A collection of health and fitness articles from around the web!
What is this website? We're here to share our fitness funnies, adventures and to fundraise money for Oxfam - click here for more information!
The articles on this page are shrouded in my own opinion of them. Whilst trying to be fair I'm also trying to workout what it is the article is actually saying. Comments here are always welcome! So far we've covered the role of porn in the brain, female fertility, red meat, housework and whether mens faces are made for smacking.
If you like this but need a giggle check out my blog for a dose of fitness humour and the occasional existential crisis!
If you like this but need a giggle check out my blog for a dose of fitness humour and the occasional existential crisis!
Friday 11th July
"More weight loss operations for diabetes" via BBC news
TL;DR - The NHS spends 10% of its budget on diabetes. NICE is suggesting we operate on overweight people to lower this cost.
I don't know how you feel about this. To be quite honest, it makes me sort of cross.
Knee-jerk reaction maybe, but only in the UK would this be acceptable. We pay our taxes into a system that gives us "free" health care. This health care money is then spent on people who have a completely manageable condition, who choose NOT to manage their symptoms so now MORE money will be spent on keeping them healthy.
If people choose not to live a healthy lifestyle there's really not much you can do about it until they decide otherwise. I'm not talking just overeating. I'm talking all of the risk factors for diabetes - smoking, drinking, the whole caboodle. It's not just being overweight that does it. Furthermore, just to clarify I'm talking about excess body fat over normal BMI. Not the kind of BMI where actually you have only 8% body fat and you're healthy as a horse - just really short and muscly :P
Nor am I talking about the people who have diabetes for other reasons - maybe your excess body fat caused it, maybe it didn't - but excess body fat still doesn't help. I'm talking about the people who live a lifestyle that is chronically unhealthy. I'm sure everyone has their "special snowflake" story, just reading the comments on this article there are loads of cries of "but I'm different" "but I'm more different than the last person" "BUT IT ISN'T MY FAULT". Some of them are bona-fide, yeah, good point. Some though reflect exactly what I'm saying. I'm not looking to porportion blame, I'm looking to increase people's self-reliancy. WE are ALL responsible for what we do to our bodies. Yes, overweight diabetics pay their taxes, but yes, they do spend MORE than their share on their health. Yes, I'm also talking about the people who smoke, or drink to excess out there. Yes, I am my own special snowflake.
As I’m sure you know, I speak from a point of view that has a lot of personal feelings attached to it. I watched my grandmother destroy her body
over the course of 20 years. She refused to "give up" the things she "shouldn't" eat. What she never seemed to see was what she'd be gaining in doing so. Has NHS money been spent on her? Yes. Should it have been? It's hard for me to answer that one. Of course in the abstract it's easy to say "no", but what would that have meant for her? Certainly death by now.
But what if those doctors had refused to treat her early in the course of her disease? Would that have forced her to rethink her options? Maybe. Maybe not - it's too late to ask now.
I know I keep saying it, but accountability is something we're sorely missing. You see it everywhere - I failed my exam, it's my teachers fault. I
never learnt how to employ my good manners, its my parents fault. I'm only overweight because I was never taught how to eat properly - my parents AND my teachers fault.
What would happen if people suddenly started taking responsibility for their own actions? What sort of world would THAT be? I'm ill because I eat too much crap that's bad for my body. I'm ill because I smoke/drink/eat too much. I failed my exams because I didn't work hard enough. I'm bad mannered becase I choose to be that way.
Woah. A whole new world of opportunity arises.
If its your parents fault you're overweight, well, what can you do to help that? But how about the responsibility lies with you? Well. All of a
sudden you have control. Yes. You do have the responsibility, but you also have an element of control suddenly. I can lose weight because I've not educated myself on healthy diet so far, but with the wealth of knowledge out there - I can change that.
Yes, the article mentions that NICE don't expect that many people to have surgery. Of course. But once it's an option it will shut down some people's resolve. Why bother losing weight when if you get overweight enough you can have surgery to do the magic for you? Losing weight is hard work.
It requires control of your diet, control of your exercise, motivation, reading up on stuff....why bother when a band can stop you eating as much?
And then when you get down to healthy weight - do you have a clue of how to maintain that? Nope. It's like in WoW when they introduced the "boost to 90 type programmes. All of a sudden we had an influx of new players, at top level that had NO idea which buttons did what and how they could use them. Not so great for raiding. In fact, I even levelled my paladin from 19-60 once using such a system. Could I play her? Like heck I could. Why? Because I'd never learnt the appropriate skills on my way to the top.
Likewise with losing weight. You can't cheat your way down there, you won't know what to do to stay there. How many people re-rolled their classes to have another go? Loads. How many people just kept playing (really badly) loads. People who use quick ways out of being heavy will usually only rebound. Yes there are exceptions, but most studies support the rule - not the exceptions.
5 years ago I'd have taken a magic pill to lose my weight. Today I'd never consider it. It's been hard, tough, sometimes really downing, but at the end of it I know a LOT more about myself than I ever would have otherwise, and a lot more about fitness and nutrition than I would have otherwise.
What do you think? Is this a good proposition to decrease the money spent on diabetes? Or would we do better to educate our population?
TL;DR - The NHS spends 10% of its budget on diabetes. NICE is suggesting we operate on overweight people to lower this cost.
I don't know how you feel about this. To be quite honest, it makes me sort of cross.
Knee-jerk reaction maybe, but only in the UK would this be acceptable. We pay our taxes into a system that gives us "free" health care. This health care money is then spent on people who have a completely manageable condition, who choose NOT to manage their symptoms so now MORE money will be spent on keeping them healthy.
If people choose not to live a healthy lifestyle there's really not much you can do about it until they decide otherwise. I'm not talking just overeating. I'm talking all of the risk factors for diabetes - smoking, drinking, the whole caboodle. It's not just being overweight that does it. Furthermore, just to clarify I'm talking about excess body fat over normal BMI. Not the kind of BMI where actually you have only 8% body fat and you're healthy as a horse - just really short and muscly :P
Nor am I talking about the people who have diabetes for other reasons - maybe your excess body fat caused it, maybe it didn't - but excess body fat still doesn't help. I'm talking about the people who live a lifestyle that is chronically unhealthy. I'm sure everyone has their "special snowflake" story, just reading the comments on this article there are loads of cries of "but I'm different" "but I'm more different than the last person" "BUT IT ISN'T MY FAULT". Some of them are bona-fide, yeah, good point. Some though reflect exactly what I'm saying. I'm not looking to porportion blame, I'm looking to increase people's self-reliancy. WE are ALL responsible for what we do to our bodies. Yes, overweight diabetics pay their taxes, but yes, they do spend MORE than their share on their health. Yes, I'm also talking about the people who smoke, or drink to excess out there. Yes, I am my own special snowflake.
As I’m sure you know, I speak from a point of view that has a lot of personal feelings attached to it. I watched my grandmother destroy her body
over the course of 20 years. She refused to "give up" the things she "shouldn't" eat. What she never seemed to see was what she'd be gaining in doing so. Has NHS money been spent on her? Yes. Should it have been? It's hard for me to answer that one. Of course in the abstract it's easy to say "no", but what would that have meant for her? Certainly death by now.
But what if those doctors had refused to treat her early in the course of her disease? Would that have forced her to rethink her options? Maybe. Maybe not - it's too late to ask now.
I know I keep saying it, but accountability is something we're sorely missing. You see it everywhere - I failed my exam, it's my teachers fault. I
never learnt how to employ my good manners, its my parents fault. I'm only overweight because I was never taught how to eat properly - my parents AND my teachers fault.
What would happen if people suddenly started taking responsibility for their own actions? What sort of world would THAT be? I'm ill because I eat too much crap that's bad for my body. I'm ill because I smoke/drink/eat too much. I failed my exams because I didn't work hard enough. I'm bad mannered becase I choose to be that way.
Woah. A whole new world of opportunity arises.
If its your parents fault you're overweight, well, what can you do to help that? But how about the responsibility lies with you? Well. All of a
sudden you have control. Yes. You do have the responsibility, but you also have an element of control suddenly. I can lose weight because I've not educated myself on healthy diet so far, but with the wealth of knowledge out there - I can change that.
Yes, the article mentions that NICE don't expect that many people to have surgery. Of course. But once it's an option it will shut down some people's resolve. Why bother losing weight when if you get overweight enough you can have surgery to do the magic for you? Losing weight is hard work.
It requires control of your diet, control of your exercise, motivation, reading up on stuff....why bother when a band can stop you eating as much?
And then when you get down to healthy weight - do you have a clue of how to maintain that? Nope. It's like in WoW when they introduced the "boost to 90 type programmes. All of a sudden we had an influx of new players, at top level that had NO idea which buttons did what and how they could use them. Not so great for raiding. In fact, I even levelled my paladin from 19-60 once using such a system. Could I play her? Like heck I could. Why? Because I'd never learnt the appropriate skills on my way to the top.
Likewise with losing weight. You can't cheat your way down there, you won't know what to do to stay there. How many people re-rolled their classes to have another go? Loads. How many people just kept playing (really badly) loads. People who use quick ways out of being heavy will usually only rebound. Yes there are exceptions, but most studies support the rule - not the exceptions.
5 years ago I'd have taken a magic pill to lose my weight. Today I'd never consider it. It's been hard, tough, sometimes really downing, but at the end of it I know a LOT more about myself than I ever would have otherwise, and a lot more about fitness and nutrition than I would have otherwise.
What do you think? Is this a good proposition to decrease the money spent on diabetes? Or would we do better to educate our population?
Wednesday 9th July
"Idle minds succumb to temptation of electric shocks" via New Scientist
Would you rather be in your own world? Or would you do anything to avoid it?
TL;DR - people would rather give themselves an electric shock than just sit still and do nothing.
This lab study shows that people would rather self-administer the electric shock than sit still and have nothing to do.
I don't know about you, but before I starting writing this I'd spent at LEAST 10 minutes doing bugger all. And that was in between an hour of flicking from doing bugger-all, to trying to concentrate on what I was doing and back.
I have to confess, I'm a bit of a daydreamer. I used to get in trouble in class for it, I still get in trouble for it these days. Especially when I let Tom slip off the pole because I was imagining what it would be like to be a professional pole dancer instead of a teacher. Ooops. It's ok, he landed on his back. I even had my music planned out....
In class I used to look out of the window and day-dream about running out over the field and away. As I grew up it would be about what I'd do with my life, or on one occasion what my RE teacher would look like in a pink-bunny outfit (think the Chandler bunny oufit from Friends).
What I'm trying to say is, I'm quite content in my own thoughts. I sometimes even dream up entire stories and just let them play out in my head.
Would I be content to sit still and daydream? Oh yes. Would I be content to sit still and daydream if I was told to? I very much doubt it. I have obediance issues. Day-dreaming is something I do on my OWN time....it wouldn't be right to be told to do it. You can't do it on demand!
What's my point? (that's often the question) My point is that this lab study, the people were TOLD to sit still and do nothing. What better reason to not do it!
The trouble with these lab studies, as I've mentioned before, is that we can never be sure they're actually measuring what they're supposed to be measuring. Surely this study is measuring how well someone can do as they're told rather than would they sit still and do nothing? What if it's measuring obediance, or following instructions, rather than ability to sit still and do nothing? For me, it lacks validity. On the face of it, maybe we have some validity, but delve deeper.
And what about demand characteristics? Hawthorn effect? All of those little things that happen when you get given an instruction by someone - do you comply or not?
Furthermore, yes, they were given the shock before the experiement, but what if the curiousity to try it again over took? Oh, don't look at me like that. You've done it too. I put a battery on my tongue once. I only did it another 4 or 5 times to check what I felt. When it's a very minor risk, or pain, it's tempting to try it again - just to see if it was "really" that bad. Take for example the incident with the snorting of Paprika. We ALL saw what it did to our friend, yet we all tried it. Several times. Just to check.
What I'm saying is, that humans are curious creatures. We try something once - it hurt, but did it hurt that bad? Did we imagine the shock? Would we do it again? Well, if it wasn't life threatening, I'd bet you would. I can assure you, I've put my fingers in hot wax many times (it IS kind of cool....), but I'd never walk out in front of a car again.
The article is interesting, and maybe it's a true reflection on our society - we'd rather be doing anything than be doing nothing. It would fit with our fast paced, instantly gratifying society but I'd just urge you to look a little deeper. Does it tell us what we think it tells us? Or have we found out something else about human nature entirely?
Would you rather be in your own world? Or would you do anything to avoid it?
TL;DR - people would rather give themselves an electric shock than just sit still and do nothing.
This lab study shows that people would rather self-administer the electric shock than sit still and have nothing to do.
I don't know about you, but before I starting writing this I'd spent at LEAST 10 minutes doing bugger all. And that was in between an hour of flicking from doing bugger-all, to trying to concentrate on what I was doing and back.
I have to confess, I'm a bit of a daydreamer. I used to get in trouble in class for it, I still get in trouble for it these days. Especially when I let Tom slip off the pole because I was imagining what it would be like to be a professional pole dancer instead of a teacher. Ooops. It's ok, he landed on his back. I even had my music planned out....
In class I used to look out of the window and day-dream about running out over the field and away. As I grew up it would be about what I'd do with my life, or on one occasion what my RE teacher would look like in a pink-bunny outfit (think the Chandler bunny oufit from Friends).
What I'm trying to say is, I'm quite content in my own thoughts. I sometimes even dream up entire stories and just let them play out in my head.
Would I be content to sit still and daydream? Oh yes. Would I be content to sit still and daydream if I was told to? I very much doubt it. I have obediance issues. Day-dreaming is something I do on my OWN time....it wouldn't be right to be told to do it. You can't do it on demand!
What's my point? (that's often the question) My point is that this lab study, the people were TOLD to sit still and do nothing. What better reason to not do it!
The trouble with these lab studies, as I've mentioned before, is that we can never be sure they're actually measuring what they're supposed to be measuring. Surely this study is measuring how well someone can do as they're told rather than would they sit still and do nothing? What if it's measuring obediance, or following instructions, rather than ability to sit still and do nothing? For me, it lacks validity. On the face of it, maybe we have some validity, but delve deeper.
And what about demand characteristics? Hawthorn effect? All of those little things that happen when you get given an instruction by someone - do you comply or not?
Furthermore, yes, they were given the shock before the experiement, but what if the curiousity to try it again over took? Oh, don't look at me like that. You've done it too. I put a battery on my tongue once. I only did it another 4 or 5 times to check what I felt. When it's a very minor risk, or pain, it's tempting to try it again - just to see if it was "really" that bad. Take for example the incident with the snorting of Paprika. We ALL saw what it did to our friend, yet we all tried it. Several times. Just to check.
What I'm saying is, that humans are curious creatures. We try something once - it hurt, but did it hurt that bad? Did we imagine the shock? Would we do it again? Well, if it wasn't life threatening, I'd bet you would. I can assure you, I've put my fingers in hot wax many times (it IS kind of cool....), but I'd never walk out in front of a car again.
The article is interesting, and maybe it's a true reflection on our society - we'd rather be doing anything than be doing nothing. It would fit with our fast paced, instantly gratifying society but I'd just urge you to look a little deeper. Does it tell us what we think it tells us? Or have we found out something else about human nature entirely?
Monday 7th July
"Man up: Is testosterone an elixir of youth?" via New Scientist
TL;DR - men with flagging testosterone levels may be better skipping the supplements.
This article looks at the effects of testosterone on the body, and the effects of testosterone supplements. Socially testosterone is seen as the MAN hormone. Its effects encapsulate the "male" attributes - strength, virility, aggression but actually, a lot of men are supplementing their bodies with the hormone when actually, it might not be at all necessary to do so.
Firstly: what is testosterone?
Testosterone is a type of steroid hormone, which is associated with the development of the primary sex characteristics of men (development of the testes and prostate) as well as the secondary sex characteristics in men (increased muscle mass, higher bone density, body hair) (Science Daily). It's also essential in women for the reduction of Osteoporosis (Karger).
Both men and women have testosterone, but women produce far less (usually) than men. Due to the higher metabolic consumption in males, men produce 20 times more testosterone in a day than a woman would (on average), however levels of testosterone are around 7-8 times higher in men than they are in women (JCEM). Women are also much more sensitive to the effects of the hormone (as stated in the article in question).
What happens to testosterone levels as men age - and what does this mean?
They are thought to drop; however, in a study of Tsine men, testosterone levels were found to be fairly level throughout adult life (New Scientist). Could this all be a socially constructed ploy to sell you something you don't need?
Well. When testosterone comes into contact with fat cells, it does change into a form of oestrogen, which in turn helps lay fat down. This in itself could be a tempting reason to reach for the supplementation - but when men exercise, the body naturally releases testosterone, raising levels of the hormone in the body.
In fact, staying active throughout life has shown that levels of the hormone remain relatively stable and reduces the chances that you'll lay down a load of fat.
So what's wrong with taking the hormone anyway?
Firstly: why would you supplement something you don't need? Surely having a healthy, natural body is much more in line with what you'd want as a healthy person? It's a bit like taking a multi-vitamin tablet when you have a full and varied diet - there's no benefit and we actually don't know the long term effects of doing this.
Some of the dangers highlighted in this article are increased risk of heart attack - testosterone has a massive role in blood clotting ability, higher levels = higher clotting factor. Which in itself can cause all kinds of problems - bringing in the risk of stroke and other problems associated with blood clotting when it's not supposed to.
So why would you supplement this stuff?
I can only speak as a woman. I have no idea what the male psyche encounters as it ages, but at a female guess I would say that fear of ageing, of not being able to "perform" - either in the bedroom, in your job, or in the weights room would strike fear into the heart of the nearly middle-aged man.
The age old fear of growing old. The social issues surrounding the loss of a man's virility are widely published. Men are made to feel less than human, less than "a man". Even the saying "man up" - what connotations does that bring? That you're not a man. That you're behaving like a child. That you shouldn't be showing your fears, or your emotions, or your pain.
If that's the case - why would you want to be a "man"? Because that is what is expected of you. Just as women are expected to grow up and have babies, so men are expected to grow up and provide for the woman, for their family. The sword cuts both ways.
But what if we challenge these expectations? What would happen if the women provided for the family? Would that be the end of the world? What happens if you are hurt, or scared and you show it? Maybe in evolutionary terms you might get eaten, but in modern society - what is the worst that can happen? You'll be told to man up. What does that even mean?
For me this article really highlights something that has been entirely created by a media construct designed to sell a product. You need supplmentation. You'll buy the supplements from the big companies that sell them. The cycle of money continues.
How do they convince you to buy their stuff?
They insinuate that you're less of a man as you age. That you're not able to perform, that you're not able to keep up with the lads. That you won't grow muscle. That you won't be big and strong and tough unless you eat this supplementation designed to keep you "manly".
Man up guys - you don't need that crap. Having a penis makes you a male - why would you want to be the media's construction of a "man"?
Stay strong brothers. Stay active, stay happy. Your body knows what it's doing!
TL;DR - men with flagging testosterone levels may be better skipping the supplements.
This article looks at the effects of testosterone on the body, and the effects of testosterone supplements. Socially testosterone is seen as the MAN hormone. Its effects encapsulate the "male" attributes - strength, virility, aggression but actually, a lot of men are supplementing their bodies with the hormone when actually, it might not be at all necessary to do so.
Firstly: what is testosterone?
Testosterone is a type of steroid hormone, which is associated with the development of the primary sex characteristics of men (development of the testes and prostate) as well as the secondary sex characteristics in men (increased muscle mass, higher bone density, body hair) (Science Daily). It's also essential in women for the reduction of Osteoporosis (Karger).
Both men and women have testosterone, but women produce far less (usually) than men. Due to the higher metabolic consumption in males, men produce 20 times more testosterone in a day than a woman would (on average), however levels of testosterone are around 7-8 times higher in men than they are in women (JCEM). Women are also much more sensitive to the effects of the hormone (as stated in the article in question).
What happens to testosterone levels as men age - and what does this mean?
They are thought to drop; however, in a study of Tsine men, testosterone levels were found to be fairly level throughout adult life (New Scientist). Could this all be a socially constructed ploy to sell you something you don't need?
Well. When testosterone comes into contact with fat cells, it does change into a form of oestrogen, which in turn helps lay fat down. This in itself could be a tempting reason to reach for the supplementation - but when men exercise, the body naturally releases testosterone, raising levels of the hormone in the body.
In fact, staying active throughout life has shown that levels of the hormone remain relatively stable and reduces the chances that you'll lay down a load of fat.
So what's wrong with taking the hormone anyway?
Firstly: why would you supplement something you don't need? Surely having a healthy, natural body is much more in line with what you'd want as a healthy person? It's a bit like taking a multi-vitamin tablet when you have a full and varied diet - there's no benefit and we actually don't know the long term effects of doing this.
Some of the dangers highlighted in this article are increased risk of heart attack - testosterone has a massive role in blood clotting ability, higher levels = higher clotting factor. Which in itself can cause all kinds of problems - bringing in the risk of stroke and other problems associated with blood clotting when it's not supposed to.
So why would you supplement this stuff?
I can only speak as a woman. I have no idea what the male psyche encounters as it ages, but at a female guess I would say that fear of ageing, of not being able to "perform" - either in the bedroom, in your job, or in the weights room would strike fear into the heart of the nearly middle-aged man.
The age old fear of growing old. The social issues surrounding the loss of a man's virility are widely published. Men are made to feel less than human, less than "a man". Even the saying "man up" - what connotations does that bring? That you're not a man. That you're behaving like a child. That you shouldn't be showing your fears, or your emotions, or your pain.
If that's the case - why would you want to be a "man"? Because that is what is expected of you. Just as women are expected to grow up and have babies, so men are expected to grow up and provide for the woman, for their family. The sword cuts both ways.
But what if we challenge these expectations? What would happen if the women provided for the family? Would that be the end of the world? What happens if you are hurt, or scared and you show it? Maybe in evolutionary terms you might get eaten, but in modern society - what is the worst that can happen? You'll be told to man up. What does that even mean?
For me this article really highlights something that has been entirely created by a media construct designed to sell a product. You need supplmentation. You'll buy the supplements from the big companies that sell them. The cycle of money continues.
How do they convince you to buy their stuff?
They insinuate that you're less of a man as you age. That you're not able to perform, that you're not able to keep up with the lads. That you won't grow muscle. That you won't be big and strong and tough unless you eat this supplementation designed to keep you "manly".
Man up guys - you don't need that crap. Having a penis makes you a male - why would you want to be the media's construction of a "man"?
Stay strong brothers. Stay active, stay happy. Your body knows what it's doing!
Wednesday 2nd July
"Running Cures Blindness In Mice" via IFLscience
TL;DR - running whilst looking at stuff promotes activity in the visual cortex (the bit of the brain which organises sight).
Basically, if animals have limited sight in one eye from birth (in the case of these mice they had their one eye covered up) then the corresponding part of the brain has less neural activity.
These scientists are saying that during running or walking the mouse brains increase in neural activity. If the eye that was covered up has more visual stimulation at this point, the corresponding part of the brain also fires more frequently (and more robustly) which increases the amount of activity in that area. This in turn would lead to increased sensitivity and increased visual acuity in these mice.
What does any of this mean?
It means that the adult brain (in mice) is much more capable of "reprogramming" itself than we originally believed. Apparently old mice can learn new tricks!
If studies in humans show similar results, that would mean that restoration (or certainly partial restoration) of sight would be possible. What an amazing breakthrough that would be!
So was the study actually any good?
Well, my main point would be that it has only been done on mice. Scientists aren't allowed to take babies and cover one of their eyes up until they're adult and then test it out on them to see if it works. We could take humans that already have a condition that leads to partial or no sight in one eye and see whether it works, but the first round of testing is much easier to do on mice (for various reasons that I've already explained - the main one being it's cheaper to arrange), so now that we can see there is some sort of response we can move on to human subjects.
It does make sense that the brain retains this level of plasticity into adulthood - environments change and even adult organisms need to adapt to change.
So does running improve sight all around?
Who knows. Personally I find my sight goes more blurry....could be on account of my poor cardio fitness though.... :p in theory though (and according to this theory) all of our senses should respond to the increase in pace - we're moving faster through our environmend and we're being bombarded with information at a faster pace.
It's well known that running has many benefits - could increased eyesight be one of them? I certainly hope so.
TL;DR - running whilst looking at stuff promotes activity in the visual cortex (the bit of the brain which organises sight).
Basically, if animals have limited sight in one eye from birth (in the case of these mice they had their one eye covered up) then the corresponding part of the brain has less neural activity.
These scientists are saying that during running or walking the mouse brains increase in neural activity. If the eye that was covered up has more visual stimulation at this point, the corresponding part of the brain also fires more frequently (and more robustly) which increases the amount of activity in that area. This in turn would lead to increased sensitivity and increased visual acuity in these mice.
What does any of this mean?
It means that the adult brain (in mice) is much more capable of "reprogramming" itself than we originally believed. Apparently old mice can learn new tricks!
If studies in humans show similar results, that would mean that restoration (or certainly partial restoration) of sight would be possible. What an amazing breakthrough that would be!
So was the study actually any good?
Well, my main point would be that it has only been done on mice. Scientists aren't allowed to take babies and cover one of their eyes up until they're adult and then test it out on them to see if it works. We could take humans that already have a condition that leads to partial or no sight in one eye and see whether it works, but the first round of testing is much easier to do on mice (for various reasons that I've already explained - the main one being it's cheaper to arrange), so now that we can see there is some sort of response we can move on to human subjects.
It does make sense that the brain retains this level of plasticity into adulthood - environments change and even adult organisms need to adapt to change.
So does running improve sight all around?
Who knows. Personally I find my sight goes more blurry....could be on account of my poor cardio fitness though.... :p in theory though (and according to this theory) all of our senses should respond to the increase in pace - we're moving faster through our environmend and we're being bombarded with information at a faster pace.
It's well known that running has many benefits - could increased eyesight be one of them? I certainly hope so.
Tuesday 1st July
"Human Gut Cells Coaxed Into Producing Insulin" via IFL science
Wow. Reading the original article from Nature Communications.....wow.
TL;DR - scientists have worked out which gene to switch on/off to make normal gut cells produce insulin.
So, a bit of info: insulin is usually produced from the pancreatic cells and it regluates the metabolism of carbohydrates (sugars) and fats.
In type 1 diabetics, their immune system is attacking the insulin making cells - they have no internal insulin and rely on outside sources. Type 2 diabetes comes about from insulin resistance and therefore a relative insulin deficiency.
So, we've found the switch to make cells turn into different cells and produce something that Type 1 diabetics can't usually produce....
Firstly, this procedure has been tested on human cells in a lab environment and it appears to work. Would this work in a real body? For all we know there could be compounds/cells/metabolic processes that inhibit the gene we're looking at. We've yet to see human trials, but if it does it would be a lifechanging event.
If you were diabetic, would you want your gut cells to be changed into insulin producing cells? Of course, for example, the religious crowd may feel this is stepping on God's toes a bit - to make things do what they're not supposed to, but if it changes people's lives - people who are otherwise dependant on out-sourced insulin (that often comes from pigs, I might add) how could you deny them?
I'm sure there are others, maybe non-religious groups that would also have something to say about changing code within ourselves - what long term effects might there be? Will it affect anything else? Could it cause a knock-on effect in the cells, causing disordered behaviour?
We don't know. And that's one of the things about humans, we often play with things we don't fully understand.
This is a huge breakthrough - we're making one type of cell do the job of another type of cell. Could this work elsewhere in the body? How many diseases that come about from disordered behaviour of cells could be fixed?
This is an exciting article - one that could really change lives.
Would you undergo the procedure if you had need of it?
Wow. Reading the original article from Nature Communications.....wow.
TL;DR - scientists have worked out which gene to switch on/off to make normal gut cells produce insulin.
So, a bit of info: insulin is usually produced from the pancreatic cells and it regluates the metabolism of carbohydrates (sugars) and fats.
In type 1 diabetics, their immune system is attacking the insulin making cells - they have no internal insulin and rely on outside sources. Type 2 diabetes comes about from insulin resistance and therefore a relative insulin deficiency.
So, we've found the switch to make cells turn into different cells and produce something that Type 1 diabetics can't usually produce....
Firstly, this procedure has been tested on human cells in a lab environment and it appears to work. Would this work in a real body? For all we know there could be compounds/cells/metabolic processes that inhibit the gene we're looking at. We've yet to see human trials, but if it does it would be a lifechanging event.
If you were diabetic, would you want your gut cells to be changed into insulin producing cells? Of course, for example, the religious crowd may feel this is stepping on God's toes a bit - to make things do what they're not supposed to, but if it changes people's lives - people who are otherwise dependant on out-sourced insulin (that often comes from pigs, I might add) how could you deny them?
I'm sure there are others, maybe non-religious groups that would also have something to say about changing code within ourselves - what long term effects might there be? Will it affect anything else? Could it cause a knock-on effect in the cells, causing disordered behaviour?
We don't know. And that's one of the things about humans, we often play with things we don't fully understand.
This is a huge breakthrough - we're making one type of cell do the job of another type of cell. Could this work elsewhere in the body? How many diseases that come about from disordered behaviour of cells could be fixed?
This is an exciting article - one that could really change lives.
Would you undergo the procedure if you had need of it?
Monday 30th June
"Facebook emotion experiment sparks criticism" via BBC news
TL;DR Facebook messed about with some peoples feeds a couple of years ago and now people are pissed.
Sorry. Am I being a wee bit judgemental?
It's easier when you simplify things right down to the very basics, but in reality, it's rarely ever that simple.
Faecbook agreed to take part in an experiment that allowed researchers to see how negative/positive updates on people's feeds affected their views. They found that people who had more negativity posted more negative status updates.
The article came to light in a few places, the first place I read about "emotional contagion" was in New Scientist a few days ago.
So what do you think?
Personally I feel that these sorts of experiments have to be done without people's knowledge. Yes, yes, abuse of power etc but if you told people that you were going to put negative stuff on their news feeds to assess how they coped with it the experiment wouldn't work. Likewise, if you told people that you'd be making a change to their newsfeeds and monitoring them, again, behaviour would change. This is known in Psychology and Sociology as the Hawthorn effect - what we're try to observe is changed by the observation itself.
Facebook took no personal data, they kept it confidential and they interfered as little as possible with people.
Experiments like this date back for years. Think on Milgram's famous study into obedience. Ok, so maybe the question isn't as pertinent as "how many people would actually kill someone else if they were told to?" but it does help us understand the effect that social media can have on our population.
Ok, so they made people feel sad. In very extreme cases they would have come across someone with a mood disorder who it could have severely affected, yes, maybe in those cases it was irresponsible - but how many severely depressed people are using social media sites? The tendancy is to withdraw from social communications. Again, numbers are unclear, so not such a great move there - but we're assuming that the content the experimenters used was fairly mild and unlikely to provoke a severe response in their demographic.
I think that maybe people are looking a little too far into this. Yes. It is an abuse of power - but it was done in the interest of curious people. Yes, maybe it was wrong, but the results are fairly interesting and the experiment would have been carefully designed, taking into account the risk factors. All information was kept confidential and was not passed on any further. After reading some of the comments from this article and from below it, to be honest, I'm not sure what there is to get your knickers in a twist about.
TL;DR Facebook messed about with some peoples feeds a couple of years ago and now people are pissed.
Sorry. Am I being a wee bit judgemental?
It's easier when you simplify things right down to the very basics, but in reality, it's rarely ever that simple.
Faecbook agreed to take part in an experiment that allowed researchers to see how negative/positive updates on people's feeds affected their views. They found that people who had more negativity posted more negative status updates.
The article came to light in a few places, the first place I read about "emotional contagion" was in New Scientist a few days ago.
So what do you think?
Personally I feel that these sorts of experiments have to be done without people's knowledge. Yes, yes, abuse of power etc but if you told people that you were going to put negative stuff on their news feeds to assess how they coped with it the experiment wouldn't work. Likewise, if you told people that you'd be making a change to their newsfeeds and monitoring them, again, behaviour would change. This is known in Psychology and Sociology as the Hawthorn effect - what we're try to observe is changed by the observation itself.
Facebook took no personal data, they kept it confidential and they interfered as little as possible with people.
Experiments like this date back for years. Think on Milgram's famous study into obedience. Ok, so maybe the question isn't as pertinent as "how many people would actually kill someone else if they were told to?" but it does help us understand the effect that social media can have on our population.
Ok, so they made people feel sad. In very extreme cases they would have come across someone with a mood disorder who it could have severely affected, yes, maybe in those cases it was irresponsible - but how many severely depressed people are using social media sites? The tendancy is to withdraw from social communications. Again, numbers are unclear, so not such a great move there - but we're assuming that the content the experimenters used was fairly mild and unlikely to provoke a severe response in their demographic.
I think that maybe people are looking a little too far into this. Yes. It is an abuse of power - but it was done in the interest of curious people. Yes, maybe it was wrong, but the results are fairly interesting and the experiment would have been carefully designed, taking into account the risk factors. All information was kept confidential and was not passed on any further. After reading some of the comments from this article and from below it, to be honest, I'm not sure what there is to get your knickers in a twist about.
Friday 27th June
'He saved my life that night' via BBC news
Sometimes it's all to easy to judge someone.
Take the first case of the delinquent teenager. How easy is it to pass off as just a "bad person"? How easy is it just to label him as a troublemaker for no other reason than boredom?
Don't get me wrong, I don't condone illegal behaviour but I'm keen to explore the reasons behind WHY people indulge in such behaviour.
It's easy to pass psychologists off as "making excuses" for "bad" people, but that's not what we're doing. We're trying to tell you that there's a bit more to the story than just what you see on the face. So that maybe, just maybe we can make enough people stop and think before judging. So that maybe we can stop that vicious cycle in its tracks.
For example: my friend was telling me about a child she worked with who had told her to "f*ck off you st*pid f*cking b*tch", who regularly went around kicking doors, riling up other students and smoking weed in the toilets.
"What a little sod", I said, but then she told me the rest. His parents had split up when he was 5, he'd been sexually abused from that age on by his step-father, his mother was a drug dealer and had remarried someone who was regularly violent towards her. He also thought he was the head of a local drugs gang and they suspected he was dealing drugs himself.
It's easy to dismiss these people. "Scum", I've heard people say. But has that child chosen his life? No. I'm not saying that gives him an excuse for the way he behaves, but it helps us to understand a little better that maybe he's just a frightened child who is acting out. When you understand that there is another human underneath all of that trouble it makes it easier to see that there are hopes, dreams, memories in that individual. It's easy to let all of that potential to slip away.
Anxiety and depression are exceptionally common disorders and yet we're still afraid to talk about them. We still don't understand them and we don't understand the effects these sometimes debilitating disorders can have.
I'm sure you have your own opinion on this - but next time you see someone acting out give them a second of thought. What might be causing that behaviour? Sometimes it's just that they are "like" that. But most often you'll find there's a nice person underneath. Maybe you can't change them, but maybe a smile when you see them might just make the difference to that person - they have enough people frowning at them.
Sometimes it's all to easy to judge someone.
Take the first case of the delinquent teenager. How easy is it to pass off as just a "bad person"? How easy is it just to label him as a troublemaker for no other reason than boredom?
Don't get me wrong, I don't condone illegal behaviour but I'm keen to explore the reasons behind WHY people indulge in such behaviour.
It's easy to pass psychologists off as "making excuses" for "bad" people, but that's not what we're doing. We're trying to tell you that there's a bit more to the story than just what you see on the face. So that maybe, just maybe we can make enough people stop and think before judging. So that maybe we can stop that vicious cycle in its tracks.
For example: my friend was telling me about a child she worked with who had told her to "f*ck off you st*pid f*cking b*tch", who regularly went around kicking doors, riling up other students and smoking weed in the toilets.
"What a little sod", I said, but then she told me the rest. His parents had split up when he was 5, he'd been sexually abused from that age on by his step-father, his mother was a drug dealer and had remarried someone who was regularly violent towards her. He also thought he was the head of a local drugs gang and they suspected he was dealing drugs himself.
It's easy to dismiss these people. "Scum", I've heard people say. But has that child chosen his life? No. I'm not saying that gives him an excuse for the way he behaves, but it helps us to understand a little better that maybe he's just a frightened child who is acting out. When you understand that there is another human underneath all of that trouble it makes it easier to see that there are hopes, dreams, memories in that individual. It's easy to let all of that potential to slip away.
Anxiety and depression are exceptionally common disorders and yet we're still afraid to talk about them. We still don't understand them and we don't understand the effects these sometimes debilitating disorders can have.
I'm sure you have your own opinion on this - but next time you see someone acting out give them a second of thought. What might be causing that behaviour? Sometimes it's just that they are "like" that. But most often you'll find there's a nice person underneath. Maybe you can't change them, but maybe a smile when you see them might just make the difference to that person - they have enough people frowning at them.
Thursday 26th June
"What's eating Luis Suarez: the psychology of biting" via New Scientist
Sorry all, but I had to. The World Cup is pervasive enough, but as a psychologist this is just downright fascinating.
I have to admit, I'm not a huge football fan. I'll watch it if it's on and being a teacher it's usually good to keep relatively up to date so you can keep up with the students, the theatrics are always good to watch but I wouldn't replace another activity with football, nor do I actively seek games.
That being said, I was watching the England game that Suarez helped Uruguay win. Not being a football fan it was the first time I'd put the face to the name and the first thing I noticed about him was his rather large teeth. But he behaved himself that game.
The next thing I hear is that he's biting another player.
"Biting?" I inquired.
"Yup" was all I got back from hubs.
Biting is an odd one. Watching the footage back it's sort of like watching some sort of zombie flick. Zombie apocolypse incoming and it all started with Suarez....
This article is great, I had a bit of a chuckle at the journalism who has a very clear opinion on Mr. Suarez.
What the psychologist interviewed is saying is that basically, like a child, Suarez is acting out and he's using his teeth to do it.
Personally I'm not sure that someone who can't contain themselves on a football pitch in front of millions of people is completely sane but what does "sane" actually mean.
The psychology of biting appears to be a release of frustration, and in adults an inability to contain themselves in terms of impulse control. Being a world class athlete there is a lot of stress and very high emotional contexts. In this is it possible to lose yourself so completely you revert to displaying toddler-esque behaviours? I've seen fully grown adults throw tantrums (to the point of stamping feet), I have known adults who suck their thumbs; in fact surely you could argue that smoking is a form of replacement for such behaviour, I've seen adults who lose their temper in a blink of the eye - all things we would expect from smaller children, but displaying in adults.
Maybe Suarez isn't *quite* as odd as we might originally assume. Just because it's not "appropriate" doesn't mean the behaviours go away. Most people control them (I know I was ready to have a knock-down temper tantrum a few weeks ago.....I didn't, don't worry. And I only bit the cat.....j/k, he's too furry) but you do see lack of impulse control in a lot of people, often it manifests in other ways - for example emotional eating, control of "addictive" substances, swearing out of the car window at the person who just cut you up (or in fact getting out of your car to shout at them which I saw a fully grown adult man do the other day).
Are we being too harsh on him? Or is this a price of the position he occupies representing his country in a world class tournament. What do you think?
Background references:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/players/luis-suarez/10925060/Luis-Suarez-needs-therapy-to-overcome-urge-to-bite.html
http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2014/06/why-luis-suarez-is-always-biting-everybody.html
http://www.newstatesman.com/future-proof/2014/06/you-are-more-likely-be-bitten-luiz-suarez-1-2000-shark-1-3700000
Sorry all, but I had to. The World Cup is pervasive enough, but as a psychologist this is just downright fascinating.
I have to admit, I'm not a huge football fan. I'll watch it if it's on and being a teacher it's usually good to keep relatively up to date so you can keep up with the students, the theatrics are always good to watch but I wouldn't replace another activity with football, nor do I actively seek games.
That being said, I was watching the England game that Suarez helped Uruguay win. Not being a football fan it was the first time I'd put the face to the name and the first thing I noticed about him was his rather large teeth. But he behaved himself that game.
The next thing I hear is that he's biting another player.
"Biting?" I inquired.
"Yup" was all I got back from hubs.
Biting is an odd one. Watching the footage back it's sort of like watching some sort of zombie flick. Zombie apocolypse incoming and it all started with Suarez....
This article is great, I had a bit of a chuckle at the journalism who has a very clear opinion on Mr. Suarez.
What the psychologist interviewed is saying is that basically, like a child, Suarez is acting out and he's using his teeth to do it.
Personally I'm not sure that someone who can't contain themselves on a football pitch in front of millions of people is completely sane but what does "sane" actually mean.
The psychology of biting appears to be a release of frustration, and in adults an inability to contain themselves in terms of impulse control. Being a world class athlete there is a lot of stress and very high emotional contexts. In this is it possible to lose yourself so completely you revert to displaying toddler-esque behaviours? I've seen fully grown adults throw tantrums (to the point of stamping feet), I have known adults who suck their thumbs; in fact surely you could argue that smoking is a form of replacement for such behaviour, I've seen adults who lose their temper in a blink of the eye - all things we would expect from smaller children, but displaying in adults.
Maybe Suarez isn't *quite* as odd as we might originally assume. Just because it's not "appropriate" doesn't mean the behaviours go away. Most people control them (I know I was ready to have a knock-down temper tantrum a few weeks ago.....I didn't, don't worry. And I only bit the cat.....j/k, he's too furry) but you do see lack of impulse control in a lot of people, often it manifests in other ways - for example emotional eating, control of "addictive" substances, swearing out of the car window at the person who just cut you up (or in fact getting out of your car to shout at them which I saw a fully grown adult man do the other day).
Are we being too harsh on him? Or is this a price of the position he occupies representing his country in a world class tournament. What do you think?
Background references:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/players/luis-suarez/10925060/Luis-Suarez-needs-therapy-to-overcome-urge-to-bite.html
http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2014/06/why-luis-suarez-is-always-biting-everybody.html
http://www.newstatesman.com/future-proof/2014/06/you-are-more-likely-be-bitten-luiz-suarez-1-2000-shark-1-3700000
Wednesday 25th June
"Sunbathing may have similar effects to drug addiction" via New Scientist
This article has appeared in a few places:
Sun tanning 'addictive' suggests study via NHS news
Sunbathing 'may be addictive' warning via BBC news
Addicitive.
That's a loaded word isn't it.
What IS addiction?
I saw a blog the other day talking about alcoholism and dismissing the claims of people that they're "addicted" to sweets. Because apparently no one can know addiction like this woman could. No one could understand what she was going through.
A special snowflake.
I agree on some levels, yes, I think the term addiction is widely overused and hugely misunderstood. Just like these articles show. I do think that people can have food addiction though and that it can be as addictive as any other substance.
So, what is addiction? Every year I teach a module that addresses the cognitive, biological and behavioural components of addiction and their relative cures. Every year I ask students to define what addiction is, and usually the general consensus is something like "being physically or psychologically dependent on a substance".
I always ask whether a subtsance is necessary for it to be an addiction - for example, computer game addictions (that's when the WoW jokes come out from the students - yes, I play WoW, no I'm not addicted) or physical exercise (again, another round of jokes - yes, I exercise and no.....well....no, I'm not addicted....) can both show addictive tendencies. So is a substance necessary? Someone always hits on the answer - it's the substance created by the body in response to the stimulus that we're talking about. Right. Endorphins. Seretonin. All the good stuff.
So what are these articles saying?
Well, aside from the sensationalist type titles (especially from the NHS site, which I'm shocked about given it describes itself as "neutral" and "unbiased") what are they saying?
The study shows a group of mice (MICE) being exposed to UV light. They show increased levels of all the good things we experience in relation to pleasure and decreased sensitivity to pain. At the end of 6 weeks these mice show withdrawal symptoms.
Right. Lets get to this then.
Firstly. Mice are not human. They are not even remotely human, they're just easy to test on, they're cheap and everything is accelerated on account of their short lifespan. Yes, they share common DNA with us being mammalian, but they have very different physiology, psychology and habits. One important difference is the fact that they are nocturnal animals. Humans are not. This is a study looking at sunlight. Now, without being captain obvious surely thats a VERY important difference. Surely an animal that has evolved to be active during night hours will have very different responses to an animal that has evolved to work during those sunlight hours.
Secondly, it wasn't done on humans. j/k. But really, it wasn't.
Secondly (for real this time) we're assuming that cosmetic reasons can't drive us to extreme behaviour. These scientists are trying to work out why people put themselves at risk of skin cancer by sunbathing even though they know the risks. They can't seem to believe that people can be driven by vanity and social expectations/social standing. But why do people get cosmetic surgery when they're otherwise perfectly healthy? Why do people get botox? Why do people get tattoos? Why do people put themselves on very low calorie diets? All of these things can have very serious side effects, but people still do them. Why? Because of social conditioning. If you're slim you're happy. If you have perfect lips you're pretty. If you have tattoos you're cool. If you're skinny you have no other problems. All widely held misconceptions that lead people to do these sometimes dangerous things for reasons of vanity and to fit into the social expectations. at first I'd often ask myself why I'm losing weight. Well, because I want to look good. To who? To me. Where did I get my image of looking good? Ah. Of course now I know the health benefits of exercise and I'm doing my damnedest to avoid becoming diabetic.
Think of all of the images you've seen of people sunbathing. It usually denotes relaxation and luxury (rather than sweating and discomfort from being still too long). The media alone is saturated with these images - everyone longingly says "oh, I hate being at work on days like this, I could be out sunbathing it would be lovely" to which I always think "yeah, great, a headache and a way to lose at least 5Ibs of water weight in sweat, great" but it's that "gold-mark" of relaxation. You're on holiday when you sunbathe - you've been able to afford a holiday being one connotation. You look healthy and glowing. I'd say vanity could well be our reason - even without the convincing social status of sunbathing.
What about the benefits of being in the sun? The increased vitamin-D? We're looking at a VERY small population of people who sunbathe until they're at risk of damaging their skin cells. IF sunlight was an addictive substance surely we would see much larger samples of the population showing these behaviours and skin cancer would be through the roof? (If that's what we're using as an indicator).
Maybe some people do show addictive characteristics to sunlight - we see them with almost everything else, but surely those people are the exception, not the rule.
"We have to be careful about spectacularising this word addiction," says Carlton Erickson, who works on addiction at the
University of Texas at Austin, "Even if an individual truly has no control over their compulsive behaviour – even if they experience highs and lows, tolerance and withdrawal – that doesn't necessarily make someone an addict ," he says. A
formal diagnosis is reserved only for extreme cases of substance abuse. "If we just look at a change in endorphins then stress and relaxation would all be addictions too – and that minimizes the true meaning." (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25771-sunbathing-may-have-similar-effects-to-drug-addiction.html)
I agree with this quote. All of these articles immediately jump on the word addiction and it is an overused and misunderstood word. Addiction is life consuming and usually fairly dangerous in terms of mental health.
Yes, this could give us some insight into how to prevent skin cancer. Maybe it's a group of scientists overreaching and overimagining.
What do you think?
This article has appeared in a few places:
Sun tanning 'addictive' suggests study via NHS news
Sunbathing 'may be addictive' warning via BBC news
Addicitive.
That's a loaded word isn't it.
What IS addiction?
I saw a blog the other day talking about alcoholism and dismissing the claims of people that they're "addicted" to sweets. Because apparently no one can know addiction like this woman could. No one could understand what she was going through.
A special snowflake.
I agree on some levels, yes, I think the term addiction is widely overused and hugely misunderstood. Just like these articles show. I do think that people can have food addiction though and that it can be as addictive as any other substance.
So, what is addiction? Every year I teach a module that addresses the cognitive, biological and behavioural components of addiction and their relative cures. Every year I ask students to define what addiction is, and usually the general consensus is something like "being physically or psychologically dependent on a substance".
I always ask whether a subtsance is necessary for it to be an addiction - for example, computer game addictions (that's when the WoW jokes come out from the students - yes, I play WoW, no I'm not addicted) or physical exercise (again, another round of jokes - yes, I exercise and no.....well....no, I'm not addicted....) can both show addictive tendencies. So is a substance necessary? Someone always hits on the answer - it's the substance created by the body in response to the stimulus that we're talking about. Right. Endorphins. Seretonin. All the good stuff.
So what are these articles saying?
Well, aside from the sensationalist type titles (especially from the NHS site, which I'm shocked about given it describes itself as "neutral" and "unbiased") what are they saying?
The study shows a group of mice (MICE) being exposed to UV light. They show increased levels of all the good things we experience in relation to pleasure and decreased sensitivity to pain. At the end of 6 weeks these mice show withdrawal symptoms.
Right. Lets get to this then.
Firstly. Mice are not human. They are not even remotely human, they're just easy to test on, they're cheap and everything is accelerated on account of their short lifespan. Yes, they share common DNA with us being mammalian, but they have very different physiology, psychology and habits. One important difference is the fact that they are nocturnal animals. Humans are not. This is a study looking at sunlight. Now, without being captain obvious surely thats a VERY important difference. Surely an animal that has evolved to be active during night hours will have very different responses to an animal that has evolved to work during those sunlight hours.
Secondly, it wasn't done on humans. j/k. But really, it wasn't.
Secondly (for real this time) we're assuming that cosmetic reasons can't drive us to extreme behaviour. These scientists are trying to work out why people put themselves at risk of skin cancer by sunbathing even though they know the risks. They can't seem to believe that people can be driven by vanity and social expectations/social standing. But why do people get cosmetic surgery when they're otherwise perfectly healthy? Why do people get botox? Why do people get tattoos? Why do people put themselves on very low calorie diets? All of these things can have very serious side effects, but people still do them. Why? Because of social conditioning. If you're slim you're happy. If you have perfect lips you're pretty. If you have tattoos you're cool. If you're skinny you have no other problems. All widely held misconceptions that lead people to do these sometimes dangerous things for reasons of vanity and to fit into the social expectations. at first I'd often ask myself why I'm losing weight. Well, because I want to look good. To who? To me. Where did I get my image of looking good? Ah. Of course now I know the health benefits of exercise and I'm doing my damnedest to avoid becoming diabetic.
Think of all of the images you've seen of people sunbathing. It usually denotes relaxation and luxury (rather than sweating and discomfort from being still too long). The media alone is saturated with these images - everyone longingly says "oh, I hate being at work on days like this, I could be out sunbathing it would be lovely" to which I always think "yeah, great, a headache and a way to lose at least 5Ibs of water weight in sweat, great" but it's that "gold-mark" of relaxation. You're on holiday when you sunbathe - you've been able to afford a holiday being one connotation. You look healthy and glowing. I'd say vanity could well be our reason - even without the convincing social status of sunbathing.
What about the benefits of being in the sun? The increased vitamin-D? We're looking at a VERY small population of people who sunbathe until they're at risk of damaging their skin cells. IF sunlight was an addictive substance surely we would see much larger samples of the population showing these behaviours and skin cancer would be through the roof? (If that's what we're using as an indicator).
Maybe some people do show addictive characteristics to sunlight - we see them with almost everything else, but surely those people are the exception, not the rule.
"We have to be careful about spectacularising this word addiction," says Carlton Erickson, who works on addiction at the
University of Texas at Austin, "Even if an individual truly has no control over their compulsive behaviour – even if they experience highs and lows, tolerance and withdrawal – that doesn't necessarily make someone an addict ," he says. A
formal diagnosis is reserved only for extreme cases of substance abuse. "If we just look at a change in endorphins then stress and relaxation would all be addictions too – and that minimizes the true meaning." (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25771-sunbathing-may-have-similar-effects-to-drug-addiction.html)
I agree with this quote. All of these articles immediately jump on the word addiction and it is an overused and misunderstood word. Addiction is life consuming and usually fairly dangerous in terms of mental health.
Yes, this could give us some insight into how to prevent skin cancer. Maybe it's a group of scientists overreaching and overimagining.
What do you think?
Tuesday 24th June
"Mental health services 'a car crash'" via BBC news
Monday 23rd June
"Health group calls for "sugar tax" to cut child obesity" via BBC news
This is the sort of headline to a story that really gets my goat. If you read the story you'll find out that the health group the author is talking about actually has in place a plan with several (6, in fact) stages that they'd like to implement to cut childhood obesity and a "sugar tax" is just one of them.
But of course a headline like "health group has a 6 stage plan to cut childhood obesity" probably wouln't get as many views. Why? Because people react strongly to the word tax. The implication they're going to be forced to do something.
So, TL;DR - Health group "action on sugar" has proposed a plan a bit like this:
This is the sort of headline to a story that really gets my goat. If you read the story you'll find out that the health group the author is talking about actually has in place a plan with several (6, in fact) stages that they'd like to implement to cut childhood obesity and a "sugar tax" is just one of them.
But of course a headline like "health group has a 6 stage plan to cut childhood obesity" probably wouln't get as many views. Why? Because people react strongly to the word tax. The implication they're going to be forced to do something.
So, TL;DR - Health group "action on sugar" has proposed a plan a bit like this:
Whoops. Seems like we missed a few days here....did they really go that quickly??
Tuesday 17th June
"Lose weight by tricking body into thinking it's cold" via New Scientist
TL;DR - molecules have been found to transition white fat into an intermediary type of brown fat called "beige" fat. If we can get this right for humans we could find the key to losing weight without the hassle of working out etc.
Firsty, lets get the technicalities out of the way. In case you don't know there are two types of adipose tissue (fat) in the mammalian body - white fat cells and brown fat cells.
White fat is what we know as fat, its main use is a storage of excess energy and we also use it for insulin regulation. In "regular" humans it makes up about 20% of the fat stores in the human body. It is the most common form of fat.
Brown fat is lesser known. This fat is less common in the body (and actually less common in women/obese people who have a higher ratio of white:brown) than white fat. Chemically it resembles skeletal muscle more than any other tissue, which means it is metabolically active and it has an active role in adaptive thermogenesis (making heat when you're cold). This role comes from an adapted cell of brown fat known as beige fat.
So, babies have a lot of brown fat but it disappears as we grow older. What this article is stating is that we can force our white fat cells to become beige fat cells, which essentially mimics being cold. Brown fat is very good at keeping us warm, being metabolically active (unlike white fat) it can generate heat to keep us warm (thermogenesis).
This is a good read and I like the reporters style, however; it makes me wonder what the fate of the human race will be. I know that some people DO have a hard time losing weight for medical reasons, but most of us (and this includes myself) it's the simple case of a badly solved mathematical equation - too many calories in VS too few calories out.
So if you found out that you could lose weight by doing nothing, would you?
If you'd asked me this two years ago it would have been a definitive YES! (I was still looking for that magic pill). But now I know the benefits of exercise (not in terms of weight loss, but in psychological wellbeing) would I still say yes? I don't know. The lazy side of me is nudging me to say YES YES YES. But actually, what would that mean for me? For the population? What if we had a magic pill to make us lose weight?
For a start my lungs would be in much worse shape. I'd probably have broken the barrier into diabetes. I'd never have fixed the cartilage problem in my knee and more importantly I'd most likely be suffering from more depressive episodes, which I have avoided for two years now through a carefully regimented diet of cardio and weight training. For me, physical exercise has the hugest psychological benefits. Some of you will know that 2.5 years ago I was housebound. Too sad to even go outside. My life was in tatters.
People always ask why I'm so active, they don't ever seem to understand the psychological release of it. So if there was a magic pill - would I ever have discovered what it's like to live a relatively normal life? What about the people with managed conditions who were worse off - would they have ever discovered a way of managing their conditions?
We're always trying to find shortcuts. The scientists, the government, OURSELVES but maybe we should hang fire and look at the COMPLETE benefits of exercise. It's not all for one reason. What would happen to those things if there was a magic pill? I know for one I'd never have bothered trying exercise.
These studies and this research focuses on fat loss (essentially) through increasing what your body needs (in terms of calories) to run. It doesn't consider the wider implications of naturally raising your metabolism and I think the some of these scientists miss the greater picture. What do you think?
TL;DR - molecules have been found to transition white fat into an intermediary type of brown fat called "beige" fat. If we can get this right for humans we could find the key to losing weight without the hassle of working out etc.
Firsty, lets get the technicalities out of the way. In case you don't know there are two types of adipose tissue (fat) in the mammalian body - white fat cells and brown fat cells.
White fat is what we know as fat, its main use is a storage of excess energy and we also use it for insulin regulation. In "regular" humans it makes up about 20% of the fat stores in the human body. It is the most common form of fat.
Brown fat is lesser known. This fat is less common in the body (and actually less common in women/obese people who have a higher ratio of white:brown) than white fat. Chemically it resembles skeletal muscle more than any other tissue, which means it is metabolically active and it has an active role in adaptive thermogenesis (making heat when you're cold). This role comes from an adapted cell of brown fat known as beige fat.
So, babies have a lot of brown fat but it disappears as we grow older. What this article is stating is that we can force our white fat cells to become beige fat cells, which essentially mimics being cold. Brown fat is very good at keeping us warm, being metabolically active (unlike white fat) it can generate heat to keep us warm (thermogenesis).
This is a good read and I like the reporters style, however; it makes me wonder what the fate of the human race will be. I know that some people DO have a hard time losing weight for medical reasons, but most of us (and this includes myself) it's the simple case of a badly solved mathematical equation - too many calories in VS too few calories out.
So if you found out that you could lose weight by doing nothing, would you?
If you'd asked me this two years ago it would have been a definitive YES! (I was still looking for that magic pill). But now I know the benefits of exercise (not in terms of weight loss, but in psychological wellbeing) would I still say yes? I don't know. The lazy side of me is nudging me to say YES YES YES. But actually, what would that mean for me? For the population? What if we had a magic pill to make us lose weight?
For a start my lungs would be in much worse shape. I'd probably have broken the barrier into diabetes. I'd never have fixed the cartilage problem in my knee and more importantly I'd most likely be suffering from more depressive episodes, which I have avoided for two years now through a carefully regimented diet of cardio and weight training. For me, physical exercise has the hugest psychological benefits. Some of you will know that 2.5 years ago I was housebound. Too sad to even go outside. My life was in tatters.
People always ask why I'm so active, they don't ever seem to understand the psychological release of it. So if there was a magic pill - would I ever have discovered what it's like to live a relatively normal life? What about the people with managed conditions who were worse off - would they have ever discovered a way of managing their conditions?
We're always trying to find shortcuts. The scientists, the government, OURSELVES but maybe we should hang fire and look at the COMPLETE benefits of exercise. It's not all for one reason. What would happen to those things if there was a magic pill? I know for one I'd never have bothered trying exercise.
These studies and this research focuses on fat loss (essentially) through increasing what your body needs (in terms of calories) to run. It doesn't consider the wider implications of naturally raising your metabolism and I think the some of these scientists miss the greater picture. What do you think?
Monday 16th June
Yes, I know 17 doesn't follow 15 and Tuesday doesn't follow Sunday but I was trying to get through Monday yesterday! Do excuse me! ;)
Sunday 15th June
"The healing power of sex work" via The Scavenger
Following the last few stories about fertility and porn I thought I'd continue along the same route.TL;DR women who work in sex roles - strippers, escorts, tantric practitioners, porn actors and erotic masseurs for example often find that they are looked "down" upon by a society who expects them to be using sex work as a means to an end, rather than something they should enjoy.
It's a classic story of repressed female sexuality. Women aren't "supposed" to enjoy sex, it's unladylike. Right? I remember that was the message I felt was given to me as a girl growing up. Rather than being taught to express my sexuality and enjoy being female it was seen as a "dirty" thing, something to be ashamed of; however, I know that was unusual for the time period I grew up in. A lot of my peers were being taught empowerment and that women should enjoy life in every way a man does.
But even now, women who work in the sex industry are looked down upon as being uneducated, cheap, with loose morals. No one you'd want your son to marry.....but why? These women, like any other are providing a service. And we know one universal truth. Sex sells.
When you hear of someone who works as an escort or a stripper usually the most common response is "oh, poor thing - her parents must have given her a hard time" or "oh, she must need the money to do something important" or, a more sinister turn of "is she being forced to do this?". Of course there are very serious concerns relating to women who are being forced into a life they don't want, but I'm just going to be talking about the ones who DO choose the life they're living.
Each one of those responses though, you can see is irrational. What do her parents have to do with this? Are we assuming that a "well bought up" girl wouldn't turn to sex work? Why? What is wrong with sex?
Sex is an underdiscussed thing - we're all embarrassed by it but it's a primary need for humans. One of the things we'll always need, along with food and water so why are we so scared of it? Of course the very act of it for centuries has been misused by both men and women for gaining power over another individual, but in a two-way, consenting relationship - either between two lovers or a worker and their client why is sex such a bad thing?
Even as I write my blog and occasionally search for images to help me show what I'm trying to say about pole there are a plethora of images even to do with pole, referring to paying your way through something, or relating to the fact that the girls father was absent during her childhood. Women's sexuality is still poorly understood and even to a point feared by men. How many times have you heard of a woman being described as a slut? Or a whore? How many times would a man describe a girl using these terms after watching her in a porn film? Furthermore how many would express sympathy at this "poor" girl forced into a life she doesn't want by whatever circumstances still to watch the porn themselves? It's a double standard and it's expressed in a lot of places.
As Wrenna explains in the article, she was always being asked for her exit plan. When is she planning on giving up what she's doing? The assumption being that she doesn't enjoy it and that it's beneath her to do such a thing. Even by the men who go to watch her. Why? By all account she is very highly educated but enjoys being a stripper. In society's eyes she is an outsider. How can she enjoy letting men watch her take her clothes off? But how many of you girls enjoy putting pictures of yourself up in a bikini to show off that summer bod? Is there a difference? At least Wrenna is getting paid for what she does. We just fool ourselves by thinking we're a higher class of girl because we're not paid for men to gawp at us. Great plan ladies but I think we took a wrong turn somewhere!
I'm not advocating going out and starting a career in sex work but at the same time I'm exploring my own feelings about women taking such a career path. If someone asked me what I thought of going into such a career, what would I say? I guess I'm yet to find out, it's not one of the top discussed career paths. But when it all boils down to it, why is society so squeamish about such careers? Why do we look down on such women? Surely they have the sense to be selling the one thing that will always be in demand.
Following the last few stories about fertility and porn I thought I'd continue along the same route.TL;DR women who work in sex roles - strippers, escorts, tantric practitioners, porn actors and erotic masseurs for example often find that they are looked "down" upon by a society who expects them to be using sex work as a means to an end, rather than something they should enjoy.
It's a classic story of repressed female sexuality. Women aren't "supposed" to enjoy sex, it's unladylike. Right? I remember that was the message I felt was given to me as a girl growing up. Rather than being taught to express my sexuality and enjoy being female it was seen as a "dirty" thing, something to be ashamed of; however, I know that was unusual for the time period I grew up in. A lot of my peers were being taught empowerment and that women should enjoy life in every way a man does.
But even now, women who work in the sex industry are looked down upon as being uneducated, cheap, with loose morals. No one you'd want your son to marry.....but why? These women, like any other are providing a service. And we know one universal truth. Sex sells.
When you hear of someone who works as an escort or a stripper usually the most common response is "oh, poor thing - her parents must have given her a hard time" or "oh, she must need the money to do something important" or, a more sinister turn of "is she being forced to do this?". Of course there are very serious concerns relating to women who are being forced into a life they don't want, but I'm just going to be talking about the ones who DO choose the life they're living.
Each one of those responses though, you can see is irrational. What do her parents have to do with this? Are we assuming that a "well bought up" girl wouldn't turn to sex work? Why? What is wrong with sex?
Sex is an underdiscussed thing - we're all embarrassed by it but it's a primary need for humans. One of the things we'll always need, along with food and water so why are we so scared of it? Of course the very act of it for centuries has been misused by both men and women for gaining power over another individual, but in a two-way, consenting relationship - either between two lovers or a worker and their client why is sex such a bad thing?
Even as I write my blog and occasionally search for images to help me show what I'm trying to say about pole there are a plethora of images even to do with pole, referring to paying your way through something, or relating to the fact that the girls father was absent during her childhood. Women's sexuality is still poorly understood and even to a point feared by men. How many times have you heard of a woman being described as a slut? Or a whore? How many times would a man describe a girl using these terms after watching her in a porn film? Furthermore how many would express sympathy at this "poor" girl forced into a life she doesn't want by whatever circumstances still to watch the porn themselves? It's a double standard and it's expressed in a lot of places.
As Wrenna explains in the article, she was always being asked for her exit plan. When is she planning on giving up what she's doing? The assumption being that she doesn't enjoy it and that it's beneath her to do such a thing. Even by the men who go to watch her. Why? By all account she is very highly educated but enjoys being a stripper. In society's eyes she is an outsider. How can she enjoy letting men watch her take her clothes off? But how many of you girls enjoy putting pictures of yourself up in a bikini to show off that summer bod? Is there a difference? At least Wrenna is getting paid for what she does. We just fool ourselves by thinking we're a higher class of girl because we're not paid for men to gawp at us. Great plan ladies but I think we took a wrong turn somewhere!
I'm not advocating going out and starting a career in sex work but at the same time I'm exploring my own feelings about women taking such a career path. If someone asked me what I thought of going into such a career, what would I say? I guess I'm yet to find out, it's not one of the top discussed career paths. But when it all boils down to it, why is society so squeamish about such careers? Why do we look down on such women? Surely they have the sense to be selling the one thing that will always be in demand.
Friday 13th June
"Does female fertility 'drop off a cliff'?" Via BBC news
"TV presenter Kirstie Allsopp has urged women to put off higher education and a career in favour of having children because their "fertility falls off a cliff"."
Is it just me who gritted their teeth as they read that sentence? And was it just me who noticed the related stories had emotionally-emotive heaped language like "Can women HAVE IT ALL?" or I WISH IVF had never been invented".
This story made me sort of stop mid-sip of a cup of coffee as I opened it and started reading. Which I might add burned my tongue. And then I persevered through reading this....news....which then went on to describe how actually, there's not a zit of truth in what the TV presenter who referred to nature as "not feminist" actually said. What an arrogant, thoughtless and ridiculous thing to say. Of course nature isn't feminist. But then again, nature doesn't have a concept of feminism, or patriarchism. In nature's eyes we're all equal, just designed to do slightly different jobs to aid in the preservation of our species over the courses of our lives.
I'm not even sure I possess the words to analyse the article as I usually would. So, the journalist who wrote this interviewed male doctors to talk about a role that women play, usually by choice, that keeps them at home, under the thumb and out of sight. And apparently we need to do this younger.
But what about the women who don't want children? Or don't have any current plans to have children in their lifetimes? People always say "oh, you'll change your mind as you get older" maybe that is the case in some women but I've been saying this since I was 10. Not sure things change that much and yet I feel increasing pressure that I am expected, by society, by my parents, by my parents-in-law, by perfect strangers who I happen upon this conversation with that I need to have children.
Some women never have children and then they are shunned as being unusual or treated like they are ill. The shock when someone finds out that you've not had children by choice, although understandable from an evolutionary perspective is sadly outdated. Children are a life choice. They disrupt your schedule, cost you lots of money and take away your free time. Some people say it's worth that to have a child, I don't disagree but I know that personally I am too selfish and possessive of my free time and the undivided attention of my husband to want to introduce a brand-new little person into the mix.
Yet the media propogation of the role of a woman as a mother (and of sex-symbol - which really is related - sex is procreation, the drive behind wanting sexy things, the underlying drive to have sex could arguably be TO procreate), and thus this is her primary goal in life. To have sex, with a man, and make babies.
How insulting.
I had rather excitedly thought we were entering a fresh new wave of women willing to stand up to men, with the #everydaysexism campaigns and the very feminist-feeling songs from artists like Lily Allen, Jessie J and Pink I had hoped we were entering the final phase. Being treated like humans. Not like baby making machines but like sentient, feeling, humans.
I remember teaching feminism to my year 13 students, and one of the girls in my class said "but Miss. Sexism doesn't exist any more and feminists are just too radical for the purpose now". Politely I pointed out that we still don't enjoy equal wages, that there are maternity contracts but no paternity contracts, that men EVEN NOW feel it's appropriate to call out or even touch you without permission (see #everydayesexism). Furthermore it's not even equal for men, who have to quit their jobs if they wish to look after their children, it can even be found in something as simple as dress codes.
So what am I saying? More than anything this article reads like this TV presenter has had children and is a born-again mother, wanting everyone to convert to her sleepless, significantly poorer lifestyle. I'm personally going to stick to the NICE guidelines "over 80% of couples in the general population will conceive within one year if the woman is aged under 40 years".
The journalist behind this item seems as confused about the answer as I am but she's erring on the side of caution. Yes, maybe we need to make allowances for age and children but to give up the possibility of having a career? To forgo better education in women? I cannot believe that in a "forward thinking" soceity such a woman would have any air time whatsoever.
Maybe you're thinking that I'm one of those "crazy" feminists. I do identify myself as feminist, but I push for equality and reason. I'm happily married yet I don't want children. Why should I be pressurised by articles like this and women like this, who rub off onto other women and men who read these articles into a life-changing, earth moving decision.
I am personally still disgusted by the article and the insulting quotes from Kirstie Allsop. How dare she think to speak for all women.
"TV presenter Kirstie Allsopp has urged women to put off higher education and a career in favour of having children because their "fertility falls off a cliff"."
Is it just me who gritted their teeth as they read that sentence? And was it just me who noticed the related stories had emotionally-emotive heaped language like "Can women HAVE IT ALL?" or I WISH IVF had never been invented".
This story made me sort of stop mid-sip of a cup of coffee as I opened it and started reading. Which I might add burned my tongue. And then I persevered through reading this....news....which then went on to describe how actually, there's not a zit of truth in what the TV presenter who referred to nature as "not feminist" actually said. What an arrogant, thoughtless and ridiculous thing to say. Of course nature isn't feminist. But then again, nature doesn't have a concept of feminism, or patriarchism. In nature's eyes we're all equal, just designed to do slightly different jobs to aid in the preservation of our species over the courses of our lives.
I'm not even sure I possess the words to analyse the article as I usually would. So, the journalist who wrote this interviewed male doctors to talk about a role that women play, usually by choice, that keeps them at home, under the thumb and out of sight. And apparently we need to do this younger.
But what about the women who don't want children? Or don't have any current plans to have children in their lifetimes? People always say "oh, you'll change your mind as you get older" maybe that is the case in some women but I've been saying this since I was 10. Not sure things change that much and yet I feel increasing pressure that I am expected, by society, by my parents, by my parents-in-law, by perfect strangers who I happen upon this conversation with that I need to have children.
Some women never have children and then they are shunned as being unusual or treated like they are ill. The shock when someone finds out that you've not had children by choice, although understandable from an evolutionary perspective is sadly outdated. Children are a life choice. They disrupt your schedule, cost you lots of money and take away your free time. Some people say it's worth that to have a child, I don't disagree but I know that personally I am too selfish and possessive of my free time and the undivided attention of my husband to want to introduce a brand-new little person into the mix.
Yet the media propogation of the role of a woman as a mother (and of sex-symbol - which really is related - sex is procreation, the drive behind wanting sexy things, the underlying drive to have sex could arguably be TO procreate), and thus this is her primary goal in life. To have sex, with a man, and make babies.
How insulting.
I had rather excitedly thought we were entering a fresh new wave of women willing to stand up to men, with the #everydaysexism campaigns and the very feminist-feeling songs from artists like Lily Allen, Jessie J and Pink I had hoped we were entering the final phase. Being treated like humans. Not like baby making machines but like sentient, feeling, humans.
I remember teaching feminism to my year 13 students, and one of the girls in my class said "but Miss. Sexism doesn't exist any more and feminists are just too radical for the purpose now". Politely I pointed out that we still don't enjoy equal wages, that there are maternity contracts but no paternity contracts, that men EVEN NOW feel it's appropriate to call out or even touch you without permission (see #everydayesexism). Furthermore it's not even equal for men, who have to quit their jobs if they wish to look after their children, it can even be found in something as simple as dress codes.
So what am I saying? More than anything this article reads like this TV presenter has had children and is a born-again mother, wanting everyone to convert to her sleepless, significantly poorer lifestyle. I'm personally going to stick to the NICE guidelines "over 80% of couples in the general population will conceive within one year if the woman is aged under 40 years".
The journalist behind this item seems as confused about the answer as I am but she's erring on the side of caution. Yes, maybe we need to make allowances for age and children but to give up the possibility of having a career? To forgo better education in women? I cannot believe that in a "forward thinking" soceity such a woman would have any air time whatsoever.
Maybe you're thinking that I'm one of those "crazy" feminists. I do identify myself as feminist, but I push for equality and reason. I'm happily married yet I don't want children. Why should I be pressurised by articles like this and women like this, who rub off onto other women and men who read these articles into a life-changing, earth moving decision.
I am personally still disgusted by the article and the insulting quotes from Kirstie Allsop. How dare she think to speak for all women.
Thursday 12th June
"Red meat 'linked to breast cancer'" via BBC news
TL;DR young adult females who eat a lot of red meat have been linked to higher rates of breast cancer in later life.
I've been umming and ahhing (yes, they are words THANK YOU) about whether to touch this article or not. I feel at this point that I'm honour bound to explain that actually, I'm one of *those* people. You know, the ones which you invite round to dinner only to find out that they don't eat what you're serving. Pain in the arse right.
I'm vegetarian. Ovo-lacto to be exact and have been for around 13 years now. I enjoy my lifestyle, I don't think I need to get into the debate about WHY I chose not to eat animals (ooooh, loaded language, get that) and I'm not asking you to do the same thing. Hell. Eat all the animal you want, except for a few years now there's been some contention in eating a lot of animal.
A one point on MFP you couldn't open your browser into the home window without being bombarded with arguments about WHO had the superior lifestyle. Studies flew around like bullets, arming the people behind them with some sort of perceived protection for their way of life. Champions to the cause and all that. I don't engage in pointless conversations about what YOU eat, which is why it took me a few days to decide to talk about this news article. Dare I go there? Ooooh, she did. With Race for Life coming up in my local town of Crawley I've been thinking a lot of the message from Cancer Research UK and associated cancer charities. It's one I agree with and promote whole heartedly - look after yourself and account for your lifestyle choices.
As a vegetarian I have to confess to a little bit of smugness when I read about these sorts of things, but there have been arguments for and against going around for ages. What's different about this one?
Well, this story, or one very similar surfaced about a year ago. I remember coming under attack after making a (not very....) snarky comment in the forums about how I'm obviously queen of the world for not eating meat (duh, I'm just queen of the world.....my world that is....and my cat's. Dave loves my world....we dress up together 0_o oh. TMI) aaaanyway. The comment wasn't awfully snarky but apparently I touched a raw nerve. Apparently you need to defend your lifestyle choices to complete strangers who really don't care what you do on a daily basis AS THOUGH IT WERE WAR. WE ARE SPARTA.
No jokes. Don't try and be funny. It's serious.
Well, turns out it is. The article keeps resurfacing linking red meat to various forms of cancer. Now, as a vegetarian it doesn't really surprise me. I mean, eating another animal which has chemicals put into it for various reasons it would seem common sense that that could cause changes in our own cellular structure. Cancer being an outcome of that.
But there is NO CLEAR link, this article says, between eating red meat and between cancer. So what is this article trying to say?
Well, I think it reflects the same message I come out with almost daily: be aware of what you're eating, balance it and be accountable for your lifestyle. Of course eating "too much" of anything could cause death from one cause or another. Along with smoking, drinking or anything that you do. I mean, if you think about it, 100% of people who drink water die.
My point is, you can link anything to anything when you try hard enough and this is what this article really seems to be doing. If you think of the demographic of women who eat a lot of red meat, who are they? Do they like drinking wine with their dinner? Or having a cigarette after they've eaten? Do they exercise before or after dinner? Do they drink enough water? Who knows - this article doesn't look at commonality with other factors associated to developing breast cancer or in fact any of the life style choices and young woman might make.
The real message from this article? Don't be silly, eat sensibly and don't pump yourself full of toxins. No brainer really.
For more info on Race for Life, click here
For more info from Cancer Research UK, click here
TL;DR young adult females who eat a lot of red meat have been linked to higher rates of breast cancer in later life.
I've been umming and ahhing (yes, they are words THANK YOU) about whether to touch this article or not. I feel at this point that I'm honour bound to explain that actually, I'm one of *those* people. You know, the ones which you invite round to dinner only to find out that they don't eat what you're serving. Pain in the arse right.
I'm vegetarian. Ovo-lacto to be exact and have been for around 13 years now. I enjoy my lifestyle, I don't think I need to get into the debate about WHY I chose not to eat animals (ooooh, loaded language, get that) and I'm not asking you to do the same thing. Hell. Eat all the animal you want, except for a few years now there's been some contention in eating a lot of animal.
A one point on MFP you couldn't open your browser into the home window without being bombarded with arguments about WHO had the superior lifestyle. Studies flew around like bullets, arming the people behind them with some sort of perceived protection for their way of life. Champions to the cause and all that. I don't engage in pointless conversations about what YOU eat, which is why it took me a few days to decide to talk about this news article. Dare I go there? Ooooh, she did. With Race for Life coming up in my local town of Crawley I've been thinking a lot of the message from Cancer Research UK and associated cancer charities. It's one I agree with and promote whole heartedly - look after yourself and account for your lifestyle choices.
As a vegetarian I have to confess to a little bit of smugness when I read about these sorts of things, but there have been arguments for and against going around for ages. What's different about this one?
Well, this story, or one very similar surfaced about a year ago. I remember coming under attack after making a (not very....) snarky comment in the forums about how I'm obviously queen of the world for not eating meat (duh, I'm just queen of the world.....my world that is....and my cat's. Dave loves my world....we dress up together 0_o oh. TMI) aaaanyway. The comment wasn't awfully snarky but apparently I touched a raw nerve. Apparently you need to defend your lifestyle choices to complete strangers who really don't care what you do on a daily basis AS THOUGH IT WERE WAR. WE ARE SPARTA.
No jokes. Don't try and be funny. It's serious.
Well, turns out it is. The article keeps resurfacing linking red meat to various forms of cancer. Now, as a vegetarian it doesn't really surprise me. I mean, eating another animal which has chemicals put into it for various reasons it would seem common sense that that could cause changes in our own cellular structure. Cancer being an outcome of that.
But there is NO CLEAR link, this article says, between eating red meat and between cancer. So what is this article trying to say?
Well, I think it reflects the same message I come out with almost daily: be aware of what you're eating, balance it and be accountable for your lifestyle. Of course eating "too much" of anything could cause death from one cause or another. Along with smoking, drinking or anything that you do. I mean, if you think about it, 100% of people who drink water die.
My point is, you can link anything to anything when you try hard enough and this is what this article really seems to be doing. If you think of the demographic of women who eat a lot of red meat, who are they? Do they like drinking wine with their dinner? Or having a cigarette after they've eaten? Do they exercise before or after dinner? Do they drink enough water? Who knows - this article doesn't look at commonality with other factors associated to developing breast cancer or in fact any of the life style choices and young woman might make.
The real message from this article? Don't be silly, eat sensibly and don't pump yourself full of toxins. No brainer really.
For more info on Race for Life, click here
For more info from Cancer Research UK, click here
Wednesday 11th June
Walking more 'would save thousands' of lives in the UK via BBC news
Well, this is a bit of a no-brainer really.
TL;DR - if people did more exercise (i.e. the recommended 150 minutes per week) it would stop as many people dying per year, prevent cases of breast cancer, prevent us having as many cases of colorectal cancer and would lead to a decrease in type 2 diabetes (which we saw in yesterday's featured article).
The Ramblers and Macmillan Cancer Support suggest that if people just took to doing free exercise, like walking, this would fulfill the exercise requirement of the average person.
I think a lot of people overlook walking and hiking as exercise. I know there have been a few people who, when I've told them we're walking 100km to raise money for Oxfam have replied with "what? walking? it's not exactly hard is it". Or "why do you do so much training? It's only walking". Ummm. Yah. For 27 hours straight ./headdesk.
Maybe walking is not "glam" enough - you're often sunburnt and dirty, not slicked with oil in a fancy gym. Maybe it's something people do every day so they overlook how much of it they're doing. Estimates show that *most* people overestimate their activity levels - are you guilty of that? I know I have been. Investing in a FitBit was one of my best buys in terms of understanding my activity levels - it tracked how often I moved and how much. It also makes for a great ornament ;) I've had lots of questions about it (I clip it on to my bra band!). Anyway, I'm not being paid for that so I'll move on :p Walking is cool, it's great exercise and something our bodies are inherently designed to do!
How do you make up your 150 minutes of weekly exercise? Do you make the recommended levels? If not #makeachange - get up and enjoy what you have outside, whether it's human architecture or beautiful nature.
Well, this is a bit of a no-brainer really.
TL;DR - if people did more exercise (i.e. the recommended 150 minutes per week) it would stop as many people dying per year, prevent cases of breast cancer, prevent us having as many cases of colorectal cancer and would lead to a decrease in type 2 diabetes (which we saw in yesterday's featured article).
The Ramblers and Macmillan Cancer Support suggest that if people just took to doing free exercise, like walking, this would fulfill the exercise requirement of the average person.
I think a lot of people overlook walking and hiking as exercise. I know there have been a few people who, when I've told them we're walking 100km to raise money for Oxfam have replied with "what? walking? it's not exactly hard is it". Or "why do you do so much training? It's only walking". Ummm. Yah. For 27 hours straight ./headdesk.
Maybe walking is not "glam" enough - you're often sunburnt and dirty, not slicked with oil in a fancy gym. Maybe it's something people do every day so they overlook how much of it they're doing. Estimates show that *most* people overestimate their activity levels - are you guilty of that? I know I have been. Investing in a FitBit was one of my best buys in terms of understanding my activity levels - it tracked how often I moved and how much. It also makes for a great ornament ;) I've had lots of questions about it (I clip it on to my bra band!). Anyway, I'm not being paid for that so I'll move on :p Walking is cool, it's great exercise and something our bodies are inherently designed to do!
How do you make up your 150 minutes of weekly exercise? Do you make the recommended levels? If not #makeachange - get up and enjoy what you have outside, whether it's human architecture or beautiful nature.
Tuesday 10th June
One in three adults in England 'on cusp' of diabetes via BBC news
TL;DR we have increasing amounts of people at the higher end of the glucose tolerance range - not realising it but almost at the point of being type two diabetic.
I chose this article today because it holds a lot of personal significance to me. As someone with a strong family tendancy to diabetes (in fact my mother, uncle, grandmother and great-uncle are all type-2 diabetic), I've been watching my health for a while now. At first it didn't seem *that* bad - so it's diabetes, right, what's the worst that could happen? But after watching my grandmother get gradually sicker and sicker, eventually needing to have a serious operation in one eye (ending in blindness in that eye), loss of the use of her legs, loss of the blood circulation to legs and feet and constant need for a catheter, the adult me has re-asked the question - so what does it matter?
Diabetes is a hugely underestimated disease. A lot of people in the UK and US have it and don't even know it (it's thought to be something like 1 in every 70 people). Can't be that bad, right? I mean, if you can have it and not know about it.....Wrong. Think about being ill without knowing it for a long period of time, eventually those complications catch up to you. Just like in my nan.
When I was a child I knew all about diabetes. My friend was a type 1 diabetic and my grandmother had been managing type 2 diabetes for all of my life. (Type 1 makes up around 10% of all cases and is most common in those under 40, Type 2 is the most common form of diabetes and most common in those over 40 (in Caucasian populations)). It seemed like a game. She's prick her finger every morning and every evening to check sugar levels. But that was before the insulin injections started to come in. That was before she got confined to a wheelchair.
You see, my grandmother, like all of the women in my family was stubborn. I joke about it - I'm tenacious, not pig-headed. Honest. But it's a trait that can get you in hot water (as I'm sure anyone suffering the same personality trait will agree ;)). My grandmother continued to eat whatever the hell she liked. She was a gifted chef and she enjoyed cooking. She had the WW2 era approach to food - if it's here, you must have it. She was always telling me to eat, you look skinny (truly impossible given I was a 10 tonne kid). I always remember her motto: "I may as well enjoy it now, I'll be gone soon enough". But there you go with the stubborn trait. Even after the sugar-fed abuse of 90 years my grandmother is here and her body now shows the signs of wear.
It has often made me think. Should I enjoy things whilst I can? Get the most out of life. Right. Well, surely arriving at the finish line with a body that can still go some is better than finishing in a wreck? When I'm 90 will I be able to walk? The events of the past few years have constantly highlighted the nefarious disease that diabetes is. It attacks in underhanded ways, nipping at the unwary until you're not able to use the body you had. You keep eating wrong because you feel ok (ish). Even when you start becoming sick from eating sugary/high-carb foods you continue, because you're in denial.
How do you become diabetic? Well, lots of people think it's just eating loads of sugary stuff. That's not really true. There are lots of things that contribute to the development of diabetes - age (being over 40), ethnicity (it's more common in South Asian, African-Caribbean or Middle Eastern origins), being overweight (if your BMI is over 30 (yes, yes, I *know* about BMI but lets just assume the normal curve here. If you're really muscley or abnormally densely boned you're probably ok for this factor)), if you carry fat around your stomach (for women a 31.5cm waist increases risk, Asian men 35cm and all other men at 37in waist). Additionally genetics play a major role; you're far more at risk if you have a relative with the condition (www.NHS.UK).
Personally, I'm very aware of the consequences of diabetes. I know that unless I start treating my body right, I'll be having a hell of a time of it come 60 years. Do you know the consequences? Do you even know the symptoms?
Know those symptoms and know the risk factors people. Be aware and look after yourselves. We have a journey ahead of us and there is no fun in having to pull over early.
TL;DR we have increasing amounts of people at the higher end of the glucose tolerance range - not realising it but almost at the point of being type two diabetic.
I chose this article today because it holds a lot of personal significance to me. As someone with a strong family tendancy to diabetes (in fact my mother, uncle, grandmother and great-uncle are all type-2 diabetic), I've been watching my health for a while now. At first it didn't seem *that* bad - so it's diabetes, right, what's the worst that could happen? But after watching my grandmother get gradually sicker and sicker, eventually needing to have a serious operation in one eye (ending in blindness in that eye), loss of the use of her legs, loss of the blood circulation to legs and feet and constant need for a catheter, the adult me has re-asked the question - so what does it matter?
Diabetes is a hugely underestimated disease. A lot of people in the UK and US have it and don't even know it (it's thought to be something like 1 in every 70 people). Can't be that bad, right? I mean, if you can have it and not know about it.....Wrong. Think about being ill without knowing it for a long period of time, eventually those complications catch up to you. Just like in my nan.
When I was a child I knew all about diabetes. My friend was a type 1 diabetic and my grandmother had been managing type 2 diabetes for all of my life. (Type 1 makes up around 10% of all cases and is most common in those under 40, Type 2 is the most common form of diabetes and most common in those over 40 (in Caucasian populations)). It seemed like a game. She's prick her finger every morning and every evening to check sugar levels. But that was before the insulin injections started to come in. That was before she got confined to a wheelchair.
You see, my grandmother, like all of the women in my family was stubborn. I joke about it - I'm tenacious, not pig-headed. Honest. But it's a trait that can get you in hot water (as I'm sure anyone suffering the same personality trait will agree ;)). My grandmother continued to eat whatever the hell she liked. She was a gifted chef and she enjoyed cooking. She had the WW2 era approach to food - if it's here, you must have it. She was always telling me to eat, you look skinny (truly impossible given I was a 10 tonne kid). I always remember her motto: "I may as well enjoy it now, I'll be gone soon enough". But there you go with the stubborn trait. Even after the sugar-fed abuse of 90 years my grandmother is here and her body now shows the signs of wear.
It has often made me think. Should I enjoy things whilst I can? Get the most out of life. Right. Well, surely arriving at the finish line with a body that can still go some is better than finishing in a wreck? When I'm 90 will I be able to walk? The events of the past few years have constantly highlighted the nefarious disease that diabetes is. It attacks in underhanded ways, nipping at the unwary until you're not able to use the body you had. You keep eating wrong because you feel ok (ish). Even when you start becoming sick from eating sugary/high-carb foods you continue, because you're in denial.
How do you become diabetic? Well, lots of people think it's just eating loads of sugary stuff. That's not really true. There are lots of things that contribute to the development of diabetes - age (being over 40), ethnicity (it's more common in South Asian, African-Caribbean or Middle Eastern origins), being overweight (if your BMI is over 30 (yes, yes, I *know* about BMI but lets just assume the normal curve here. If you're really muscley or abnormally densely boned you're probably ok for this factor)), if you carry fat around your stomach (for women a 31.5cm waist increases risk, Asian men 35cm and all other men at 37in waist). Additionally genetics play a major role; you're far more at risk if you have a relative with the condition (www.NHS.UK).
Personally, I'm very aware of the consequences of diabetes. I know that unless I start treating my body right, I'll be having a hell of a time of it come 60 years. Do you know the consequences? Do you even know the symptoms?
Know those symptoms and know the risk factors people. Be aware and look after yourselves. We have a journey ahead of us and there is no fun in having to pull over early.
Monday 9th June 2014
"Researchers Find Association Between Porn Viewing And Less Grey Matter In The
Brain" via IFLscience
I thought I'd continue on the man-funny line here ;)
So, TL;DR porn makes you dumb. Excellent.
Don't worry, it hasn't escaped my notice that the article was written by a woman. Nor does it escape my notice that I too am a woman amused by this.
Porn is one of those weird things. I've always had a fairly feminist view on it personally and it doesn't escape my notice that a lot of people, both men and women don't agree with me.
Just because I find the notion of having to watch someone else have sex to make you feel sexy REALLY offputting doesn't mean that everyone agrees. I think we can at least all agree to disagree.
But this is pure gold.
So, 64 men between 21 and 45 were asked to report how much porn they watched a week. Generally this did not exceed 4 hours per week per man.
They weer then MRI'ed to see what their brains were doing - and when this was done a negative correlation between grey matter and porn was found.
If I briefly explain the difference between tissues in the brain, we have grey matter which (is a 1.3 ratio grey to white at age 20) is repsonsible for most of the stuff we do - eating, breathing, moving, remembering, sensory perception, emotion. To put this in perspective - 22% of our BMR (the calories required to keep us alive at the very basic level) goes to the brain. 95% of this goes to the grey matter. It's pretty important. The second tissue I'm going to talk about is white matter - this is what connects grey matter together. It's basically like the LAN cables between two computers (old school I know). Lose the links - lose the connections, and you often see this in dementia type illnesses of the brain.
So, grey matter is pretty important and is involved in loads of things. Importantly, one of those things is emotion and motivation.
The article mentions that these men showed less connnection of their areas responsible for motivation - now maybe the mystery of teenage boys suddenly being interested in doing much is being cracked open a little ;)
To take it a step further - earlier I joked porn made you dumb, well, we could take that line, but the one I'm interested in is the age old assumption that men who watch porn have less respect for women. This is often refuted by people who watch it, but could it actually be the case? This is just contention, but with the given study, surely there is some evidence suggesting it could be true given that areas that control motivation are affected, why would there not be an effect on emotions.
Or is it that they have lessened mobility, memory or sensory perception? The article doesn't go into much detail to ponder, but it does open a lot of interesting points for discusssion - what impact does porn have on people? Is it negative?
Obviously we have the issue with causality - we need participants who are completely naive to porn. Wonder how well that study would recruit....quickly I'd imagine xD
Of course this study is preliminary and we can't read too much into it but nevertheless, I think it's an interesting find. I can't wait to find out more when this is taken further!
So what do you guys think?
gym #workout #physical exercise #fitness #you #challenge #fernwood fitness #humour #blog #fitness blog # fitfam #news #bbc news #free weights #resistance training #training #trailwalker #Oxfam #fundraising #money #free #you #donate #charity #charity shop #jewelry #bitch #boobies #girls #funny #weights #bro do you even lift #lift #physical #personal trainer
Brain" via IFLscience
I thought I'd continue on the man-funny line here ;)
So, TL;DR porn makes you dumb. Excellent.
Don't worry, it hasn't escaped my notice that the article was written by a woman. Nor does it escape my notice that I too am a woman amused by this.
Porn is one of those weird things. I've always had a fairly feminist view on it personally and it doesn't escape my notice that a lot of people, both men and women don't agree with me.
Just because I find the notion of having to watch someone else have sex to make you feel sexy REALLY offputting doesn't mean that everyone agrees. I think we can at least all agree to disagree.
But this is pure gold.
So, 64 men between 21 and 45 were asked to report how much porn they watched a week. Generally this did not exceed 4 hours per week per man.
They weer then MRI'ed to see what their brains were doing - and when this was done a negative correlation between grey matter and porn was found.
If I briefly explain the difference between tissues in the brain, we have grey matter which (is a 1.3 ratio grey to white at age 20) is repsonsible for most of the stuff we do - eating, breathing, moving, remembering, sensory perception, emotion. To put this in perspective - 22% of our BMR (the calories required to keep us alive at the very basic level) goes to the brain. 95% of this goes to the grey matter. It's pretty important. The second tissue I'm going to talk about is white matter - this is what connects grey matter together. It's basically like the LAN cables between two computers (old school I know). Lose the links - lose the connections, and you often see this in dementia type illnesses of the brain.
So, grey matter is pretty important and is involved in loads of things. Importantly, one of those things is emotion and motivation.
The article mentions that these men showed less connnection of their areas responsible for motivation - now maybe the mystery of teenage boys suddenly being interested in doing much is being cracked open a little ;)
To take it a step further - earlier I joked porn made you dumb, well, we could take that line, but the one I'm interested in is the age old assumption that men who watch porn have less respect for women. This is often refuted by people who watch it, but could it actually be the case? This is just contention, but with the given study, surely there is some evidence suggesting it could be true given that areas that control motivation are affected, why would there not be an effect on emotions.
Or is it that they have lessened mobility, memory or sensory perception? The article doesn't go into much detail to ponder, but it does open a lot of interesting points for discusssion - what impact does porn have on people? Is it negative?
Obviously we have the issue with causality - we need participants who are completely naive to porn. Wonder how well that study would recruit....quickly I'd imagine xD
Of course this study is preliminary and we can't read too much into it but nevertheless, I think it's an interesting find. I can't wait to find out more when this is taken further!
So what do you guys think?
gym #workout #physical exercise #fitness #you #challenge #fernwood fitness #humour #blog #fitness blog # fitfam #news #bbc news #free weights #resistance training #training #trailwalker #Oxfam #fundraising #money #free #you #donate #charity #charity shop #jewelry #bitch #boobies #girls #funny #weights #bro do you even lift #lift #physical #personal trainer
"Male faces 'buttressed against punches' by evolution" via BBC news
Well.
Not sure what I can say here that won't get me into trouble.
gym #workout #physical exercise #fitness #you #challenge #fernwood fitness #humour #blog #fitness blog # fitfam #news #bbc news #free weights #resistance training #training #trailwalker #Oxfam #fundraising #money #free #you #donate #charity #charity shop #jewelry #bitch #boobies #girls #funny #weights #bro do you even lift #lift #physical #personal trainer
Well.
Not sure what I can say here that won't get me into trouble.
gym #workout #physical exercise #fitness #you #challenge #fernwood fitness #humour #blog #fitness blog # fitfam #news #bbc news #free weights #resistance training #training #trailwalker #Oxfam #fundraising #money #free #you #donate #charity #charity shop #jewelry #bitch #boobies #girls #funny #weights #bro do you even lift #lift #physical #personal trainer
Friday 6th June 2014
Housework " Not Strenuous Enough" for Exercise Targets via BBC news
TL;DR: housework doesn't count as exercise because it doesn't raise your heart rate consistently enough.
Well.
Big surprise.
How many of us have used this sort of exercise as our daily exercise?
How many of you suspected that it might not "actually" be *real* exercise?
I'll bet most of you know somewhere actually you're kidding yourself.I know that it's tempting to log this sort of exercise as actual hours worked out - I remember when I first started tracking my exercise levels I logged EVERYTHING. Absolutely everything. Cooking, cleaning, standing up waiting for the bus.....
I still lost weight because, of course, I was in a caloric deficit. Eating 1400 calories a day meant that I could log this sort of exercise, eat back those calories and still lose simply because my BMR is closer to 1700 calories a day and my TDEE would have been around 1900. It would probably work now even if I was eating 1400 calories simply because my TDEE is much closer to 2300 calories a day these days however, I eat 1940 calories a day (16 for every Ib of body mass, which is a moderate amount off of my TDEE) and I don't bother counting how many calories I burn. Works for me.
I don't log housework (well, I'd have to do any to be able to log it....). I don't even bother logging my walks to and from work anymore as it's such a part of my routine. I stoppedlogging housework after about a month knowing that I was kidding myself with every log of that exercise. It sort of ties in with what I was saying yesterday about personal accountability in weight loss. You have to be accountable for yourself and what you're doing. If you're kidding yourself that you're "working out" when atcually you're only performing your daily tasks then you're not being honest with yourself or accountable for your lack of exercise.
Eating a sensible amount of calories for weight loss and being responsible for getting your body into shape is important. Of course you can lose weight by just eating less and not working out, but if you're doing that, be honest about it. If you want to exercise, exercise. It *might* seem scary. Goodness knows it did when I first started working out OUTSIDE. People don't always help either (log one incident of someone shouting out of a car "run fatty" or another of a kid calling atfer me "haha I can see your knickers" - that's another article in itself!!) but YOU are responsible for your choices. You choose either to ignore them and get on with it, or you choose to hide away from the world and let those ignorant idiots win.
Activities like logging housework lead you to be dishonest with yourself - about your exercise, about the amount of calories you're burning, about how hard you're *actually* working....don't fall into that trap. Do it, do it well and do it right - remember, you don't get what you wish for, you get what you work for.
TL;DR: housework doesn't count as exercise because it doesn't raise your heart rate consistently enough.
Well.
Big surprise.
How many of us have used this sort of exercise as our daily exercise?
How many of you suspected that it might not "actually" be *real* exercise?
I'll bet most of you know somewhere actually you're kidding yourself.I know that it's tempting to log this sort of exercise as actual hours worked out - I remember when I first started tracking my exercise levels I logged EVERYTHING. Absolutely everything. Cooking, cleaning, standing up waiting for the bus.....
I still lost weight because, of course, I was in a caloric deficit. Eating 1400 calories a day meant that I could log this sort of exercise, eat back those calories and still lose simply because my BMR is closer to 1700 calories a day and my TDEE would have been around 1900. It would probably work now even if I was eating 1400 calories simply because my TDEE is much closer to 2300 calories a day these days however, I eat 1940 calories a day (16 for every Ib of body mass, which is a moderate amount off of my TDEE) and I don't bother counting how many calories I burn. Works for me.
I don't log housework (well, I'd have to do any to be able to log it....). I don't even bother logging my walks to and from work anymore as it's such a part of my routine. I stoppedlogging housework after about a month knowing that I was kidding myself with every log of that exercise. It sort of ties in with what I was saying yesterday about personal accountability in weight loss. You have to be accountable for yourself and what you're doing. If you're kidding yourself that you're "working out" when atcually you're only performing your daily tasks then you're not being honest with yourself or accountable for your lack of exercise.
Eating a sensible amount of calories for weight loss and being responsible for getting your body into shape is important. Of course you can lose weight by just eating less and not working out, but if you're doing that, be honest about it. If you want to exercise, exercise. It *might* seem scary. Goodness knows it did when I first started working out OUTSIDE. People don't always help either (log one incident of someone shouting out of a car "run fatty" or another of a kid calling atfer me "haha I can see your knickers" - that's another article in itself!!) but YOU are responsible for your choices. You choose either to ignore them and get on with it, or you choose to hide away from the world and let those ignorant idiots win.
Activities like logging housework lead you to be dishonest with yourself - about your exercise, about the amount of calories you're burning, about how hard you're *actually* working....don't fall into that trap. Do it, do it well and do it right - remember, you don't get what you wish for, you get what you work for.
Thursday 5th June 2014
"The Plague of Light in our Bedrooms" via BBC news
TL;DR - the amount of light getting in to our rooms when we're sleeping is affecting our lives.
The study from this article suggests that the amount of light that we're getting in our rooms (from streetlamps/phones/clocks/cars) is having enough of an effect on our bodies that it is causing obesity.
They also found that women who had enough light in their rooms to "see across it" had larger waistlines.
Now, without wanting to overtly offend anyone - surely the excess calories consumed in people's diets is the cause of obesity? Don't get me wrong. I was officially classed as obese just two years ago. I celebrated when I got into the overweight category for BMI. By all means, I'm no model here - but this just sounds like another study trying to explain away something fairly simple whilst taking accountability away from the individual.
Yes, maybe the excess light does have some effect on people - sensitive bodies can react that way. MAYBE it's a contributing factor, maybe it exacerbates the problem by making people tired so that their choices are worse in terms of how much they eat/what they eat - but I think this is again taking the focus away from the real issue. Overeating and food-choice.
Furthermore - some of the reasons that people can't sleep is often that they have overindulged, that they don't have a decent exercise routine or that they're stressed (cortisol levels are known to disrupt weight loss and even play a role in weight gain) but this feeds back into the problem!
The article reads like one of my old excuses - "oh, I'm not fat, I'm just big boned" (yeah I used that one), or "this is my body's biological set point", or, "oh, I'm not getting larger, those trousers/underwear/top [insert choice of clothing into this space] got shrunk in the wash"....
Hands up those of you who often feel that you're "so busy you can't really find the time to cook?". How many people out there eat after they're full up just to clear their plates? (thanks nan and grandad for that one. I'm sure the people starving across the world really benefitted from my poor eating habits that I took into my adult life!!). How many of you are actually accountable for your own eating? I'm not. I still use my friends - both in real life and online, my husband and my cat (j/k - he's a tubby little thing on his own!) to regulate my eating habits. But I do acknowledge that the food choices I make either increase, maintain or help decrease my waist line.
This article, I'm sure, has some truth to it but personally I'd like to move the focus to studies on how to help people regulate their portion sizes, take responsiblity for what they're eating, move more and stay healthy.
TL;DR - the amount of light getting in to our rooms when we're sleeping is affecting our lives.
The study from this article suggests that the amount of light that we're getting in our rooms (from streetlamps/phones/clocks/cars) is having enough of an effect on our bodies that it is causing obesity.
They also found that women who had enough light in their rooms to "see across it" had larger waistlines.
Now, without wanting to overtly offend anyone - surely the excess calories consumed in people's diets is the cause of obesity? Don't get me wrong. I was officially classed as obese just two years ago. I celebrated when I got into the overweight category for BMI. By all means, I'm no model here - but this just sounds like another study trying to explain away something fairly simple whilst taking accountability away from the individual.
Yes, maybe the excess light does have some effect on people - sensitive bodies can react that way. MAYBE it's a contributing factor, maybe it exacerbates the problem by making people tired so that their choices are worse in terms of how much they eat/what they eat - but I think this is again taking the focus away from the real issue. Overeating and food-choice.
Furthermore - some of the reasons that people can't sleep is often that they have overindulged, that they don't have a decent exercise routine or that they're stressed (cortisol levels are known to disrupt weight loss and even play a role in weight gain) but this feeds back into the problem!
The article reads like one of my old excuses - "oh, I'm not fat, I'm just big boned" (yeah I used that one), or "this is my body's biological set point", or, "oh, I'm not getting larger, those trousers/underwear/top [insert choice of clothing into this space] got shrunk in the wash"....
Hands up those of you who often feel that you're "so busy you can't really find the time to cook?". How many people out there eat after they're full up just to clear their plates? (thanks nan and grandad for that one. I'm sure the people starving across the world really benefitted from my poor eating habits that I took into my adult life!!). How many of you are actually accountable for your own eating? I'm not. I still use my friends - both in real life and online, my husband and my cat (j/k - he's a tubby little thing on his own!) to regulate my eating habits. But I do acknowledge that the food choices I make either increase, maintain or help decrease my waist line.
This article, I'm sure, has some truth to it but personally I'd like to move the focus to studies on how to help people regulate their portion sizes, take responsiblity for what they're eating, move more and stay healthy.
Wednesday 4th June 2014
Whoops. Dropped the ball here!
Tuesday 3rd June 2014
"Weight Loss Aided by Eating Prunes" via Medical News Today
Prunes. Do we have any prunes fans here? I remember when I was a young girl my grandad would make me drink prune juice. Apparently it kept me "regular". I always thought that was a funny way to put it, but it works ;)
So, prunes. How many of you have a similar association with prunes and/or prune juice?
Well, again, this article makes a lot of sense to me. Anyone who eats prunes will know that they're filling, have a strong flavour (which I find helps with the feelings of satiety) and they're full of fibre. Fibrous foods are well known to fill you up. Has this study been repeated on similar fibrous fruits? A cursory search of google would suggest that no, we don't have any data to compare this study to. Or, certainly not any well circulated data for a comparison.
How do we know that it's just prunes that have this effect? Were there other trial groups with similar fruits to experiment with? The study doesn't say.
Additionally, the study says that the control group were only "given advice on healthy snacks". So we can assume that the pruned-up group were told to eat (only?) prunes as healthy snacks whilst the other group were given free reign to eat whatever snacks they deemed healthy? Surely then, at this point we have all sorts of experiementer and participant effects creeping in to the study: perception of healthiness, the Hawthorn effect in the prune group, control of extraneous variables for the prune group.
At this point I feel that I can conclude that eating a prescribed healthy diet is probably going to aid your weight loss. In addition to this, they're probably right, prunes probably DO help you lose weight. I mean, they're so strong tasting you're not going to want to eat anything else atferward anyway.
Without casting the net of judgement, personally, I feel that the moral of the story here is going to be something along the lines of "eat fibrous, low sugar fruits to supplement your diet rather than choosing supposedly 'healthy' options that are maybe less than naturally produced".
I was about to type that it's "just common sense" but actually, and here I've been as guilty as anyone else; how many people actually think to supplement their diet with fruit rather than "low fat popcorn" or "low calorie crisps"....it *may* be common sense and it could even be labelled as *obvious* but I think with more articles like this coming out it will help people make healthier choices that benefit them in the long term. As a supporter of IIFYM I'm all for articles like these. I don't think it's particularly misleading so long as you apply your media brain to the report and I personally think that fruit is a good source of a lot of nice things. Including something sweet :)
Stock up people, fruit is back in fashion ;)
Prunes. Do we have any prunes fans here? I remember when I was a young girl my grandad would make me drink prune juice. Apparently it kept me "regular". I always thought that was a funny way to put it, but it works ;)
So, prunes. How many of you have a similar association with prunes and/or prune juice?
Well, again, this article makes a lot of sense to me. Anyone who eats prunes will know that they're filling, have a strong flavour (which I find helps with the feelings of satiety) and they're full of fibre. Fibrous foods are well known to fill you up. Has this study been repeated on similar fibrous fruits? A cursory search of google would suggest that no, we don't have any data to compare this study to. Or, certainly not any well circulated data for a comparison.
How do we know that it's just prunes that have this effect? Were there other trial groups with similar fruits to experiment with? The study doesn't say.
Additionally, the study says that the control group were only "given advice on healthy snacks". So we can assume that the pruned-up group were told to eat (only?) prunes as healthy snacks whilst the other group were given free reign to eat whatever snacks they deemed healthy? Surely then, at this point we have all sorts of experiementer and participant effects creeping in to the study: perception of healthiness, the Hawthorn effect in the prune group, control of extraneous variables for the prune group.
At this point I feel that I can conclude that eating a prescribed healthy diet is probably going to aid your weight loss. In addition to this, they're probably right, prunes probably DO help you lose weight. I mean, they're so strong tasting you're not going to want to eat anything else atferward anyway.
Without casting the net of judgement, personally, I feel that the moral of the story here is going to be something along the lines of "eat fibrous, low sugar fruits to supplement your diet rather than choosing supposedly 'healthy' options that are maybe less than naturally produced".
I was about to type that it's "just common sense" but actually, and here I've been as guilty as anyone else; how many people actually think to supplement their diet with fruit rather than "low fat popcorn" or "low calorie crisps"....it *may* be common sense and it could even be labelled as *obvious* but I think with more articles like this coming out it will help people make healthier choices that benefit them in the long term. As a supporter of IIFYM I'm all for articles like these. I don't think it's particularly misleading so long as you apply your media brain to the report and I personally think that fruit is a good source of a lot of nice things. Including something sweet :)
Stock up people, fruit is back in fashion ;)
Monday 2nd June 2014
"Learning a second language 'slows brain ageing'" from bbc.co.uk/news.
This is an interesting read. The premise is that basically, those people who learn a second language have a later onset age of dementia and have better cognitive performance scores - including those of reading and general intelligence.
It's one of those articles that reads well and gives you hope. If I learn a second language will I have a better quality of life in my later years?
For me it raises a few questions though:
What were the samples made up of? I mean, are we looking at regular Joe Bloggs? Or are we looking at university post-graduates. The article in the BBC doesn't mention.
Secondly, how are they measuring "general intelligence" and what do they mean by that? Psychologists are still arguing the nature of intelligence - whether it's a single entity, whether it's made up of heirarchal components, whether it's learned, whether it's innate, whether it's lots of different abilities and whether you can have more than oen. So how does this study define the type of intelligence they're measuring and what does that actually mean for their subjects?
Thirdly, how do we know that it's not intelligent people who CAN and DO learn a second language. Is it that learning a language increases our intelligence? Or that increased intelligence leads to learning a second language? Again, the article is unclear on this point. Causality is the imeediate go-to question for a lot of people and they have mentioned this in the first part of the article.
Furthermore, those with higher cognitive abilities can arguably be described as more curious and/or inquisitive. Surely that in itself is a prerequisitie for intelligence? So in turn, those people who have higher general intelligence scores can be described as inquisitive. Can we then link this to a more energetic and life-long approach to learning new things? Some of which would surely include learning a new language...
Therefore, are we looking at a link between ageing of the brain and language learning or are we actually looking at a more complex relationship between intelligence, curiousity and brain ageing? If we can assume that those people who have more inquisitive, active minds then following the logic surely it's fairly obvious that these people would have decreased senility at younger ages simply because of the continued use and development of mental faculties.
So maybe the moral of the story isn't actually about learning a new language. Maybe the moral of the story is about remaining curious even as you age.
Or maybe I'm just kidding myself because I'm hopeless at learning languages. We'll see in 60 years or so ;)
This is an interesting read. The premise is that basically, those people who learn a second language have a later onset age of dementia and have better cognitive performance scores - including those of reading and general intelligence.
It's one of those articles that reads well and gives you hope. If I learn a second language will I have a better quality of life in my later years?
For me it raises a few questions though:
What were the samples made up of? I mean, are we looking at regular Joe Bloggs? Or are we looking at university post-graduates. The article in the BBC doesn't mention.
Secondly, how are they measuring "general intelligence" and what do they mean by that? Psychologists are still arguing the nature of intelligence - whether it's a single entity, whether it's made up of heirarchal components, whether it's learned, whether it's innate, whether it's lots of different abilities and whether you can have more than oen. So how does this study define the type of intelligence they're measuring and what does that actually mean for their subjects?
Thirdly, how do we know that it's not intelligent people who CAN and DO learn a second language. Is it that learning a language increases our intelligence? Or that increased intelligence leads to learning a second language? Again, the article is unclear on this point. Causality is the imeediate go-to question for a lot of people and they have mentioned this in the first part of the article.
Furthermore, those with higher cognitive abilities can arguably be described as more curious and/or inquisitive. Surely that in itself is a prerequisitie for intelligence? So in turn, those people who have higher general intelligence scores can be described as inquisitive. Can we then link this to a more energetic and life-long approach to learning new things? Some of which would surely include learning a new language...
Therefore, are we looking at a link between ageing of the brain and language learning or are we actually looking at a more complex relationship between intelligence, curiousity and brain ageing? If we can assume that those people who have more inquisitive, active minds then following the logic surely it's fairly obvious that these people would have decreased senility at younger ages simply because of the continued use and development of mental faculties.
So maybe the moral of the story isn't actually about learning a new language. Maybe the moral of the story is about remaining curious even as you age.
Or maybe I'm just kidding myself because I'm hopeless at learning languages. We'll see in 60 years or so ;)
gym #workout #physical exercise #fitness #you #challenge #fernwood fitness #humour #blog #fitness blog # fitfam #news #bbc news #free weights #resistance training #training #trailwalker #Oxfam #fundraising #money #free #you #donate #charity #charity shop #jewelry #bitch #boobies #girls #funny #weights #bro do you even lift #lift #physical #personal trainer #porn
