No more than an average engineer that got knowledge about genetics from school and articles.
However, much less than biologists know, more successful of which admit they don't understand genetics, but playing with it can get some practical results. Such as modification of DNA of pigs to get closer match of transplants for humans.
I know. When machine spits out some numbers we call it "Objective" and don't question.
Like recently patriot, veteran got arrested because machine spit out that he is dangerous terrorist. The guy spent some time in hospital against his will where he was "psychologically evaluated" because nothing was found to incriminate him legally. I believe people who participated in this action even did not think about legal issues or other things like common sense because we got used to "objectivity of computer data".
Let's see now. I moved to North America as a teen from my birth country of Bulgaria, which, albeit officially a developed country and a EU and NATO member, was and remains relatively poor.
I eat a ton of junk food. It's a good fraction of my 3000 average daily caloric intake.
I am 6'1" (185.5 cm) and 135 lbs (61 kg). That's a BMI of 17.8, well into the underweight category.
There's nothing wrong with me, physiologically. I went through a full barrage of tests, including by a gastroenterologist and by the head endocrinologist at the University of BC's hospital, and I've a clean bill of health. Clearly, genetics are the overriding factor, not behavior/diet/nurture/whatever as in many other things.**
So for your anecdotal evidence I provide mine above, which directly counters it.
That's the thing about anecdotal evidence: even if it's true, it's statistically insufficient. You need a proper study with a good sample size (and given past experience, you really need multiple studies).
**For example, judging by evolutionary psychology research over the last couple of decades, it's the overriding factor in human behavior as well, including the difference between individuals, the sexes, and population groups. On the latter, here's just a sampling:
Edwards AW (August 2003). "Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy". BioEssays 25 (8): 798–801. (http://www.goodrumj.com/Edwards.pdf)
Bowcock, A.M., A. Ruiz-Linares, J. Romfohrde, et al. 1994. "High resolution of human evolutionary trees with polymorphic microsatellites." Nature 368: 455-57.
Calafell, F., A. Shuster, W.C. Speed, et al. 1998. "Short tandem repeat polymorphism evolution in humans." European Journal of Human Genetics 6: 38-49.
Mountain, J.L. and L.L. Cavalli-Sforza. 1997. "Multilocus genotypes, a tree of individuals, and human evolutionary history." American Journal of Human Genetics 61: 705-18.
Rosenberg, N.A., J.K. Pritchard, J.L. Weber, et al. 2002. "Genetic structure of human populations." Science 298: 2381-85.
Stephens, J.C., J.A. Schneider, D.A. Tanguay, et al. 2001. "Haplotype variation and linkage disequilibrium in 313 human genes." Science 293: 489-93.
Tang, H., T. Quertermous, B. Rodriguez, et al. 2005. "Genetic structure, self-identified race/ethnicity, and confounding in case-control association studies." American Journal of Human Genetics 76: 268-75.
Last edited:
Muckrake; I believe you inherited traditional culture of food choice, so can't say that you eat exactly the junk food that people who are getting sick of it consume. It is common flaw of similar studies, when researches draw conclusions about genetic properties when actually inherited from parents and surrounding habits matter. And I am 100% sure, if you or me start eating exactly like my wife's patients eat, and lead very similar lifestyle, we would be her patients with diabesity, despite of different genes.
In that "anecdotal evidence" the trainer adopted _exactly_ lifestyle of his clients. Your anecdotal evidence is more anecdotal, no other details than your subjective opinion about what kind of food you eat.
In that "anecdotal evidence" the trainer adopted _exactly_ lifestyle of his clients. Your anecdotal evidence is more anecdotal, no other details than your subjective opinion about what kind of food you eat.
Eggs are a nice source of protein and fats. I eat at least two eggs a day, fried in (non-clarified) butter, and my cholesterol is A-ok.
I'd love to gain some weight, so do share details of these fattening diets.
Let's not forget that the most powerful toxins in the world, such as botulinum toxin, are natural. So are the overwhelming majority of diseases. It's also natural to get eaten by a bear in the woods, of which I am only too keenly aware after close encounters during mountaineering. I am thankful for my unnatural "bear banger" pyrotechnic device which has likely saved my life on one occasion.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Shame about deregulated nations allowing poisons in food with no labels.
As an ex biochemist (my first degree) I have to say that I think their are lots of things that make me worried about the "objectivity" of science in this field.
My usual example is the The Great Ulcer Drug Rip-off
For similar reasons (money), people suggest a "safe" level of dioxin in the diet, and yes speaking to Vietnamese their are still weekly pictures of newly born deformed babies due to dioxin in agent orange for the Vietnam war with the USA.
Feeding animals on foods filled with hormones to make them grow fast, and filling them full of antibiotics, has of cause no relation to people getting fat, no no no, we would rather blame the individual who is fat than regulate the food of animals or the dangerous chemicals used in the processing of food.
Just like most countries have not banned Trans_fat which is probably killing more people in the USA than the total number of abortions in the USA, although Coronary heart disease figures currently suggest only 1/10th or the figures, this is only one of the health effects, and as time goes by more "modern" industrialized nation causes of ill health are being associated, and not just obesity.
While at Uni, even with the low standard of organic milk available in the UK supermarkets, we did a double blind test with 3 people and everyone could taste the difference with organic milk and regular chemically assisted milk.
In summary, my education suggests that organic (or "bio" for Europeans) is a very good idea for an individual who can afford organic meat and dairy. When it comes to organic vegetables, I am not concerned about fertilizer hurting the person eating the food (though it may hurt the environment where it is farmed), I think the risks and health effects of pesticides are much less significant than they where in 50-70's, but I have heard evidence that carrots are of particular interest in that they store large doses of pesticides inside them.
On a final note my work canteen has banned all processed and off site prepared food from the menu, and I am not alone in having lost a lot of wait in the past few months.
As an ex biochemist (my first degree) I have to say that I think their are lots of things that make me worried about the "objectivity" of science in this field.
My usual example is the The Great Ulcer Drug Rip-off
For similar reasons (money), people suggest a "safe" level of dioxin in the diet, and yes speaking to Vietnamese their are still weekly pictures of newly born deformed babies due to dioxin in agent orange for the Vietnam war with the USA.
Feeding animals on foods filled with hormones to make them grow fast, and filling them full of antibiotics, has of cause no relation to people getting fat, no no no, we would rather blame the individual who is fat than regulate the food of animals or the dangerous chemicals used in the processing of food.
Just like most countries have not banned Trans_fat which is probably killing more people in the USA than the total number of abortions in the USA, although Coronary heart disease figures currently suggest only 1/10th or the figures, this is only one of the health effects, and as time goes by more "modern" industrialized nation causes of ill health are being associated, and not just obesity.
While at Uni, even with the low standard of organic milk available in the UK supermarkets, we did a double blind test with 3 people and everyone could taste the difference with organic milk and regular chemically assisted milk.
In summary, my education suggests that organic (or "bio" for Europeans) is a very good idea for an individual who can afford organic meat and dairy. When it comes to organic vegetables, I am not concerned about fertilizer hurting the person eating the food (though it may hurt the environment where it is farmed), I think the risks and health effects of pesticides are much less significant than they where in 50-70's, but I have heard evidence that carrots are of particular interest in that they store large doses of pesticides inside them.
On a final note my work canteen has banned all processed and off site prepared food from the menu, and I am not alone in having lost a lot of wait in the past few months.
Yuck, the typical North American lean pork...
High fattiness gives much improved texture and flavor, as the meat bastes in its own fat when you're cooking it. I suggest experiencing the joys of Berkshire pork (also found in some Japanese joints as Kurobuta pork).
With typical North American pork, I find I have to brine it and then slow cook it to get a proper result, regardless of cut.
Why did not you follow the links I provided?
But I have to warn, it will be hard for you to follow them: traditional healthy Bulgarian lifestyle is part of you, even if you grew up in America.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.