The cause of America's rising obesity rate is irrelevant. The cure for it is what's important.

NuSi go home. You're not needed!

From http://dietdatabase.com/causes-of-obesity/

On a blog comments section somewhere, a argument discussion took place about what caused America's rising obesity rate. Certain people have a hypothesis that there's one cause. Here's a rough list, in no particular order:-
Carbohydrates (Taubes)
Refined Sugar (Yudkin. Lustig)
Refined Fructose (Lustig)
Wheat/Gluten Grains (Davis)
Fat (Ornish, Esseltyn etc)
Saturated Fat (Ornish, Esseltyn etc)
Animal Protein (Vegans)
Mineral Imbalances (Karlsson, "Duck Dodgers")
The Government (Nikoley)
Dietary Guidelines (Teicholz et al)

It's not Refined Sugar. Sorry, John Yudkin & Robert Lustig. See below...

Refined Sugar intake (kcal/capita/day) is higher in France than in the USA, but in France there's a lower obesity rate. ∴ Hypothesis disproved*.

*As the Refined Sugar intake data may be unreliable (it's also associational data), the hypothesis is not necessarily disproved. If only there's an interventional study (which proves causation) which results in lower weight on a higher sugar/fructose intake. There is! See The effect of two energy-restricted diets, a low-fructose diet versus a moderate natural fructose diet, on weight loss and metabolic syndrome parameters: a randomized controlled trial. ∴ Hypothesis disproved.

I asked Duck Dodgers what he wanted to happen. He said:-
"My feeling is that if people recognize that enriched foods are the antithesis of whole foods, then the demand for enriched/refined foods may diminish, forcing the industry to change."

I want people to eschew refined foods for whole foods, too. So all the arguing about what caused America's rising obesity rate was a complete waste of time. This gave me an idea. I decided to run my idea past someone who deals with obese people with T2DM and who just happened to be in the U.K, attending the Health Unplugged Conference, I PM'ed Dr. Jeffrey Gerber on Facebook, inviting him to meet me at Cafe Class in Woking (a location roughly half-way between my home and London).

So this happened...

Ivor Cummins came, too!

Suffice it to say, the afternoon was a blast!

Cont'd on Public Service Announcement: Calling all Low-carb, Low-fat and Veg*n advocates.

A treatment for epilepsy that's as cheap as chips and not a ketogenic diet.

I did some research on PubMed about epilepsy and found something unexpected.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnesium_sulfate

The art of magnesium transport.
"Patients with hypomagnesemia suffer from a wide range of symptoms including muscle cramps, cardiac arrhythmias and epilepsy."

See also Magnesium: Just as important as Calcium , The usual suspects and Depression: The similarity between magnesium and ketamine.

Failure to communicate: How to fix it.

First, a video. I used this video about two and a half years ago.


We communicate with each other verbally and non-verbally. To maintain a reasonable rate of information flow from talker to listener, non-verbal handshaking from listener to talker is used for flow-control.

Unfortunately, people with an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) like me (I was officially diagnosed as having an ASD, yesterday) can't detect non-verbal handshaking, resulting in failure to communicate. Body-language = Double-Dutch. This is confusing and upsetting for all concerned, because neither the talker nor the listener understand what's going on.

A talker with an ASD thinks "Why won't they listen to me?". "Why are they walking away?", while a listener without an ASD thinks "Why do they keep on talking when I'm giving clear signs that they should stop?".

Like SkyNet, I have become self-aware. Now that I am aware of this problem, I can fix it. Here's the solution. If you're having a conversation with someone, and they don't stop talking when you're giving clear signs that they should stop, do the following:-

From http://365thingsiloveaboutfrance.com/tag/french-hand-gestures/

Oh, look. The French already do it. From the above site:-
"Chut! / Silence!

When you want some one to shut up or fermez-la, you can hold up your index finger in the air (not in front of your lips), and give a severe look to the people disturbing you. French teachers use this gesture frequently."

Please don't give us a severe look. We don't do it on purpose to annoy you. We can't help it. TIA. :-)

Both Sides Now: Asperger's.

Continued from Both Sides Now: Nerds!

From http://quotes.lifehack.org/quote/bill-gates/be-nice-to-nerds-chances-are-youll/

A couple of years ago, a psychologist that I was chatting to at a party told me that she thought I had Asperger's. I wasn't upset. I was actually rather relieved, as it explained everything. Since then, several more people, who work for "Disability Challengers", working with children with severe ASDs (Autism Spectrum Disorders) have told me much the same thing.

Here's everything(ish)
A preference for reading science books rather than being with people.
A desire to take things apart and put them back together again (sometimes failing at the latter!) to see how they worked.
Being known as "Professor" at school, as I could chatter away about science facts for hours.
Sucking at forming relationships with women. Logic & emotion mixed like oil & water.
Becoming an Electronic Engineer rather than a Doctor, as it meant working with objects rather than people.
Focussing on a task for hours e.g. Researching, producing new blog posts and updating old ones.
Obsessive behaviour in certain areas.
Loving routine.
Hating change.
Difficulty with communicating facts to people e.g. having a "hectoring" tone.
Offending people without realising it by speaking bluntly or interacting with them in a very logical way, and then failing to recognise their body language shouting "Stop talking!", "Go away!", "Why did you do that?", "I'm offended!" etc at me.

In January 2015, after a series of failed relationship attempts, I asked my GP for a referral to an ASD clinic. After a wait of 10 months, I've got an appointment to see an ASD specialist at the end of this month.

Knowing that I would be seen by a specialist made me more self-aware and I started to push myself into doing things that would normally scare the crap out of me e.g. Approaching a complete stranger in a pub, introducing myself and engaging them in meaningful conversation.

So, I know that there's a monkey on my back and I know what it's getting up to an increasing proportion of the time. Bear with, bear with!

By the way, the computer/smart-phone that you're using to read this post was invented/designed/developed by people like me! Ditto, the Internet.

Netiquette and obnoxious arseholes.

Hey, look! I baked you a cake!

I live my life on the principle that if I wouldn't like someone doing something to me, I won't do it to them.

If I see a man having a discussion with a woman that I know in the street, I wouldn't barge in and start haranguing the man, because I wouldn't like it if someone did that to me.

So, why is it that on the Net, obnoxious arseholes think it's O.K. to do it? No, it's not! There's something called Netiquette. Observe it.

Yes, Man and Bali. I'm looking at you! When someone is commenting from the safety of their computer keyboards (or Smartphone touch-screens), they can turn into obnoxious arseholes. In real life, they might get a punch in the chops, which they'd richly deserve.

Addendum: On a Facebook status, far far away, the following conversation occurred (the beginning has been redacted):-

Me: I've liked some of their comments, too. That's why it's odd that they're playing up now. They seem to be "White knighting" Jane.

Kade: And now the plot thickens. You see, this might be something entirely different.

As an amused onlooker with no real interest in this drama, or the anonymous actors, I'll offer two educated explanations.

1. As you've already touched on, this might be a simple case of plain 'White Knighting', which isn't all that uncommon on the internet. Case closed.

2. If one were to really consider where the various moving parts of these dietary arguments -- and their actors -- find their home ground, Jane would actually be someone who'd get considerable sympathy from the plant-based or plant-centred crowd. Her general theories and ideas espouse a very low animal product intake paired with a puritanical focus on non-refined plant foods. Considering this avenue, one could see where this is going and why those individuals would like my comments and support her regularly. It's one of those areas where they find considerable overlaps of agreement.

Too bad they didn't realise that even *you* share in those overlaps and that much of your exchange with Jane is actually harmless and over a truly minor disagreement. Unfortunately, the relative anonymity of the internet not only makes individuals rambunctious, but also extremely presumptive of things they cannot gauge, such as tone and intent behind comments. This might prompt certain hot shots into White Knighting for someone in a friendly disagreement, which they can't decipher as being friendly, *because* that someone also happens to relatively champion their outlook in a highly volatile environment where even mild disagreements are far too often perceived as polarising.

Me: I couldn't have put it better myself!

Would it be a good idea to put what you just wrote in an addendum at the end of my blog post?

Kade: Up to you, Nige. Go for it if it is any good to the point you're making. ; )


As a result of the above conversation, I've changed my mind about Man & Bali. They're not obnoxious arseholes.

Further addendum: As a result of Man's comment here, I've re-changed my mind about him. He is an obnoxious arsehole. As a result of a comment elsewhere, so is Gordon.

Anyway, I've had my fun and I've made my point, so I'll say no more about it!

Cooperation is so much better than endless squabbling.

Science and zealots: How to detect bad science and how to detect zealots.

Last night, I got banned from Zoë Harcombe's blog. More on that later. Meanwhile, this...

From http://capisho.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/science-vs-faith.html

I re-read It's all about ME, baby! (1997 - present) and there's something important missing.

In 2005, I discovered Lyle McDonald. Before this happened, I had the following beliefs:-
1. If something works for me, it must work for everyone else.
2. If someone with qualifications states a fact, it must be true.
3. If someone without qualifications states a fact, it must be false.
4. If a study confirms my beliefs, it must be true.
5. If a study contradicts my beliefs, it must be false.

Sound familiar?
1. is a "Hasty generalisation" fallacy.
2. is an "Appeal to authority" fallacy.
3. is an "Ad hominem" fallacy.
4. & 5. are a "Cherry-picking" fallacy.

Suffice it to say, Lyle bitch-slapped the fallacies out of me. Thank you so much! Read Lyle's site, if you want to learn.

How can studies conflict with each other so much?

Having read a number of conflicting studies, here are some of the tricks that bad studies use:-

1. Fudge the methodology:-
In a meta-study (a study of studies), to make something that's bad (e.g. some saturated fats/fatty acids) look harmless or to make something that's good (e.g. Vitamin D) look useless, fudge the inclusion criteria so that only studies using low intakes or a narrow range of intakes are used, so that the RRs are either close to 1 or have 95% CI values above & below 1. In addition, include studies that show both positive and negative effects (due to them looking at different types of saturated fats/fatty acids, say), so that the overall result is null.

In a study, use a different type of the thing being studied (but bury this fact somewhere obscure so that it's easily missed) to get the opposite result. E.g. To make "carbs" look bad, use a test "carb" that comprises 50% simple carbs (sugars) and 50% complex carbs (high-GI starches, preferably), thus guaranteeing a bad result.

2. Fudge the statistics:- e.g. Regression toward the mean. I'm not a stats nerd, but there are many ways to lie with statistics.

3. Make the abstract have a different conclusion from the full study (which you hide behind a pay-wall), by excluding the methodology and results.


Back to Zoë Harcombe: I left some comments on Jennifer Elliott vs Dietitians Association of Australia.

My M.O. for detecting zealots is by using a slowly, slowly, catchee monkey approach. I left a comment supportive of low-carb diets, because:-

For people with Insulin Resistance, low-carb diets DO ameliorate obesity, postprandial sleepiness and postprandial hyperglycaemia.

Was that loud enough?

I added that I thought the first priority should be to tackle the causes of the Insulin Resistance, because reversing a condition is better than ameliorating it.

My comments were helpful, with links to blog posts showing the above and how to reverse T2DM in 8 weeks. I then went for the throat, criticising Jennifer Elliot, as the article she wrote contained cherry-picked references. I included three more links to my blog as supportive evidence. This resulted in the removal of all but one of my comments (and the comment that remained had the link removed) and the addition of the following:-

"Zoë Harcombe says:

October 23, 2015 at 8:55 pm

Nigel – too many comments purely trying to get traffic to your site – link above removed; other comments spammed. You’re now spammed.
Best wishes – Zoe"

The correct word is "banned", Zoë! Low-carb zealot successfully detected.

It's not a problem if a lay person becomes a low-carb zealot, but it is a problem if a Health Professional/Fitness Trainer becomes one. Cognitive bias and a refusal to accept contradictory evidence are not good traits for someone who's supposed to be practising evidence-based health/fitness.

The UK: A green and pleasant gun-free land, or not?

First, see A US tourist made a list of 100 things he thought about Britain... and it's very accurate.

Ee by eckerslike! Where's me Hovis?

A pro-gun advocate told me that when guns were banned in the UK, gun crime increased a lot and that police now have to be armed. Yeah, right!

From Gun politics in the United Kingdom:-
"In the United Kingdom, access by the general public to firearms is tightly controlled by law, although this is less restrictive in Northern Ireland. The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world.[1]There were 0.05 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in the five years to 2011 (15 to 38 people per annum). Gun homicides accounted for 2.4% of all homicides in the year 2011.[2] There is some concern over the availability of illegal firearms.[3][4][5]"

There are pockets of deprivation in virtually every large city in the world. These pockets are often "no-go" areas for police, even if they're armed. In ungoverned/ungovernable areas, gangs thrive. From Kowloon: Inside A Walled City #9
"From the 50s until the 80s Triad groups (Chinese mobsters) had a significant amount of power in The Walled City. Kowloon became a hotbed for prostitution, drugs, and gambling; however most residents of the Walled City were not involved in the illegal activity."

Another change that encouraged the thriving of gangs in the UK was the repealing of Sus law in August 1981, after race riots in 1980 and 1981.

So, in exchange for an almost total elimination of Spree killings and mass shootings, we have an increase in Other Firearms crime, most of which occur in large cities. We can live with that.

Here's a thought experiment:-
You own a shop in an area where gangs thrive, and you have to pay a gang for "protection".
An armed gang-member is about to arrive to collect a payment. You have 3 options:-
1. Compliance: You end up poorer.
2. Unarmed resistance: Your shop, you and/or your family end up getting smashed-up (or worse).
3. Armed resistance: You and/or your family end up getting shot.

That's why there's no point in carrying a gun, in areas where gangs thrive. In other areas, there's no need.
Gangs always have the advantage over Individuals.