Gluten and carbs

Attention to food, what should or should not be eaten, the consequences of various diets and similar matters is a significant issue for many people. Our written records, as well as religious and oral traditions, are indicative of how significant similar themes, with different rationales, seem to have been for people throughout much of recorded history.

Recently, there has been much talk in the US and other parts of the developed world of the consequences of eating foods with gluten or which are primarily carbohydrates. While I do not have the expertise to evaluate the scientific and other evidence regarding this, I am surprised at the disagreements and blindness  [and the seeming self-interest]   of some having these discussions.

There are people for whom eating gluten is definitely a major danger - causing disease, even life threatening conditions. This is a small percentage of the total population, but for those sensitive to gluten in this way these dietary choices are major issues, even matters of life-and-death.

And there are many for whom eating a diet too heavy in carbs has health consequences that may not be life-threatening or disabling but nevertheless are significant.

At the same time, there are large numbers of people, both in the USA and throughout the world, for whom the lack of adequate food in any form, for whom hunger and starvation, are a daily threat. For them, the important issues are  about getting enough calories and their basic dietary needs - these are vital;  the issues around gluten or carbs are minor or non-existent. Appreciating this, we can appreciate the good fortune we have, and our responsibility, if we have a life with enough food, time and income, among other things, to further explore our options in food choices and their consequences.

Especially for those of us for whom gluten is not a matter of life-and-death, not a matter of major illness, how do we evaluate and understand the significance and consequences of dietary gluten and carbohydrates in our life?

Below is a link to a critique which explores the gluten and carb issues, primarily focusing on the anti-gluten and anti-carb presentations by Dr. David Perlmutter [which are receiving media attentions recently with best-selling books and videos]; in the article there are links to the scientific-evidence based literature:

http://m.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/12/this-is-your-brain-on-gluten/282550

or

http://theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/12/this-is-your-brain-on-gluten/282550/

No matter what your conclusions after/if you read this article, I hope you enjoy your year-end gatherings and festivities, and are appreciative of all those with whom you share this life.

Arguing for war to prevent war

It is interesting and challenging to read arguments for war which are based on the premise that the war will prevent a more dangerous war. I have previously touched on this, and have today been sent an article which comes to these very conclusions. How do we decide something like this, whose lives do we value, whose lives are we willing to sacrifice? Of course, war always raises this issues, but in this case it seems to be more immediate - though the author is not in power and so this is "only" an intellectual exercise at this point.

Below are the last few paragraphs of the article with a link - you decide for yourself.

"...The Obama administration tells us that the interim agreement puts Iran on a track that will lead to the abandonment of its quest for a nuclear arsenal. But the Iranians are jubilant because they know that the only abandonment going on is of our own effort to keep them from getting the bomb.

Adherents of the new consensus would have us believe that only two choices remain: a war to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons or containment of a nuclear Iran—with containment the only responsible option. Yet as an unregenerate upholder of the old consensus, I remain convinced that containment is impossible, from which it follows that the two choices before us are not war vs. containment but a conventional war now or a nuclear war later.

Given how very unlikely it is that President Obama, despite his all-options-on-the-table protestations to the contrary, would ever take military action, the only hope rests with Israel. If, then, Israel fails to strike now, Iran will get the bomb. And when it does, the Israelis will be forced to decide whether to wait for a nuclear attack and then to retaliate out of the rubble, or to pre-empt with a nuclear strike of their own. But the Iranians will be faced with the same dilemma. Under these unprecedentedly hair-trigger circumstances, it will take no time before one of them tries to beat the other to the punch.

And so my counsel to proponents of the new consensus is to consider the unspeakable horrors that would then be visited not just on Israel and Iran but on the entire region and beyond. The destruction would be far worse than any imaginable consequences of an Israeli conventional strike today when there is still a chance to put at least a temporary halt, and conceivably even a permanent one, to the relentless Iranian quest for the bomb."

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303560204579246142096554348?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

What do you make of the points raised? 

Some of the comments posted with the article are particularly insightful, though unfortunately many are hyper-partisan and worse.

Waste Not, Want Not - is there anything you can do in your life?

"Europe wastes more heat than it uses to keep buildings warm. Now projects across the continent will tap everything from subways to sewers to keep homes cosy

TAKE the escalator down to platform level at any deep London Underground station and a wave of warm air wafts over you. Dug in the 19th century, the poorly ventilated tunnels were not designed for today's train and passenger volumes, trapping heat from engines, brakes and the bodies of London's commuters. It is not just unpleasant on a summer's day – that heat represents a huge amount of energy going to waste.

And so it was announced last month that some of this energy will be channelled to nearby homes. It is one of five such projects in the works. Urban heat sources across European cities, such as waste water from baths and washing machines, could soon be tapped to cut heating bills and help Europe hit its carbon emissions targets......"

For the rest of the article see:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029464.600-how-heat-from-trains-and-sewers-can-warm-our-homes.html#.UqHKs_RDuIo

inhaling, exhaling, borning, dying, inflating, deflating

What is inhaling, exhaling, dying, borning right now?

Here is a wonderful art piece that encourages us to clarify this matter right here.

"Art That Breathes: Lewis DeSoto’s Paranirvana (Self-Portrait)

Anya Montiel

Paranirvana (self-portrait)

Maker: 

Lewis deSoto
Medium: 

Polyethylene cloth

26' (7.9 m) in lengt

     

(FOR VARIOUS VIEWS OF THE IMAGES CLICK ON THE PICTURES.)

 Lewis deSoto’s Paranirvana (self-portrait) is a 26-foot long sculpture influenced by the artist’s engagement with Buddhism. The sculpture depicts a figure reclining on its right side; its disposition closely based on a twelfth-century stone Buddha at Gal Vihara in Sri Lanka. Unlike its solid stone predecessor, deSoto’s work, made from painted polyethylene cloth, is hollow, filled only by air from a fan that keeps the sculpture inflated. The resemblance to the reclining Buddha is nonetheless remarkable, from the curls of hair to the folds of the robe, the one exception being that deSoto superimposed his own facial features, complete with goatee, on this Buddha. These alterations to material and the personalization of the piece that occurs when it becomes a self-portrait, make particular claims on this representation and shape its possible meanings......."

For the rest of this wonderful article see:

http://mavcor.yale.edu/conversations/essays/art-breathes-lewis-desoto-s-paranirvana-self-portrait

Inheritance MAY include fears and reactive habits built into our DNA and much more on new medicine and science

Have you found or discovered any traits, reactive habits or fears which seem to be familial, seem to be common to your family and ancestors?A BBC report states, "Behaviour can be affected by events in previous generations which have been passed on through a form of genetic memory, animal studies suggest.Experiments showed that a traumatic event could affect the DNA in sperm and alter the brains and behaviour of subsequent generations.

A Nature Neuroscience study shows mice trained to avoid a smell passed their aversion on to their 'grandchildren'."

The rest of the findings discussed above and below are at

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25156510

Here is the original study abstract and citation:

http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nn.3594.html
"Family affairThe findings provide evidence of "transgenerational epigenetic inheritance" - that the environment can affect an individual's genetics, which can in turn be passed on.

One of the researchers Dr Brian Dias told the BBC: "This might be one mechanism that descendants show imprints of their ancestor.

"There is absolutely no doubt that what happens to the sperm and egg will affect subsequent generations."

Prof Marcus Pembrey, from University College London, said the findings were "highly relevant to phobias, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorders" and provided "compelling evidence" that a form of memory could be passed between generations.

He commented: "It is high time public health researchers took human transgenerational responses seriously.

"I suspect we will not understand the rise in neuropsychiatric disorders or obesity, diabetes and metabolic disruptions generally without taking a multigenerational approach."

If the above study has some validity and truth for us humans, what are the appropriate cautions and precautions? Are there preventive practices in the light of particular sensitivities? These are important questions to reflect upon - both in terms of our own life and also, especially in this time of the year when families gather, in terms of our family with whom we share genetic inheritances.

What are skillful responses and PRE-cautions when we will be with our family and the family of friends, partners and so forth?

Below are some comments I received on this blog post:

"This is really cool; it basically implies that epigenetic tags put on the DNA which are usually cleared between generations were not in this case, or perhaps were cleared less cleanly.  This is due to gene methylation aka the application of epigenetic tags which are due to environmental factors in an individual. It's a fascinating and new area of genetics that is just now beginning to be understood. Another instance of this was a study that if I remember correctly found that individuals whose grandparents had periods of famine in their lives were less likely to become obese and to develop diabetes."

Another comment was : "An interesting study but I am reluctant to generalize to humans without experimental evidence from other mammals including humans."

And now a review of genetic research and another study on this area:

Book Review: 'The Cure in the Code,' by Peter W. Huber

"We are at a turning point in medicine. Knowledge of the individual's genetic makeup will soon allow molecular medicine to reach deep inside each of us to cure most of the maladies that afflict us—and perhaps even slow the rate at which we age. First we will learn to understand each person's genome; then we will learn to craft treatments tailored to his or her genetic constitution.

But it may not be so easy—and not for purely scientific reasons. Consider 23andMe, a commercial enterprise launched in 2006 that was merely looking to inform Americans about their potential genetic vulnerability to certain diseases. Regulators from the Food and Drug Administration have dropped the hammer on the company, citing baseless fears that its customers will do something dangerously stupid in reaction to the information that the tests provide. The FDA's regulatory labyrinth is not only slow to digest the science behind the genetic testing involved in 23andMe. It also can't quite figure out what to do with the proliferation of molecular biomarkers that can predict treatment efficacy more quickly than the conventional clinical trials the agency relies upon.

All this is just the tip of the iceberg, Peter Huber argues in "The Cure in the Code," his urgent, compelling account of how 21st-century medicine is being hampered by a regulatory regime built for the science of the 20th century..."

for the rest of the article see:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303670804579234033790852314

Parents have gastric bypass; children’s DNA may receive the benefits

It's epigenetics: Kids' gene expression may occur a generation after surgery.

"Gastric bypass surgeries would, at first glance, seem to tackle the problems of obesity through simple physics: with a smaller stomach, there's only so much food a person can ingest. Actual results are anything but simple, however. Long before any significant weight loss occurs, patients who have the surgery show a remarkable reversal in many aspects of type-2 diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors. This suggests the body responds physiologically to the altered food intake itself rather than its impact on obesity.

New research shows that the effects may go beyond the patients themselves. A study has beentracking women who have had kids both before and after these surgeries, and it reveals that the children also see changes in how their bodies handle fats and sugars (as well as in markers of cardiovascular health). The researchers have found that the offspring may be benefiting from epigenetic inheritance, in which the parent's surgery influences how the DNA they inherit is interpreted by their cells...."

and for the rest of the article see:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/05/parents-have-gastric-bypass-childrens-dna-may-receive-the-benefits/

(c) 2013 Elihu Genmyo Smith

CURIOUSER AND CURIOUSER

How ideological positions may blind us to what is - and to what is appropriate. 

"Justice's lawsuit takes a bizarre turn to keep kids in rotten schools."

"Under Louisiana's voucher law, only students from families with incomes below 250% of the poverty line and who attend schools with a C grade or below are eligible for vouchers. Black kids received over 85% of the 6,800 vouchers this year, and 93% of their parents express satisfaction with the program.

But that doesn't matter to (Department of Justice) prosecutors, who sued in August on grounds that vouchers may lead to segregation under judicial orders dating to the 1970s. The original lawsuit literally claims, for instance, that black kids who use vouchers to attend private schools could leave public schools more white.

This objection has proven to be unfounded..... so now DOJ says it wants federal Judge Ivan Lemelle to approve a "process to ensure that the State provides necessary information and complies with its desegregation obligations." The goal here is to put the federal bureaucracy in charge.

Justice wants to review data on all voucher applicants including their race, public school district, whether and why they are granted a voucher and the private school to which they were assigned. And it wants that info at least 45 days before parents are notified that their kids will get a voucher. Why? Because the feds don't want parents to know if the feds knock their kids from the voucher list....."

For the full article, see:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304791704579210202920302792?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

Does similar blindness occur in our life? 

And if and when it does, what helps us notice this? 

Even more important, what enables and supports us to have the courage to act on what is, rather than holding only to what we believe or with what we identify in the face of a "conflicting" or "larger" reality?

In other words, how to manifest beginner's mind?

A telling report of economic and political self-centeredness from an interesting source

Here is an opinion piece that highlights greed and the resistance to change - even
when it is clear what is in the interest of the public and nation. What is especially "telling" is

that those in power, both Democrat and Republican, are part of this.

"Flooding Taxpayers Again

A bipartisan caucus wants to keep subsidies flowing to the 1%.

Federal flood insurance is a classic example of powerful government aiding the powerful, encouraging the affluent to build mansions near the shore. Congress finally had the gumption to reform the program in 2012, but now the beachfront homeowner and housing lobbies are trying to reverse this progress........."

For the rest of this article, see

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304337404579210323959746680?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop