Yep, they're losing their magic. Actually, they started losing it long ago, but Nintendo's still been holding out. But overall video games have just been falling out of favor with me the way TV and even movies have been.
So I bought a Wii a couple weeks ago and have been playing Mario Galaxy 2. Maybe playing it a bit too much. It's good. It's got the high production value I expect. But the whole thing just seems gimmicky. I liked New Super Mario DS better. It seemed more artistic. I'm getting bored quickly with this one. It's good I can save and quit whenever I want. We'll see what the new Zelda is like when that eventually comes out.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Book Review: Wild Swans
The subtitle for Wild Swans is “Three Daughters of China” and is the account of three generation of women starting with the oldest, Yu-Fang, in the era when the Kuomintang ruled China. The entire story is told from the perspective of the youngest Jung Chang. It tells the account of one family’s history through the fall of the Kuomintang and the entire era of Maoism. The book is everything you expect from a good storyline, tales of love, courage, hardship. It is also a very accurate and unflinching account of much of what went on in the Communist Revolution.
The Communist Party was supposed to be the answer to the corrupt practices and exploitation of the Kuomintang. It started out with many devoted loyalists. Anybody who wants to understand how a populace with such loyalty and fervor can slowly be manipulated into the atrocities that occurred under Maoism should read this book. It is as much about human nature and what drives people on a large scale as it is about the three women.
The book is also well-written and enjoyable to read. There are so many passages and stories; it’s hard to pick one that describes its essence. The following passage gives a good sense of the author’s style, as she sums up the effect of the Cultural Revolution.
“Wherever we went as we traveled down the Yangtze we saw the aftermath of the Cultural Revolution: temples smashed, statues toppled, and old towns wrecked. Little evidence remained of China’s ancient civilization. But the loss went even deeper than this. Not only had China destroyed most of its beautiful things, it had lost its appreciation of them, and was unable to make new ones. Except for the much-scarred but still stunning landscape, China had become an ugly country.”
There’s a lot more waiting for the interested reader. This book does not disappoint.
The Communist Party was supposed to be the answer to the corrupt practices and exploitation of the Kuomintang. It started out with many devoted loyalists. Anybody who wants to understand how a populace with such loyalty and fervor can slowly be manipulated into the atrocities that occurred under Maoism should read this book. It is as much about human nature and what drives people on a large scale as it is about the three women.
The book is also well-written and enjoyable to read. There are so many passages and stories; it’s hard to pick one that describes its essence. The following passage gives a good sense of the author’s style, as she sums up the effect of the Cultural Revolution.
“Wherever we went as we traveled down the Yangtze we saw the aftermath of the Cultural Revolution: temples smashed, statues toppled, and old towns wrecked. Little evidence remained of China’s ancient civilization. But the loss went even deeper than this. Not only had China destroyed most of its beautiful things, it had lost its appreciation of them, and was unable to make new ones. Except for the much-scarred but still stunning landscape, China had become an ugly country.”
There’s a lot more waiting for the interested reader. This book does not disappoint.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
The relationship between wealth and community
There is a great line in Nutrition and Physical Degeneration where Weston Price quotes Ernest Thompson Seton on the motive of American Indians as being “fundamentally spiritual, his measure of success is , ‘How much service have I rendered to my people?’”. The importance of such an underlying motive is that it underscores community. And I would like here to introduce a fundamental concept on the nature of wealth. It is not free markets and investment capital that generate wealth; it is communities.
I should define here what I mean by wealth. Wealth is not what we typically think of in the form of money. Wealth is the net sum of all our resources, both human and natural, and it cannot be measured directly. Money is simply a form of purchasing power, and as such, is a claim on existing wealth, not a direct representation of wealth itself. We have many misguided concepts of wealth which have always registered a sort of cognitive dissonance with me. It is my exploration of these concepts that leads me to my current beliefs.
I remember getting upset a few months ago over a dinner conversation, a conversation I was not participating in directly. A friend of mine seemed to be advocating the need for income disparity as it is the wealthier, capitalist class that creates wealth through investment. Investment and ingenuity, it is believed, are what create wealth. I contend that this view warrants a much deeper investigation.
First off, the investment capitalist is looking for a return on investment through no direct effort on his part. In other words, he is looking to extract wealth from an otherwise profitable venture. His justification in doing so is by providing the means for production but in reality it is simply through control of purchasing power. Farmers and small businesses, through inadequate access to purchasing power are dependent on lenders to keep operations going.
This might sound like an attack on capitalism. It is and it isn’t. Despite a fairly free market in goods, I do not believe we have a genuinely free market in capital. To explain this, let me know turn to the concept of money. Money in our economic system is basically a form of debt. It is purchasing power owed from one person to another. Money could also be a medium of exchange backed by a commodity such as wheat or gold.
Where I get interested in the concept of money is with rural communities. There is no reason rural communities couldn’t be entirely self-sufficient, but most often they are heavily interfered with through federal policies and access (or lack thereof) to capital. But why, if they should have access to all the means of production, should they be unable to produce or be self-sufficient? Let us explore the idea of lack of access to capital.
Money does not need to come from outside sources. Indeed, if I write an agreement to pay out on a certain date, such an agreement could be treated as capital. In fact, this is largely what money is, although it operates under the legal framework of the banking system. It would take a community of trusting participants or some form of local currency system to make such a system work on a local scale. But when such a system is not in place, and there is no access to local sources of capital, and credit markets are tight, that is when non-local investors are able to leech the wealth out of a community.
We may view what has happened to rural communities over the past several decades as the inevitable march of progress, but I see it as an unfortunate loss of wealth. Not only of that, but of a way of life. This gets back to the quote I opened with. The net result of viewing capital and labor in the abstract is the devaluation of community. Without the protection of community, time-honored practices are lost in the name of narrow-minded business interests. I will expand on this in later posts, but I would argue that much of the change brought on in agriculture is not producing better food and is not even more efficient, unless efficiency is defined in very narrow terms. It is however highly profitable for a few collected interests.
But why should we honor old practices if they are outmoded or outdated? We should not, and I am not a traditionalist. But we should still leave it to communities and organizations working directly with them to determine what new practices are best. Much of current agricultural policy and beliefs are the result of a few heavily vested interests.
But we should also value community for community’s sake. When I say community, I don’t mean a bunch of self-interested homeowners living in proximity. I mean a network of people that share their lives and values. This is the concept of quality of life over standard of living and it is something many of us would trade for given the choice. The problem with global capital markets, in their devaluation of community, is that they always favor measuring success in terms of standard of living over quality of life, which is much harder to measure or define. They also tend to actually take the choice away from us.
But we should also understand that it is communities that protect and create wealth. The current agricultural model is more akin to a mining paradigm than anything sustainable. Every year nutrients and topsoil are lost while being powered by fossil fuels and supplemented by chemicals. It is input intensive (and as such in my view grossly inefficient) yet this all adds to GNP and is thus viewed as economic strength and therefore wealth. Much of what occurs in our economy operates this way. Not only is wealth being actively destroyed here, what little there is is being siphoned off to urban areas and foreign capital interests.
Communities will naturally protect their own self-interests, and thus will protect their means of creating wealth. But there are some important anti-capitalist concepts that are engendered by communities. They don’t size each other up over petty differences and they lend a hand when others are in need. It’s not self-sacrifice so much as mutual self-interest.
And one final concept I would like to touch on. Valuing quality of life means valuing down-time and leisure-time. It is through this where connections are built and people can find a sense of purpose and meaning. It is a time when people can explore interests and values, connect with each other, or simply unwind. As markets are increasingly liberalized, with credit sources becoming more remote, the pressure is always to increase production. This applies to all industries, not just farming. And I would posit that it is equally destructive in all industries (more or less). It is to the short-term interest of a creditor and the detriment of the longer-term interests of a business, farm, city, nation, etc. There is an excellent book for business managers called Peopleware that delineates exactly this problem. Although geared towards Software Engineering, the principles are general enough to apply to many industries. The central concept is that investing in employees is the same as investing in the company and that trust, mutual self-interest, autonomy, and balanced employee lives lead to the greatest long-term productivity. Of course one or more of these values can be sacrificed in the short-term for a limited amount of increased productivity, say to meet a deadline. But this invariably induces a rebound. The problem when is a business or system chronically operates in this mode.
So carrying this concept forward to farming (one of the main generators of wealth) and to the economy as a whole, it would start to appear that too great a disparity in wealth is simply not going to be a good thing for a nation as a whole. Investors are almost the definition of short-term self-interest. Working for a small contracting company this becomes all the more apparent. Whatever idea a new startup may have, whatever its value to society, the bottom line is always return on investment.
It’s the people that matter, and the communities they create. Take care of that and wealth will take care of itself.
I should define here what I mean by wealth. Wealth is not what we typically think of in the form of money. Wealth is the net sum of all our resources, both human and natural, and it cannot be measured directly. Money is simply a form of purchasing power, and as such, is a claim on existing wealth, not a direct representation of wealth itself. We have many misguided concepts of wealth which have always registered a sort of cognitive dissonance with me. It is my exploration of these concepts that leads me to my current beliefs.
I remember getting upset a few months ago over a dinner conversation, a conversation I was not participating in directly. A friend of mine seemed to be advocating the need for income disparity as it is the wealthier, capitalist class that creates wealth through investment. Investment and ingenuity, it is believed, are what create wealth. I contend that this view warrants a much deeper investigation.
First off, the investment capitalist is looking for a return on investment through no direct effort on his part. In other words, he is looking to extract wealth from an otherwise profitable venture. His justification in doing so is by providing the means for production but in reality it is simply through control of purchasing power. Farmers and small businesses, through inadequate access to purchasing power are dependent on lenders to keep operations going.
This might sound like an attack on capitalism. It is and it isn’t. Despite a fairly free market in goods, I do not believe we have a genuinely free market in capital. To explain this, let me know turn to the concept of money. Money in our economic system is basically a form of debt. It is purchasing power owed from one person to another. Money could also be a medium of exchange backed by a commodity such as wheat or gold.
Where I get interested in the concept of money is with rural communities. There is no reason rural communities couldn’t be entirely self-sufficient, but most often they are heavily interfered with through federal policies and access (or lack thereof) to capital. But why, if they should have access to all the means of production, should they be unable to produce or be self-sufficient? Let us explore the idea of lack of access to capital.
Money does not need to come from outside sources. Indeed, if I write an agreement to pay out on a certain date, such an agreement could be treated as capital. In fact, this is largely what money is, although it operates under the legal framework of the banking system. It would take a community of trusting participants or some form of local currency system to make such a system work on a local scale. But when such a system is not in place, and there is no access to local sources of capital, and credit markets are tight, that is when non-local investors are able to leech the wealth out of a community.
We may view what has happened to rural communities over the past several decades as the inevitable march of progress, but I see it as an unfortunate loss of wealth. Not only of that, but of a way of life. This gets back to the quote I opened with. The net result of viewing capital and labor in the abstract is the devaluation of community. Without the protection of community, time-honored practices are lost in the name of narrow-minded business interests. I will expand on this in later posts, but I would argue that much of the change brought on in agriculture is not producing better food and is not even more efficient, unless efficiency is defined in very narrow terms. It is however highly profitable for a few collected interests.
But why should we honor old practices if they are outmoded or outdated? We should not, and I am not a traditionalist. But we should still leave it to communities and organizations working directly with them to determine what new practices are best. Much of current agricultural policy and beliefs are the result of a few heavily vested interests.
But we should also value community for community’s sake. When I say community, I don’t mean a bunch of self-interested homeowners living in proximity. I mean a network of people that share their lives and values. This is the concept of quality of life over standard of living and it is something many of us would trade for given the choice. The problem with global capital markets, in their devaluation of community, is that they always favor measuring success in terms of standard of living over quality of life, which is much harder to measure or define. They also tend to actually take the choice away from us.
But we should also understand that it is communities that protect and create wealth. The current agricultural model is more akin to a mining paradigm than anything sustainable. Every year nutrients and topsoil are lost while being powered by fossil fuels and supplemented by chemicals. It is input intensive (and as such in my view grossly inefficient) yet this all adds to GNP and is thus viewed as economic strength and therefore wealth. Much of what occurs in our economy operates this way. Not only is wealth being actively destroyed here, what little there is is being siphoned off to urban areas and foreign capital interests.
Communities will naturally protect their own self-interests, and thus will protect their means of creating wealth. But there are some important anti-capitalist concepts that are engendered by communities. They don’t size each other up over petty differences and they lend a hand when others are in need. It’s not self-sacrifice so much as mutual self-interest.
And one final concept I would like to touch on. Valuing quality of life means valuing down-time and leisure-time. It is through this where connections are built and people can find a sense of purpose and meaning. It is a time when people can explore interests and values, connect with each other, or simply unwind. As markets are increasingly liberalized, with credit sources becoming more remote, the pressure is always to increase production. This applies to all industries, not just farming. And I would posit that it is equally destructive in all industries (more or less). It is to the short-term interest of a creditor and the detriment of the longer-term interests of a business, farm, city, nation, etc. There is an excellent book for business managers called Peopleware that delineates exactly this problem. Although geared towards Software Engineering, the principles are general enough to apply to many industries. The central concept is that investing in employees is the same as investing in the company and that trust, mutual self-interest, autonomy, and balanced employee lives lead to the greatest long-term productivity. Of course one or more of these values can be sacrificed in the short-term for a limited amount of increased productivity, say to meet a deadline. But this invariably induces a rebound. The problem when is a business or system chronically operates in this mode.
So carrying this concept forward to farming (one of the main generators of wealth) and to the economy as a whole, it would start to appear that too great a disparity in wealth is simply not going to be a good thing for a nation as a whole. Investors are almost the definition of short-term self-interest. Working for a small contracting company this becomes all the more apparent. Whatever idea a new startup may have, whatever its value to society, the bottom line is always return on investment.
It’s the people that matter, and the communities they create. Take care of that and wealth will take care of itself.
Overview of Chris Masterjohn's report on EFAs
I have recently finished reading Chris Masterjohn’s wonderful report “How Essential Are the Essential Fatty Acids?”, available here for a nominal fee of $15. In this article I’m going to summarize what are the main points as I understood them and then what I think that implies in terms of diet. Overall, I find Chris Masterjohn to be an excellent and well-researched source of information. I’m in pretty solid agreement with Masterjohn’s conclusions but others may feel otherwise. I’m always open to a good debate.
Relevant points from the article concerning essentiallity of EFAs:
The discussion on essential fatty acids (EFAs) and poly-unsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) in general is becoming a pretty heavy topic of late in the blogosphere. The topic is a complex one and I’m going to do my best to give a Layman’s overview.
Masterjohn identifies only two truly essential fatty acids: arachidonic acid (AA) in the Omega-6 family, and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in the Omega-3 family. Both are requisite constituents of cell membranes, but only up to a certain limit. Furthermore, they need to be balanced relative to each other. Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), found in fish oil, is not an EFA. Excess EPA can exacerbate some EFA deficiency symptoms.
The requirements for EFAs as a constituent of the diet are extremely low. They are at most 0.5% of calories during growth or recovery periods. At other times, they are even lower. Since most fats, saturated or not , contain an array of various fatty acids, it would be almost impossible to induce an EFA deficiency through dietary modification.
AA can be synthesized in the body from linoleic acid (LA) and DHA can be synthesized from alpha-linoleic acid (ALA). Therefore, it would presumably be sufficient to supply only AA and ALA in the diet. However, the Omega-3 and Omega-6 families compete for the same enzymes in the conversion process. The body has no regulatory mechanism to control this competition. Therefore, an excess in one family can cause a deficiency in the other. Furthermore, overcomsumption of PUFAs in general decrease the production of these enzymes and exacerbates the problem of competition. DHA and AA supplied directly in the diet do not require enzymes for conversion and thus do not lead to competition.
Although the body has no regulatory mechanism to control competition for enzymes between the Omega-6 and Omega-3 fatty acids, it is capable of controlling cell tissue ratios. This is only true as long as PUFAs remain a small percentage of the diet. As PUFAs percentage of the diet increases, the ratio at which an abundance of one fatty acid family induces a deficiency in the other decreases.
In the modern diet, especially the American diet, it is the overconsumption of Omega-6 fats we are concerned about (especially LA, which is rich in most nuts and vegetable oils). A diet overly rich in Omega-6 fats increases the tissue concentration of highly unsaturated fatty acids. The Omega-6 HUFAs are generally known to be pro-inflammatory whereas the Omega-3 HUFAs are known to be anti-inflammatory. Normally these are supposed to be balanced. When there is a dominance of Omega-6 HUFAs, in general this is associated with more inflammation. Since the degenerative diseases are are associated with inflammation and oxidative stress, we should seek to counter such an imbalance.
Oxidative stress operates in chain reactions. An oxidized PUFA becomes a peroxyl radical which can go on to oxidize another PUFA. This is normally countered by an anti-oxidant, which reacts with the free radical but does not become reactive itself. However, this consumes the anti-oxidant. Therefore it is important to maintain a diet low in oxidative stress and high in anti-oxidant nutrients.
An excess of PUFA in the diet will become stored in the adipose tissue (fat cells). Excess PUFA in adipose tissue draws down serum levels of vitamin E, further exacerbating oxidative stress.
Other relevant points:
Low density lipoprotein is known as bad cholesterol because it is typically the lipoprotein molecule to become damaged and trigger atherosclerosis. I’m not going to get into the details of how or why, but part of the process involves triggering a macrophage to become a foam cell. The specific components of an oxidized LDL particle that turn on the foam cell genes are the oxidized derivatives of LA.
PUFAs themselves contribute to oxidative stress in the body. This is because the typical oxidation reaction requires two double-bonds (thus excluding mono-unsaturated and saturated fats). The body cannot completely mitigate this, even with an abundance of antioxidants such as vitamin E. Therefore, excess dietary PUFA contributes to oxidation and inflammation within the body. CoQ10 slows lipid peroxidation in LDL up to 35 times.
The mammalian body seems geared to eliminate excess PUFA, using it preferentially for energy production (as opposed to structural purposes) even in the presence of extreme EFA deficiency.
The first and second phases of the Diet and Reinfarction Trial (DART) suggest fish-oil supplementation is only beneficial to heart attack survivors on beta-blockers or calcium-channel blockers.
Conclusions / Recommendations:
These conclusions are my own, although they are largely in line with Chris Masterjohn’s. In addition, there are some further points here that come from the EFA report that were not mentioned above.
My conclusions in order by my perception of their relevance:
Severely limit all dietary PUFA. The dietary requirements for EFA are extremely low and can be adequately met with fats that are mostly saturated: butter, lard, etc. All PUFA contributes to oxidative stress and thus to degenerative disease. Increasing dietary PUFA is also likely to exacerbate EFA deficiency. The only reason for supplementing with Omega-3 is because Omega-6 is already too high in the diet. Otherwise, such supplementation is not natural or necessary. In general, this means being on the lookout for all fried foods, processed foods, and commercial sauces or dressings. Be aware that most dressings are made with soybean or canola oil bases and most crackers and chips are also made with vegetable oils. Not only are these high in Omega-6, they are often rancid as well.
Use only fresh, non-rancid fats and use correct preservation methods. Most of the industrial processed fats in our diet are already oxidized (rancid). Your body can do nothing with these fats and must immediately try to stop the oxidative chain reactions they induce. Omega-6 fats are highly prone to rancidity. Omega-3 even more so. In fact, Omega-3 is so prone to rancidity, you will not find it in any commercially prepared food since it is simply not stable enough. Your best sources for these fats are organic grass-fed animal products such as butter, beef, and organ meats. If you can acquire fresh seafood, this is also a good source. Omega-3 fats are easily damaged by cooking so fish should be lightly cooked or raw, as with sushi. Oils should be cold-pressed and stored in dark containers in a cool place. Butter should be kept in a container that limits exposure to oxygen, such as a French butter dish. All excess fats and oils should be refrigerated.
Make sure the diet is high in nutrients. Vitamin E is important in mitigating oxidative stress. Essential vitamins and minerals are required to make the enzymes necessary in the EFA conversion process. Depletion of B6, biotin and essential minerals such as magnesium and calcium exacerbate EFA imbalances and deficiency. Supplementation may be ok, but this can sometimes lead to nutrient imbalances or certain types of toxicity. Vitamins and minerals are always best acquired through fresh, whole foods. Supplements made from whole food sources are preferable to synthetics.
If you are taking a statin, supplement with exogenous CoQ10. Statins decrease endogenous production of CoQ10 and based on my understanding of Masterjohn’s findings, this will greatly increase oxidative stress due to PUFAs.
It may not matter whether the diet is higher fat or higher starch. The human body seems to allow a lot of leeway in dietary preference towards fat or starch. Saturated and mono-unsaturated fats are easily synthesized from excess carbohydrate. In this regard, it may not matter whether one ingests more calories in the form of carbohydrates or fats such as butter and coconut oil. However, keeping dietary fat low will in general also keep PUFA intake low. Carbohydrates should preferentially come from unrefined sources. Root vegetables are best. Brown rice, corn, popcorn, and lentils are also good choices. Bread and pasta are the poorest choices. Do not follow a restrictive diet. Do not severely limit carbohydrates, fats, or calories.
Fish oil supplementation may or may not be a good strategy. The goal here, in my view, would be to overturn a high tissue concentration of Omega-6 HUFA. Once this has been achieved, following an adequate diet, there would be no reason for further Omega-3 supplementation. Any extra EFA supplementation necessarily increases oxidative stress. Note that turning over HUFA tissue concentration is a long term goal, on the order of months to years, and is difficult to measure directly.
Masterjohn recommends cod-liver oil supplementation but only in small quantities and only during healing or growth periods. These are periods such as pregnancy or recovering from an illness. It should be noted that the quality of the cod-liver oil is important in the case of supplementation. It should be properly handled to ensure preservation, have a good balance of EFAs, and also provide sufficient vitamins A and D (without those vitamins being synthetically added).
I will likely write more on this in a future post, with reference to some diagrams, but I've covered the gist of it here. I consider this a good overview for now.
Relevant points from the article concerning essentiallity of EFAs:
The discussion on essential fatty acids (EFAs) and poly-unsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) in general is becoming a pretty heavy topic of late in the blogosphere. The topic is a complex one and I’m going to do my best to give a Layman’s overview.
Masterjohn identifies only two truly essential fatty acids: arachidonic acid (AA) in the Omega-6 family, and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in the Omega-3 family. Both are requisite constituents of cell membranes, but only up to a certain limit. Furthermore, they need to be balanced relative to each other. Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), found in fish oil, is not an EFA. Excess EPA can exacerbate some EFA deficiency symptoms.
The requirements for EFAs as a constituent of the diet are extremely low. They are at most 0.5% of calories during growth or recovery periods. At other times, they are even lower. Since most fats, saturated or not , contain an array of various fatty acids, it would be almost impossible to induce an EFA deficiency through dietary modification.
AA can be synthesized in the body from linoleic acid (LA) and DHA can be synthesized from alpha-linoleic acid (ALA). Therefore, it would presumably be sufficient to supply only AA and ALA in the diet. However, the Omega-3 and Omega-6 families compete for the same enzymes in the conversion process. The body has no regulatory mechanism to control this competition. Therefore, an excess in one family can cause a deficiency in the other. Furthermore, overcomsumption of PUFAs in general decrease the production of these enzymes and exacerbates the problem of competition. DHA and AA supplied directly in the diet do not require enzymes for conversion and thus do not lead to competition.
Although the body has no regulatory mechanism to control competition for enzymes between the Omega-6 and Omega-3 fatty acids, it is capable of controlling cell tissue ratios. This is only true as long as PUFAs remain a small percentage of the diet. As PUFAs percentage of the diet increases, the ratio at which an abundance of one fatty acid family induces a deficiency in the other decreases.
In the modern diet, especially the American diet, it is the overconsumption of Omega-6 fats we are concerned about (especially LA, which is rich in most nuts and vegetable oils). A diet overly rich in Omega-6 fats increases the tissue concentration of highly unsaturated fatty acids. The Omega-6 HUFAs are generally known to be pro-inflammatory whereas the Omega-3 HUFAs are known to be anti-inflammatory. Normally these are supposed to be balanced. When there is a dominance of Omega-6 HUFAs, in general this is associated with more inflammation. Since the degenerative diseases are are associated with inflammation and oxidative stress, we should seek to counter such an imbalance.
Oxidative stress operates in chain reactions. An oxidized PUFA becomes a peroxyl radical which can go on to oxidize another PUFA. This is normally countered by an anti-oxidant, which reacts with the free radical but does not become reactive itself. However, this consumes the anti-oxidant. Therefore it is important to maintain a diet low in oxidative stress and high in anti-oxidant nutrients.
An excess of PUFA in the diet will become stored in the adipose tissue (fat cells). Excess PUFA in adipose tissue draws down serum levels of vitamin E, further exacerbating oxidative stress.
Other relevant points:
Low density lipoprotein is known as bad cholesterol because it is typically the lipoprotein molecule to become damaged and trigger atherosclerosis. I’m not going to get into the details of how or why, but part of the process involves triggering a macrophage to become a foam cell. The specific components of an oxidized LDL particle that turn on the foam cell genes are the oxidized derivatives of LA.
PUFAs themselves contribute to oxidative stress in the body. This is because the typical oxidation reaction requires two double-bonds (thus excluding mono-unsaturated and saturated fats). The body cannot completely mitigate this, even with an abundance of antioxidants such as vitamin E. Therefore, excess dietary PUFA contributes to oxidation and inflammation within the body. CoQ10 slows lipid peroxidation in LDL up to 35 times.
The mammalian body seems geared to eliminate excess PUFA, using it preferentially for energy production (as opposed to structural purposes) even in the presence of extreme EFA deficiency.
The first and second phases of the Diet and Reinfarction Trial (DART) suggest fish-oil supplementation is only beneficial to heart attack survivors on beta-blockers or calcium-channel blockers.
Conclusions / Recommendations:
These conclusions are my own, although they are largely in line with Chris Masterjohn’s. In addition, there are some further points here that come from the EFA report that were not mentioned above.
My conclusions in order by my perception of their relevance:
Severely limit all dietary PUFA. The dietary requirements for EFA are extremely low and can be adequately met with fats that are mostly saturated: butter, lard, etc. All PUFA contributes to oxidative stress and thus to degenerative disease. Increasing dietary PUFA is also likely to exacerbate EFA deficiency. The only reason for supplementing with Omega-3 is because Omega-6 is already too high in the diet. Otherwise, such supplementation is not natural or necessary. In general, this means being on the lookout for all fried foods, processed foods, and commercial sauces or dressings. Be aware that most dressings are made with soybean or canola oil bases and most crackers and chips are also made with vegetable oils. Not only are these high in Omega-6, they are often rancid as well.
Use only fresh, non-rancid fats and use correct preservation methods. Most of the industrial processed fats in our diet are already oxidized (rancid). Your body can do nothing with these fats and must immediately try to stop the oxidative chain reactions they induce. Omega-6 fats are highly prone to rancidity. Omega-3 even more so. In fact, Omega-3 is so prone to rancidity, you will not find it in any commercially prepared food since it is simply not stable enough. Your best sources for these fats are organic grass-fed animal products such as butter, beef, and organ meats. If you can acquire fresh seafood, this is also a good source. Omega-3 fats are easily damaged by cooking so fish should be lightly cooked or raw, as with sushi. Oils should be cold-pressed and stored in dark containers in a cool place. Butter should be kept in a container that limits exposure to oxygen, such as a French butter dish. All excess fats and oils should be refrigerated.
Make sure the diet is high in nutrients. Vitamin E is important in mitigating oxidative stress. Essential vitamins and minerals are required to make the enzymes necessary in the EFA conversion process. Depletion of B6, biotin and essential minerals such as magnesium and calcium exacerbate EFA imbalances and deficiency. Supplementation may be ok, but this can sometimes lead to nutrient imbalances or certain types of toxicity. Vitamins and minerals are always best acquired through fresh, whole foods. Supplements made from whole food sources are preferable to synthetics.
If you are taking a statin, supplement with exogenous CoQ10. Statins decrease endogenous production of CoQ10 and based on my understanding of Masterjohn’s findings, this will greatly increase oxidative stress due to PUFAs.
It may not matter whether the diet is higher fat or higher starch. The human body seems to allow a lot of leeway in dietary preference towards fat or starch. Saturated and mono-unsaturated fats are easily synthesized from excess carbohydrate. In this regard, it may not matter whether one ingests more calories in the form of carbohydrates or fats such as butter and coconut oil. However, keeping dietary fat low will in general also keep PUFA intake low. Carbohydrates should preferentially come from unrefined sources. Root vegetables are best. Brown rice, corn, popcorn, and lentils are also good choices. Bread and pasta are the poorest choices. Do not follow a restrictive diet. Do not severely limit carbohydrates, fats, or calories.
Fish oil supplementation may or may not be a good strategy. The goal here, in my view, would be to overturn a high tissue concentration of Omega-6 HUFA. Once this has been achieved, following an adequate diet, there would be no reason for further Omega-3 supplementation. Any extra EFA supplementation necessarily increases oxidative stress. Note that turning over HUFA tissue concentration is a long term goal, on the order of months to years, and is difficult to measure directly.
Masterjohn recommends cod-liver oil supplementation but only in small quantities and only during healing or growth periods. These are periods such as pregnancy or recovering from an illness. It should be noted that the quality of the cod-liver oil is important in the case of supplementation. It should be properly handled to ensure preservation, have a good balance of EFAs, and also provide sufficient vitamins A and D (without those vitamins being synthetically added).
I will likely write more on this in a future post, with reference to some diagrams, but I've covered the gist of it here. I consider this a good overview for now.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
OC Remix of the day
So one of the things I like to listen to are OC Remixes, which is essentially a big archive of remixed video game music over at ocremix.org. I already linked an OC Remix in a previous entry titled "Every Two Weeks".
This remix mixes in parts from Malcolm X's speech, "The Ballot or the Bullet". It has nice piano melodies and kind of a hip-hop feel.
A Dream is not a Mission
This remix mixes in parts from Malcolm X's speech, "The Ballot or the Bullet". It has nice piano melodies and kind of a hip-hop feel.
A Dream is not a Mission
Monday, July 12, 2010
Why I still like video games
So yes, I still like video games. I still find myself periodically working through the Mario and Zelda games. But I find myself pretty much limiting myself to these two game series and not playing much else. I went through a period of exploration about a year or so ago, trying to find more games that suit my fancy, but there wasn’t much.
I guess it depends on what you’re looking for. One thing I think Nintendo gets: not everybody is looking for the most powerful graphical experience. It’s kind of a dead-end road anyway. The more the limits get pushed, the more limited everything feels. Some of just want nice simple things to help us relax.
So what do Mario and Zelda offer? A nice simple game interface. Colorful, relaxed gameplay with simple storylines (if any). And one thing I appreciate about these games: way after everything pushed so heavily into the first-person shooter genre, they still focus on whimsical, almost childlike level designs. It’s the kind of stuff I wanted to put in video games back when I was geek enough to still attempt writing them. And the last thing I like: you can pretty much pick up and leave off whenever and wherever you want, especially with the Zelda games. This means if I play for 15 minutes and then no longer feel like it, I’m done. That’s it. No worrying about the next save point or completing the mission, or what have you. Granted this is not completely true, but I’m amazed to the extent Nintendo just allows you to stop and save whenever you want.
And finally, Mario and Zelda are a form of relaxation for me. Most TV shows don’t work that well because I feel the authors are always trying to push their own views. They usually make most people look dumber as a group than they actually are. And besides there’s way too many TV shows to even care about. I can pretty much limit to Mario and Zelda, because even with infrequent releases there’s enough content to keep me going even at a slow pace. And I don’t always play video games either. It kind of comes in phases.
And I like the quality of Mario and Zelda. You can tell they are games Nintendo takes time to put quality into. The designers probably have a huge sense of pride and accomplishment. The quality really does show in these games.
I guess it depends on what you’re looking for. One thing I think Nintendo gets: not everybody is looking for the most powerful graphical experience. It’s kind of a dead-end road anyway. The more the limits get pushed, the more limited everything feels. Some of just want nice simple things to help us relax.
So what do Mario and Zelda offer? A nice simple game interface. Colorful, relaxed gameplay with simple storylines (if any). And one thing I appreciate about these games: way after everything pushed so heavily into the first-person shooter genre, they still focus on whimsical, almost childlike level designs. It’s the kind of stuff I wanted to put in video games back when I was geek enough to still attempt writing them. And the last thing I like: you can pretty much pick up and leave off whenever and wherever you want, especially with the Zelda games. This means if I play for 15 minutes and then no longer feel like it, I’m done. That’s it. No worrying about the next save point or completing the mission, or what have you. Granted this is not completely true, but I’m amazed to the extent Nintendo just allows you to stop and save whenever you want.
And finally, Mario and Zelda are a form of relaxation for me. Most TV shows don’t work that well because I feel the authors are always trying to push their own views. They usually make most people look dumber as a group than they actually are. And besides there’s way too many TV shows to even care about. I can pretty much limit to Mario and Zelda, because even with infrequent releases there’s enough content to keep me going even at a slow pace. And I don’t always play video games either. It kind of comes in phases.
And I like the quality of Mario and Zelda. You can tell they are games Nintendo takes time to put quality into. The designers probably have a huge sense of pride and accomplishment. The quality really does show in these games.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)