Matt Metzgar

Craziest Study of the Year Nominee 2009

I just finished reading through this paper on agression and the metabolic syndrome.  This has to be one of the most unique studies I've ever seen.  The authors believe that the metabolic syndrome is caused by a lack of aggression in modern society.  They hypothesize that the lowered need for aggression in modern society is evolutionary novel, and that it "turns on" the metabolic syndrome. 

It is explained in the paper as so:

"In animal societies subordinate individuals generally have a lower social status. Patches of richer food are more likely to be snatched by dominant individuals leaving the subordinate ones with less calorie rich food. Since subordinate individuals are likely to have less as well as insecure access to food, they need to develop a ‘‘thrifty” metabolism and indulge in binge eating. Social subordination is shown to induce high fat intake and weight gain in animals and this would be adaptive for individuals who have only occasional access to rich food.

Unlike ‘doves’ in animal societies, ‘diplomats’ in modern human societies can have higher social status and continued access to calorie rich food. The high calorie availability for physically weak and inactive individuals poses a paradox that is characteristically human and more typical of modern lifestyle."

To test their hypothesis, they put participants in a camp where they participated in "a series of physical exercises, activities and games  that involve neuro-motor actions characteristic of Stone Age hunting or combat."  The study didn't lead to any weight loss, but it did lead to reduced inflammation and improved glycemic control.

Interesting!

Food Guilt

Many kids are often told to "clean their plate" at meals, and to not leave any excess food behind.  There are many seemingly logical reasons behind this: money was spent on the meal, time was spent preparing it, etc.  These encouragements when a person is younger often turn into habits when a person gets older. 

This type of eating is in stark contrast to what I see with my toddler.  First, all food is really eaten "on demand" - whenever it is called for.  Second, I see no guilt whatsoever about not finishing a meal.  In fact, leaving extra food happens more often than leaving none.

Historically, I feel hunter-gatherers probably had a different, healthier attitude to food than what exists today.  If one person didn't want some food, it could be given to someone else.  Certain meats could have been dried out and stored for the next day.  I also imagine that if some fruits and vegetables went to waste, then it was no big deal.  It was probably a much more casual attitude to food in general. 

I am going to work on making my eating more intuitive.  Personally, I too often eat by schedule and eat whatever food I've prepared.  This type of routine eating can probably desensitive hunger cues, which isn't a good thing.  In conclusion, maybe eating doesn't have to be such a serious business. 

Posture and Obesity

I've been reading this interesting study on posture and body weight.  The authors found a strong correlation between increased body weight and a loss of balance.  What's interesting to me is that they also connect being overweight to receiving less tactile information from the feet. 

The study states that being overweight reduces the senesitivty of the receptors in the feet.  Specifically, the authors state that, "the greater pressure values and larger contact areas for the obese persons may reduce the quality and/or quantity of the sensory information arising from the plantar mechanoreceptors."

They also mention a previous study which shows the reverse - that is, losing weight improves posture.  Overall, this relationship doesn't bode well for the United States.  With 2/3 of the population being overweight or obese, you now have 2/3 of the population susceptible to poor posture.

Bogus Bailouts II

It seems the bogus bailouts have set the U.S. government down the wrong path.  The correct response would have been to let the firms who made terrible decisions go out of business.  Instead, they were bailed out, which really will set up only more irresponsible risk-taking in the future.  Now, the government is attempting to mitigate this risk by micromanaging firms and executive pay.

This article reports on how the Treasury is attempting to regulate executive pay at banks.  On one hand, this seems reasonable because the government loaned out billions of dollars, and they should be allowed to attach whatever strings they like.  But this misses the whole point.  If you allow the market system to function like it can, then companies that take excessive risk will suffer the ultimate penalty: they will go out of business.  If you keep bailing them out, they have no incentive to change their behavior.

This bailout will probably lead to an even bigger financial crisis 20 years down the road.  Companies will find a way around these regulations and engage in excessive risk one way or another.  By declaring that some banks are "too big to fail", you are guaranteeing the presence of large, inept banks that will continue to drain taxpayers for decades.

I wish more people understood economics.  

Posture and Resistance Training

Sometimes you read that strength training will improve posture.  I've had my doubts about this, as strength training is designed to build muscle and not necessarily improve symmetry.  In other words, if a person starts off out of alignment, it's possible that weight training may just add muscle on top of a misaligned frame.

This study reviews other studies that have looked at the issue.  They found that there is "a lack of reliable, valid data collected in controlled settings to support the contention that exercise will correct existing postural deviations."  They also state that "it is likely that exercise programs are of insufficient duration and frequency to induce adaptive changes in muscle-tendon length."

This could be a strike against infrequent training.  If you only put your muscles through their full range of motion once a week or so, this may not be enough frequency to correct misalignments.  This goes back to that recent article on fascia, which suggests that frequent movements may be necessary to put muscles back to their optimal length.

Toilets and Back Pain

Last month, Mark Sisson had a post on "Nature's Platform", a product designed to simulate pre-toilet days.  It's the same idea as a "squat toilet", which is used in many developing countries.  As it turns out, modern toilets have only been used extensively in the last couple of centuries, and so humans are not really designed for this type of bathroom setup.

This got me thinking, is it possible that toilets are contributing to the high rate of back pain in developed countries?  I don't mean the actual use of toilets, but what they replace: the deep squat movement.  You would expect functional differences in a person who engages in a deep squat every day (without a toilet) versus a person who can use a toilet and maybe rarely squats at all.  There should be large differences in hip mobility, and I wouldn't be surprised if this connected to back pain.

All this is speculation - I don't have any evidence to support it.  It would be interesting to compare health measures in different countries/areas with regular toilets versus squat toilets.

Vivo Barefoot II

Last month, I wrote about the Vivo Barefoot shoes I purchased.  After weeks of wearing them, I can confirm that they are the most comfortable pair of dress shoes I have ever worn.  My old dress shoes have been officially retired and are now buried somewhere in the closet.

I am very impressed with this product!

Grass-Fed Beef II

I tried the grass-fed beef I bought the other night.  Unfortunately, it wasn't very good.  It was actually grass-fed "stew beef", and so I don't think it was a quality cut.  The regular ground beef actually tastes better.

I will have to try a different source for grass-fed beef.  As it turns out, there are whole bunch of farms with grass-fed beef in Western and Central New York.  You would think that the local supermarkets would be flush with grass-fed beef, but that's not the case.  I'll keep looking around. 

Book Review: The End of Overeating

I read the new book, "The End of Overeating" by David Kessler last month.  I thought it was a pretty informative read.  The book is really a behind-the-scenes look at the food industry.

What the author has uncovered is that food manufacturers are always searching for a magic combination of salt, fat, and sugar.  They are constantly experimenting with ratios and techniques to make their food more addictive.  As firms compete for revenue, they strive to outdo their competitors, and so over time all processed food becomes highly addictive.

This goes for both packaged food and restaurant food.  What amazed me is the production process behind some restaurant food.  Take for example, an entree of grilled chicken.  This often seems like a safe bet, and it's something I often order at restaurants.  So when your order this, all you're getting is just a plain chicken breast, right?

Apparently, no.  Manufacturers even attempt to make this simple dish more addictive.  In some cases, they actually use needles to inject ingredients into the chicken breast during pre-production.  Crazy!

The last section of the book trails off.  The author tries to present a solution to overeating.  He seemed to focus on the psychological side, so I tuned out this section. 

Overall, this was a good read, though it did not have a satisfying ending.  I would have liked some discussion of the Paleo Diet as a solution, but I'm biased.  Still, the book contains a powerful lesson: food manufacturers are trying to make you addicted to their products - not provide you with a healthy food.  Consumers should be aware.

Book Review: Unconditional Parenting

I don't know why I do this to myself.  Every few years I pick up a book by Alfie Kohn, even though whatever previous book I read by him was sub-par.  This time I picked up his book, "Unconditional Parenting".

I agree with the general theme of the book, and that is children shouldn't be treated like lab rats.  For example, I learned that the phrase "time-out" for children is actually short for "time-out from positive reinforcement".  It comes from Skinner and his work on rewards and punishment.

In the short-term, you can manipulate a child's behavior with rewards and punishments, but is that really effective in the long run?  Kohn says no, and I agree.  There are better approaches.  This is not to say that there shouldn't be consequences for actions, but that discipline should be applied from an environment of love and reason.

At any rate, the book deteriorated quickly as I read it.  He made so many logical errors I could hardly keep up.  His work could be massively improved if he looked at child development from an evolutionary perspective.  Nothing about evolution or natural environments was ever mentioned in the book.

Overall, this book gets a thumbs down.