VANCOUVER

Fanatic Cook

Hagfish
Hagfish, also called slime eels:"... can exude copious quantities of a slime or mucus of unusual composition. When captured and held, they secrete the microfibrous slime, which expands into a gelatinous and sticky goo when combined with water.""They are the only living animals that have a skull but not a vertebral column.""Hagfish can feed upon and often even enter and eviscerate the bodies of dead and dying/injured sea creatures much larger than themselves. They are known to devour their victims from the inside.""Hagfish are usually not eaten owing to their repugnant looks, as well as their viscosity and unpleasant habits.""However, a particular species is valued as food in the Korean Peninsula. The hagfish is kept alive and irritated by rattling its container with a stick, prompting it to produce slime in large quantities. This slime is used in a similar manner as egg whites in various forms of cookery in the region."Attacking shark gagged by hagfish slime:________

Read On: Fanatic Cook
Narcissism And Heart Disease
Toadstool admiring himself from artes at Frog Forum.I stumbled upon this article yesterday:Health Risk Higher for Guys Who Think They're 'All That'And wondered how they measured narcissism. Here's the actual study:Expensive Egos: Narcissistic Males Have Higher Cortisol, PLoS ONE, January 2012Narcissism was assessed using the "Narcissistic Personality Inventory." They used a 40-point Narcissism Personality Inventory tool, which appears to be this:Narcissistic Personality QuizI know, I know, not another quiz. But questionnaires have to be validated before they can be used in a study. That is, studies have to be conducted ahead of time to determine that the questionnaire really does indicate presence of the trait they are measuring, in this case narcissism (another phrase the authors used was "extreme self-focus.") So, this quiz isn't something you'd find in the back of Men's Health or Glamor Magazine. Well, maybe not. Here was one such validation:A Principal-Components Analysis Of The Narcissistic Personality Inventory And Further Evidence Of Its Construct Validity Note this validation study accounted for both objective and subjective measures. So, your results on the quiz should presumably correlate well with both how you see yourself and how others see you.________The original study up top, by the way, found that men with higher scores in what they called "unhealthy" narcissism1 had a higher activation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, which resulted in higher basal levels (basal, so all-the-time levels, as opposed to, say, a reaction to a stressful event) of the stress hormone cortisol. High levels of cortisol increase the risk for heart disease. The cortisol effect was still strong after controlling for related variables such as mood, general stress, social support, and relationship status.Narcissism was related to the stress hormone cortisol in men, but not in women.Also:"Males tend to score higher on narcissism, and males also have larger increases in cortisol concentrations after stressors."This was interesting:"Given societal definitions of masculinity that overlap with narcissism (i.e. they include arrogance and dominance), we hypothesize that these difficulties in maintaining an inflated sense of the self are at least in part related to the extent to which males endorse stereotypically male gender roles. Threats to male gender roles and masculinity are constant, and provide a source of stress that make these roles difficult to maintain. Narcissism is also stressful and difficult to maintain. In addition, both high masculinity and narcissism advocate for high independence and agency, and emphasize individualism over an acceptance of social support. Because high narcissists report experiencing a greater number of daily hassles compared to low narcissists, low social support is especially likely to be toxic."They said there may be pressure upon men in this society from endorsement of "stereotypically male gender roles." So ... men are pressured to act manly?They concluded:"[O]ur findings highlight the possibility that for males, narcissism may have an especially negative physiological effect. Considering the rising narcissism among both men and women in American culture, there may be potential long-term public health consequences if these trends continue. Given research finding that chronic HPA activation is associated with cardiovascular problems, and other work finding that an increased use of first-person singular pronouns is also associated with poor cardiovascular health, future work might examine high narcissism in earlier life predicts poor health outcomes in later life. We also recommend that future research attempt to better understand why male narcissists have higher basal cortisol concentrations, and in doing so, help to pinpoint potential windows of intervention."They say narcissism is rising among Americans.And this ... "increased use of first-person singular pronouns is also associated with poor cardiovascular health." Future studies will have a lot more adjustments to make for confounders!________1 If you take the quiz, you'll find that your score was broken down into 7 categories: Authority, Self-Sufficiency, Superiority, Exhibitionism, Exploitativeness, Vanity, and Entitlement. An "unhealthy" narcissism score was created using the Entitlement and Exploitativeness values. "Healthy" narcissism scores were derived by summing the Leadership/Authority, Self-Sufficiency, Superiority, and Vanity values. While "unhealthy" narcissism was linked to high cortisol, "healthy" narcissism was not.

Read On: Fanatic Cook
Why Doesn't California Want To Label Genetically Engineered Fish?
A salmon genetically engineered to grow faster and an unmodified salmon of the same age. - New York Times, 2010A little bill in the California State Assembly, called the Consumer Right to Know Act AB88, that would require labeling of genetically engineered fish was voted down last week.Consumers Union Dismayed by California State Assembly's Failure to Pass Historic Labeling on First Genetically Engineered Fish, Consumers Union, 19 January 2012Isn't it odd that polls consistently show around 90% of Americans want labels on GE food, but the FDA and state legislatures consistently snuff this kind of regulation?I guess it comes down to money. In fact, one place that did pass a law requiring mandatory labeling of genetically engineered food, specifically fish, was Alaska. And the vote was unanimous. Republicans, Democrats, everyone. Why? "This bill helps highlight Alaska seafood as distinct from genetically modified seafood, doing away with any vagueness that may exist to the consumer when purchasing seafood without labeling, and reinforcing the natural message."Alaska was protecting their seafood industry.Not that Biotech didn't try to thwart it. In their testimony opposing the Alaska bill, they said:"State-based labeling requirements that differ from previously established, stringently enforced federal guidelines, provide no value for consumers and only serve to disparage biotechnology foods."Biotech's defense was, and is, that since FDA doesn't require labels, states shouldn't either. Why doesn't FDA require labels? Because the FDA, in their own words, "is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way." According to the sponsors of the Alaska bill (passed in 2005), legislation requiring labeling of genetically engineered fish already exists in the European Union, Japan, New Zealand and Australia.How can so many rich, developed countries see a difference between GE fish and conventional fish, but the US cannot? I think they do see a difference, a costly difference.________

Read On: Fanatic Cook
"There Are, In Fact, No Data Comparing The Food Safety Profiles Of GM Versus Conventional Breeding"
In reply to the anonymous commenter in this post: Why We Should Be Testing Genetically Engineered Foods On Humans who presumed GMOs had undergone safety testing:"There are, in fact, no data comparing the food safety profiles of GM versus conventional breeding, and the ubiquitous argument that since there is no evidence that GM products make people sick, they are safe is both illogical and false. There are, again, simply no data or even valid assays to support this contention.Without proper epidemiological studies, most types of harm will not be detected, and no such studies have been conducted.The necessity of labeling all GM products and particularly NEPs is therefore critical if there is any hope of monitoring adverse health consequences due to their consumption. For example, it would have been impossible to identify the source of the toxic tryptophan supplement if the product were not traceable through labeling."- David Schubert, Cellular Neurobiology Laboratory, The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, in "The Problem with Nutritionally Enhanced Plants", Journal of Medicinal Food, 2008Whose job is it to safety test GMOs?"Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job."- Quote by Phil Angell, Monsanto's Director of Corporate Communications, in "Playing God In The Garden," by Michael Pollan, New York Times Magazine, 25 October 1998.But..."Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety."- FDA Federal Register, "Statement of Policy: Foods Derived From New Plant Varieties," 1992, a document, signed by David Kessler, which the FDA continued to reference, as recently as October 2008.________

Read On: Fanatic Cook
94-Year-Old Gym Buff
Another in my series of motivational exercise posts. I need all the motivation I can get these days!That thing he does with the mini baseball bats? I can't wait. What can I substitute?________

Read On: Fanatic Cook
Winter Blackbird Die-Off
Remember that weird bird die-off around this time last year? Where hundreds of starlings were found dead on the streets in South Dakota?The USDA, whose job it is to protect and promote agriculture, including livestock farming, has admitted to poisoning the birds intentionally."They used a bait laced with the poison DRC-1339. The USDA says the birds ate the bait then flew back to Yankton and died."- Hundreds Of Yankton, South Dakota Birds Poisoned By USDAThe intentional killing was not incidental.  In this case a farmer complained to the USDA that a flock of about 5,000 starlings were defecating in his cattle feed. Anyone can make a similar complaint, with similar outcome, if they can show wild animals causing harm.The bird-cull program is known, in USDA parlance, as Bye Bye Blackbird:"The USDA's role in the South Dakota bird deaths puts a focus on a little-known government bird-control program that began in the 1960s under the name of Bye Bye Blackbird, which eventually became part of the USDA and was housed in the late '60s at a NASA facility."- Bye Bye Blackbird: USDA Acknowledges A Hand In One Mass Bird Death, Christian Science Monitor, 20 January 2011It isn't just Bye Bye Blackbird, but Bye Bye bats, bears, beavers, skunks, squirrels, pigs, and millions of other birds. Here's a government pdf file that lists the deaths, most of them intentional, of 4,120,291 animals in 2009, 1.3 million starlings alone:USDA: Animals Taken by Wildlife Services - FY 2009These aren't even all the deaths:"While the USDA keeps tabs on the number of birds the program euthanizes, the total death toll isn't known because private contractors operating under the depredation order aren't required to keep count in the case of blackbirds, cowbirds, grackles, and starlings."- Bye Bye Blackbird: USDA Acknowledges A Hand In One Mass Bird Death, Christian Science Monitor, 20 January 2011I knew the government killed animals that interfered with dairy businesses, cattle feedlots, chicken farms, and fields of grain. I didn't know it was this extensive.Greg Butcher at the National Audubon Society says:"Every winter, there's massive and purposeful kills of these blackbirds. ... These guys are professionals, and they don't want to advertise their work. They like to work fast, efficiently, and out of sight."________Photo from the Christian Science Monitor, caption:  "A worker with US Environmental Services, a private contractor, picks up a dead bird in Beebe, Ark. on Jan. 1, 2010. The USDA said it killed hundreds of starlings in South Dakota this week."Thanks to Melinda for the story.

Read On: Fanatic Cook
"We Are Staring At A Massive Public Health Threat In The Rise Of Antibiotic-Resistant Superbugs"
On Wednesday, the FDA said that one class of antibiotic, the cephalosporins, should be limited in use in cattle, pigs, chickens, and turkeys:FDA To Protect Important Class Of Antimicrobial Drugs For Treating Human Illness, FDA Press Release, 4 January 2012Overuse of cephalosporins in farm animals has caused these drugs to become ineffective for treating infection in humans. Bacteria have become resistant to them.Bacteria become resistant more easily in places where there are a lot of them packed together, like factory farms. The few bacteria that survive initial exposure to a drug, probably genetically, can transfer that resistance to their neighbors. Then, as Dan Klotz writes:"Even if the same drug is later given at a proper dose, the bacteria has already acquired a resistance and will survive."- Do we Really Need To Use Human Medicine On Farm Animals?, National Geographic, 6 January 2012I read the FDA's press release and thought it was limp. Then I read:"The F.D.A. initially proposed cephalosporin restrictions in 2008 but withdrew the rule before it could take effect because of opposition from veterinarians, farmers and drug companies. The rule announced Wednesday is less strict than that one, since it still allows veterinarians to use the drugs to treat sick animals in some ways the F.D.A. has not specifically approved."..."Representative Louise M. Slaughter, a Democrat from New York and a microbiologist, said the F.D.A. had been too slow and too timid. “We are staring at a massive public health threat in the rise of antibiotic-resistant superbugs,” she said. “We need to start acting with the swiftness and decisiveness this problem deserves.” "- Citing Drug Resistance, U.S. Restricts More Antibiotics For Livestock, New York Times, 4 January 2012Maybe it's not as bad as Ms. Slaughter claims:"Dr. Gatz Riddell, executive vice president of the American Association of Bovine Practitioners, a veterinarian group, said the dangers of agricultural uses of antibiotics had been greatly exaggerated."Limiting these drugs will harm factory farmers and drug companies. Seems you'll have to have an alternative at-the-ready before you ban them. But what's that alternative?________

Read On: Fanatic Cook
FDA Warned Diamond Foods About Making Disease Claims
This is not news. It happened 2 years ago. But it's news to me.The FDA sent a warning letter to Diamond Foods telling them that the claims they were making for their walnuts place the walnuts into the category of "drug" because FDA defines "drug" as something intended for use in the prevention, mitigation, and treatment of disease.FDA gave examples of Diamond's claims:"Studies indicate that the omega-3 fatty acids found in walnuts may help lower cholesterol; protect against heart disease, stroke and some cancers; ease arthritis and other inflammatory diseases; and even fight depression and other mental illnesses.""[O]mega-3 fatty acids inhibit the tumor growth that is promoted by the acids found in other fats ... ""[I]n treating major depression, for example, omega-3s seem to work by making it easier for brain cell receptors to process mood-related signals from neighboring neurons.""The omega-3s found in fish oil are thought to be responsible for the significantly lower incidence of breast cancer in Japanese women as compared to women in the United States."I think Diamond started promoting walnuts as drugs when they made disease claims. I mean, for Diamond to state or even imply that their shelled walnuts can inhibit tumor growth is powerful stuff.  Before the existence of the FDA, people sold lung tonics and cough cures and other dubious remedies with similar claims.I just came from their site, www.diamondnuts.com.  It looks like they complied.The Life Extension Foundation says this action by the FDA "resembles an out-of-control police state where tyranny reins over rationality." I guess there are two sides to every story.________This might be an old package in the photo because it still has that "Omega-3" in the right-hand corner. Speaking of omega-3, walnuts have over 4 times more pro-inflammatory omega-6 than omega-3. And the omega-3 in walnuts is not the same type as is found in fish oil. So, that fish oil reference is stretching it. Also, both omega-3 and omega-6 are polyunsaturated fats which oxidize quickly, inside of the body and out, and so are not, in my opinion, a food to consume in copious amounts.Thank you LB for the link.

Read On: Fanatic Cook
Whole Grains And Diabetes
I was scanning studies this morning, as is my wont, and stumbled upon:Cereal Grains, Legumes And Diabetes, European Journal Of Clinical Nutrition, 2004"This review examines the evidence for the role of whole grain foods and legumes in the aetiology and management of diabetes.Epidemiological studies strongly support the suggestion that high intakes of whole grain foods protect against the development of type II diabetes mellitus (T2DM). People who consume approximately 3 servings per day of whole grain foods are less likely to develop T2DM than low consumers (< 3 servings per week) with a risk reduction in the order of 20–30%.This is consistent with the results of dietary intervention studies that have found improvements in glycaemic control after increasing the dietary intake of whole grain foods, legumes, vegetables and fruit. The benefit has been attributed to an increase in soluble fibre intake. However, prospective studies have found that soluble fibre intake is not associated with a lower incidence of T2DM. On the contrary, it is cereal fibre that is largely insoluble that is associated with a reduced risk of developing T2DM. Despite this, the addition of wheat bran to the diets of diabetic people has not improved indicators of glycaemic control. These apparently contradictory findings might be explained by metabolic studies that have indicated improvement in glucose handling is associated with the intact structure of food. For both grains and legumes, fine grinding disrupts cell structures and renders starch more readily accessible for digestion. The extent to which the intact structure of grains and legumes or the composition of foods in terms of dietary fibre and other constituents contribute to the beneficial effect remains to be quantified.I thought this was a fairly comprehensive and well-referenced article on diets, whole grains, and diabetes. I'm still scouring it. Here are two more bits I found informative, about insulin resistance:"High intakes of fat, especially saturated fatty acids may increase resistance to the action of insulin, the underlying abnormality in many cases of T2DM.""Considering the scope of these dietary intervention studies, there is little doubt that diets containing substantial intakes of whole grain foods, fruit, vegetables and legumes are associated with an improvement in insulin sensitivity and other indicators of carbohydrate metabolism including improved glycaemic control in people with diabetes."They really drive home the point that grain should be in the unrefined, whole state.________That's a photo of my brown basmati rice, rinsed, waiting for the water to boil before I drop it in.

Read On: Fanatic Cook
The Admirable Apple
Just saw this video on Dr. Gregor's site:He sited this study:Daily Apple Consumption Promotes Cardiovascular Health In Postmenopausal Women, FASEB, April 2011Abstract:"Animal findings suggest that apple and its components, e.g. apple pectin and polyphenols improve lipid metabolism and lower the production of proinflammatory molecules.To our knowledge, the present study is the first that evaluated the cardioprotective effects of daily consumption of apple for one year in postmenopausal women.Qualified women (160) were randomly assigned to one of the two dietary intervention groups: dried apple (75g/day) or comparative control dried fruit.Fasting blood samples were collected at baseline, 3-, 6-, and 12-month to measure various parameters. Our findings indicate that the additional daily caloric intake of ~240 from dried apple not only do not increase body weight but rather lower it by 1.5 kg without altering habitual dietary intake.In this study, apple consumption significantly reduced serum levels of TC and LDL by 14% and 23%, respectively. The daily apple consumption also profoundly improved atherogenic risk ratios in addition to lowering serum levels of lipid hydroperoxide (33%) and C-reactive protein (32%).In conclusion, incorporation of apple into regular diet is encouraged because of its highly favorable effects in reducing the risk factors for cardiovascular disease."So, eating 2.6 ounces of dried apple rings a day for a year:Lowered total cholesterol by 14%Lowered LDL cholesterol by 23%Lowered C-reactive protein by 32% (CRP is a marker for inflammation)Reduced weight by ~3.3 poundsHow about that. I wonder what the "control dried fruit" was. And I wonder if the reductions were compared to baseline or to the control group. Regardless, there's something admirable about apples.________

Read On: Fanatic Cook
What Do You Think They Are Feeding The Cows?
Another Dr. Cinque post, because he has a way with words:Lifestyle Blamed For 40 Percent Of CancersHe's talking about a British study that said 40% of cancers in women, and 45% in men, were attributable to lifestyle, specifically smoking, diet, alcohol, and weight - in that order.About diet he said:"When it came to a lack of fruits and vegetables causing cancer, they found that men were twice as likely to be dietarily deficient in these foods than women. Do men still think that fruits and vegetables are sissy foods? Very well, more for me."I never heard it put that way, sissy foods. Do men view foods along a continuum of virility? Do women? Where would cheese fall?Here he went on about our lack of labeling of genetically engineered foods:"But, since the state is busy waging the valiant War on Potheads, it should not be surprising to learn that the United States is one of the few developed nations in the world that does not to require the labeling of genetically engineered foods. Just think: even in Communist China you get to know if your food was genetically modified. It is required by law over there that they tell you. But, here in the good old USA, that’s one freedom we don’t have. Russia is another country that requires labeling of GM foods. You see, Monsanto does not have much power over there like it does here.Well, I hope you are a health-fooder like me because it's estimated that 70% of processed foods contain some genetically engineered materials. Over 80% of the corn and soybeans grown in the U.S. are now genetically engineered. And if you think that’s a good reason to skip the corn and soybeans and go for the steak instead, what do you think they are feeding the cows? The vast majority of the livestock that Americans consume have been raised on genetically engineered grains. It’s higher than in any other country in the world.I do not eat meat- at all- but if I did, I would not go to the supermarket to buy it. Instead, I would seek out special producers who guaranteed high standards of production through every step in the production process and no GM fodder. But, I am very content to live without it."I wondered how much US grain goes to feed livestock. I found:"According to American Corn Growers Association, ca. 80% of corn grown in US is used to feed livestock worldwide."- College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Wisconsin-MadisonIf American consumers ever won their request for GMO labels, would it include meat? No wonder there's such a strong push-back from industry against labeling. These foods are everywhere.I wish Dr. Cinque allowed comments. But strong opinions invite strong criticism, which is not always, in this venue, dished out civilly.________

Read On: Fanatic Cook

7483788