Back to black, CIAB, pharmaceutical drug deficiencies & nerds.

First, a song by someone who should be alive, but isn't...

The above video was inspired by a Facebook friend who had an accident with Schwartzkopf black hair dye and spent ages getting the stains off her skin. You know who you are!

I may have mentioned that nutrient deficiencies can adversely affect mental (and/or other) function. Nowadays, many people live on a diet of Crap-In-A-Bag (CIAB). There's just enough essential amino acids (EAAs), essential fatty acids (EFAs), minerals & vitamins to keep their bodies alive. However, Alive ≠ Working properly.

To compensate for one (or more) nutrient deficiencies, many people are prescribed one (or more) pharmaceutical drugs to tweak how their brains work e.g. fluoxetine, citalopram/escitalopram, venlafaxine, quetiapine, risperidone, valproate etc. There are no pharmaceutical drug deficiencies!

There are people who suffer from mental (and/or other) illnesses, despite having diets & lifestyles that provide sufficient amounts of all nutrients. This post isn't about them. There are people who suffer from depression due to traumatic & inescapable events/situations. This post isn't about them, either.

Finally, nerds! We nerds love to compile information. For an interesting interview with a top compiler of useful information, see Examine's Supplement Goals Reference Guide.

For an excellent article with a mere 148 references, see Why Calories Count. To sum up:-

Where body weight is concerned, calories count (but don't bother trying to count them).
Where body composition is concerned, partitioning counts.
Where health is concerned, macronutrient ratios, EFAs, minerals, vitamins & lifestyles count.

N.B. Poor health can adversely affect body weight and/or body composition, by increasing appetite and/or by adversely affecting partitioning.

Continued on Chow on chow, Parkinson's Law, two ways of doing something, and love.

FAO the over-fat and/or those with metabolic syndrome: Big breakfast, medium lunch & small dinner is beneficial.

Breakfast like a King/Queen.

Go to work on an egg.

According to High caloric intake at breakfast vs. dinner differentially influences weight loss of overweight and obese women.
"High-calorie breakfast with reduced intake at dinner is beneficial and might be a useful alternative for the management of obesity and metabolic syndrome." See the other PubMed studies listed in the above study, which corroborate it.

What about all the "artery-clogging" cholesterol in egg yolks? See Eat Whole Eggs All Day and Throw Your Statins Away? 375x Increased Dietary Cholesterol Intake From Eggs Reduces Visceral Fat & Promotes Healthy Cholesterol Metabolism.

I don't believe it.

And neither should you.

From http://workwithstuartchalmers.com/wp/blog/2012/10/02/banners-broker-it-care/

Well, opinions are like assholes, honey. Everybody's got one and everybody thinks everybody else's stinks. The internet is full of opinions. Why should anyone believe anything they read on the internet?

If a writer has (a) qualification(s) in "A", it means that they know something about "A". It doesn't mean that they know anything about "B", "C"....."Z". However, humans being human, they have biases. Writers write in a biased way. Also, readers read in a biased way. Having (a) qualification(s) means diddly-squat. What does mean something, is backing-up what's written with quality evidence. As I have no formal qualifications in Diet & Nutrition, I try to do that as often as possible. When I don't, it's my opinion.

Many people are intolerant of other people's opinions. No wonder so many "fights" break out on forums, message-boards & blog comments. As a writer's qualifications mean diddly-squat, what's the point in arguing about a writer's qualifications? There isn't one! It's an ad hominem fallacy. Bloggers whose blog contents consist mainly of ad hominems & other fallacies are ass hats.

This blog was morbidly obese!

Uh, do what?

That's my blog, that was!

According to http://www.statscrop.com/ for this site:-
"This site weight is 261 Kbs. The site weight should ideally be less than 125 Kbs in length."
This blog is over twice the recommended site weight, which makes it morbidly obese. The reason for this is because I like to have a large number of posts visible on the main page. Unfortunately, this makes the main page take an age to load.

I've now put this blog on a PSMF (Posts Strictly Mother F***er), by reducing the number of posts visible on the main page to four. As there's a search box in the top left-hand corner and a blog archive section & comprehensive list of labels to the right, it shouldn't be hard to find what you're looking for.

Bursting from the seams: "Obese adipocytes" literally "explode" and leave a nasty inflammatory mess.

I just read a Public post on Facebook from someone I follow and whose blog is in my list.

https://www.facebook.com/profdrandro/posts/533941643320863

It contained a word that I've never seen before, but would like to see more often - Pyroptosis. 
See Obese adipocytes show ultrastructural features of stressed cells and die of pyroptosis.

Adipocytes dying, huh? You know what that means? Loss of body-fat. Unfortunately, there is an issue with the nasty inflammatory mess left, after adipocytes "explode". This limits the rate at which adipocytes can be "exploded".

See also SuppVersity Cellulite Special: The Etiology of Cellulite, Genetical and Behavioural Risk Factors? Physical and Supplemental Treatment Strategies & Their Efficacy. Warning! Not Safe For Work, due to pictures of naked botties.

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.

How many working brain cells do researchers have? Part n+1

Once upon a time, I took the mickey out of some eejit researchers in How many working brain cells do researchers have? Guess what? I'm doing it again. A Facebook friend sent me a link to a worrying "new" study Omega-3 Supplements Linked To Prostate Cancer. Oh, dear. Things are looking bad for oily fish & fish oil supplements. Just a moment!

I did some digging on PubMed for the author and found this:- n-3 Fatty acids and prostate cancer risk. The main feature of wild oily fish & fish oil supplements is their high ratio of EPA & DHA (long-chain omega-3 fatty acids) to LA (a shorter-chain omega-6 fatty acid). It would therefore be logical to assess oily fish consumption and/or fish oil supplement intake by measuring the ratio of serum EPA:LA and/or DHA:LA and/or (EPA+DHA):LA.

What did Brasky TM, Crowe FL & Kristal AR actually do? According to the abstract, they measured only serum EPA, DHA & (EPA+DHA). They didn't measure serum LA. Therefore, if the subjects in the EPIC study ate a diet with a high omega-6 (n-6):omega-3 (n-3) ratio (i.e a Standard English Diet), subjects with a high serum n-3 level would have a very high serum n-6 level. As excessive levels of serum n-6 pufas are carcinogenic (see Completing the trine: Which are the safest fats?), it's not surprising that the study produced the results that it did.

There only one thing to do, in cases like this...

Because one palm just isn't enough!

EDIT: Here's a better analysis:- Fish Oil and your Prostate. It looks as though n-6 was measured, which makes my analysis wrong, but I'm keeping the double face-palm, as the full study is hidden behind a £30 pay-wall. Here's another good analysis:- Omega-3 Fats and Cancer.