I See Red Meat

Posted on March 16, 2012 by musther

An article recently published in the journal ‘Archives of Internal Medicine’, entitled ‘Red Meat and Mortality‘ has been attracting quite extensive coverage by the mainstream media. The article quite simply concludes that there is a correlation between red meat consumption and risk of death, specifically from heart disease and cancer.

The paper reports on data for males in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, and females from the Nurses’ Health Study. The analysis thus contained extensive dietary, lifestyle and health data for over 120,000 Americans for over 20 years.

Figure 1: Association of red meat intake with all-cause mortality. A - The Health Professionals Follow-up Study; B - The Nurses' Health Study.

The study controlled for lifestyle factors, such as smoking and exercise, as well as personal risk factors such as familial incidence of heart disease and cancer, and weight. The very thorough analysis revealed a correlation between red meat intake and death from all causes (as can be seen in Figure 1).

It is very important in observational studies such as these to correct for confounding variables, such as exercise and smoking. It is debatable however, whether risk factors such as familial incidence of heart disease, should be adjusted for. It is possible that a familial pattern of heart disease is connected to familial dietary habits, in which case this study would underestimate the effect of diet.

It should be noted at this point, that the data did distinguish between processed and unprocessed red meat. Although processed red meat consumption carried a higher risk of mortality, the correlation also existed for unprocessed red meat.

I have previously discussed the concept of a ‘balanced diet’, and I suggested that maybe, in fact, no balance point exists, but rather a continuum from one extreme to another. Figure 1 supports this view in terms of red meat and mortality. There is no optimum level of red meat consumption, the lower the consumption, the lower the risk. The paper notes that this trend continues to the lowest levels of red meat consumption recorded. As can be seen from Figure 1, the risk of all-cause mortality rises most rapidly at the lowest levels of red meat consumption.

The way these results are presented to the public is confusing. The Dominion Post carried an interview with Dr Frank B. Hu, regarding the research. The interview was used to somewhat moderate the results, with the final quote from Dr Hu reading “We’re not talking about everyone becoming a vegetarian – I think a small amount of red meat is still okay as part of a healthy diet”. While this may well be Dr Hu’s opinion, it isn’t what the data suggested, nor is it what was concluded in the paper bearing his name. It’s very unlikely, especially based on the evidence of one paper, that members of the public will become vegetarians. However it should be the job of the scientists to bring the findings to the public, not to provide guidelines or suggestions based on subjectivity.

The paper was accompanied in publication by an article, written by Dr Dean Ornish, entitled ‘Holy Cow! What’s Good For You Is Good For Our Planet’. This article comments on the findings of ‘Red Meat and Mortality’, and incorporates them into the existing body of evidence. Dr Ornish is well known for advocating a plant-based whole-foods diet, based on the evidence of nutritional research. In this article he also discusses the vast environmental impact of raising meat, and the environmental savings which can be achieved by consuming plant-based diets.

The paper ‘Red Meat and Mortality’ was produced by the Harvard School of Public Health. Doctors Hu and Willett, both co-authors of the present paper, have previously criticised T. Colin Campbell Ph.D for conclusions about animal and plant based diets and their relation to chronic disease in his book ‘The China Study’. Their grounds for criticism were that the Nurses’ Health Study did not find the associations between animal products and cardiovascular disease and cancer, which Campbell asserted were shown generally by the body of nutritional research. It is gratifying that the two schools of thought have now become somewhat more compatible. Indeed, Dr Willett advocated a largely, if not entirely, vegetarian diet in an article entitled ‘Essentials of Healthy Eating: a guide‘.

Figure 2: Hazard ratios and 95% CIs (error bars) for total mortality associated with replacement of other food groups for red meat intake.

It would be wrong to say that the authors of ‘Red Meat and Mortality’ have come to agree with the diet proposed by Dr Ornish and Dr Campbell, indeed, they suggest replacing red meat with a host of protein sources, including poultry and fish. They demonstrated a decrease in mortality risk associated with consumption of nuts, legumes, low-fat dairy products, whole-grains, poultry or fish as a replacement for a serving of red meat (Figure 2). As is typically the case, the data simply wasn’t available to determine whether abstinence from all animal products would afford an even greater reduction in mortality risk. We still need a large scale study of people eating the Ornish/Campbell/Esselstyn diet, but the populations do not presently exist.

This paper provides one more piece of the nutritional puzzle; the picture becomes clearer, but we still have a long way to go.

Two Months on a Plant-Based Whole-Foods Diet

Posted on March 3, 2012 by musther

This short article, unlike my previous writings on the subject of nutrition, is entirely subjective. I have been following a plant-based, whole-foods diet, inspired by the reported health benefits, for approximately two months now, and have been asked the detail my experiences.

From here on in, I’ll simply refer to the diet as PBWF. Wherever possible, it is minimally processed. This is not a raw food diet, foods are cooked and prepared, but include whole-grains, brown rice, and a minimum of refined products.

PBWF eating is fun. When I was getting ready to move onto a PBWF diet, I read that one should view it as a license to eat a vast range (and vast quantity) of food, rather than as being restrictive. In these terms, PBWF eating is satisfying and enjoyable. I rapidly filled the fridge with fruit and vegetables, and made sure it was empty of all animal products. And I began to eat.

In the initial week I had some slight intestinal discomfort. This was very mild, but rather surprising. I was amazed that simply removing animal products from what I considered to be a pretty healthy diet, had given my gut a shock. After about five days, this was completely gone.

The PBWF diet contains three general groups of foods; fruits and vegetables, grains, and beans and pulses. They are different nutritionally, and how they are combined to form a diet varies considerably from person to person. My diet involves a lot of fruit and vegetables, quite a lot of grain-based products, and a moderate amount of beans and pulses.

I am eating a lot. It takes a lot of eating to satisfy ones energy requirements with plant based foods. This is good, because I like eating! My hunger-eating response seems to be in better tune. When I feel hungry, I don’t feel as hungry as I did on a conventional diet, when I feel full, I don’t feel over-full. I tend to eat more snacks; fruit and leftovers. I sometimes have four meals a day. But I’ve lost weight. When I started, I was a few kilograms heavier than I consider to be approximately optimum for me. Those few kilograms fell away quite rapidly, and then my weight stabilised.

My energy levels seem more consistent. I don’t seem to need as much sleep. I don’t seem to get overly tired, and find it easier to get out of bed in the morning. I have more desire to go and do something, to go for a walk, that kind of thing. Perhaps coupled with energy, I feel more psychologically centred, more stable, in control, balanced.

I am aware that listing the things I see as improvements makes my life before the change sound… a little dire. This isn’t the case, most of these changes are quite subtle. The biggest change is the aforementioned hunger-eating response.

To summarise, I feel very happy on this diet; balanced, alert, motivated, and at a healthy weight. Eating when I feel hungry, eating a vast range of fresh and delicious food.

When out and about, there is the possibility of feeling restricted – eating out is a limited experience. I plan to eat ‘traditional’ meals when I go out – and indeed have done so, but I did get some intestinal discomfort from one.

This diet is enjoyable, satisfying, reportedly healthful, and environmentally sound. I would definitely recommend trying it for a month or two.

Faithful Reductionism

Posted on March 3, 2012 by musther

There are, not to put too fine a point on it, disagreements between atheists and the faithful; It is a simple and self-evident truth. While disagreements are not inherently productive, and may be extremely counter-productive, their discussion is vital for innovation, discovery, and personal and social growth. The problem, however, is that discussion of the disagreements between these starkly opposed camps, can never truly take place.

Crudely, atheists reject the notion of a deity, while theists have faith in one or more deities. Atheists are typically convinced by logic and science, while theists have faith in the intangible, provided by their religion or by personal experience. This, in a nutshell, is the source of the disagreement. While debates typically center around the merits of one or other perception of the universe, or the distinction between faith and logic, the core of the matter is the presence, or lack, or faith.

Historians, humanitarians, scientists and logicians can, with relative ease, demonstrate the shortcomings of most religions. Whether basing their critique on internal inconsistencies, scientific evidence, or more abstract notions of social liberty and happiness, atheists run amok, tugging at the loose threads of orthodoxies. But all of these arguments are based on logic and evidence, and as a result fall limply against the faith of the theists.

Faith trumps reason. This is an important concept: faith always trumps reason. Always. This is not to suggest that the faithful are entirely illogical, but in a contest between logic and faith, faith will win. It is this defining characteristic of faith which leads some creationists, when confronted with dinosaur fossils, to assert that they are a test from god, a temptation from some evil force, or simply a human fabrication. Faith trumps reason and evidence – lots of evidence.

But surely faith must have some sort of internal logic? After all, follows of religions show atheistic dismissal towards other faiths. Take, for example, the Mormon religion. It was constructed from a base of Christianity in the 1830s by Joseph Smith. It is easy to see, in the historical record, the development of the religion. Mainstream Christians dismiss Mormonism on the grounds that Joseph Smith was not receiving revelations from god, but was either delusional, or simply fabricating a complex religious system. Similarly, followers of most religions use logical arguments to dismiss Scientology as a fiction created by L. Ron Hubbard. Faith, it seems, is entirely selective.

The doctrines of all religions, not just Mormonism and Scientology, seem susceptible to unravelling by atheists with a little research. When the religion itself is shown to be lacking in this way, the faith remains, as well it should. Religious conviction is not born of dogma and doctrines, but of faith itself. The faithful allow logical arguments to dismiss religious teachings, and they allow their personal bias to dismiss or uphold teachings which resonate with them. Christianity, Judaism and Islam all contain some brutal commandments, which most of their modern followers choose to ignore. Uncomfortably for people following a defined religion, this suggests that any faith should be entirely personal. Logical arguments may dismantle the religion, but will leave personal faith.

Personal faith may be extremely problematic. A personal relationship with god, a two-way communication, has been the motivation for numerous killings. Where is the line between faith and delusion? Talking to god is an accepted part of most people’s faith – but is it delusional? The answer seems to be that it is only delusional if their communication with god is outside of a widely accepted orthodoxy. And so the faithful rely on their religion, however it may be demonstrated to be fabricated, conflicted, or harmful, to act as a system of checks and balances on their personal faith.

We ultimately arrive at the age-old problem of selecting a religion. Most religions believe themselves to be the only true faith, and the faithful consider themselves to have stumbled on the true path to god/the gods. Religious adherence is clearly environmental – if one is a Christian, are all the Muslims delusional – if one is a Jew, are the Buddhists? If they are not delusional, then why has god revealed a contradictory religious system to them?

Logic cannot argue against faith, but it may be able to debate religious adherence. Of course, faith is used to defend the religion to which the faithful belong. And as we know, faith trumps reason.

The Diet Feud

Posted on February 23, 2012 by musther

We have all heard, at one time or another, that it is impolite to discuss religion or politics at the dinner table. Not discussing such evocative topics is a method of engineering a peaceful mealtime environment. But how about discussion of the meal itself – could that, too, be a source of strife?

Most people enjoy eating, and they enjoy eating their diet – which is not only cultural, but also extremely personal. Diet is necessarily universal, but the range of diets enjoyed by humans around the world is simply staggering. From Arctic Eskimos who in the 1920′s, were reported to rely on fish and mammalian foods for 80-100% of their calorific intake (although this has been disputed), to Mediterranean populations who eat an extremely high-plant diet, all seem, at first glance, to thrive. It is therefore unsurprising that dietary criticisms are often met with abrupt defence – not a relaxing topic for the dinner table.

The nutrition landscape is densely populated, and confusion is rife. Self-proclaimed experts jostle for position amongst researchers, health professionals, and industry representatives. There is also very significant overlap, as industry groups fund research and lobbying, and provide educational information. Industry funded organisations such as the Centre for Consumer Freedom espouse the notion that consumers should eat whatever they want, while simultaneously promoting the fast-food products of their supporters. Unsurprisingly, the message that it is okay to do whatever one wants is a popular one!

From this confusion, is it possible to draw any real conclusions about the health benefits of any specific diet? Certainly we are familiar with the claims of self-proclaimed diet experts, although these are usually intended for weight-loss rather than overall health benefits. Dr Robert Atkins created one of the first popular weight-loss programs, the Atkins Nutritional Approach. This low-carbohydrate programme may result in weight loss, but may also result in “complications such as heart arrhythmias, cardiac contractile function impairment, sudden death, osteoporosis, kidney damage, increased cancer risk, impairment of physical activity and lipid abnormalities”. More recently, the South Beach Diet has become popular, even in the face of significant criticism. In the case of both the South Beach Diet, and the Atkins Nutritional Approach, the creators were cardiologists; doctors whom the public should be able to trust for nutritional information.

In a nutritional camp a great distance from the likes of Dr Atkins, a group of doctors and nutritionists suggest that the bulk of scientific evidence does point to single health-promoting diet. Among the best know of this group are T. Colin Campbell Ph.D, and doctors Dean Michael Ornish, John A. McDougall and Caldwell Blakeman Esselstyn. They conclude that a diet consisting of plant-based whole-foods, is health promoting, and the further from this diet one moves, the higher the risk of chronic diseases. To clarify, a plant-based whole-foods diet consists of plant-based foods which are minimally processed. This does not mean raw foods, it simply excludes or minimises highly refined food products, such as white bread, refined sugar and potato chips.

There is a large amount of evidence supporting claims that diet can have an enormous impact on heat disease. The plant-based whole-foods diet has been shown to prevent, halt, and even reverse heart disease. Much research surrounding diet and heat disease has been carried out, stretching back to the Framingham Study which began in 1948, and identified the common risk factors of heart disease. More recent epidemiological work, such as the China Study, supported the ‘risk factors’ view, but suggested that these risk factors were not simply predictors of heart disease, but themselves functions of diet.

Dr Caldwell Esselstyn worked as a cardiologist at the prestigious Cleveland Clinic, where he developed a programme of preventative cardiology. His programme was centred on a plant-based whole-foods diet, and successfully treated many patients. Dr Esselstyn wrote, in T. Colin Campbell’s 2006 book The China Study that the results achieved with the programme were consistently better than those achieved using conventional drug-based approaches. In 2000 Dr Esselstyn retired, but he continued to try to persuade the Cleveland Clinic to continue the programme he initiated.

I have now treated a number of senior staff with coronary disease at the [Cleveland] Clinic – senior staff physicians. I have also treated a number of senior staff trustees. One of the trustees knows about the frustrations we’ve had trying to get [the diet-based preventative programme] into the Clinic, and he says, “I think, if the word gets out that Esselstyn has this treatment that arrests and reverses this disease at the Cleveland Clinic, and it’s been used by senior staff and he’s treated senior trustees, but he’s not permitted to treat the common herd, we could be open for a lawsuit”.

It’s a strange state of affairs; a proven treatment, supported by research, is being passively shot down. There is an adherence to the status quo, a resistance to alternative ides, which is evident throughout the literature. One typical examples states that “in vegetarians, a decrease of ischemic heart disease mortality was observed probably due to lower total serum cholesterol levels, lower prevalence of obesity and higher consumption of antioxidants”. This statement implies that the lower serum cholesterol levels, lower obesity and higher consumption of antioxidants were unrelated to diet rather than, as appears more logical, a direct result of it. The tone of this article, particularly the conclusion, implies that vegetarian diets do not have an overall effect on health and mortality, while the data suggests the opposite.

The literature is full of such assumptions and misinterpretations. For a long time vegetarians, and in particular vegans have been told that they cannot obtain enough protein from their diet. Searching PubMed, ProQuest and Google Scholar, I was unable to find any reports of protein deficiency in vegans in developed countries. So the argument turned to amino acids – surely vegans cannot obtain all of the eight (or so) human-essential amino acids from plant-based foods. When presented with the well established evidence however, even the American Dietetic Association acknowledges that they can. The vegan community is quick to point to athletes and bodybuilders who eat no animal products, as a demonstration that ample protein can be obtained from plant sources.

Most of the epidemiological research comparing chronic disease in vegans/vegetarians with omnivores, focuses on the health claims of the vegetarian/vegan camp. While this is entirely understandable, it often leads the researchers to compare vegans and vegetarians only to the most ‘health conscious’ omnivores. This comparison relies on an enormous assumption – that all vegans/vegetarians follow their diets for health reasons. It seems likely that the two most common reasons for following a vegan/vegetarian diet are a belief in animal rights, and a particular cultural heritage. Put simply, the research compares omnivores who follow health-concious diets, exercise, and generally take care of themselves, with vegetarians/vegans who may not be health conscious. It is perfectly possible to be a vegetarian and eat nothing but cheese and potato chips. This is a significant flaw in methodology.

An additional problem encountered in research is the low number of vegans in the general population. Lacto-ovo vegetarians (those who eat dairy and eggs) may consume high levels of these animal products as a ‘substitute’ for meat. From the standpoint of the plant-based whole-foods diet, these products may have similar detrimental health effects to meat. Based on that speculation, the lacto-ovo vegetarians should perhaps be grouped with the omnivores, not the vegans.

These are but a few of the challenges facing research in this field, especially when it is carried out in westernised countries. It is for this reason that the China Study, comparing populations in rural China, and intervention studies, such as those conducted by Dr Esselstyn, are so valuable.

It is worth noting that the diet regimes, as well as the science conducted by the supporters of the plant-based whole-foods diet do not receive much professional criticism. Of course, fine points of research can be debated, and certain conclusions questioned, but on the whole, their interpretations have stood the test of peer-review. T. Colin Campbell’s book The China Study, which does much to summarise the science, has generally been well received by others in the field. Arguments agains the diet have been made based on evolutionary evidence which suggests humans evolved consuming a high animal-protein diet.

So what of other chronic diseases, can they too be mitigated by diet? The evidence regarding heart disease is the most compelling, however that is partly a function of the sheer volume that has been carried out. Other diseases for which there is compelling evidence are obesity (1 2 3 4 5 6) and type II diabetes (1 2 3 4 5). Risk of osteoporosis may be increased with consumption of animal products, particularly dairy products – this has been discussed previously. The risk of various cancers is believed to be related to diet. Certainly, obesity is a very strong risk factor, and consumption of ‘excessive’ red meat, and a lack of whole-foods, vegetables, fruits and grains, has been linked to various cancers. T. Colin Campbell and others believe that there is a fundamental link between animal products and cancer. In animal trials, his research group was able to demonstrate a remarkable correlation between liver cancer development and animal protein consumption – while plant protein consumption suppressed cancer growth and progression.

The term ‘balanced diet’ is widely used. It implies that all foods are okay in moderation; a healthy diet is one which is moderate in many things, and excessive in none. But this idea is not as intuitive as it as first sounds. We can see that high animal-product, high protein, high fat, low plant-product diets (such as the Atkins Nutritional Approach) are generally unhealthy. They have many potential side effects, including sudden death, and typically adherents are advised to take supplements to compensate for low intake of certain micronutrients. Intuitively, it seems that a diet consisting entirely of animal products would spell health disaster, while a diet consisting entirely of plant products, is demonstrably healthful. This does not support the concept of balance, rather it suggests – admittedly subjectively – a continuum from one extreme to the other. It may be that there is a ‘health optimum’ which involves some animal product consumption, but it is far closer to a plant-based diet than our typical western diet.

The research is not conclusive, and this is hardly surprising. We now consider smoking to be extremely detrimental to health, but it took a disturbingly long time for us to realise that it was detrimental at all. The endless variation of diet and the complexities of biological systems ensure that coming to any definitive conclusions will remain extremely difficult.

All we need is a large population of vegans, living an otherwise western diet, so we can research them for the next 80 years…

There is a multitude of reading material surrounding this topic, but probably the best place to start is T. Colin Campbell’s The China Study, and the critiques thereof, links are provided below. For those who would rather watch a movie, try the 2011 documentary Forks Over Knives.

On the pro plant-based whole-foods diet side
The China Study – T. Colin Campbell
Campbell summarises much research, and presents a case for the health benefits of the diet. While other books are perhaps a little more accessible, this provides the best summary of the science. It is not a scientific treatise; Campbell describes it as a documentation of his logical journey through disparate research which overwhelmingly drew a consistent picture.

For criticism of the plant-based whole-foods diet
The Protein Debate – Loren Cordain, PhD; T. Colin Campbell, PhD
This is an excellent debate, well reasoned and thought provoking. The evolutionary argument is intriguing, but may not apply to modern humans – after all, we all hope for a longer life-expectancy than our distant ancestors.
The China Study – A Formal Analysis and Response – Denise Minger
This is a poorly constructed criticism by a young woman with no scientific training. It serves to demonstrate the vigilance which one must use on the internet. The criticism is well written, but poorly reasoned and shows a poor understanding of the science involved. It is essential to also read Campbell’s first response and, more importantly his final response to Minger.
Reply to TC Campbell – Frank B Hu and Walter Willett
A well reasoned and argued criticism from scientists involved in the Nurses’ Health Study. Note Campbell’s criticism of the Nurses’ Health Study, and Hu and Willett’s criticism of Campbell’s international studies.

Why are Kiwis obsessive about milk?

Posted on February 8, 2012 by musther

Milk makes New Zealand headlines yet again. It is understandable that we hear a lot about milk – after all, the dairy industry is keeping our economy afloat – but why do we care so deeply about what it costs us at the supermarket?

Kiwis are convinced that milk is some sort of essential staple food, which we should have cheap and ready access to. Complaints abound when prices rise, as if humans couldn’t survive without an adequate intake of cows’ milk.

We all know that milk is essential, that it is nature’s super-food… don’t we? Firstly we should consider what we’re told about milk, everybody knows that milk is an excellent source of calcium and protein. It’s also a source of certain fats (depending on how it has been processed), cholesterol and some sugars (lactose for example). According to Fonterra milk is also a great source of phosphorous, potassium, magnesium, zinc, vitamin A and the B vitamins. Perhaps we should think about the absolute quantities, because elsewhere Fonterra are reduced to phrases like ‘almost as much potassium as a banana’ and ‘nearly 75 per cent of the vitamin A in half a cup of cooked broccoli [a small serving]‘. It is also true that pasteurisation decreases the concentration of some vitamins in milk, however this is considered to be negligible due to the very low concentrations of these vitamins prior to pasteurisation. Indeed, Anchor do not specify any vitamin or mineral concentration, beyond those of sodium and calcium, on their packaging.

So what are we realistically being offered by milk? Protein, calcium and of course, energy. But why do any of these have to come from milk? Most of us regularly consume far more protein than we need, and it is now widely accepted that we can obtain an ample supply of all the essential amino acids (building blocks of proteins) even from a wholly plant-based diet. The claim of milk being a somehow essential protein source seems to be flagging.

And what of calcium? Milk does contain a high concentration of calcium, but this doesn’t magically mean that other foods are calcium deficient. Many foods contain useful concentrations of calcium; fruits and nuts, grains, pulses, fish, green vegetables. Even drinking ‘hard’ water may provide significant amounts of calcium. Furthermore, many manufactured foods such as bread and cereals are fortified with calcium. There seems to be no correlation between consuming dairy, and having healthy calcium status. Searching PubMed, ProQuest and Google Scholar, I was unable to find any reports of calcium deficiency being a problem in vegans (who consume no dairy, or meat, at all).

Perhaps this ‘essential superfood’ is no more than tradition and marketing hype? But could it even be harmful to us? The dairy industry says no, the research says… possibly.

It has long been known that countries with high average dairy consumption have a higher rate of hip fracture than those with low average dairy consumption. Doesn’t high dairy consumption result in strong bones? The epidemiological evidence is compelling, but not conclusive. More recently, prospective studies have found the same effect in controlled populations. And very recently, a large meta-study (combining the results of many pervious studies) found that there was no protective effect against fractures and osteoporosis, from the consumption of milk.

A recent review of the research surrounding milk consumption and possible health effects in infants, noted that milk consumption negatively impacted their iron status (whether by inhibition of uptake or other processes). The review also mentioned that lactose intolerance can be a significant issue for infants, leading to impaired digestion and absorbance of nutrients, as well as discomfort.

There has been ongoing debate over whether early cows’ milk consumption in infants (particularly prior to 6 months of age) is implicated in the development of type I diabetes mellitus. Type I diabetes is the life-long form of the disease. The issue is undoubtably complex, with likely genetic and environmental elements, but a review of the research concluded that early exposure to cows’ milk may be ‘an important determinant of subsequent type I diabetes and may increase the risk approximately 1.5 times.

There have been some suggestions that dairy intake associates with certain cancers. This issue is highly contentious, and the above are but three articles demonstrating the breadth of the research.

So do we continue to regard milk as a necessity? Fonterra tells us that ‘we have always marvelled at the wholesome goodness and simple nutrition provided by milk’. That ‘whether we seek stronger bones, higher immunity, healthier hearts or lower weight, milk has all the building blocks for a vital and healthy life’. I find it unfortunate that no references are provided for these claims. In fact even the statements regarding the A and B vitamins, as well as the minerals, lack figures.

I don’t believe that there is a ‘dairy conspiracy’ although some certainly do. There are undoubtedly many with a vested interest in the continued consumption of dairy, and in maintaining its positive image. The dairy industry is responsible for much of the dairy research (either directly or though funding), which gives it great control to selectively publish, or selectively fund.

There also seems to be a tendency to support the status quo. One study reported that women who drank ‘two or more glasses of milk per day’ had a 45% increase in their risk of hip fracture. In the conclusion and abstract however, they simply state ‘these data do not support the hypothesis that higher consumption of milk … by adult women protects against hip or forearm fractures’. The conclusion does not reflect what was actually found, instead, it moderates the findings. Similarly, the review noting impaired iron status and lactose intolerance in infants, subsequently recommends milk consumption, and readily dismisses research regarding type I diabetes. In fact, the study suggests that in developed countries, we should consume an ‘optimal daily intake’ of 500mL. This recommendation is not based on the research reviewed, it seems simply to be pulled from the ether.

Even if we dismiss the possible adverse health effects of milk consumption, it is apparent that we do not need to consume cows’ milk. It is evident that people not consuming milk are able to gain enough calcium and enough protein, which contains the essential amino acids.

In the face of the research, I find it hard to be worried about escalating milk prices. Indeed, I find it very concerning that Fonterra are planning to introduce free milk in schools.

Wouldn’t we rather give the kids a banana, or an apple? Let’s give them both, and stop complaining about milk prices.

What’s all this blogging about?

Posted on February 6, 2012 by musther

Simply put, I have a lot to say. The actual things I have to say are numerous and varied, and in many cases, probably not worthy of repetition. How much of note does the ‘average person’ say (or even think) in any given day or week? This doesn’t just extend to the ‘average person’ but also to writers. How much of what writers produce is original or particularly noteworthy? However I still feel, possibly due to an inflated ego, that once in a while when everything comes together, I may have something worthwhile to contribute.

In addition I simply love writing. I love creating meaning by assembling words. The words are taken in, bounce around inside the head, mixing intimately with the thoughts, ideas, beliefs and concepts. The language is formed and then exported to the page for all the world to see. It is our most powerful form of self-expression, as we can fine-tune the pros to precisely deliver our meaning.

I love the language I was raised with (English), the precision of expression is unmatched. This precision is rooted in its large vocabulary. If, for example, one were to hear the phrase:

“There’s a fire at the Hudson residence.”

One would be forgiven for enquiring what the speaker meant by that. Was he, perhaps, enlightening you as to the Hudson’s preferred method of house heating? By contrast, the more precise phrase could be:

“There’s a conflagration at the Hudson residence”

Or, with a more American-English bent:

“There’s a blaze at the Hudson residence”

The point here is of course partly to illustrate the great range of English vocabulary, and partly to allow me to use words like conflagration. Incidentally news-readers should used the word more frequently.

Where was I… oh yes, things to say, love of writing… Good. So now that you’ve thoroughly taken on board my reasons for wanting to write, the final question is of course, for whom am I writing? The simple answer is that I decided, based on my enjoyment, to begin writing more, and publishing the products on my blog – for me. Of course I would be very happy if people read these words, and even more so if they gained some kind of enjoyment. Alas; this seems unlikely.

I am unperturbed by my imminent rise to the lowest spot in the blogsphere. I will write, and perhaps, someday, someone will read.

In this introductory post, I feel I must pay homage to Douglas Adams for the tagline of this site. It comes, of course, from his comic fantasy detective novel Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency and was specifically inspired by the lines:

“Let us go. Let us leave this festering hellhole. Let us think the un-thinkable, let us do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself and see if we may not eff it after all. Now, Janice-”

If you haven’t, you should read it, followed by the rest of the works of this great author.

The story so far…

Posted on February 6, 2012 by musther

I was born, and I have lived; what a miraculous concert life is.

I shall not attempt to relay my life story, I suspect it is no more interesting than yours, and would go a long way towards boring you. However I must, I feel, give some impression of myself; some slightly tangible, caricature-like notion onto which you may grasp, or from which you may flee. To that end, this post was born – ah yes, birth, back on track.

My father is an industrial chemist, my mother, when I was growing up, was a housewife. There was a certain divide in this traditional family unit; my father was a logical man of science, my mother, a devout Christian. I can tell you from the outset, religion and science do not mix – or rather they do, but to the detriment of both. Conflicting philosophies race to master a young and developing brain, and the results can be most odd. It is surprisingly possible for two (maybe more?) deeply conflicting world views to reside within one small cranium. They may be relatively isolated, and exist each being almost unaware of the other. On the other hand, the small head in question may be one destined to try and integrate everything it learns about the world. In this case the resulting cognitive dissonance may be really quite unpleasant.

For several years in adolescence my developing brain whirred and ticked, puzzling away at the problem of integration. On the one hand, a world view provided by people I trusted instinctively and completely. I had every reason to trust the Christian world view, but without that trust, that faith, the information simply failed to fit in with the most basic observation of the physical world. On the other hand, I had the scientific philosophy, presented largely by authorities I had no reason to trust, but they never demanded any kind of faith, because they provided evidence. Writing of this now, I feel the solution is disturbing plain for all to see.

In time, my brain finally managed to correctly sum the proverbial two and two, resulting in the Christian philosophy being quietly, and with disturbing lack of ceremony, recycled. The resolution of internal conflict gave me a newfound zeal for science. I had not lacked a affinity for the abstract notion of scientific enquiry and endeavour before, but now it had been thoroughly tested internally – I was a born-again scientist!

I would like to point out here, for anyone who may have the wrong impression, that a ‘born-again scientist’ is not cold, inhuman, or for want of a better term ‘soulless’. The revelation of the universe of nature, the intricate majesty, the glories of scale – these are things of beauty and they fill my heart with joy. The greatest scientists of all have open, inquisitive minds which are quick to question and rarely assume, but they also have heart’s of poets. The words of the great Carl Sagan, referring to a deep-space image of the earth, can only fail to move a truly soulless person:

“We succeeded in taking that picture [from deep space], and, if you look at it, you see a dot. That’s here. That’s home. That’s us. On it, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever lived, lived out their lives. The aggregate of all our joys and sufferings, thousands of confident religions, ideologies and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilizations, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every hopeful child, every mother and father, every inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every superstar, every supreme leader, every saint and sinner in the history of our species, lived there on a mote of dust, suspended in a sunbeam.”

Not soulless words, but conspicuously godless. I hasten to add that I do not include myself in ‘the greatest scientists of all’, but I feel it is a commendable aspiration.

Let us return to a teenage born-again scientist. My adolescence was presumably fairly normal – exploration of self and boundaries, and a good measure of interpersonal development. By the time I moved to New Zealand at the age of 19 I was, for better or worse, me.

To complete the story in a dry and purely factual way, I should mention that I have since worked as a baker, obtained a BSc in wine science and another in viticulture, and jumped from the wine industry ship to pursue a career in biomedical research.

I was born, and I have lived; let’s wait and see what happens next.

musther.net

effing the ineffable – one eff at a time