Calories and Sugar in the human system

The most widely accepted view today is that too many calories are bad for health as they make for obesity, and that sugar (at least refined sugar) is best avoided completely.

Clearly, there are people who suffer from diabetes who should avoid sugar and be careful about the calories (particularly carbohydrates) they consume.

But I doubt that, for most ("normal") people, sugar is particularly harmful - and it may even be beneficial!

As evidence, I cite my own case: I have consumed vast amounts of sugar right from the time I was a child, and I am notorious in restaurants which know me, for eating as little as possible of the main course (which is vegetarian in any case) and of concentrating on the dessert. I often have two or even three desserts, as well as assorted cakes, biscuits, dried fruit and other suger-laden products such as commercially-produced cereal bars.

My weight has changed over the years gradually from the 60+ of my teenage years to the 70+ that I have now at the age of 61.

If I fast for a day or two, my weight drops by a little; if I indulge myself too much, my weight rises a little...for a little while.

That is because I try to eat as wide a variety of (vegetarian) food as possible, and try to be in tune with my body regarding how much of what food to eat.

If you are in normal health, my experience suggests that the best guide to the question of what and how much to eat is NOT your calorie-counter or your fashion magazine or even your doctor, but actually your own body.

It will tell you when you have eaten too much or eaten what is not good for you.

Get in tune with it. Communicate with it. Listen to it. You won't go wrong.

As for obesity, it is in my view entirely unrelated to how many calories one consumes. The sort of "obesity" one sees around the world today is a medical disorder that may be related to commercial soft drinks, to chemicals in our food or water, to plastics, to radiation, or some other factor. Some people may well be obese because they don't know how to listen to their bodies, and therefore eat too much of the wrong sort of food for themselves. However, in my observation, many obese people eat no more than normal people do.

Fat-analysis as an indicator of health - and disease

As I have a layman's interest in medical matters, I try to follow developments in almost all the medical systems of the world (Ayurvedic, Chinese, Hebrew, Homeeopathic, Unani or Greek, Chiropraxy, Feldenkrais, Dr Schussler's, as well as Allopathic or "modern"....).

None of them, however, investigates fat.

I have noticed that my fat has changed its nature over the years.

It is also interesting that, in order to make for a system in which the diseases of the Egyptians would not exist among the Hebrews, their Scriptures asked them never to eat the fat of animals - suggesting that animal fat has an essential relationship with the diseases of those with lifestyles involving little physical exertion.

I conclude that ways of analysing fat could offer important clues to identifying the existence and development of disease in human beings, particularly diseases that are most idenfitied with modernity.

Genetically-modified food now invading Europe too

While I am all for science and for technological progress, I draw the line at the food which enters my body.

In the USA, I usually eat as little as possible, and certainly nothing that might be genetically modified (they do not label their food clearly, as a result all maize is out, for example).

Due to the danger of cross-pollination, now that the EU has stupidly permitted the introduction of a genetically modified potato (BASF's Amflora), I will now have to steer away from potatoes in the EU, which has already permitted Monsanto’s MON810 maize.

I have nothing against GM food provided (a) it is clearly labelled, so that those who like me do not want to eat it can keep away from it, and (b) all GM products can be guaranteed to kept totally separate from non-GM food. At present, (b) is a condition that cannot be met - at least in terms of invading fields in which non-GM food is grown, restaurant food, pre-cooked and prepared foods in most stores, and so on....

Sadly, therefore not only no meat or seafood for me, but no potatoes or maize either.

Very good for my waistline, though...:)

Vitamin B12 and vegetarians

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.

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?

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.

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".