Having just had a medical check-up where my Vitamin B12 was measured for the first time.
Apparently, my level is 190 when the minimum should be 140 and the maximum should be 750
I am therefore somewhere near the lower limit, and one doctor recommended that I should take supplementary Vitamin B12.
The question however came up of my being a vegetarian and whether that might mean that my body functions fine without the high levels of Vitamin B12 found among non-vegetarians. Another doctor thought that I may therefore not need the supplement.
I don't like wasting money, but am commanded by God to look after my body, so I would appreciate any facts on the issue.
Thursday, 28 January 2010
Sunday, 20 December 2009
Hormone Replacement Therapy for women
Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) is often recommended for women of a certain age.
While many of the side-effects continue to be screened, I am not sure that a particular side-effect that I have noticed is on any medical researcher's radar:
Some women become progressively shorter and lighter in weight.
What proportion of women who take HRT have this side-effect?
With what other side-effects is that linked?
Are there better ways of tackling the issues of ageing for women?
And why is it that Indian women of the same age-level never suffered the symptoms for which HRT is recommended?
Or did that apply to all women from non-industrial societies?
While many of the side-effects continue to be screened, I am not sure that a particular side-effect that I have noticed is on any medical researcher's radar:
Some women become progressively shorter and lighter in weight.
What proportion of women who take HRT have this side-effect?
With what other side-effects is that linked?
Are there better ways of tackling the issues of ageing for women?
And why is it that Indian women of the same age-level never suffered the symptoms for which HRT is recommended?
Or did that apply to all women from non-industrial societies?
Monday, 14 December 2009
Climate Skeptics versus the "Scientific Consensus"
The best summary of these opposing views is at:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yhh534j
[Open in new window]
It is clear that there is much to be said on both sides. The truth may lie somewhere between these extremes of opinion. Perhaps human actions have made only a marginal difference and will make only a marginal difference.
So why do I eventually line up with the "Scientific Consensus"?
Because if the Skeptics are right, we need to do nothing - and nothing we do can possibly affect the outcome - which will be benign or devastating for reasons outside our control. The Skeptics are modern fatalists. Whatever will be will be.
The "Scientific Consensus" may or may not turn out to be right. No one knows. There are many imponderables. But at least these Consensus guys are not fatalists. They tell me that my actions, or at least OUR actions as a human race, have made a difference in the past and can make a difference in the future.
Even if they are more wrong than the Skeptics, I would prefer to cast my lot with the Consensus because at least then I will have done the right things in terms of environmental care, even if the actions concerned make very little difference to the eventual outcome.
The question is not what effect our actions might or might not have. The question is: what is the right thing to do. And the right thing to do is certainly to act in a manner that lines up with environmental responsibility.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yhh534j
[Open in new window]
It is clear that there is much to be said on both sides. The truth may lie somewhere between these extremes of opinion. Perhaps human actions have made only a marginal difference and will make only a marginal difference.
So why do I eventually line up with the "Scientific Consensus"?
Because if the Skeptics are right, we need to do nothing - and nothing we do can possibly affect the outcome - which will be benign or devastating for reasons outside our control. The Skeptics are modern fatalists. Whatever will be will be.
The "Scientific Consensus" may or may not turn out to be right. No one knows. There are many imponderables. But at least these Consensus guys are not fatalists. They tell me that my actions, or at least OUR actions as a human race, have made a difference in the past and can make a difference in the future.
Even if they are more wrong than the Skeptics, I would prefer to cast my lot with the Consensus because at least then I will have done the right things in terms of environmental care, even if the actions concerned make very little difference to the eventual outcome.
The question is not what effect our actions might or might not have. The question is: what is the right thing to do. And the right thing to do is certainly to act in a manner that lines up with environmental responsibility.
Will the US "Healthcare Bill" inevitably lead to "death panels"?
I haven't seen the details of the drafts that are being bandied about.
However, a vigorous defense of the view that the Health Bill will inevitably lead to "death panels" is at: http://preview.tinyurl.com/ybaf2ud
[Open in new window]
Among other points, the argument is that "deas have consequences and that the bills being put forward by Congress and the White House are founded on principles and paradigms that will, in time, lead to death panels just as surely as similar ideas led to the Holocaust in Germany during World War II and abortion on demand in the United States".
However, a vigorous defense of the view that the Health Bill will inevitably lead to "death panels" is at: http://preview.tinyurl.com/ybaf2ud
[Open in new window]
Among other points, the argument is that "deas have consequences and that the bills being put forward by Congress and the White House are founded on principles and paradigms that will, in time, lead to death panels just as surely as similar ideas led to the Holocaust in Germany during World War II and abortion on demand in the United States".
Friday, 20 November 2009
A Puzzle: Why do Americans who can afford Health Insurance remain without it?
According to the latest figures that I have seen, some 47 million Americans don't have health insurance.
However, at least 43% of Americans aged 18 to 64 who lack health insurance have incomes at or above 2.5 times the poverty line. Which suggests that they do have the means to obtain health care coverage!
That's according to June and David O'Neill, of the City University of New York, who analysed a variety of data for the Employment Policies Institute, a think tank.
So why don't these "non-poor" Americans, who can afford health insurance, avoid going in for it?
Could it be that they really do not believe they will need it some time? Are they simply careless, living for the day and not concerned about their own future? Or do they simply not trust the insurance system and/ or health-care provision in the USA?
However, at least 43% of Americans aged 18 to 64 who lack health insurance have incomes at or above 2.5 times the poverty line. Which suggests that they do have the means to obtain health care coverage!
That's according to June and David O'Neill, of the City University of New York, who analysed a variety of data for the Employment Policies Institute, a think tank.
So why don't these "non-poor" Americans, who can afford health insurance, avoid going in for it?
Could it be that they really do not believe they will need it some time? Are they simply careless, living for the day and not concerned about their own future? Or do they simply not trust the insurance system and/ or health-care provision in the USA?
Friday, 7 August 2009
Ageing and dryness
As I grow older, I notice that my body has a tendency to become dry more quickly than earlier, that I tire more easily, that tiredness has something to do with lack of water in the system, that tiredness can be countered by drinking water, and that I need, in general, more water to keep going.
My mind also flashes to the observation, which I must have made less than consciously at the time, that my mother, as she approached the end of her life, also suffered more and more from dryness.
Has any research been done on the relationship between dryness and tiredness, and between ageing and dryness?
My mind also flashes to the observation, which I must have made less than consciously at the time, that my mother, as she approached the end of her life, also suffered more and more from dryness.
Has any research been done on the relationship between dryness and tiredness, and between ageing and dryness?
Friday, 24 July 2009
Different kinds of fat in the body?
It seems to me that there must be at least three different kinds of fat in the body.
1. "Simple" fat made by the body from relatively innocuous substances such as sugar and unhydrogenated vegetable fats. "Simple" fats accummulate as a "spare tire" in the midriff or around the neck. However, they are more or less easy to work off - at least in my experience.
2. "Complex" fat made by the body from substances such as non-vegetarian and hydrogenated fats. These also settle mainly around the midriff and neck but probably more in the rest of the body. In any case, these appear to be more difficult to work off (I do not know, being a vegetarian - but it has struck me that I seem to be able to work off fats dramatically quickly compared to almost everyone else I know well, and they are all non-vegetarians).
3. "Abnormal" fats which are the result of the body storing or otherwise reacting (for example, allergically) to substances of other than those enumerated above. Abnormal fats are extremely difficult to work off as they have nothing to do with the normal mechanism that the body has for storing excess energy (carbohydrates and sugars).
My view is that most so-called "obese" people in the Western world suffer from an accummulation of abnormal fats. In other words, these people are not obese because they eat too much (as I tend to do!), but they are obese because they eat the wrong kinds of things or as a result of the exposure of the body to the wrong kinds of influences.
The hypothesis above could be tested by getting a suitably large sample of people who suffer from "abnormal fats" to keep their level of exercise and calorific intake as near their usual as possible, but to reduce (systematically, one by one and for say as many months as possible) their exposure to plastics, intensively-farmed meat, processed foods, mobile phone radiation and other "electronic smog", and other such things that may be suspected of causing the accummulation of "abnormal fats".
A statistical analysis of the medical history of people with "abnormal fats" should also reveal some interesting patterns of disease, if one excludes those diseases that are related to mere weight.
1. "Simple" fat made by the body from relatively innocuous substances such as sugar and unhydrogenated vegetable fats. "Simple" fats accummulate as a "spare tire" in the midriff or around the neck. However, they are more or less easy to work off - at least in my experience.
2. "Complex" fat made by the body from substances such as non-vegetarian and hydrogenated fats. These also settle mainly around the midriff and neck but probably more in the rest of the body. In any case, these appear to be more difficult to work off (I do not know, being a vegetarian - but it has struck me that I seem to be able to work off fats dramatically quickly compared to almost everyone else I know well, and they are all non-vegetarians).
3. "Abnormal" fats which are the result of the body storing or otherwise reacting (for example, allergically) to substances of other than those enumerated above. Abnormal fats are extremely difficult to work off as they have nothing to do with the normal mechanism that the body has for storing excess energy (carbohydrates and sugars).
My view is that most so-called "obese" people in the Western world suffer from an accummulation of abnormal fats. In other words, these people are not obese because they eat too much (as I tend to do!), but they are obese because they eat the wrong kinds of things or as a result of the exposure of the body to the wrong kinds of influences.
The hypothesis above could be tested by getting a suitably large sample of people who suffer from "abnormal fats" to keep their level of exercise and calorific intake as near their usual as possible, but to reduce (systematically, one by one and for say as many months as possible) their exposure to plastics, intensively-farmed meat, processed foods, mobile phone radiation and other "electronic smog", and other such things that may be suspected of causing the accummulation of "abnormal fats".
A statistical analysis of the medical history of people with "abnormal fats" should also reveal some interesting patterns of disease, if one excludes those diseases that are related to mere weight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)