Reason for a New Age

Posts Tagged ‘science’

Food & Diet

Posted by publius2point0 on 2014/03/10


At its heart, food has two purposes in the human body:

  1. Energy
  2. Material

If we think of it in the terms of a car, over its lifespan a car will need fuel (gasoline, electricity, etc.) and replacement parts as old ones wear out or break. The human body isn’t so much different from that, aside from a few quirks. Humans do grow (while still young), so the food we eat doesn’t always replace something old, and of course cars need someone on the outside to change out parts where the body can correct itself with no more needed than eating a well-rounded diet.

Of course, the big question is: What is a well-rounded diet?

Despite all of the thousands of debates and millions of books out there, this is actually a pretty easy question to answer if you just work back from the information given above. A well-rounded diet needs to provide the right amount of energy and the array of materials that the human body needs. It’s basically as simple as that.

Energy

Energy in food comes principally from (and I steal shamelessly from the Wikipedia) carbohydrates, fats, proteins, organic acids, polyols, and ethanol. Each of these are molecules of hydrogen and oxygen with the occasional carbon or nitrogen. Via the wide variety of metabolic pathways, these are converted into ATP (for use) or fat (for later use). ATP is composed of hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorous. Fats (triglycerides) are composed of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.

Now I break this down to the atomic because, while molecules of H, O, N, C, and P aren’t fungible in the human body, as you might note from the chart of metabolic pathways in the above link, there are enough routes that can be taken to convert one molecular type into another type that so far as it goes when talking about “carbohydrates, fats, proteins, organic acids, polyols, and ethanol”, one might as well say that they are all equivalent to the body. At the end of the day, they’re going to be rent asunder into their component atoms and reassembled into whatever is needed. A few pathways are more indirect, so that some sources of energy are less efficient, but this is taken into account when calories are listed on food labels. You do not need to remember which types of energy are more or less efficient at growing your ass.

Interestingly, carbon is a component of fat but not of ATP. Unfortunately, I think you’re out of luck if you want to try to avoid eating carbon so that your body can’t create fat. But that is an interesting point about chemical reactions.

Chemical reactions follow a system similar to puzzles. If the ins-and-outs of two objects don’t align just right, then you’re just plain out of luck in terms of getting anything to happen between them. This is one reason why the general answer to questions like, “What happens if I eat a lump of plastic?”, are that you’re just going to poop it. Plastic molecules just don’t have the right shape to be noticed by any of the chemicals that your body is going to expose the things that you ingest, so it will be ignored. More interestingly – from the standpoint of diet – is that if your body lacks one chemical, then it might not be able to do something else. The citric acid cycle, for example, is one of the major metabolic pathways. It is the major route for carbohydrates, fats, and proteins to be turned into energy. But as the name suggests, the cycle is dependent on citric acid. Failure to ingest enough citric acid could, potentially, shut down the citric acid cycle and prevent your body from being able to convert food into energy. Unfortunately, the pathway to fat is completely different so all you would be doing is to decrease your activity level.

I should probably point out, at this point, that you should not try eating random chemicals – regardless of whether you think you’ll just poop them or not – nor should you arbitrarily try cutting out your supply of certain nutrients because you think you’ve spotted a way to shut down some particular subsystem of your body. Talk to a physician before putting or not putting something in your mouth.

Material

Everything you ingest is, of course, a “material” for your body. But where food taken in as energy is largely burned and later exhaled, essential nutrients are used for structural purposes. You might note above that phosphorus is a component of ATP – which largely serves as the gasoline of the body – yet we don’t need to eat phosphorus to keep moving. I infer from that, that phosphorus is just a structural element of ATP and is re-used after all of the other elements are used. Minus it, you wouldn’t have any energy to do anything, but the rate at which phosphorus is lost from the body doesn’t have a strong relationship to how much energy you burn. (It looks like most of it forms the structure of your bones and teeth – along with other elements.)

For any essential nutrient, they fall into one of two piles:

1. Excesses will lead to toxicity.
2. Excesses will be pooped out.

But in all cases, if you don’t get enough then bad things happen. And so, if you read the tables listed in the page of Dietary Reference Intake, you can find out how much is too little (the Estimated Average Requirements) and how much is too much (the Upper Intake). For some things, like vitamin K, there isn’t any particular upper limit that we know of that you can intake with negative health effects. Not that I recommend verifying this, yourself.

Handily, there’s also a table of the recommended intake. Unfortunately, unless you enjoy memorizing lists, reverse engineering whether you’re hitting your targets from what you’ve eaten is not an easy task. Unlike energy, essential nutrients can’t be reduced to a single number (calories). Fortunately, if you’re not hitting your target, you’ll know it because you won’t feel healthy. So if you do feel healthy, then you’re eating all the nutrients that you need. If you’re not, then you’re either a hypochondriac (which is probably more likely than that you need to start taking multivitamins) or you should look through the tables and find things that you’re probably missing from your diet and see if you can add those to your diet – or talk to your doctor. But since almost everything we eat (the notable exceptions being salt and water) are former living creatures, and they have many of the same needs as us, by simple virtue that we’re eating our fellow life, it’s not too hard to get all the nutrients you need.

The Best Diet

So what’s the best diet?

Well, how much energy you burn in a day depends on how active you are and how efficiently you are able to move (e.g. men are generally larger, so there’s greater inertia for us to fight against when we move). There are probably ways to get a hard number, if you strap enough measuring equipment onto yourself and live your life as normal for a few weeks, but there’s an easier way. If you’re thin and always down on energy, you should raise the total number of calories that you eat. If you’re overweight, you should reduce your caloric intake and/or raise your activity level. An average of 2,100 kcal for women and 2,700 for men is a good base assumption – but everyone’s metabolism is slightly different. You may genuinely have a body/diet which leads to every ounce of energy being stripped from the food you take, or one which passes nearly everything through to the toilet.

For reference, 2,375 kcal is equivalent to a cheeseburger, a medium fries, a bowl of cereal, an orange, a salad, a cup of broccoli, two soft drinks, a slice of pumpkin pie, and a banana. As a rough estimate, it looks like if you assume 400 kcal for a main dish, 150 for a side, and 100 for a (non-water) beverage, you should be able to get by in daily life.

Name Estimate Real
Cheeseburger 400 600
Medium Fries 150 380
Bowl of Cereal 400 310
Orange 150 45
Salad 400 300
Broccoli 150 30
2x Soft Drinks 200 280
Slice of Pie 400 325
Banana 150 105
Total 2400 2375

Now, that’s more than I eat in a day and I’d definitely put on fat if I tried. I probably eat an average of 1200 kcal per day and still need to hit the gym regularly. Olympic athletes can eat up to 8,000 or 12,000 kcal per day (for some of the more energetic sports). Don’t expect your average, if you want to maintain a healthy weight, to be very close to the recommended average. Nor even that it will stay consistent from year-to-year. Our metabolisms change through our life, as do our activity levels. And don’t think that there’s something magical about your body that allows it to create fat no matter how little you eat. There may be some illness that causes people’s body to only produce fats instead of ATP out of food, but the lack of morbidly obese people in most of history and the planet is a fair indicator that if there is such an illness, it is a freak occurrence. But otherwise, basic physics tells us that it’s impossible to create fat unless you’ve ingested at least an equivalent amount of excess energy-producing material.

Essential nutrients are less flexible. I suspect that larger people would need to take more of certain nutrients (like vitamin K) to cover for the extra volume, though not all would have that sort of gain (since your skeleton and teeth stay the same size no matter how big you get it). But overall, the recommended daily intakes are probably a solid bet.

But so far as your body is concerned, at the end of the day, everything is just atoms and molecules. You could probably healthily live to a hundred eating lard and some wisely-chosen multivitamins. You could get your daily iron by biting off chunks of the Eiffel tower. Your body doesn’t really care how it was made or how tasty it was in your mouth, just whether the right components are there to be taken in and used.

So what is the best diet? Eat all the nutrients you need and adjust your caloric intake to adjust your weight. That’s really all it should come down to.

Hunger & Satisfaction

But the reality is that when people talk about diet, what they really mean is, “How can I lose weight while still feeling satisfied?” Granted, satisfaction has a few factors to it, the gratification of eating large, filling meals, the flavors and colors of the food before you, etc. Many people just wouldn’t be satisfied if they were asked to eat small, cold portions of clinically-prepared rations, regardless of whether it met their dietary needs or not. In some societies, like Japan, a small bowl of miso soup and a single small grilled fish counts as a perfectly full and complete meal. So terms like “large” and “inviting” are largely based on our expectations, but I can imagine that after decades of eating large plates, piled with foods draped in sauces, it’s hard to lower your sights.

But I think that the harder thing for most people to tackle is the prospect of hunger.

When we talk of instinct, really what we’re talking about is chemicals. Through evolutionary processes, what works (eating, mating, etc.) and what doesn’t (starvation, running off cliffs, etc.) have been determined for the species. And in general, your body produces chemicals when it senses that you’re doing things which are good for yourself and the species that we interpret as joy or satisfaction, and chemicals that we interpret as displeasure and stress when we’re doing things that are bad. This is nature’s stick and carrot to make us behave as it thinks we should.

Unfortunately, instinct is stupid. It can’t differentiate between success in ones life and injecting morphine into your blood stream – since the latter is just cutting out the middle man. But more saliently, it can’t differentiate between starving and shaving off the pounds, nor can it understand the difference between eating enough to live a healthy lifestyle and enough to sink a large boat.

In our bodies, hunger/satiation appears to be primarily modulated by Ghrelin (hunger), Leptin (general satisfaction), and Peptide YY (immediate satisfaction).

Information is scarce, but it looks like ghrelin is produced by the intestine when the abdomen’s own store of fat starts to get low. Seeing as food is necessary for life, and food becomes useful to us via the processing that happens in the intestine, it makes sense that hunger would be triggered when the intestine’s backup generator starts to run out of fuel. But consequently, the obese are rarely subjected to ghrelin (since they always have lots of extra fat) and their brains become more sensitive to it when it is released.

Leptin is produced by adipose tissue (i.e. fat-holding tissue). Leptin acts more like a gas meter, always visible to the brain. The more fat you have, the more leptin your body is producing at any given time (24-7). But unlike a gas meter, with a hard “Full” point at the top, our brain interprets more leptin as better. Raising it always feels better and you’ll always feel dissatisfied when it drops to a lower level. In the literature, this is referred to as “leptin resistance”.

Peptide YY is used as a signal for the body to start digesting food – and hence also used by the brain to detect that we have eaten and are satiated.

When one starts to lose weight, ghrelin production starts to occur more quickly and we respond to it worse if we’ve been overweight. And more importantly, we appear to stay sensitive to ghrelin even after we have lost weight. That is to say, if you used to be obese but are now a healthy weight, you’ll feel more hungry than people who were never overweight. While you’re in the process of losing weight, your leptin level reduces and you’ll feel generally dissatisfied with the world and stressed out. Fortunately, it looks like healthy living and exercise can reset your body’s leptin expectations to something lower. Peptide YY just reacts when food hits your colon so dieting shouldn’t affect much.

Overall, I’m not too concerned with leptin. I tend to think that people are more driven by immediate drives than long-term ones. Plus it looks like after the first few days of dieting (during which leptin levels drop significantly) leptin levels raise to normal levels and don’t affect you at a significant level. But the ability to modulate the other two would be a boon to the ease of dieting.

Ones expectation would be that we could do this by raising the fat-level of our abdomen quickly (so that ghrelin production is stopped) and to get food into our intestines quickly so that Peptide YY is released earlier.

In tests, it seems that ghrelin production can be diminished by eating carbohydrates. If we eat when ghrelin is produced – indicating that the intestines want to store fat – and eat something which can easily be converted into fat directly in the intestine, and the intestine will choose to store fat for itself before supplying the rest of the body. If that is indeed the case, then eating a small, high-carb snack when you feel hungry, might be a method to deal with this. The important factors to consider would be that this still counts towards your total daily caloric intake, and I must note that the total amount of fat stored in your abdomen is probably fairly small and I doubt that your body waits until your abdomen is on empty before signalling for more food. So the total amount that you need to eat to replenish your abdominal fat level is probably quite small.

For getting food through your gut quickly, fiber seems to be the go-to ingredient. But many high-carb items like potatoes and chips tend to be low on fiber and, in fact, travel through your intestines extra slow (reportedly). So rather than reaching for Fritos or Doritos when you’re feeling hungry and want a snack, the better options would probably be:

Legumes like peanuts and edamame
Natural grains like oats and whole wheat
Fruit

The important thing for someone who has lost weight would probably be to remember that snacking is like taking medicine. There is a proper dosage and intake schedule. The goal isn’t to eat or enjoy a meal, it’s to pacify your body when it thinks you should be eating something, but when really you shouldn’t be. But also to realize if you have lost weight that this is something that you – due to raised ghrelin sensitivity – will have to do every day for the rest of your life. You need to make sure that you have the right type of snacks available, in the right quantities, and that you have incorporated them into your overall diet plan.

Posted in Research | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Driving to Save Gas

Posted by publius2point0 on 2011/02/06


In the forthcoming years, cars will continue to be given higher and higher levels of MPGs as they go on sale. This will be accomplished through various means of mechanical trickery which improve efficiency and reduce the amount of power needed in the first place (like better aerodynamics).

However, it’s worth noting that one can achieve differences in fuel consumption in the realm of the double digits (like 20-30% less fuel use) just by changing the way that you drive. Obviously, that will depend on your driving habits as they are now.

The big rules are effectively:

  1. Don’t speed up
  2. Don’t slow down
  3. Slower is better

Don’t Speed Up

As you may recall from grade school, Newton had several laws about motion. The first of these laws was, “Every body remains in a state of rest or uniform motion (constant velocity) unless it is acted upon by an external unbalanced force. This means that in the absence of a non-zero net force, the center of mass of a body either remains at rest, or moves at a constant speed in a straight line.” That is to say, everything has “inertia”. To maintain a vehicle at a particular speed requires very little energy as the car’s inertia wants the car to continue to move at that same speed. But when you are accelerating, you are fighting inertia, and spending extra fuel to do it. Fighting it more strongly — for instance, trying to accelerate a lot all at once — eats even more.

If you must speed up, then you might also consider waiting until you are on a downhill slope. This way, you already have a force on your side helping you to accelerate. On the other hand, you never want to accelerate when you are going uphill, as then you are fighting both inertia and gravity together. You might even consider letting the car decelerate as it goes uphill, rather than applying more gas to maintain speed. Once you’re flat again, it will be easy enough to get back up to speed.

Don’t Slow Down

It cost you fuel to get up to the speed at which you are traveling. When you apply the brakes, every bit of fuel that you spent accelerating to your current speed is, effectively, lost. You are wasting all of that energy by turning it into waste heat at your brake pads.

Obviously, at some point you must slow down. But quite often you know ahead of time that you are going to have to stop. For instance, if you look ahead and see a distant stoplight turn red, then why keep your foot on the gas while you approach? If you simply let the car coast in neutral, you’ll still get to the light, so why waste the gas on maintaining speed up to that point? And of course as the car decelerates on its own, without the use of brakes, it takes longer to get to the light. By the time you begin to approach, the light may turn back green and you can proceed on. If you had gotten there sooner, you would have braked fully, losing all inertia, whereas now you only lost some.

Slower is Better

Air is, actually, a solid. If I stick a boat with a large sheet of cloth on a lake, it will be pushed quite forcefully along.

We generally don’t notice this solidity because we are moving quite slow. Just the same as I don’t notice how resistant water is when I swim gently, when I leap off a bridge into a body of water, it suddenly seems quite solid.

The faster you move through a material like air or water, the more resistance there is to just maintaining that speed. While inertia does make it comparatively easy to maintain speed, for every little bit faster that you are going, the amount of fuel necessary to maintain that speed increases.

Getting back to the example where we see a light change to red ahead, it’s also worth noting that quite often you’ll get a green light just as the next stop light turns red. Obviously you will need to accelerate some just to get to the next light, but why not accelerate to no higher speed than necessary for the light to change again before you get there? The people behind you will wonder what you are up to, but really that’s their problem; you’re saving fuel.

If the speed limit is 60, while yes that does mean that you can go something more like 62 without needing to fear any policeman, you can also go something more like 58 and still not worry.

Other

Of course, there are other things you can do to improve your fuel efficiency — and I’ll provide some links at the end so that you can see them — but one thing you might not usually think of is to cast off excess weight.

You see, while our fuel efficient cars of today are reaching something like 45 mpg (in the case of the Toyota Prius), back in the late 70s and early 80s, we had regular gas guzzling cars without any odd modifications achieving miles per gallon in the realm of 60-65. The difference was that these were small and light cars, whereas the cars from the 80s on had to pack on hundreds of extra pounds to meet the safety standards of modern day. As an example, the classic Mini Cooper weighed about 1500 lbs. The new one weighs about 2500. The original VW Beetle was about 2000 lbs, the new one is 2700. Accelerating a greater mass takes a larger amount of energy, and hence more fuel.

If you want to save money, depending on the lengths to which you are willing to go, you could cut a fair significant amount of fuel use by lopping bits off of your vehicle. Take the plastic cover off of your engine. Take the rugs and carpeting out. Have the big, heavy seats replaced with minimalist racing seats. This doesn’t even need to be permanent, you can set these items in your garage and have them put back in when you sell the car. The cost of doing this work will almost certainly be cheaper than a new car, and just as likely you’ll earn the cost back in fuel savings before long.

It really just depends on how much you care and to what lengths you are willing to go.

Personally, I drive 62 mph and couldn’t be bothered to strip my car. But I do let the car coast to a stop and don’t accelerate towards a red light. But that’s me.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.shtml
http://cars.about.com/od/helpforcarbuyers/tp/ag_top_fuelsave.htm

Posted in Research | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Understanding Genes

Posted by publius2point0 on 2011/01/02


There’s a tendency for people to think and for the media to report that discovering all of the inherited traits in the world is in simply finding the gene responsible and changing it to a better one. I’m going to go out on a limb and state that this idea is, at least 99% of the time, going to be incorrect.

Think of DNA as being like a blueprint for a house. If I look at that blueprint, what part do I check to see what level of earthquake the house could withstand? What part do I look at to see if there will be proper ventilation?

There’s a wide difference between a blueprint and a set of requirements. The set of requirements for a house might be something like:

1) Level of earthquake which the house can withstand?
6

2) Number of years that the roof can go without being replaced?
20

3) Direction that the front door must be facing?
South

With a set of requirements like this, it would be easy to locate where the choice is and toggle it. If you want a stronger roof, you find item #2 and change it to a higher number. But with nothing more than a set of requirements, you could hand two architects the same document and receive entirely different designs. Only if your list of items was so long as to not require an architect would you have any hope of getting the same result, and at that point you’re looking at a blueprint, not a requirements sheet. A requirements sheet requires a third party who can fill in the gaps with some amount of intellect and basic understanding of what a house is and what the basics of such a structure are. DNA does not work like that. Firstly, if it did then twins would not particularly look like one another. And secondly, if it did, an egg would not be able to turn into a chicken. You wouldn’t be able to stick a strand of DNA in a soup of food, and have it be able to fully construct a full, complex structure all on its own. All of the necessary information for a full creature must be in there. Simply understanding that DNA works to create a creature via a series of chemical reactions which build on one another — like a complex Rube Goldberg machine of chemistry — tells you that you’re looking at the full blueprint when you see a strand of DNA.

The positive side of this is, as I pointed out in a previous blog, that you don’t need to understand how DNA works to be able to build a human or any other creature. So long as you can replicate the chemistry in a virtual environment, you just need to insert the initial seed and it will grow all on its own. But the negative side is, of course, that until you do so, there is unlikely to be any way to understand what any part of blueprint actually means in a real sense. If you wanted to know how well a house would last in an earthquake, you would have to build it in a simulator and then shake the virtual world. After doing this often enough with enough houses, you might start to understand what the key design choices were that work in different houses and postulate specific, targeted recommendations for changes. But there won’t be any guarantee that the reason for which any two houses did better than others would be the same. One might last because it is shorter and wider, while another does better because it is made with flexible materials.

Why do some people live longer than others? There’s no particular guarantee that there’s any shared link between any two centenarians for having successfully lived to that point. It’s unlikely that somewhere there’s a couple of molecules which encode a number like “100” or “150”. It’s all about how the overall design worked out for lasting a long time. There won’t be a section for IQ, height, nor any other hard number that we can add a few digits to. We need to understand the whole thing.

To be certain, there will be sections of our DNA which map to the obvious. If I look at a blueprint, I can probably figure out how wide and deep the eventual house will be. For DNA, there is probably items of equal obviousness. Some of these may be medically relevant and we’ll be able to use gene therapy or some other means to fix just that small, target-able section of DNA.

For most things, unfortunately, we will have to wait.

Posted in Research | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »