the healthiest! Both the skinnies and the real fatties had slightly more illness

The Effect of Obesity on Disability vs Mortality in Older Americans

By Soham Al Snih et al.

Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:774-780

Background: The association between obesity and mortality is reduced or eliminated in older subjects. In addition to mortality, disability is an important health outcome. The objectives of this study were to examine the association between body mass index (BMI), calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared, and subsequent disability and mortality among older Americans, as well as to estimate the effect of BMI on life expectancy and disability-free life expectancy among older Americans.

Methods: We studied 8359 non-Hispanic white Americans, 1931 African Americans, and 2435 Mexican Americans 65 years or older who were not disabled at baseline from 5 sites of the Established Populations for Epidemiologic Studies of the Elderly. Measures included BMI, medical conditions, activities of daily living, and demographic information. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) for subsequent disability and mortality during 7 years of follow-up. Total life expectancy and disability-free life expectancy were estimated using the interpolation of Markov chain approach.

Results: The lowest HR (1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94-1.10) for disability was at a BMI of 25 to less than 30. Subjects with BMIs of lower than 18.5 or 30 or higher at baseline were significantly more likely to experience disability during the follow-up period. In contrast, the lowest HRs for mortality were seen among subjects with BMIs of 25 to less than 30 (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.72-0.85) and 30 to less than 35 (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.72-0.90), with subjects with BMIs of lower than 25 or 35 or higher experiencing higher hazards for mortality. Disability-free life expectancy is greatest among subjects with a BMI of 25 to less than 30.

Conclusion: Assessments of the effect of obesity on the health of older Americans should account for mortality and incidence of disability.





ARE STOMACH ULCERS GOOD FOR YOU?

If you followed the usual crazy logic in these matters you might think so. The study below shows that kids who were infected with the bug that causes ulcers are slightly less likely to get asthma and allergies. The prevailing theory of asthma is that it is an autoimmune disease caused by insufficient exposure to mild pathogens. So it follows that ANY infection with ANY bug in early life would reduce your chance of getting asthma. So the findings are probably right and serve only to show how careful we should be in drawing policy conclusions from small group differences. This is a good absurd case to bear in mind for the next outburst of hysteria about such differences

Inverse Associations of Helicobacter pylori With Asthma and Allergy

By Yu Chen et al.

Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:821-827

Background: Acquisition of Helicobacter pylori, which predominantly occurs before age 10 years, may reduce risks of asthma and allergy.

Methods: We evaluated the associations of H pylori status with history of asthma and allergy and with skin sensitization using data from 7663 adults in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for currently and ever having asthma, allergic rhinitis, allergy symptoms in the previous year, and allergen-specific skin sensitization were computed comparing participants seropositive for cagA- or cagA+ strains of H pylori with those without H pylori.

Results: The presence of cagA+ H pylori strains was inversely related to ever having asthma (OR, 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-0.99), and the inverse association of cagA positivity with childhood-onset (age ~15 years) asthma was stronger (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.43-0.93) than that with adult-onset asthma (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.72-1.32). Colonization with H pylori, especially with a cagA+ strain, was inversely associated with currently (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62-0.96) or ever (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62-0.94) having a diagnosis of allergic rhinitis, especially for childhood onset (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.37-0.82). Consistent inverse associations were found between H pylori colonization and the presence of allergy symptoms in the previous year and sensitization to pollens and molds.

Conclusion These observations support the hypothesis that childhood acquisition of H pylori is associated with reduced risks of asthma and allergy.

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

*********************

New drug of abuse

Worm medicine!

A new recreational drug is sending patients to the hospital with life-threatening symptoms! The case of an 18-year-old girl who collapsed in a nightclub last May after taking a tablet containing 1-benzylpiperazine is highlighting the dangers of this new drug. The teenager who was rushed to a London hospital emergency room was one of seven patients admitted with similar symptoms, including high blood pressure and a low body temperature.

Piperazines were developed to control worms in animals in the 1950s. They are chemically similar to amphetamine and are marketed in the United Kingdom in stores and online as the legal alternative to other recreational drugs such as ecstasy. The manufacturers of the drugs claim they are safe, citing that 20 million pills containing piperazines have been consumed in New Zealand with no deaths or significant long-term injuries. But a prospective study in New Zealand shows 80 cases of patients who went to the emergency room with symptoms similar to those from taking amphetamines, such as nausea, vomiting, rapid heartbeat, anxiety and agitation. Fifteen of these patients had seizures after eight hours -- three had potentially life threatening incidents.

The authors conclude, "Clinicians should be aware of the potential presenting features of piperazine toxicity, particularly because commercially available urine toxicological screen kits for drugs of abuse may not detect piperazines."

Source. (Original report in "The Lancet" - Vol. 369, Issue 9571, 28 April 2007, Pages 1411-1413)




Barbecues under attack again

Australians are very frequent barbecuers and are yet one of the world's longest lived populations -- but little bottom-line facts like that must not detain us, of course. Simplistic theories are so much easier

With the backyard grilling season approaching, medical experts have managed the scientific equivalent of pouring cold water on a pile of fiery briquettes: Grilling and other high-heat cooking methods accelerate aging and several serious health conditions.

How food is cooked turns out to be extremely important, said Helen Vlassara, a professor of medicine and geriatrics at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in Manhattan. She investigated a relatively new class of toxins called glycation end products, or AGEs, which develop during cooking, particularly when grilling, frying and flame-broiling.

"The highest levels are found in fried chicken, or broiled or grilled meats," Vlassara said.

AGEs, she said, tend to accumulate in the body and have been associated with diabetes and insulin imbalances. But she also sees a strong link between the compounds and aging, Alzheimer's disease, inflammatory disorders, vascular problems and kidney conditions. In addition to frying and cooking, she theorizes that AGEs are probably produced during pasteurization.

Over the years, AGEs build up in the body, Vlassara said, causing damage by rogue oxygen molecules and increasing the likelihood of inflammation, which underlies medical conditions from arthritis to heart disease. Sustained inflammation damages the kidneys, joints, blood vessels, heart and brain, she said.

Writing in the current issue of the Journal of Gerontology, Vlassara described her analysis, which involved testing blood levels of AGEs in 172 test subjects. Men and women were divided into two age groups, those 18 to 45 and those 60 to 80.

Boiling, stewing and poaching are cooking methods that avoid production of AGEs, she added.

Josephine Connolly-Schoonen, a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Stony Brook University Medical Center, said AGEs need to be taken seriously.

"People have to realize that cooking is a chemistry project," Connolly-Schoonen said. "There are a lot of chemical changes that occur to our food as we cook it. Negative compounds are produced when food is exposed to heat as a result of the sugars in the food, the fat in the food and the protein."

Rashmi Sinha, a researcher at the National Cancer Institute, said grilling and frying produce a variety of compounds that can damage DNA, and possibly pave the way to cancer development. Sinha has been studying a DNA-damaging chemical called PhIP, a compound that is produced from the amino acids and creatinine in meats when they are cooked at high levels of heat.

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

*********************

The sperm count scare again: More absurd reasoning

The original headline on this article is "Fertility treatment 'reduces sperm in offspring'". But the very last sentence below fingers the real problem: Women with low fertility have children with low fertility

SPERM counts in the first generation of men born after their mothers received fertility treatment appear to be nearly 50 per cent lower than in men conceived naturally. The world's first study looking at the fertility of children born after their mothers received fertility treatment two decades ago has found their sperm concentration was 46 per cent lower, and sperm counts 45 per cent lower than in other men.

Nearly 2000 Danish men volunteered to be examined as part of the research. In addition to having lower sperm counts, the 47 men whose mothers said they had conceived following fertility treatment were also found to have smaller testes, fewer sperm that "swam" as they are supposed to, and more sperm cell deformities compared with the other men.

The effect was more exaggerated in the 25 mothers who identified their form of fertility treatment as hormonal therapy - most likely to have been anti-oestrogen drugs to stimulate follicle growth and ovulation. Experts say almost all women receiving fertility treatment in Australia receive similar drugs.

The research, published earlier this year in the American Journal of Epidemiology, has become possible as the first generation of children born thanks to assisted reproduction techniques enter young adulthood and become sexually mature.

Fertility experts in Australia yesterday said the findings ought to be taken into account by couples considering assisted reproduction, including in-vitro fertilisation - rates of which are soaring in Australia. However, some expressed caution at the findings, saying Denmark has the world's highest rate of testicular cancer and results in Danish men could not be assumed to apply elsewhere without further research.

Fertility expert John Aitken, director of the ARC Centre of Excellence in Biotechnology and Development at the University of Newcastle, said the findings were "interesting and should be looked at more carefully" in Australia. "We have not seen anything like this before," Professor Aitken said. "It's data that should encourage us to look very carefully for the consequences of specific forms of treatment."

Sperm concentration was a median of 48 million per millilitre in the natural-born men, compared with 33 million in the men whose mothers had had fertility treatment, before statistical adjustments. The World Health Organisation defines the lower threshold of normal as 20 million sperm per millilitre. Thirty per cent of the fertility-treatment men were below this threshold, compared with 20 per cent of the normal-birth men. "The worry has always been that by bypassing biology, gametes (sperm and egg cells) are participating in conception in vitro that (they) would never have participated (in) in real life," Professor Aitken said.

Peter Illingworth, medical director of the private Sydney-based fertility clinic IVF Australia, said the study "may suggest ... a higher likelihood of reproductive health problems among boys conceived from fertility treatments". However, he said the men's sperm counts were still normal, and the study was consistent with previous research that found fertility-treatment children were at a slightly higher risk for a range of health problems.

It remained unclear whether this was because of the fertility treatment itself, or whether it reflected a continuation of their parents' fertility problems.

Source




Doubtful diabetes drugs

Drugs to prevent type 2 diabetes probably do more harm than good, according to three specialists. They say that most patients at risk of developing the disease would be better advised to change their diets and do more exercise - interventions of proven benefit. The warning, from specialists at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, and McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, appear to contradict directly the results of a widely publicised study of a new drug combination, ramipril and rosiglitazone.

A trial to test this combination in people who did not have diabetes but had evidence of poor glucose control was terminated early when results showed many fewer people progressing to diabetes proper. The Dream trial was hailed as evidence that diabetes could be prevented and the treatment, the three doctors say in British Medical Journal, is now being "aggressively marketed". The trial showed a 62 per cent reduction of the risk of progressing from impaired glucose tolerance to type 2 diabetes. But it also showed an increased risk of heart failure and no evidence of a fall in deaths.

Since diet and exercise changes have been shown to cut the risk of diabetes by 58 per cent, cost much less and do not have the effect of "medicalising" healthy people, they are to be preferred, says the team, led by Victor Montori, of the Mayo Clinic. They add that it was entirely possible that the improvements found in the Dream trial were the result of rosiglitazone treating diabetes rather than preventing it. That could be proved only by discontinuing treatment and observing whether people who had been treated progressed to diabetes more slowly than they otherwise would have done. Such a trial had not yet been done.

From the patients' point of view, it came down to the issue of whether they would prefer to take pills now in the hope of taking fewer pills later. That would be justified only if it could be shown that doing so would avoid the later complications of diabetes, which were severe. The trials had not shown this yet. "The benefits of rosiglitazone on outcomes important to patients remain speculative," the authors say.

The downside of taking "preventive" medicine was cost and healthy people being labelled as ill and becoming anxious as a result. "The threshold for use of drugs in otherwise healthy people must be set high," the doctors say. "Clinical use of glitazones to prevent diabetes is, at present, impossible to justify because of unproved benefit on patient-important outcomes or lasting effect on serum glucose, increased burden of disease labelling, serious adverse effects, increased economic burden and availability of effective, less costly lifestyle measures."

The Dream trial, published in The Lancetin September, suggested that as many as one in 12 people should be taking rosiglitazone to prevent diabetes. Simon O'Neill, of Diabetes UK, said: "The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency state that rosiglitazone is a safe and effective treatment for those diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Used as a preventative medication, the Dream study has shown that it can reduce the risk of developing the condition." He added, however, that Diabetes UK "strongly recommends that people at risk of developing type 2 diabetes should be incorporating increased levels of physical activity into their daily lives alongside making changes to their diet".

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

*********************

IATROGENIC ILLNESS

I suffer from a chronic iatrogenic illness. As would be clear to everyone who knows his Greek, iatrogenic illness is illness caused by what doctors do. Usually it is illness caused as a side-effect of medication. As far as we know, iatrogenic illness is universal. All medications have side-effects. The iron law of medication is: "No side effects = No main effects". If we banned all medications that had side effects we would have no medications.

But the hysteria over side-effects never lets up for all that. Aspirin was once thought to be very safe but it does appear to cause some bleeding in the stomach EVERY time is it used. So despite aspirin's very great benefits and the long recognized great safety of it, doctors everywhere for a long time would recommend it only with the greatest hesitation. For routine pain relef they would generally recommend paracetamol instead. We now find, however that paracetamol causes liver damage. The neurosis about small but generally harmless side effects in aspirin has, in other words, exposed people to SERIOUS side effects in paracetamol.

So, as blind Freddy should be able to see, it is the tradeoff that is important. Side-effects that are very rare or side effects that cause little harm should be disregarded if the medication provides significant benefit.

You would think that doctors, of all people, would recognize that and maybe many family doctors do, but many medical researchers certainly do not. If they see a side effect that is found in only one in a thousand people, they will rush to press with warnings not to use that medication. And that is doubly absurd when we realize that very rare effects may be random events anyway. A rare side-effect may not be a side effect at all. If one woman in a thousand is said to get cancer out of taking HRT, what are we to make out of the 999 women who did NOT get cancer from it? Surely they prove that HRT does NOT cause cancer!

And most of the unending stream of scare stories rely on an assumption that is KNOWN to be false. They conclude from a correlation between two things that the correlation indicates causation. Because some studies have found a very slight correlation between taking HRT and getting cancer, for instance, the hysterics claim that HRT causes cancer. Yet "Correlation is not causation" is just about the first thing anyone learns in a course on statistics. For instance, recent history indicates that people have both been living longer and getting fatter. Getting fatter and living longer are correlated. So does getting fatter prolong life? To be consistent the hysterics would have to claim that! That women who take HRT might tend to have more health anxieties to start with and that those anxieties (whether justified or not) might be the problem (if there is a problem) is just not considered.

There is no such ambiguity in the case of real iatrogenic disasters of course. How many women who took thalidomide during the critical periods of gestation delivered normal babies? Not many. How many people who in their youth were frequently given old-fashioned medications containing arsenic (as I was) are now free of skin cancer? Not many.

So we should ignore the attention seekers who are constantly pretending that tiny fluctuations in their statistics reveal iatrogenic disasters going on. There will of course be real iatrogenic disasters in the future (Thalidomide was approved by many national health authorities) but listening to the attention-seekers will just deflect us from gaining the real benefits that medication can also deliver.




Hope for autism

It would help to know more about which categories of autism were helped by which aspect of the treatment but the evidence that SOME treatment works for some children is encouraging

Toddlers found to have autism who undergo intensive teaching programmes from the age of 3 can raise their IQ by as much as 40 points, according to a three-year study. The research found that intensive, early education, which costs about 30,000 pounds a year per child, also led to “significant positive changes” in language, daily living skills, motor ability and social skills.

The study, conducted by the University of Southampton, will put pressure on the Government to help to fund early intervention for autistic children. It often costs households more than 30,000 pounds a year as one parent is forced to give up work completely to oversee about 40 hours of tuition a week. Most of the money is spent on hiring tutors and a course supervisor who shapes the programme for the child and assesses its progress.

It is the first major study of its kind in Britain, although thousands of families are known to be using the programme, the best known of which is applied behaviour analysis (ABA). It breaks down learning into tiny chunks, using imitation and reinforcement to encourage autistic children to communicate, then speak and follow commands, before moving on to more advanced skills.

Half the 44 autistic children had the treatment for two years, significantly starting at the age of 30-42 months. That is usually the time at which families who suspect their child may be autistic are struggling to get a formal diagnosis.

The children in the study ranged from the high-functioning, with better communication skills and higher IQs, to the low-functioning with poor speech and few social skills. All had a formal diagnosis of autism.

The researchers found that early intervention was more effective with the higher-functioning children who had a higher mental age and better social skills, although all benefited to some degree. [A possible "fudge" there. Overgeneralized results probable]

The first group of children in the study were given 25 hours of one-to-one treatment a week from between three and five tutors, and also from their parents, all using the principles of ABA. This is fewer hours than the 40 a week most parents sign up to. The control group had received the basic speech or language therapy normally offered by local education authorities.

As well as improved communication and social skills, more than a quarter of the children showed “very substantial improvements” in their IQ. In one case IQ increased from 30 to 70, in another, from 72 to 115. Most of the population has an IQ of between 85 and 115. “This form of teaching can, in many cases, lead to major change,” said Professor Bob Remington, deputy head of the University of Southampton School of Psychology. “In practice, the positive changes we see in IQ, language and daily living skills can make a real difference to the future lives of children with autism.”

With one in a hundred children thought to be suffering from some form of autism, the costs are potentially very high. However, John Wylie, chief executive of TreeHouse Trust, a school for autistic children, said: “It has to be compared with the cost of looking after someone with autism which conservative estimates put at 3 million pounds over their lifetime. Spending the money at a time when it can make a difference is surely better than pouring it about when it can make little difference.”

Source


****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

*********************

Wi Fi scare

The evils of radio-waves have been combed over exhaustively for many years but no amount of evidence will ever convince some nature freaks that cellphones are safe -- and now the same performance is revving up over WiFi -- which uses similar radio waves

Being "wired-up" used to be shorthand for being at the cutting edge, connected to all that is cool. No longer. Wireless is now the only thing to be. Go into a Starbucks, a hotel bar or an airport departure lounge and you are bound to see people tapping away at their laptops, invisibly connected to the internet. Visit friends, and you are likely to be shown their newly installed system. Lecture at a university and you'll find the students in your audience tapping away, checking your assertions on the world wide web almost as soon as you make them. And now the technology is spreading like a Wi-Fi wildfire throughout Britain's primary and secondary schools.

The technological explosion is even bigger than the mobile phone explosion that preceded it. And, as with mobiles, it is being followed by fears about its effect on health - particularly the health of children. Recent research, which suggests that the worst fears about mobiles are proving to be justified, only heightens concern about the electronic soup in which we are increasingly spending our lives.

Now, as we report today, Sir William Stewart, the man who has issued the most authoritative British warnings about the hazards of mobiles, is becoming worried about the spread of Wi-Fi. The chairman of the Health Protection Agency - and a former chief scientific adviser to the Government - is privately pressing for an official investigation of the risks it may pose. Health concerns show no sign of slowing the wireless expansion. One in five of all adult Britons now own a wireless-enabled laptop. There are 35,000 public hotspots where they can use them, usually at a price....

So far only a few, faint warnings have been raised, mainly by people who are so sensitised to the electromagnetic radiation emitted by mobiles, their masts and Wi-Fi that they become ill in its presence. The World Health Organisation estimates that up to three out of every hundred people are "electrosensitive" to some extent. But scientists and doctors - and some European governments - are adding their voices to the alarm as it becomes clear that the almost universal use of mobile phones may be storing up medical catastrophe for the future.

Professor Lawrie Challis, who heads the Government's official mobile safety research, this year said that the mobile could turn out to be "the cigarette of the 21st century".

There has been less concern about masts, as they emit very much less radiation than mobile phones. But people living - or attending schools - near them are consistently exposed and studies reveal a worrying incidence of symptoms such as headaches, fatigue, nausea, dizziness and memory problems. There is also some suggestion that there may be an increase in cancers and heart disease.

Wi-Fi systems essentially take small versions of these masts into the home and classroom - they emit much the same kind of radiation. Though virtually no research has been carried out, campaigners and some scientists expect them to have similar ill-effects. They say that we are all now living in a soup of electromagnetic radiation one billion times stronger than the natural fields in which living cells have developed over the last 3.8 billion years. This, they add, is bound to cause trouble

More here




Attitudes to autism

The following review of Unstrange Minds: Remapping the World of Autism by Roy Richard Grinker, Basic Books, 2007; Constructing Autism: Unravelling the `Truth' and Understanding the Social by Majia Holmer Nadesan, Routledge, 2005; Send in the Idiots: Stories From the Other Side of Autism by Kamran Nazeer, Bloomsbury, 2006 finds that strange attitudes towards autism have arisen in the absence of much real understanding of it. My own view is that there is no such thing as autism -- merely a range of quite different disorders that happen to have communication problems in common. And the different accounts of autism summarized below do rather bear that out.

Like Roy Richard Grinker, whose daughter was diagnosed as autistic at around the same time as my son in the early 1990s, at the time I `knew little about the condition and knew no-one else who had it'. Autism was then regarded as a rare disorder affecting three children in 10,000. A decade later, the increasing numbers of children with autism are widely described as a crisis and an epidemic, with cases occurring at a rate of 60 per 10,000 births. Grinker, a social anthropologist as well as a parent, observes that the term epidemic `implies danger and incites fear' and wisely cautions that we should `step back and take a closer look at our fears about autism'.

Through a comprehensive review of the history and epidemiology of autism, Grinker shows how a greater awareness of autism among parents and professionals, together with a widening concept of autism, have led to a dramatic increase in the recognition of cases, rather than a true increase in numbers. He challenges the conviction among many parents that an epidemic of autism can be readily attributed to toxins and vaccines and regards the search for environmental causes (and cures) as misconceived: `If there is no real epidemic, we might just have to admit that no-one is to blame.' He insists that `we cannot find real solutions if we're basing our ideas on false premises and bad science'.

For Grinker, the increased recognition of autism in Western society is a welcome sign `that we are finally seeing and appreciating a kind of human difference that we once turned away from'. With insights derived from his studies in India, South Korea and South Africa (as well as in Europe), he shows how in other cultures autism is only beginning to emerge from being hidden, stigmatised and denigrated. While Grinker describes the familiar parental struggle to secure appropriate schooling for his daughter even in the USA of today, he readily acknowledges that `autism is a terrible, life-long disorder, but it's a better time than ever to be autistic'. However, when he claims that `the prevalence of autism today is a virtue, maybe even a prize', he never asks whether the current popularity of autism reflects a perverse celebration of themes of alienation and atomisation in contemporary society - for that we need to turn to a sociologist.

Majia Holmer Nadesan, who also has a child with autism, brings a welcome sociological and historical perspective to her thoughtful and thought-provoking survey of current controversies. For her, autism is not so much a discovery of the 1940s that became an epidemic in the 1990s, as a product of the social and cultural circumstances of the late twentieth century. She argues that the `classical' autism described by US psychiatrist Leo Kanner in his landmark 1943 paper emerged as a result of the development of distinctive concepts and institutions of childhood and child psychology over the preceding half-century. In contrast with the current vogue for identifying autistic personalities in history and literature, she insists that autism was `unthinkable' within the diagnostic categories of nineteenth-century psychiatry, at a time when any child presenting such behaviours would have been `abandoned, neglected or institutionalised'.

Nadesan considers that the expanding range of autism diagnoses in recent years - with a particular emphasis on cases of `higher functioning' autism or Asperger's syndrome - can be attributed to the more intensive parental and professional focus on child development fostered by cognitive psychology and to the scope offered to the more able autistic individuals within the wider culture of information technology. (Though Hans Asperger first described cases of his syndrome in Austria in the 1940s, his work did not become widely known in the English-speaking world before the 1980s.) In a perceptive discussion of `Asperger's as cyborgs', Nadesan notes the way this syndrome has been constructed as `the sublimation of humanity by technology, cloaked in the guise of human genius'. She attributes the impact of popular accounts of `autistic intelligence' to `the public's simultaneous fascination and repulsion with a stereotyped and reified form of "autistic genius"'.

Whereas Grinker uncritically welcomes the wider recognition of autism, Nadesan is alert to the danger that, in technically advanced countries in the late twentieth century, `we have pathologised people' who would formerly have been regarded as merely eccentric.

Nadesan develops philosopher Ian Hacking's theory of autism as a `niche disorder' arising from the interaction of biological and cultural factors in modern society. She challenges the one-sided emphasis on the biological determination of autism evident in both mainstream research and in popular `biomedical' alternative approaches. Emphasising the dynamic interaction of biological and social aspects, Nadesan insists that people with autism cannot be reduced to defective genetic and neurological states. Indeed, it is the recognition that genes, brain and mind are loosely coupled rather than mechanistically determined that offers scope for therapeutic intervention.

Kamran Nazeer, who was diagnosed with autism as a child, is well aware of the difficulties facing even higher functioning adults with autism. Twenty years after leaving his elementary school in New York, he has traced some of his former classmates and now tells their stories.

Craig, whose echolalic childhood phrase provides the title, was a speechwriter for the Democratic Party who became unemployed after George W Bush's 2004 election victory. After a spell in a juvenile detention centre for a serious assault, Andre lives with his sister, works in computers and uses hand puppets to facilitate social interaction. Randall works as a bicycle courier in Chicago and is now back with his parents after separating from his former partner Mike, a writer. Though Elizabeth committed suicide in 2002 at the age of 26, we hear her story from her parents, Henry and Sheila.

The most enigmatic case is that of the author. Born to Pakistani parents, he has lived in Jeddah, Islamabad and Glasgow, studied philosophy and legal theory and is now a policy adviser in Whitehall. Nazeer writes with intelligence and wit, providing finely observed and deeply sympathetic profiles of each of his former classmates, together with thoughtful reflections on matters such as the art of conversation, the question of genius and the challenges facing the families of people with autism. His account of the cruelty to psychologists of adolescents with high-functioning autism is hilarious. He concludes with a discussion of autism controversies with two of his former teachers, Ira and Rebecca, who are both still engaged in autism education, though his old school has now closed.

Nazeer observes that, with the decline of psychogenic theories and the rise of genetics, there is now `a different sense of shame about autism'. He attributes the influence of vaccine theories of causation to a `lingering, perhaps renewed, sense of shame about having a child with a developmental disorder'. He finds the quest for environmental explanations `terribly sad' as parents `throbbing with guilt and shame' have pursued `whatever external cause they could identify, to exculpate themselves'.

When Ira and Rebecca suggest to Nazeer that he is no longer autistic, his rejoinder is that `we all got better, to say it that way'. He insists that it is not `simply that we're all less idiotic than before' but that `we became that way through exposure to the world that lay beyond the horizon of our own selves'. He rejects the `notion perpetrated on' himself and his classmates, `that our minds are singular, glowing, remarkable and untouched by others' - and expectations that people with autism will be socially inept but brilliant with computers. For him, all these preconceptions derive from the same belief - `that autistic people are themselves only, self-enclosed and sealed off to the world'. He dismisses the view that people with autism `can't be reached, or shouldn't be, that self-enclosure is or ought to be permanent'.

In the course of his study Nazeer found `something rather different': `Our autism eased, in each case, because of other people, our parents, friends, and our teachers, of course.' He rejects both `credulity and cretinhood', both the notions that an alienated autistic identity should be celebrated and that autistic children are doomed, without prospect of improvement. He affirms the humanity of people with autism as participants in the networks of human society. `This realisation sometimes expands inside me until I feel as if my organs are going to bruise one another.' Let's hope that writing this book has reduced his risk of internal injury. As he truly writes, his approach `marks a big change compared to how autism is typically thought about'.

For anybody in a quandary over which books to select from the recent profusion of autism-lit titles, here are three excellent choices. If you only have time for one, choose Nazeer's. It will make you laugh, it will make you cry; above all it will make you think about autism.

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

*********************

Jogger dies of salt deficiency

They call it a "sodium" deficiency below to pull the wool over your eyes. But it is ordinary table salt they are talking about -- the stuff that has recently been heavily (and fraudulently) demonized. It's just too embarassing to mention what it really is. Chemically, common salt is sodium chloride (NaCl)

A man who died after completing the hottest London Marathon was named last night as a 22-year-old fitness instructor. David Rogers became the ninth person to die in the race's 27-year history after suffering from hyponatraemia, where high water intake results in a sodium deficiency. Mr Rogers, of Milton Keynes, was one of 70 runners taken to hospital in sweltering temperatures. Running his first marathon, he collapsed after completing the race in 3 hours and 50 minutes.

On the website justgiving.com he said that he was raising money for the Motor Neurone Disease Association, in memory of his grandfather. Donations on the website had reached more than 1,300 pounds. He wrote: "My Grandad was 78 when he passed away and although I was only young when he died, I can still remember many happy memories spent with him."

Mr Rogers' father, Chris, and mother, Sarah had travelled to London to watch their son race. Chris Rogers, 52, of Westoning, near Bedford, told The Daily Telegraph that his son was "a happy-go-lucky lad who brought happiness to everyone". He said: "We saw him coming across Tower Bridge. He was ecstatic. He saw us and waved and then leapt in the air in a star jump. He was doing what he wanted to do." The next time he saw his son there was less than a mile of the race to go. His son was "labouring a bit but only like everyone else at that stage because it was a very hot day".

It was only when Mr Rogers failed to meet his family at the end of the race that they learnt he had been admitted to Charing Cross Hospital, where he died yesterday morning.

Race organisers offered their "deepest sympathy and condolences to his family and friends". They added that warnings had been issued to runners not to drink too much water: "The medical advice was not to drink excessive levels. That advice was on the website, in the magazine and in the runners' information packs." Another runner who had also been in a critical condition was transferred out of intensive care and was said to be recovering well.

The death of one runner and the fact that thousands of others had to be treated in the intense heat led to calls for the London Marathon to be staged earlier in the year. Gordon Trevett, lecturer at the department of exercise and health sciences at Bristol University, thought it would be sensible "so competitors can run in lower temperatures". He said: "The organisers could be worried that they might lose sponsorship if less people are running, if it's a bit colder, but because it is such a popular event and raises so much money, I think that people would still run if it was brought forward to March."

Nick Bitel, chief executive of the Flora London Marathon, was opposed to the idea. He said: "Some people think the marathon should be later in the year so they can train in warmer weather. Some like to train in summer and think a winter marathon would be best. We think we are at the right time of year."

More runners than ever began the race on Sunday, but as temperatures soared to 23.5C (74F) [Which would be cool in most of Australia!], 721 dropped out before the finish line. Among them was the athlete widely tipped to win the men's race, Haile Gebrselassie, of Ethiopia, who stopped after about 19 miles. Matt Dawson, the England rugby player, described seeing runners pass out in front of him, while Gordon Ramsay, the celebrity chef, who was running his eighth marathon, said: "It was like running in a desert. People were dropping like flies." St John Ambulance said that it treated 5,054 people.

Source





Tomorrow's iatrogenic disaster coming up?

An iatrogenic illness is one caused by medication (In Greek "Iatros" = "medical practitioner"). There have been many such illnesses. I suffer from one myself. There is a saying that "Today's miracle cure is tomorrow's iatrogenic disaster". Anybody who medicates a perfectly healthy baby would have to be insane.

A hormone-like substance could be added to babies' milk or given to their mothers during pregnancy to stop them becoming obese as adults. Scientists gave pregnant and lactating rats food laced with leptin and found that their offspring did not put on weight no matter what they ate. The theory is that leptin given at this crucial stage in life "hard-wires" the body's energy-balance settings. The more leptin they are given the more inefficient the infant rats' bodies are at turning calories into fat. Instead, they burn it up metabolically.

Leptin was greeted as the cure for obesity when it was discovered a decade ago. Produced by fat, it tells the brain when fat deposits are adequate, and thus discourages eating. However, leptin injections benefit very few obese people. Dr Mike Cawthorne of the University of Buckingham said that breast milk contained leptin but formula feed did not, and foods fortified with leptin should be available soon.

But Professor Steve O'Rahilly, a leptin expert from Cambridge, said: "There is no evidence that this `early life' imprinting effect of leptin is at all relevant for humans."

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

*********************

AMAZING PILL

A pill that can correct a wide range of faulty genes which cause crippling illnesses should be available within three years, promising a revolution in the treatment of thousands of conditions. The drug, known as PTC124, has already had encouraging results in patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy and cystic fibrosis. The final phase of clinical trials is to begin this year, and it could be licensed as early as 2009. As well as offering hope of a first effective treatment for two conditions that are at present incurable, the drug has excited scientists because research suggests it should also work against more than 1,800 other genetic illnesses.

PTC124 targets a particular type of mutation that can cause very different symptoms according to the gene that is disrupted. This makes it potentially useful against a range of inherited disorders. The same drug could be given to patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy, the most serious form of the muscle-wasting condition, cystic fibrosis, which mainly affects the lungs, and haemophilia, in which the blood does not clot. It can be taken orally, and safety trials have not revealed any major side effects. “There are literally thousands of genetic diseases that could benefit from this approach,” Lee Sweeney, of the University of Pennsylvania, who is leading the research, said. “What’s unique about this drug is it doesn’t just target one mutation that causes disease, but a whole class of mutations.”

In most genetic conditions, between 5-15 per cent of cases are caused by a defect called a “nonsense mutation”. Genes are instruction manuals for cells to make proteins, but nonsense mutations in effect introduce a command halfway through that stops production. The kind of protein disrupted determines the nature of the disease. In Duchenne muscular dystrophy, for example, the protein necessary for normal muscle development is not made, and the fatal wasting disease is the result. In haemophilia, it is the gene for the clotting agents factor VIII or factor IX that is disrupted.

PTC124 works by binding to a part of the cell called the ribosome, which translates genetic code into protein, and allows it to ignore nonsense mutations. The gene can be read straight through and a normal protein is produced. The beauty of the drug is that it should be useful with any disease caused by a nonsense mutation, no matter what its outward effects. The error is not corrected, but ignored. Patients would have to take the pill throughout their lives.

PTC124, which is made by PTC Therapeutics, has been staggeringly successful in animal models. A study published today in Nature shows that in mice with a nonsense mutation that causes Duchenne muscular dystrophy, the drug starts dystrophin production and restores their muscles to health. The drug has passed safety trials in humans, and the results of phase-two trials on cystic fibrosis and Duchenne muscular dystrophy will be published shortly. About 13 per cent of patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy have a nonsense mutation and should respond to the drug. It would not be suitable for treating different mutations in the dystrophin gene, or diseases not caused by nonsense mutations.

Other diseases that can be caused by nonsense mutations include beta thalassaemia, a blood disorder, and Hurler syndrome, in which children’s mental and physical development stops and most patients die by the age of 10.

Source




Pesky genes again: This time for exercise

The Government may be wasting its time encouraging children to spend more time on sport and exercise in an effort to reduce obesity. Research at Peninsula Medical School in Plymouth, reported in today’s times2, suggests that a child’s propensity to be active is genetically determined. Children are said to find their own activity level, regardless of how many opportunities are offered. If the naturally inactive are forced to be more active at school, they do less at home, while the naturally active need no encouragement.

Professor Terence Wilkin, who has carried out trials with young people, says that his research shows that Government programmes to increase levels of activity do not reduce obesity. There are 1.8 million overweight children and 700,000 obese young people in Britain. Rates of obesity more generally have trebled since the 1980s, and the condition is estimated to cost the nation 7 billion in health expenditure. But while active children may be healthier, it remains unproven that inactive ones can be persuaded to do more, Professor Wilkin says. “So far, the evidence is bleak,” he adds.

The claim follows US research last week suggesting that a fat gene can decide whether some people have a propensity to put on weight. Some research has suggested that activity does help. In one study, children who tried a nine-week programme with their parents, which involved a combination of exercise, healthy eating, motivation and positive thinking strategies, were still benefiting from the scheme 12 months later.

The researchers found improvements in the overweight children’s body mass index, waist circumference, fitness, lifestyle and self-esteem following the programme and these were “largely sustained” after a year. “Thirty per cent of UK children are now considered to be obese or overweight — it is an immense public health issue in both immediate and long-term health,” said Professor Alan Lucas, director of the Medical Research Council childhood nutrition research centre at University College London Institute of Child Health.

His “Mend” approach — “mind, exercise, nutrition, do it!” — was adopted by 107 families during the trial but it is now being rolled out across the country. More specifically, a study in Bristol found a link between increased activity alone and obesity, suggesting that an extra quarter of an hour vigorous exercise a day was enough to make a difference. But the problem with these studies is that they do not show if fat children are fat because they are inactive, or inactive because they are fat. If Professor Wilkin is right, efforts to expand school sports may make children fitter, but no thinner.

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

*********************

WORRY KILLS YOU

Neuroticism is highly hereditary, sadly, so it is possible that it is some trait associated with neuroticism that causes premature death -- though the adverse effects of worry itself (stress syndrome) could clearly be the problem

While mellowing with age has often been thought to have positive effects, a Purdue University researcher has shown that doing so could also help you live longer. Dan Mroczek (pronounced Mro-ZAK), an associate professor of child development and family studies at Purdue University, compared neurotic and non-neurotic men over time and tied change in the trait with mortality. "We found that neurotic men whose levels dropped over time had a better chance at living longer," Mroczek said. "They seemed to recover from any damage high levels of the trait may have caused. On the flip side, neurotic men whose neuroticism increased over time died much sooner than their peers."

A neurotic personality was defined as a person with the tendency to worry, feel excessive amounts of anxiety or depression and to react to stressful life events more negatively than people with low levels of the trait. Neuroticism levels were measured using a standardized personality test. Results of the study will be published in the print edition of the journal Psychological Science in late May. The study is available online at http://www.psychologicalscience.org

In the study, researchers tracked the change in neuroticism levels of 1,663 aging men over a 12-year period. Using the data gathered in the first analysis, researchers calculated the men's mortality risk over an 18-year period using the average levels and rates of change. By the end of the study, half of those men classified as highly neurotic with increasing levels of neuroticism had died while those whose levels decreased or were classified as less neurotic had between a 75 percent and 85 percent survival rate. Even small increases in neuroticism were shown to have negative effects. Participants with as little as a one-unit increase in neuroticism over the course of the study were shown to have a 40 percent higher chance of death than a participant who showed no change.

Data was taken from the Veterans Affairs Normative Aging Study, a longitudinal investigation of aging in men founded at the Boston Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic in 1963. In 1988, the beginning of this study, the men ranged in age from 43 to 91.

Mroczek and Avron Spiro, an associate professor of epidemiology at Boston University's School of Public Health, also controlled the data for age, depression levels and both subjective and objective ratings of overall health. "We found that neuroticism levels are a clear indicator of how long one can expect to live," Mroczek said. "The link between mortality and the rate of change in neuroticism is similar to the way we think about change in high blood pressure and risk of heart attack. If you have high blood pressure but make sure to lower it, you are likely to reduce your heart attack risk."

While those who were very neurotic and grew worse over time had a higher death rate, those who were the least neurotic and improved over time did not die at a significantly lower rate. Mroczek said the anomaly could be traced to how these types of attitudes affect personal choices. "It's possible that the key with neuroticism is having just the right amount," Mroczek said. "If you are too laid back, you may not be taking your health seriously enough. These folks might be engaging in more risky behaviors like smoking or drinking to excess because they don't believe anything bad will happen to them."

Mroczek, a member of Purdue's Center on Aging and the Life Course, said he sees a future in which doctors and other health practitioners include some form of personality assessments with routine medical screenings. Learning to deal with some of the potentially negative aspects of human personalities in a positive way could become part of a balanced and healthy lifestyle. "For example, very neurotic people can work toward dealing better with stress," he said. "They can seek therapy, take up yoga, schedule daily walks to help themselves unwind, listen to calming music or even meditate."

While participants in the study were male and more than 90 percent Caucasian, Mroczek said there is little reason to believe that results for women or other ethnicities would show vastly different results. "You can find the full range of personalities in any ethnic or gender group," Mroczek said. "There are those who are laid back and then there are those who worry, who react very poorly to stress, who are always on edge."

Mroczek will begin testing later this year to determine why higher levels of neuroticism increase mortality. He plans a study which tests cortisol levels in neurotic men to determine if they have higher levels of the damaging stress hormone that could contribute to early death. Other possible contributing factors might include unhealthy coping techniques, such as overeating or drinking to excess.

This study was supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging and by the Clinical Sciences Research and Development Service of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. The VA Normative Aging Study is supported by the Cooperative Studies Program/ERIC of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and is a research component of the Massachusetts Veterans Epidemiology Research and Information Center.

Source






Obesity: A Conjecture

From David Friedman. Also see his site for some interesting comments

Obesity is a current hot issue, problem, crisis ... . One reason is that it is a real problem. Another, I suspect, is that it provides people who want governments to do things with a new argument.

My evidence for that conjecture is how much of the talk about obesity focuses on the evils of marketers cleverly manipulating people into eating junk food. While sellers of junk food do, of course, advertise their products, so do sellers of diet soda, exercise equipment, metrecal and health foods. I understand why people concerned about obesity might see the regulation of advertising as a potentially useful tool--it is at least more likely to be politically viable than an attempt to ban hamburgers and french fries from the American diet. But I do not see marketing as a plausible explanation for the increasing frequency of obesity. It seems particularly implausible given that the increase is not limited to rich countries such as the U.S.; I doubt the consumption patterns of people in India or China are much influenced by advertising.

My alternative explanation for obesity is straightforward. Humans evolved in an environment where food was costly, fat scarce, sweetness a useful signal that fruit was ripe. We are designed by evolution to put on weight when we can as a precaution against future famines and to favor fat and sugar when we can get them. In a world where food is inexpensive and plentiful we are inclined to overeat, in particular to eat more fat and sugar than is good for us.

The obvious explanation of the increase in obesity is that real incomes around the world have been trending up for decades. Now poor people in the U.S., and increasingly in poorer parts of the world, can afford to eat all the calories they want. Since all the calories they want represents more than what they require, the result is that they get fat.

There is one problem with this explanation. According to the figures I have seen, in the U.S. obesity is less common in high income groups than in low income groups. The richer you are, the less your diet is constrained by cost, so we would expect higher income groups to be at least as obese as lower income groups. To explain why they are not I must add one additional factor: Time lags in adjusting behavior and social norms to changed circumstances.

Suppose you are part of a population where food has been costly, where people engage in a lot of physical labor, and so where the problem is getting enough to eat, not avoiding too much. You, and those around you, have adapted their behavior to that environment.

Now things change; food gets cheap, wages go up, almost everyone can afford to eat as much as he wants. For a while, perhaps a generation or two, people follow the old patterns in the new circumstances; the result is that many of them end up fat. Over time, although the hardwired elements of behavior do not change--evolution is slow--the cultural elements do. Instead of demonstrating how wealthy and generous you are by urging your guests to have a second and third helping of dinner, you do it by providing them smaller amounts of particularly tasty, sophisticated, or expensive dishes. Instead of making a point of avoiding physical exertion when you can, you enter the Boston Marathon. Eventually you and those around you have adapted your behavior, although not your hardwired tastes, to the new environment.

Well off people in developed societies have been able to afford second and third helpings at every meal for a long time. Hence, if my argument is right, they have had time to adapt to a world of plenty. For poor people, being able to eat all they want of more or less what they want is a newer thing, so they are still following the old ways--the pattern of the traditional Jewish (or Italian) mother who insists that her guests have a little more of this and that before they end their meal. Hence, if my conjecture is correct, greater obesity among the poor reflects the lag in adapting to circumstances that are relatively new for them. The rich have had time to adjust.

One implication of this is that, at some point in the past, richer people should have been more often obese than poorer--back when the rich were no longer constrained by the availability of food but the poor still were. That fits my casual impression, but I have no actual data to support it.

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

********************

The anti-salt war jerks back into life

Another over-hyped finding of tiny differences -- and this time the differences are not even statistically significant. The article below appears to be a rewrite of a BMJ press release but at the time of writing this I could find no trace of the article in the current issue of BMJ -- which suggests extraordinary eagerness to publicize findings that are yet to be put up for detailed scrutiny -- not unexpected in the heavily politicized BMJ.

But working from the figures below we find that there were only 25 deaths out of a sample size totalling 769 and only a 25% difference between the two subgoups. Reconstructing from that information, it seems that around 10 controls died of heart attacks and 15 salt-eaters died of heart attacks. Given the differing subgroup sizes of 337 and 432, the expected frequencies would be 11 and 14 -- yielding a Chi-squared of 1.00! -- which is nowhere near statistical significance.

Note also that the findings concern hypertensives only. Among people in general those on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And the Japanese eat heaps of salt -- soy sauce is VERY salty -- yet have exceptionally long lifespans. This is really crazy stuff below but the fact that it appeared in "The Times" of London will make it very influential nonetheless

Eating less salt reduces the chances of suffering a heart attack or stroke, the first long-term study of salt's impact on health confirms today. The findings, from a 15-year study, offer the clearest evidence yet that cutting salt consumption saves lives by reducing the risks of cardiovascular disease. People who ate less salty food were found to have a 25 per cent lower risk of cardiac arrest or stroke, and a 20 per cent lower risk of premature death. The results, published in the British Medical Journal, underline the need for population-wide salt reductions in the diet, the scientists conclude.

Despite campaigns to reduce salt intake, such as that run by the Food Standards Agency (FSA), actual evidence of any benefit has been limited. This has enabled the salt industry to contest vigorously the value of such campaigns. Both sides accept that cutting salt consumption reduces blood pressure, although not very dramatically. This ought to translate over the longer term into reductions in strokes and heart attacks, but no studies have been able to show this convincingly until now.

The new findings are the result of work by a US team led by Nancy Cook, of Harvard Medical School, which has followed up two trials originally conducted in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Both were designed to persuade people to cut their salt intake and to measure how far their blood pressure fell. By pursuing these trials, Dr Cook's team has shown that those who reduced their salt intake did have a lower risk of heart disease and stroke. "Our study provides unique evidence that sodium reduction might prevent cardiovascular disease and should dispel any residual concern that sodium reduction might be harmful," it concludes. The interventions had reduced sodium intake by about 25-35 per cent - roughly the same as is planned by the FSA, which is seeking to reduce daily intake in Britain from an average of 9.5g to 6g ( /3 oz to /5 oz) a day.

Ellen Mason, cardiac nurse at the British Heart Foundation, said: "Salt intake amongst many adults and children in Britain is way too high. Many people could lower the level of salt in their diet by reducing the amount of processed food they eat. Also, by simply checking the labels and switching to a lower salt option, you'll be doing your heart a favour."

But the Salt Manufacturers' Association questioned the quality and conclusions of the study. "The research only relates to subjects who already have high blood pressure. Most people have acknowledged for some time that such individuals may be advised to restrict their salt intake with their GP's advice. "What the evidence does not prove is that salt reduction will have any significant health benefits for the majority of us."

The original studies - called the trials of hypertension prevention (TOHP 1 and 2) - used counselling and advice to persuade participants to reduce intake. In the first trial, 327 healthy men and women aged 30-54 who took part in the intervention were compared with 417 controls who did not. Measurements of sodium in urine showed that a reduction of roughly one third in salt intake had been achieved in the 327 who took part- but blood pressure was found to fall only slightly.

The authors of the original study had no idea if this reduction would be sustained, but estimated that if it were it might reduce stroke deaths by 6 per cent, heart disease deaths by 4 per cent, and deaths from all causes by 3 per cent. However, the follow-up has shown much more marked health benefits. The actual numbers of heart attacks and strokes are small - 76 heart attacks, 19 strokes and 23 heart deaths without previous warning - in both TOPH 1 and 2. So it remains possible that chance, or incomplete follow-up, have distorted the findings.

Graham MacGregor, a professor at St George's University of London, said the size of the benefit was not surprising. "When there was a campaign in Finland to cut salt there was a very large reduction in stroke and heart attacks."

Exactly how salt increases blood pressure is still in dispute. The simplest explanation is that when salt intake is too high, the kidneys cannot pass it all into the urine and some ends up in the bloodstream. This then draws more water into the blood, increasing volume and pressure. But not everybody is equally sensitive to salt, and so not everybody will benefit equally from reducing intake.

Source





ANOTHER BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL IS HEAVILY POLITICIZED: "Lancet" meddles in Australian politics!

Though anybody who knows of their absurd "600,000 Iraqi deaths" claim will not be surprised. The BMJ has also of course long been known for its frantic Leftism. This politicization does of course explain the very low intellectual standards in both journals that I have repeatedly noted on this blog. With their openly avowed contempt for the truth ("There is no such thing as right and wrong") and their failure to consider ALL the facts of most matters, Leftists corrupt everything they touch

A leading international medical journal has denounced the Prime Minister and urged its Australian readers to vote against him in the election. In an editorial titled "Australia: the politics of fear and neglect", The Lancet said John Howard had jeopardised Australia's enviable reputation in medical science with his suggested ban on HIV-positive migrants. It also censured the Health Minister, Tony Abbott, for saying those who spoke up for indigenous health were "simply establishing politically and morally correct credentials", and criticised the Environment Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, for his stance on climate change. It said Australian politicians were scoring below par on health.

The journal said Australian clinical and health research was "an emblem of excellence" in the Asia-Pacific: "That enviable position is being put at risk by Prime Minister John Howard's indifference to the academic medical community and his profound intolerance to those less secure than himself and his administration."

The latest example was his comment last week that HIV migrants should not be allowed, says the journal, whose editor, Dr Richard Horton, spoke at a conference on global health in Sydney this month. "To any visitor, Australian culture feels progressive and inclusive," The Lancet says. "This attractive exterior belies a strong undercurrent of political conservatism, which Howard is ruthlessly tapping into." The Lancet has a significant readership throughout the world and regularly takes a stand on key medical issues.

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

*********************

HRT now linked to ovarian cancer!

The drumbeat of the anti-HRT war grows louder. Yesterday HRT was accused of causing breast cancer. Today it is accused of causing ovarian cancer -- on equally frivolous grounds. A PDF of the full journal article in "Lancet" is here. I reproduce a media report of it below. Rather than adding to my own comments of yesterday, I follow the media report with a reproduction of Prof. Brignell's comment on the nonsense. Prof. Brignell is a mathematician who campaigns against the ignorant and malicious misuse of statistics

HORMONE replacement therapy, a contested treatment for post-menopausal women that has already been linked to breast cancer, is also associated with ovarian cancer, a study in The Lancet said today.

Women who take HRT are on average 20 per cent likelier to develop and die from ovarian cancer compared to women who have never been on this treatment, according to the research. The evidence comes from a major British investigation into female health, the Million Women Study, covering 1.3 million British women from 1996-2001.

HRT entails taking substitutes for oestrogen or progesterone after natural levels of these key female hormones diminish after menopause. The idea behind it is to reduce symptoms such as hot flushes and vaginal dryness and boost protection against osteoporosis and heart disease.

The British researchers assessed data from 948,000 post-menopausal women, who had been questioned and later given a follow-up exam some three years later. Around 30 per cent were current HRT users; 20 per cent had previously received HRT; and the remaining 50 per cent had never taken it. Across all three groups, a total of 2273 women developed cancer, and 1591 died from it.

The increased risk of cancer, though, was shouldered by current HRT users, especially those who had been taking the hormones for at least five years. The risk was largely unchanged by such factors as a smoking habit or past use of oral contraceptives. Women who had stopped HRT had the same risk level as counterparts who had never taken the treatment.

In a commentary, Steven Narod of the Women's College Research Institute in Toronto, Canada, said the relative risk of 20 per cent might be thought of as small, "but enormous numbers of women have been exposed." In the Million Women Study alone, nearly 500,000 had taken HRT, he pointed out. Extrapolated across the British population, around 1000 extra women died from ovarian cancer between 1991 and 2005 because of HRT.

The HRT link with breast cancer surfaced in 2002 [See my post of 14th. for a comment on THAT crap study], prompting many women in the US to drop the treatment - a trend that notably coincided with a sharp fall in new breast cancer cases in the US. The authors of the new study are led by Valerie Beral of the Cancer Research UK Epidemiology Unit in Oxford, Britain. The paper appears in next Saturday's issue of The Lancet. Beral says HRT's effect should be seen in the context of breast and endometrial (uterine wall) cancer, as well as ovarian cancers. These three types of tumour account for 40 per cent of all cancers diagnosed in British women. "The total incidence of these three cancers in the (Million Women Study) population is 63 per cent higher in current users of HRT than never-users," the study notes.

Source





The empire strikes back

By John Brignell

Like the environmentalists, the epidemiologists do not like to have their hegemony over their corner of the media to be challenged. No sooner has their dangerous and destructive nonsense over breast cancer been thwarted than they come out with even more dangerous and destructive nonsense about ovarian cancer. Valerie Beral, a women noted for the size of her Trojan Numbers, has come out with a relative risk of 1.2.

There are at least two well known confounding factors to which such an observational study such as this are prey:

* If the therapy is successful then the patient will have a marked change of life style.
* The reasons for which the therapy was prescribed in the first place might well pose a risk factor.

The second of these can be eliminated in a properly conducted double-blind randomised trial, but the first cannot.

A personal anecdote will illustrate how this factor works. Last year your bending author was reduced to life as a housebound cripple by a marked increase in arthritic inflammation. Eventually, therapy with Diclofenac and Co-Codomol restored an element of normal living and the patient celebrated by going out and digging over a large allotment. In retrospect this was rather foolish, a such violent activity after a period of forced idleness would have exacerbated any incipient heart disease. Fortunately, survival indicates that there was none.

It seems, however, more likely that the second of these confounding factors would be more important in this case, but more haunting is the possibility of confounding factors we have not thought of.

Which words in the truism "Correlation is not Causation" do the epidemiologists not understand? There is no reason to suppose from these tacky observations that any women at all have been killed by HRT.

Is there anything more despicable than pinning your claim to fame on scaring millions of women out of using a hugely liberating therapy? As for Cancer UK, which we all know from the constant begging letters, it could put the product of its suppliance to better use by supporting science rather than nonsense.

Source

Prof. Brignell is too contemptuous of the study to comment at length on it above but he is making essentially the same point that I do: The very low percentage of women apparently affected makes it highly likely that the result is random noise. That some of the results are statistically significant rules out only one source of random fluctuation -- small sample size. A large enough sample will make ANY observed effect statistically significant. Statistical significance does not and cannot rule out other random (or non-random) events, effects and influences.

Prof. Brignell has some links in his article that I have not reproduced above. See the original for those links

This whole anti-HRT campaign is quite despicable. It aims to get women to take large risks (of osteoporosis etc.) in order to avoid tiny risks (of cancer)

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

*********************