False dichotomies: cot'd.

I'm talking about the "What causes Z, X or Y?" & "What is best, X or Y" type statements.

From http://johnbarban.com/fitness-vs-fatness-a-false-dichotomy/

Some people believe that hormonal disruption causes obesity, rather than energy excess. The vast majority of people who are overweight or obese weren't born with hormonal disruption. It's years of chronic energy excess (see Determinants of the Variability in Human Body-fat Percentage for the many reasons causing it) that make people too heavy/fat than is healthy. Once too heavy/fat than is healthy, various hormones become disrupted, causing even more energy excess. Therefore, the cause of obesity is not one thing or another, it's both (plus lots of others), which is why reversing it is so difficult.

On Peter D's blog, the title reads "You need to get calories from somewhere, should it be from carbohydrate or fat?" I say "Both. And some protein. And a bit of alcohol, too!" And I know that I shouldn't start sentences with And.

It's been a while since I posted a video of me singing. Here's one from February this year.

False dichotomies: serum cholesterol level vs all-cause mortality. Cause or effect?

Here are some plots from the MRFIT study.

From http://sph.bu.edu/otlt/MPH-Modules/PH/PH709_Heart/PH709_Heart5.html

Although the relative risk (RR) for coronary heart disease (CHD) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortalities increase with serum total cholesterol (TC) level, all-cause mortality follows a U-curve.

According to Low Serum Cholesterol and Mortality: Which Is the Cause and Which Is the Effect?, certain illnesses that increase mortality lower TC levels. This is the Iribarren hypothesis.

According to Cholesterol and all-cause mortality in elderly people from the Honolulu Heart Program: a cohort study, TC that's low and is still low 20 years later results in a 64% increase in the RR for mortality relative to TC that's intermediate and is still intermediate 20 years later.

Table 4 Relative risk for mortality based on change in cholesterol between examinations three and four

Is low TC level the cause of, or the effect of fatal illnesses? I think that it's both. Cholesterol is an important substance, as a severe lack of it is bad news, as per Smith–Lemli–Opitz syndrome. If certain illnesses result in a depletion of cholesterol and cholesterol synthesis is too low, there's insufficient cholesterol to allow recovery.

Interestingly, TC that's low but is intermediate 20 years later results in a 30% increase in the RR for mortality, whereas TC that's low but is high 20 years later results in a 5% increase in the RR for mortality.

P.S. There's a false dichotomy for vitamin D level vs illness. Ditto for carbohydrates vs calories.

False dichotomies: moderation.

Feel like you're walking a tightrope? I sang this at Open Mic night on Wednesday, including the orchestration!


There's another internet "punch-up" over moderation in what people eat. Apparently, there are only two options:-

Everything in moderation,

Image from http://www.deltadentalarblog.com/2013/07/ditch-the-junk-help-your-kids-eat-better/

or Nothing in moderation.

As always, it's a case of "It all depends". If, when you're at home, you keep raiding the chocolates from the box or sweets/candies from the tin and you don't want to, don't have them in the house. However, if when you're not at home, someone offers you a chocolate or a small sweet/candy, unless you're so desperate that you'll steal some more or go to a shop and buy some more, eat the chocolate or small sweet/candy. Five grams of sugar won't harm you, even if you're diabetic.

If you have Coeliac Disease and mustn't eat any significant gluten, moderation isn't an option. Ditto, if you have impaired gut integrity and you feel better avoiding gluten. If consuming stuff doesn't cause you medical problems or make you desperate to consume even more, moderation is fine.

EDIT: Sometimes, I ramble in a way that makes it hard for people to understand what I'm talking about. I've emphasised the word "Apparently", as this post is about a perceived false dichotomy (perceived by the "Nothing in moderation" group).

Diet, Nutrition & Fitness: Whatever the question, the right answer is "It all depends".

The carbohydrate pendulum keeps on swinging! Bloggers keep on fighting!

Carbohydrates are good. No, they're bad. Wait, they're good again. Nope, bad again. Good again. Aargh!

See also http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/more-thoughts-on-macronutrient-trends.html
 
So, are carbohydrates good or bad? See the title. Gluten? See the title.

As Everyone is Different, whether "X" is good, bad or indifferent all depends on genes (including gender), the expression of those genes, environment (i.e. birth weight, exposure to pollutants in the womb & after birth), general diet (i.e. nutrients, anutrients & anti-nutrients), lifestyle (i.e. sunlight exposure, stress, sleep etc) and type, level & volume of activity.