1. Big thought of the day:
There should be an asshole driver fine. It doesn't have to be major, but it needs to be there. People who don't use their turn signals; people who cut you off; people who live with their hand on their horns; people who wait until the very last second to change lanes, cutting everyone off who changed lanes properly and holding up the traffic in the lane they are merging from (Example: leaving DC by 395); people who are talking on their cell phones instead of paying attention to the road; and people in small cars who think it's necessary to take corners so wide they change lanes into yours like they wouldn't make the turn otherwise.
People like this deserve some sort of fine for their actions. I don't think a fine every time is necessary, but what if we instituted a 5-strike fine rule? Basically it works like this: Each time you get cut-off or think somebody is driving like an asshole, you fill out a form to report this driver. As driver's accumulate strikes, they are sent fines at every 5th one. So that douchebag that thinks it's a great idea to swerve through traffic nearly hitting everyone in the process and causing traffic to slow will get citations from everyone that can get his license plate. Once you get 5, you are sent your $50 fine.
The only thing holding this back are the people who would fake citations to send people fines for no reason. The sad thing is that those people are the same assholes who can't drive with any bit of decency.
2. Find a better spokesperson.
There was a lady walking down 2nd street this morning trying to get everyone to "HONK for guaranteed health care." Sure, that's all well and good, but she obviously doesn't take care of herself so why should we take care of her? I have no problem with the guaranteed health care thing, as a matter of fact, I don't even really think about most things political, but don't send an obese lady out to tout the benefits of guaranteed health care.
Check this out,
A report released Monday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – which organized the conference – pegged annual health spending tied to obesity at $147 billion. By comparison, the American Cancer Society says it costs $93 billion a year to treat all types of cancer. “So ending obesity would save our healthcare system 50% more dollars than curing cancer,” Sebelius said.
Yeah. And, who's to say that fighting obesity wouldn't lower the cancer rate at the same time? So why don't we make healthcare guaranteed for those that can keep their waistline down? I'm not talking BMI though, I'm talking BF%. It's obvious that BMI is not a good marker of physical fitness, but we have easy methods of obtaining BF%, so why not use it? If you can stay out of the overweight category, your health care is free. Maybe people will be motivated by the savings...
It really can't be that bad... I mean, the Japanese are cracking down on waistlines and they think it could help us.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Wildwood 2009
By the time this sunburn is gone I swear I'll have a recap of last weekend up...
Here's the update:
Nose: Peeling
Feet: Still Burning
Shoulders: Turning a nice golden brown
Biceps: Still a little red, but looking much better for it!
I will let everyone in on a little secret though. Like Jim said, "The British drink their tea out of GOLDEN cups." Looks like our 9 "Brits" will be forced to share 1 golden cup, but that's one more than I had before!
Here's the update:
Nose: Peeling
Feet: Still Burning
Shoulders: Turning a nice golden brown
Biceps: Still a little red, but looking much better for it!
I will let everyone in on a little secret though. Like Jim said, "The British drink their tea out of GOLDEN cups." Looks like our 9 "Brits" will be forced to share 1 golden cup, but that's one more than I had before!
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Garden Update
Just a little garden update... The spaghetti squash is a good 7-9 inches long now (the picture doesn't do it justice), and the largest eggplant is pushing 6 inches. There are a number of squash that are just a little behind the largest pictured and it looks like we have 5 eggplant on the way so far. Tomatoes are growing, but slowly.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Artificial Sweeteners and Diabetes
I found this post from Cassandra Forsythe that linked to this article, but I'll post the article for those who don't like the links. Basically, just eat real food and exercise, and you'll be fine... Don't try to justify your use of diet drinks on calories alone because, surprise, artificial sweeteners are bad for your body too!
From Medscape Medical News
ENDO 2009: Use of Artificial Sweeteners Linked to 2-Fold Increase in Diabetes
Crina Frincu-Mallos, PhD
June 15, 2009 (Washington, DC) — People who use artificial sweeteners are heavier, more likely to have diabetes, and more likely to be insulin-resistant compared with nonusers, according to data presented here during ENDO 2009, the 91st annual meeting of The Endocrine Society.
Results show an inverse association between obesity and diabetes, on one side, and daily total caloric, carbohydrate, and fat intake, on the other side, when comparing artificial sweetener users and control subjects.
First author Kristofer S. Gravenstein, a postbaccalaureate researcher with the Clinical Research Branch at the National Institute of Aging (NIA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), said the association may reflect the increased use of artificial sweeteners by obese and/or diabetic study participants. "This is a cross-section study," Mr. Gravenstein told Medscape Diabetes & Endocrinology, "so there are limitations — we cannot say that artificial sweetener use causes obesity, we can say it is associated with it."
Increased Use vs Increased Glucose Absorption
Artificial sweeteners activate sweet taste receptors in enteroendocrine cells, leading to the release of incretin, which is known to contribute to glucose absorption. Recent epidemiologic studies in Circulation (2008;117:754-761) and Obesity (2008;16:1894-1900) showed an association between diet soda consumption and the development of obesity and metabolic syndrome.
This report tested whether participants in the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging (BLSA), which began in 1958, differ in anthropometric measures, daily caloric intake, and glucose status, separating them into 3 different groups: artificial sweetener users, artificial sweetener nonusers, or controls.
A total of 1257 participants, with a mean age of 64.8 years (range, 21 - 96 years), had data on self-reported 7-day dietary intake, 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), and anthropometric measures. The major artificial sweetener consumed was aspartame, preferred by 66% of BLSA participants, followed by saccharin (13%), sucralose (1.0%), and combinations of the three (21%).
"In our study, we were actually able to isolate what type of sweetener was used at a certain point in time, as we used food diaries, and not food questionnaires," Mr. Gravenstein pointed out.
"When we first did this analysis, we found that people ate more fat before 1983, which is the year [of] a big increase in artificial sweetener consumption in the American population — it was actually when aspartame was approved and diet Coke was introduced," he explained.
As a result, the study further analyzed data from a subset of participants, starting in 1983. Compared with 550 people who did not use artificial sweeteners, the 443 people who did were younger, heavier, and had a higher body mass index (BMI), yet they did not consume more calories from people who did not use artificial sweeteners. Fat, carbohydrate, protein, and total caloric intake were not different between the 2 groups (users vs nonusers).
Furthermore, Mr. Gravenstein noted that people who used artificial sweeteners "were less likely to have a normal OGTT, or they were less likely to be diagnosed as having a normal glucose homeostasis."
In terms of glucose status, the impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), and/or impaired fasting glucose (IFG), the data show that artificial sweetener users "were not different than the prediabetics, ie, they had the same prevalence of prediabetes," he said, adding that "in our population, people who used artificial sweeteners were twice as likely to have diabetes, 8.8% compared to 4.4% for controls."
Analyzing the data further, the investigators focused on a subpopulation, in which fasting insulin values were available from 374 nonusers and 311 artificial sweetener users. The users had a higher fasting glucose levels, higher fasting insulin levels, and a higher measure of insulin resistance, as measured by the homeostasis model assessment, but glycosylated hemoglobin A1C levels were similar between the 2 groups.
Alternative Hypothesis and Clinicians' Role
The researchers suggest an alternative hypothesis, that artificial sweeteners modulate the metabolic rate through enteroendocrine cells, therefore contributing to the development of diabetes and/or obesity. However, this hypothesis needs further testing in longitudinal analysis and intervention studies, said the investigators.
"Also, it could be that artificial sweeteners are causing diabetes, or it could be that there is a higher use of them because a lot of physicians actually recommend people to use artificial sweeteners to prevent diabetes...." Mr. Gravenstein said. The researchers are planning to address this question with a prospective analysis.
"This is a very interesting study," Rachel C. Edelen, MD, a pediatric endocrinology practitioner at the Aspen Centre in Rapid City, South Dakota, told Medscape Diabetes & Endocrinology in an interview. "I diet screen all my patients, and they are not drinking enough milk. Usually, they replace the milk with something else, sweetened tea, Gatorade, etc, not just water. With my type 1 diabetics, the information they were getting from the hospital was to drink diet pop. But who even goes into the hospital and drinks pop?" she wondered.
Support for this study was provided by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Edelen and Mr. Gravenstein have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
ENDO 2009: The Annual Meeting of the Endocrine Society: Abstract P2-478. Presented June 11, 2009.
Authors and Disclosures
Journalist
Crina Frincu-Mallos, PhD
Crina Frincu-Mallos is a freelance writer for Medscape Medical News.
From Medscape Medical News
ENDO 2009: Use of Artificial Sweeteners Linked to 2-Fold Increase in Diabetes
Crina Frincu-Mallos, PhD
June 15, 2009 (Washington, DC) — People who use artificial sweeteners are heavier, more likely to have diabetes, and more likely to be insulin-resistant compared with nonusers, according to data presented here during ENDO 2009, the 91st annual meeting of The Endocrine Society.
Results show an inverse association between obesity and diabetes, on one side, and daily total caloric, carbohydrate, and fat intake, on the other side, when comparing artificial sweetener users and control subjects.
First author Kristofer S. Gravenstein, a postbaccalaureate researcher with the Clinical Research Branch at the National Institute of Aging (NIA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), said the association may reflect the increased use of artificial sweeteners by obese and/or diabetic study participants. "This is a cross-section study," Mr. Gravenstein told Medscape Diabetes & Endocrinology, "so there are limitations — we cannot say that artificial sweetener use causes obesity, we can say it is associated with it."
Increased Use vs Increased Glucose Absorption
Artificial sweeteners activate sweet taste receptors in enteroendocrine cells, leading to the release of incretin, which is known to contribute to glucose absorption. Recent epidemiologic studies in Circulation (2008;117:754-761) and Obesity (2008;16:1894-1900) showed an association between diet soda consumption and the development of obesity and metabolic syndrome.
This report tested whether participants in the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging (BLSA), which began in 1958, differ in anthropometric measures, daily caloric intake, and glucose status, separating them into 3 different groups: artificial sweetener users, artificial sweetener nonusers, or controls.
A total of 1257 participants, with a mean age of 64.8 years (range, 21 - 96 years), had data on self-reported 7-day dietary intake, 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), and anthropometric measures. The major artificial sweetener consumed was aspartame, preferred by 66% of BLSA participants, followed by saccharin (13%), sucralose (1.0%), and combinations of the three (21%).
"In our study, we were actually able to isolate what type of sweetener was used at a certain point in time, as we used food diaries, and not food questionnaires," Mr. Gravenstein pointed out.
"When we first did this analysis, we found that people ate more fat before 1983, which is the year [of] a big increase in artificial sweetener consumption in the American population — it was actually when aspartame was approved and diet Coke was introduced," he explained.
As a result, the study further analyzed data from a subset of participants, starting in 1983. Compared with 550 people who did not use artificial sweeteners, the 443 people who did were younger, heavier, and had a higher body mass index (BMI), yet they did not consume more calories from people who did not use artificial sweeteners. Fat, carbohydrate, protein, and total caloric intake were not different between the 2 groups (users vs nonusers).
Furthermore, Mr. Gravenstein noted that people who used artificial sweeteners "were less likely to have a normal OGTT, or they were less likely to be diagnosed as having a normal glucose homeostasis."
In terms of glucose status, the impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), and/or impaired fasting glucose (IFG), the data show that artificial sweetener users "were not different than the prediabetics, ie, they had the same prevalence of prediabetes," he said, adding that "in our population, people who used artificial sweeteners were twice as likely to have diabetes, 8.8% compared to 4.4% for controls."
Analyzing the data further, the investigators focused on a subpopulation, in which fasting insulin values were available from 374 nonusers and 311 artificial sweetener users. The users had a higher fasting glucose levels, higher fasting insulin levels, and a higher measure of insulin resistance, as measured by the homeostasis model assessment, but glycosylated hemoglobin A1C levels were similar between the 2 groups.
Alternative Hypothesis and Clinicians' Role
The researchers suggest an alternative hypothesis, that artificial sweeteners modulate the metabolic rate through enteroendocrine cells, therefore contributing to the development of diabetes and/or obesity. However, this hypothesis needs further testing in longitudinal analysis and intervention studies, said the investigators.
"Also, it could be that artificial sweeteners are causing diabetes, or it could be that there is a higher use of them because a lot of physicians actually recommend people to use artificial sweeteners to prevent diabetes...." Mr. Gravenstein said. The researchers are planning to address this question with a prospective analysis.
"This is a very interesting study," Rachel C. Edelen, MD, a pediatric endocrinology practitioner at the Aspen Centre in Rapid City, South Dakota, told Medscape Diabetes & Endocrinology in an interview. "I diet screen all my patients, and they are not drinking enough milk. Usually, they replace the milk with something else, sweetened tea, Gatorade, etc, not just water. With my type 1 diabetics, the information they were getting from the hospital was to drink diet pop. But who even goes into the hospital and drinks pop?" she wondered.
Support for this study was provided by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Edelen and Mr. Gravenstein have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
ENDO 2009: The Annual Meeting of the Endocrine Society: Abstract P2-478. Presented June 11, 2009.
Authors and Disclosures
Journalist
Crina Frincu-Mallos, PhD
Crina Frincu-Mallos is a freelance writer for Medscape Medical News.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
