Bacon cures cancer. Wait, WHAT?

It probably didn't, but here's a heart-warming case study from Dr. Terry Simpson I spotted on Twitter.


From http://www.yourdoctorsorders.com/2013/02/bacon-cures-cancer

Mmm, bacon!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Made20bacon.png

I'm back with some miscellaneous ramblings.

I'm not dead! Who knew?


I saw https://twitter.com/JimJohnsonSci/status/468745252170248192 and read Modeling type 2 diabetes in rats using high fat diet and streptozotocin.

What I find a bit sad is the "cure > prevention" attitude. The cause of pre-diabetes & type 2 diabetes is pretty well known now, i.e. it's basically the inability of body stores (liver/muscle glycogen stores & fat masses) to accommodate any more, resulting in excessive amounts of various things (e.g. glucose, fat, cholesterol, NEFAs etc) in the blood, with varying degrees of beta cell dysfunction.

The degree of fatness at which body stores become full depends on the degree of adipocyte hyperplasia, so it's possible for slim people to become type 2 diabetic, though ~85% of type 2 diabetics are over-fat. Some slim people are misdiagnosed with type 2 diabetes, as they have LADA or signalling abnormalities. Some have acquired endocrine abnormalities.

I've been pre-diabetic twice to my knowledge, the most recent occasion being last year when I became slightly manic after mum died and got into a large number of arguments on various blogs. I "took my eye off the ball" diet-wise and ended up gaining too much body-fat, even though my belt didn't feel noticeably tight. I blogged about feeling too hot last year. When I had blood tests in September to find out why I was overheating so much, the results revealed hyper****aemia, where **** = glucose, total cholesterol & triglycerides. The doctor recommended that I take a statin. I declined, stating that I knew what had caused the problem and that I would deal with it. I was told to have repeat blood tests in 3 months time.

I subsequently "kept my eye on the ball" diet-wise (using bathroom scales to monitor progress), lost 8kg (some of it fat mass & some of it muscle mass) and when I was retested 3 months later, the previously abnormal blood test results were back to completely normal. That's twice I've gone from pre-diabetes to normal, which suggests that deterioration from pre-diabetes to type 2 diabetes is not inevitable, provided that the cause is dealt with before excessive irreversible beta cell dysfunction occurs.

The main reason why the incidence of over-fatness & type 2 diabetes is increasing is the overconsumption of "Crap in a bag/box/bottle" by increasing numbers of people. How to reverse this trend? Damned if I know!

Boiled potatoes & Area Under the Curve (AUC): some thoughts.

Here are three "curves"... a 4 x 1 rectangle, a 2 x 2 square and a 1 x 4 rectangle.

The AUC for all three "curves" = 4.

Imagine that the three curves are for blood glucose level increase above baseline vs time.

a) "X" grams of a high-Glycaemic Index (GI) carb e.g. glucose, maltodextrin or amylopectin result in a large glucose response that goes away rapidly, as the carbs leave the gut rapidly, pass into the blood rapidly and are cleared from the blood rapidly due to the large insulin response.

b) "X" grams of a 50:50 mixture of high & low-GI carbs result in a lower but longer sustained glucose & insulin response, as some carbs leave the gut rapidly but some carbs leave the gut slowly, pass into the blood slowly and are cleared from the blood slowly due to the small insulin response.

c) "X" grams of a low-GI carb e.g. amylose or resistant starch result in an even lower glucose & insulin response that is sustained for even longer, as the carbs leave the gut very slowly, pass into the blood very slowly and are cleared from the blood very slowly due to the very small insulin response.

Will a), b) & c) produce the same satiety? I think not. I think that a) results in lower satiation than b) and b) results in lower satiation than c). Whether returning hunger is caused by a sudden drop in blood insulin level or by a sudden drop in the amount of food in the gut, I don't know.

The reason for this post is A satiety index of common foods (scanned image of full study here) and the related study An insulin index of foods: the insulin demand generated by 1000-kJ portions of common foods.

In the first study, boiled potatoes produced the highest satiety, yet in the second study, boiled potatoes produced one of the highest glucose & insulin AUCs. How can this be? Consider the preparation method for the Russet potatoes:-
"Peeled, boiled for 20 min, and stored at 4 °C overnight; reheated in a microwave oven for 2 min immediately before serving."

Potato starch when refrigerated produces resistant starch RS3, which gives it a low GI (see item 605 in International table of glycemic index and glycemic load values: 2002). Therefore, refrigerated potatoes contain a mixture of high & low-GI starches. This, I believe, is why boiled, refrigerated & reheated potatoes produced the highest satiety. The combination of water, fibre & resistant starch kept hunger pangs away the longest. I suspect that boiled potatoes that are eaten without being refrigerated won't produce quite as much satiation, as they contain no resistant starch.

EDIT: From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistant_starch#Definition_and_categorization :-
"RS3 Resistant starch that is formed when starch-containing foods are cooked and cooled, such as pasta. Occurs due to retrogradation, which refers to the collective processes of dissolved starch becoming less soluble after being heated and dissolved in water and then cooled."
RS3 forms a gel in the stomach, which delays stomach emptying. This is most likely the reason for the increased satiation.

Lipoproteins & apolipoproteins: E, by 'eck.

In December 2008, I wrote about Cholesterol And Coronary Heart Disease , where I used a limousine metaphor to describe how cholesterol & fat are transported around the body. Here's a diagram of a chylomicron lipoprotein "limousine". Chylomicrons transport dietary fat (triglycerides) & cholesterol from the gut to the liver & other tissues. As there's much more dietary fat than dietary cholesterol, the contents are mostly fat.

A chylomicron. T=Triglyceride C=Cholesterol. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipoprotein

The lipoprotein "limousines" vary a lot in size.

(a) VLDL (b) chylomicrons (c) LDL (d) HDL. 
From http://healthcorrelator.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/triglycerides-vldl-and-industrial.html

Apolipoproteins are the "chauffeurs" which determine to where lipoproteins transport stuff.
Apo A is found mainly on HDL, which transports fat & cholesterol from tissues to the liver.
Apo B is found mainly on LDL, which transports cholesterol from the liver to tissues.
Apo C is found on HDL when fasted, but moves to chylomicrons & VLDL when fat is eaten.
Apo D is found mainly on HDL and is is associated with an enzyme involved in lipoprotein metabolism.
Apo E is found mainly on chylomicrons & IDL and transports lipoproteins, fat-soluble vitamins, and cholesterol into the lymph system and into the blood. In the CNS, Apo E transports cholesterol to neurons. Defects in Apo E result in hyperlipidaemia , cardiovascular & neurological diseases, and is the E referred to in the title.

There's also Apo H, which is a β-glycoprotein involved in the binding of cardiolipin. It has nothing to do with the above lipoproteins.

Things that make you go "Struth!"

I was wading through my Facebook News Feed when I spotted THIS. That article led me to New approach to coeliac testing identifies more Australians at risk, which in turn led me to A novel serogenetic approach determines the community prevalence of celiac disease and informs improved diagnostic pathways (provisional pdf), where I saw: "HLA-DQ2.5, DQ8, or DQ2.2 was present in 56% of all women and men in the community cohorts."
HLA-DQ2.5, DQ8 & DQ2.2 are the alleles for Coeliac/Celiac Disease (CD).

Image from http://www.clker.com/clipart-tango-face-surprise.html

"Transglutaminase (TG)-2 IgA and composite TG2/deamidated gliadin peptide (DGP) IgA/IgG were abnormal in 4.6% and 5.6%, respectively, of the community women and 6.9% and 6.9%, respectively, of the community men, but in the screen-positive group, only 71% and 75%, respectively, of women and 65% and 63%, respectively, of men possessed HLADQ2.5, DQ8, or DQ2.2."
There were abnormalities in ~5% of Australian women & ~7% of Australian men, even in those who didn't carry CD alleles.

"...but based on relative risk for HLA-DQ2.5, DQ8, or DQ2.2 in all TG2 IgA or TG2/DGP IgA/IgG screen-positive subjects, CD affected 1.3% or 1.9%, respectively, of females and 1.3% or 1.2%, respectively, of men."
~1.6% of Australian women & ~1.3% of Australian men have CD.

From the discussion: "The concept of a ‘celiac iceberg’ has been important in drawing attention to a large, unrecognized group of patients with CD who do report symptoms considered ‘typical’ of CD [29]. Investigators have proposed expansion of the ‘iceberg’ to encompass patients who are genetically susceptible to CD, but show only raised IEL counts or an isolated abnormal CDspecific serology and normal intestinal histology [30-32]. Consequently, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the true extent of gluten-mediated disease in the community.

Random thoughts: About 1 in 20 Australian women & about 1 in 15 Australian men have some kind of a gut problem (IBS?) due to gliadin, even in those who don't carry CD alleles. The following made me smile.
"Making a diagnosis based on a blood test alone or commencing a gluten-free diet without a confirmatory bowel biopsy is inappropriate and can impose an unnecessary and lifelong treatment."
'Cos life without wheat, rye, barley & oats is such an imposition (undue burden) and everyone just loves to be given a bowel biopsy. <- sarcasm alert.

From Ancestry of Australian population: "More than 92 percent of all Australians descend from Europeans. Anglo-Celtic Australians (English, Scottish, Welsh, Cornish or Irish ancestral origin) make up 74 percent of the Australian population."
Most Australians have genes that originate from Britain & Europe. Uh-oh!

Why do only a small percentage of people carrying the CD allele go on to develop CD? I believe that it's down to luck. During digestion, gliadins are snipped into fragments & amino acids by the peptidase enzymes pepsin, trypsin & chymotrypsin. Gliadin fragments that contain the wrong triplet of amino acids and that manage to slip through excessively-loose tight junctions may trigger CD. Once the "damage is done", it only takes a tiny amount of gliadin to provoke an immune response.

False dichotomies: serum cholesterol level vs all-cause mortality. Cause or effect?

Here are some plots from the MRFIT study.

From http://sph.bu.edu/otlt/MPH-Modules/PH/PH709_Heart/PH709_Heart5.html

Although the relative risk (RR) for coronary heart disease (CHD) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortalities increase with serum total cholesterol (TC) level, all-cause mortality follows a U-curve.

According to Low Serum Cholesterol and Mortality: Which Is the Cause and Which Is the Effect?, certain illnesses that increase mortality lower TC levels. This is the Iribarren hypothesis.

According to Cholesterol and all-cause mortality in elderly people from the Honolulu Heart Program: a cohort study, TC that's low and is still low 20 years later results in a 64% increase in the RR for mortality relative to TC that's intermediate and is still intermediate 20 years later.

Table 4 Relative risk for mortality based on change in cholesterol between examinations three and four

Is low TC level the cause of, or the effect of fatal illnesses? I think that it's both. Cholesterol is an important substance, as a severe lack of it is bad news, as per Smith–Lemli–Opitz syndrome. If certain illnesses result in a depletion of cholesterol and cholesterol synthesis is too low, there's insufficient cholesterol to allow recovery.

Interestingly, TC that's low but is intermediate 20 years later results in a 30% increase in the RR for mortality, whereas TC that's low but is high 20 years later results in a 5% increase in the RR for mortality.

P.S. There's a false dichotomy for vitamin D level vs illness. Ditto for carbohydrates vs calories.

Molested milk: there's more to it than bovine xanthine oxidase.

The idea for the title came from Molested fats, Op. 139. Thank you, Bill!

Image from http://suppversity.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/mutant-milk-new-research-fuels-flames.html

Homogenising/homogenizing milk has certain advantages, as per Creaming and homogenization.
"No link has been found between atherosclerosis and milk consumption." Hurrah! Not so fast...

According to Mutant Milk!? New Research Fuels the Flames on Hushed Up Concerns About Ill Health Effects of Homogenized Milk, homogenised milk has a different effect in the body (and not in a good way, if you're over-fat) from non-homogenised milk.
"...mice who received the regular formula with small lipid droplets were fatter and had compromised lipid and blood glucose levels, as well as pathologically increased leptin levels." Yeah, mice.

I drink Tesco Finest Channel Island Milk (a.k.a. Gold Top Milk). It's "past your eyes" (by law, all shop-bought milk in the UK must be pasteurised) but unhomogenised milk from grass-fed (during the summer) cows. During the summer, the cream is much more yellow than during the winter. To distribute the fat throughout the milk, you have to shake the bottle. Does that smash the milk fat globules to buggery? I think not.

Raw (i.e. unpasteurised) milk is legal in the UK, but the nearest farm where I can buy it is Meadow Cottage Farm in Churt. I used to buy it from them at a Farmer's Market in Aldershot, but that closed.

EDIT: I just noticed something in Why Doesn’t Medical Care Get Better When Doctors Rest More? (hat-tip to Yoni Freedhoff).
"Take heart failure—the most common reason for admission to the hospital in the United States—and a problem that I, as a cardiologist, deal with often." In the US, heart failure is now more common than blocked coronary arteries. See Is Coenzyme Q10 a supplement or a drug? It all depends. Statins reduce Coenzyme Q10 synthesis. Just saying.

R.I.P. HP Deskjet F380. Long Live HP Deskjet 3520.

Last year, I had a problem with my HP Deskjet F380, in HP Deskjet F380 Ink Cartridge Error. On Monday 19th August, it happened again. This time, I threw the baby out with the bathwater and bought a new HP Deskjet 3520 e-All-in-One printer/scanner/copier (the F380 was over 6 years old).

From http://www.shopping.hp.com/en_US/home-office/-/products/Printers/HP-Deskjet/CX056A

This product has mixed reviews - people either love it or they hate it.

My initial observations:- It makes a lot of whirring noises - I hope this doesn't mean that it's going to wear out quickly. I like the fact that it can do double-sided printing. I like the fact that the menu screen is easily readable, with the printer on the floor underneath a telephone table. I don't like the fact that I can no longer see a print preview when printing from Notepad. I will use WordPad from now on. I prefer to not use "fancy" word processors like Microsoft Works Word Processor or Microsoft Word for simple documents like lyric/chord sheets. I can control all functions from my lap-top. Although the product has wireless capability, I'm using a USB cable, as with the F380.

Having imported an existing lyric/chord sheet into WordPad, I've reduced all margins to 3mm, as the HP 3520 adds borders by default. I've also had to use bold face to make the text as easy to read in dim light (typical open mic night setting) as the old sheets.

False dichotomies: moderation.

Feel like you're walking a tightrope? I sang this at Open Mic night on Wednesday, including the orchestration!


There's another internet "punch-up" over moderation in what people eat. Apparently, there are only two options:-

Everything in moderation,

Image from http://www.deltadentalarblog.com/2013/07/ditch-the-junk-help-your-kids-eat-better/

or Nothing in moderation.

As always, it's a case of "It all depends". If, when you're at home, you keep raiding the chocolates from the box or sweets/candies from the tin and you don't want to, don't have them in the house. However, if when you're not at home, someone offers you a chocolate or a small sweet/candy, unless you're so desperate that you'll steal some more or go to a shop and buy some more, eat the chocolate or small sweet/candy. Five grams of sugar won't harm you, even if you're diabetic.

If you have Coeliac Disease and mustn't eat any significant gluten, moderation isn't an option. Ditto, if you have impaired gut integrity and you feel better avoiding gluten. If consuming stuff doesn't cause you medical problems or make you desperate to consume even more, moderation is fine.

EDIT: Sometimes, I ramble in a way that makes it hard for people to understand what I'm talking about. I've emphasised the word "Apparently", as this post is about a perceived false dichotomy (perceived by the "Nothing in moderation" group).

Protein reduces endurance (in mice), food processing vs food refining & Schrödinger.

I saw the following study via Twitter. Dietary protein decreases exercise endurance through rapamycin-sensitive suppression of muscle mitochondria.

Mmm, protein!

Hmmm! In mice, a high protein diet significantly decreased the amount of muscle mitochondria, the mitochondrial activity and the running distance at 50 weeks, although it increased muscle mass and grip power.

A mouse's natural diet is fruit or grain from plants, though mice will eat virtually anything, including Kevlar insulation on wiring. Fruit & grains aren't particularly high in protein, so it's quite possible that eating a sub-optimal diet results in sub-optimal health.

If the results do translate to humans, we have a choice between endurance, and muscle mass & strength in our old-age. I know which I would choose. You'll have to prise the proteins from my cold, dead fingers!

More from Twitter:  A Major Communication Challenge of Our Times: What on Earth Do We Say About Processed Foods? The word "refine/refined" doesn't appear in the above article. I don't have a problem with food processing. What I do have a problem with is food refining. Just after the Mid-Victorian period, it became fashionable to eat foods that had been stripped of "impurities". Goodbye essential co-factors. Hello, degenerative diseases.

Finally, today is the 126th anniversary of Erwin Schrödinger's birthday. I have only one comment:-

Blatantly stolen from http://memegenerator.co/instance/31138345

:-)

Acetyl groups.

Who'd a thunk that something as simple as an acetyl group could be so useful?

Acetyl group on Wikipedia

A common substance which is mostly an acetyl group is acetic acid, the acid in vinegar. Vinegar has quite a few medical uses, as well as making fish & chips/fries taste great.

I was reading stuff on the internet (as you do ;-) ) when it occurred to me that several substances had acetyl groups in them, e.g. Aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) , Paracetamol/Acetaminophen (N-acetyl-p-aminophenol), Heroin (diacetylmorphine), DCA (dichloroacetic acid), Acetylcholine, Acetyl-CoA, Acetylcysteine & Acetyl-L-carnitine.

Here's an amusing (unless you are/were an addict) snippet of information about Heroin (emphasis mine) from History:- "From 1898 through to 1910, diacetylmorphine was marketed under the trademark name Heroin as a non-addictive morphine substitute and cough suppressant." Oh, whoops!

Acetylation makes substances more active in the body & increases their ability to cross the blood-brain barrier, as well as having other functions in the body (e.g. changing the expression of proteins & genes).

Completing the trine: vive la différence!

First, the obligatory picture of Hannah Spearritt :-)

Women have a harder time losing weight than men. Women retain water more than men for hormonal reasons, but a factor that's overlooked is that, on average, healthy women have higher body-fat percentages than healthy men. This is because women have babies and men don't. Who knew? On the plus side, women produce more DHA than men.

Why should having higher body-fat percentages make a difference to weight loss? See What is the required energy deficit per unit weight loss? The energy deficit required to lose 1lb of body-weight increases with increasing body-fat percentage. It's rarely 3,500kcals per lb.

If you really love mathematics, see The Dynamics of Human Body Weight Change by Carson C. Chow and Kevin D. Hall.

From the above paper:- ΔU = ΔQ - ΔW

where ΔU is the change in stored energy in the body, ΔQ is a change in energy input or intake, and ΔW is a change in energy output or expenditure. This is the Energy Balance Equation. As I said back in Back to black, CIAB, pharmaceutical drug deficiencies & nerds.

Where body weight is concerned, calories count (but don't bother trying to count them).
Where body composition is concerned, partitioning counts.
Where health is concerned, macronutrient ratios, EFAs, minerals, vitamins & lifestyles count.

N.B. Poor health can adversely affect body weight and/or body composition, by increasing appetite and/or by adversely affecting partitioning.

Chow on chow, Parkinson's Law, two ways of doing something, and love.

Another mixed bag of subjects. First, here is Mr Carson C. Chow.

From A Mathematical Challenge to Obesity

According to Mr. Chow, Americans are getting increasingly fat because they're eating increasingly large amounts of "chow", because there's increasingly large amounts of it being produced. That's classic Parkinson's law (consumption expands to absorb the available supply).

According to Armi Legge, over-fat people need to . . . . Eat Less (& Move More).

There are two ways to "Eat Less".

1) Measure everything that goes into your mouth, calculate the calories in it and stick to an average daily calorie limit. Weigh yourself daily and adjust your intake to achieve a certain rate of rolling-averaged weight loss i.e. you consciously create a caloric deficit.

2) Tweak your diet until you find one that you can live with, that results in your belt and/or clothes getting looser i.e. you unconsciously create a caloric deficit. If you can't unconsciously create a caloric deficit, there will have to be some conscious restriction.

1) suits athletes & body-builders, as they are highly-motivated people who have a specific target in mind, whether it be athletic performance or a specific body-fat percentage/muscle mass/appearance.

2) suits the general public, as they aren't generally highly-motivated and won't tolerate hunger pangs.

Unfortunately, "Move More" has to be done consciously. Unconscious "Move More" i.e. Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis (NEAT) a.k.a. Spontaneous Physical Activity (SPA) is genetically-determined.

Finally, I read Stretching out. I've been spending too much time on a blog full of fallacies & hate and it's been making me tetchy. I've now disengaged from that blog permanently. Breathe in. Breathe out. That's better!

Continued on Completing the trine: vive la différence!

Taking levothyroxine & overheating in hot weather - the penny bounces back up.

Oh, whoops!

Two weeks after discontinuing levothyroxine, I was still feeling too hot (we're still having a heat wave). I thought that maybe my pituitary had started to function and my thyroid had started to produce thyroxine. I checked my body temperature. It was 35.3°C (95.5°F). The penny bounced back up.

How hot I feel ≠ How hot I am.

I'm back on 125μg/day of levothyroxine.

Back to black, CIAB, pharmaceutical drug deficiencies & nerds.

First, a song by someone who should be alive, but isn't...

The above video was inspired by a Facebook friend who had an accident with Schwartzkopf black hair dye and spent ages getting the stains off her skin. You know who you are!

I may have mentioned that nutrient deficiencies can adversely affect mental (and/or other) function. Nowadays, many people live on a diet of Crap-In-A-Bag (CIAB). There's just enough essential amino acids (EAAs), essential fatty acids (EFAs), minerals & vitamins to keep their bodies alive. However, Alive ≠ Working properly.

To compensate for one (or more) nutrient deficiencies, many people are prescribed one (or more) pharmaceutical drugs to tweak how their brains work e.g. fluoxetine, citalopram/escitalopram, venlafaxine, quetiapine, risperidone, valproate etc. There are no pharmaceutical drug deficiencies!

There are people who suffer from mental (and/or other) illnesses, despite having diets & lifestyles that provide sufficient amounts of all nutrients. This post isn't about them. There are people who suffer from depression due to traumatic & inescapable events/situations. This post isn't about them, either.

Finally, nerds! We nerds love to compile information. For an interesting interview with a top compiler of useful information, see Examine's Supplement Goals Reference Guide.

For an excellent article with a mere 148 references, see Why Calories Count. To sum up:-

Where body weight is concerned, calories count (but don't bother trying to count them).
Where body composition is concerned, partitioning counts.
Where health is concerned, macronutrient ratios, EFAs, minerals, vitamins & lifestyles count.

N.B. Poor health can adversely affect body weight and/or body composition, by increasing appetite and/or by adversely affecting partitioning.

Continued on Chow on chow, Parkinson's Law, two ways of doing something, and love.

FAO the over-fat and/or those with metabolic syndrome: Big breakfast, medium lunch & small dinner is beneficial.

Breakfast like a King/Queen.

Go to work on an egg.

According to High caloric intake at breakfast vs. dinner differentially influences weight loss of overweight and obese women.
"High-calorie breakfast with reduced intake at dinner is beneficial and might be a useful alternative for the management of obesity and metabolic syndrome." See the other PubMed studies listed in the above study, which corroborate it.

What about all the "artery-clogging" cholesterol in egg yolks? See Eat Whole Eggs All Day and Throw Your Statins Away? 375x Increased Dietary Cholesterol Intake From Eggs Reduces Visceral Fat & Promotes Healthy Cholesterol Metabolism.

I don't believe it.

And neither should you.

From http://workwithstuartchalmers.com/wp/blog/2012/10/02/banners-broker-it-care/

Well, opinions are like assholes, honey. Everybody's got one and everybody thinks everybody else's stinks. The internet is full of opinions. Why should anyone believe anything they read on the internet?

If a writer has (a) qualification(s) in "A", it means that they know something about "A". It doesn't mean that they know anything about "B", "C"....."Z". However, humans being human, they have biases. Writers write in a biased way. Also, readers read in a biased way. Having (a) qualification(s) means diddly-squat. What does mean something, is backing-up what's written with quality evidence. As I have no formal qualifications in Diet & Nutrition, I try to do that as often as possible. When I don't, it's my opinion.

Many people are intolerant of other people's opinions. No wonder so many "fights" break out on forums, message-boards & blog comments. As a writer's qualifications mean diddly-squat, what's the point in arguing about a writer's qualifications? There isn't one! It's an ad hominem fallacy. Bloggers whose blog contents consist mainly of ad hominems & other fallacies are ass hats.

This blog was morbidly obese!

Uh, do what?

That's my blog, that was!

According to http://www.statscrop.com/ for this site:-
"This site weight is 261 Kbs. The site weight should ideally be less than 125 Kbs in length."
This blog is over twice the recommended site weight, which makes it morbidly obese. The reason for this is because I like to have a large number of posts visible on the main page. Unfortunately, this makes the main page take an age to load.

I've now put this blog on a PSMF (Posts Strictly Mother F***er), by reducing the number of posts visible on the main page to four. As there's a search box in the top left-hand corner and a blog archive section & comprehensive list of labels to the right, it shouldn't be hard to find what you're looking for.

Bursting from the seams: "Obese adipocytes" literally "explode" and leave a nasty inflammatory mess.

I just read a Public post on Facebook from someone I follow and whose blog is in my list.

https://www.facebook.com/profdrandro/posts/533941643320863

It contained a word that I've never seen before, but would like to see more often - Pyroptosis. 
See Obese adipocytes show ultrastructural features of stressed cells and die of pyroptosis.

Adipocytes dying, huh? You know what that means? Loss of body-fat. Unfortunately, there is an issue with the nasty inflammatory mess left, after adipocytes "explode". This limits the rate at which adipocytes can be "exploded".

See also SuppVersity Cellulite Special: The Etiology of Cellulite, Genetical and Behavioural Risk Factors? Physical and Supplemental Treatment Strategies & Their Efficacy. Warning! Not Safe For Work, due to pictures of naked botties.

Diet, Nutrition & Fitness: Whatever the question, the right answer is "It all depends".

The carbohydrate pendulum keeps on swinging! Bloggers keep on fighting!

Carbohydrates are good. No, they're bad. Wait, they're good again. Nope, bad again. Good again. Aargh!

See also http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/more-thoughts-on-macronutrient-trends.html
 
So, are carbohydrates good or bad? See the title. Gluten? See the title.

As Everyone is Different, whether "X" is good, bad or indifferent all depends on genes (including gender), the expression of those genes, environment (i.e. birth weight, exposure to pollutants in the womb & after birth), general diet (i.e. nutrients, anutrients & anti-nutrients), lifestyle (i.e. sunlight exposure, stress, sleep etc) and type, level & volume of activity.