Air Pollution is Us

The dangers of air pollution seem obvious and of concern to some, but apparently only a minority. How much of the apathy is attributed to "I don't care" or "I don't believe it", or both, is unknown. Yet, I see it on a daily basis. 

The most striking is the number of people that leave their gas-powered vehicles running while at stores or other business. On my walk to and from the gym, I pass cars parked on the sides of the street and in the post-office parking lot. It's more common than not to notice that most vehicle engines are on and running with no occupants in them. 

Out of curiosity, I timed 4 empty vehicles independently with engines running (1 at post office, 2 at a barber shop, 1 store parking lot). Vacancy time was 12-32 minutes. The other day 5 running vehicles parked at the post-office were backed into the lot with rear ends butting the sidewalk. Another time I walked passed an engaged car with a passenger in a store parking lot. ~Twenty-five minutes later when I exited the store, the car was still running with it's passenger. I see this year-round, not just seasonal.

I see this ALL the time! Imagine how much emissions are exhausted into the air. I notice during my walks on cold and gray days that the exhaust stays closer to the ground, not dissipating into the air above, and worse on windless days. What that means is that I'm breathing it the entire time I walk along the streets. I can smell and taste it. 

All this in a small rural town. Now, consider the expansion of this in cities and along major highways. This is why I don't like living in urban areas (as well as my hypersensitivity to noise). And it affects more than just us humans; it impacts all life forms. 

Here is an important factoid: a scientist discovered by stringent experiments that lead in the environment was almost nil until the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and increased every year. By sampling the permafrost in Greenland he found that the levels significantly increased in the 1950's, coinciding when lead was added to gasoline. Lead in gas was (is) volatilized in engines and emitted from tailpipes. Therefore, lead was deposited along streets and highways for decades. 

The dangers of lead were known decades before unleaded gas was introduced for on-road vehicles in the 1950's. Yet it took another 20 years for unleaded gas to be phased out completely. Lead use in gasoline was prohibited in the US in 1986.

The problems are: 

1. Lead is a heavy metal and stays in living tissues for some time, depending on how much and long an organism was exposed. High exposure (time and amount) can lead to the metal deposited and stored  in bones and teeth (the two common sources for sampling of lead contamination).

2. Bioaccumulation: lead from air pollution, etc can accumulate in soil and plants, and the organisms that use plants for food source. And lead can persist for hundreds of years.

"Lead shares about 10% of total pollution produced by heavy metals. The uptake of lead by the primary producers (plants) is found to affect their metabolic functions, growth, and photosynthetic activity. The accumulation of lead in excess can cause up to a 42% reduction in the growth of the roots."

Also, lead arsenate and other lead compounds were used as pesticides for food crops,  such as fruit orchards and on other crops, until the 1950s. But that lead in the soil is still there and being absorbed by plant roots. Sampling of plants along highways and streets demonstrate that plants absorb, and some sequester, lead from the air. (Avoid planting edible plants next to roads and highways.)

Pollution particles are not just lead, as this recent science article points out. Yet no one seems to care, considering the amount of pollution generated, knowingly and unknowingly, on a daily basis. Right under our noses.

"The damage that air pollution can do is wide-ranging and well-known: The chemicals produced by human activities can trap heat in the atmosphere, change the chemistry of the oceans and harm human health in myriad ways.

Now, a new study suggests that air pollution might also make flowers less attractive to pollinating insects. Compounds called nitrate radicals, which can be abundant in nighttime urban air, severely degrade the scent emitted by the pale evening primrose, reducing visits from pollinating hawk moths." ("Polluted Flowers Smell Less Sweet to Pollinators, Study Finds," Emily Anthes, New York Times, 2/08/2024)

 

The Mental Health Crisis

I read an announcement this morning and associated media release about a NYS senator supporting introduced legislation to help recruit more mental health professionals to state counties that lack them. Which is most of NY state and nearly all rural counties.

One of her comments reflects public attitudes and policy regarding mental heath in this country (let alone the state). And it "stoked my fire" enough to type and send her an email (see below). 

Writing the email was easy. What's less easy is posting it here with my identification added to it. It's like stepping out on a public street naked with a sign, "See us, help us," where the typical reaction is that most other people will turn away or pretend they didn't see. That is the stigma all with mental health issues carry. 

Mental health issues don't mean we are damaged or broken. For some, we are just different; some of us have managed to cope. For others, they live every day in a nightmare. Most of us also remain hidden and invisible; by our own choice, because we are ignored, or we can't get help. It's not just an individual's problem, or New York's problem, it is the entire country. 

We really are more alike than we are different. But the stigma pushes us away, and, in some cases, kills us. This country's perceptions and public policy has, in a minute quality and quantity, changed for the better. But not enough. And the population of the troubled have grown. Just as centuries ago, only the privileged have ensured access to help and care.

This needs to change. It is starts with each and every person.
_____________________________________________________________

Contents of my email:

"I read the announcement and media release about the effort to increase mental health professionals in New York state counties that need it. Which, judging from the map in the media, is 73% of all NY state counties. Most of the latter are rural.

Offering student loan forgiveness for MH “professionals” is a pittance to the epidemic of mental health issues in this state (and country). The offer appeals more to recent graduates than the experienced exerts and professionals that are sorely needed.

The comment in the media piece demonstrates the attitude of people in our society that others with mental health issues are only “an enormous burden on our society and economy as a whole, imposing millions of dollars in direct and indirect costs." Very little consideration of the personal pain of the afflicted, their families, and their loved ones. We are whitewashed, as we have been for centuries.

Increasing professionals will not lessen or solve the MH epidemic. Most of the afflicted cannot afford professional help, even with most insurances. And many do not have any insurance. This is why a high number of people with MH issues die (overdose or suicide) or end up incarcerated. This results from lack of support and help. Isn’t it ironic that the only time the public notices is when they are in jail or in obituaries?

A large % of people and families live paycheck to paycheck. They can’t afford professional help because they struggle to feed themselves, pay their rents, and make it to their jobs. They also fear the “system”, scared that their children will be taken from them, that they will lose input or control over their own lives, and, most of all , they fear the stigma. Which, as your comment demonstrates and perpetuates, is very real and alive.

Mental health acknowledges no social and economic boundaries. Society sets the boundaries. And the privileged can afford professional help and services. Especially in the cities, as the map demonstrates. Rural people are left to flounder through the nightmares in which they live.

Do better. Help bring the mental health crisis to the forefront of the ongoing overall health crisis. Help them by reducing the stigmas and fear. Help them by making MH care more accessible and affordable. Help the public understand that 1 in 5 people in this country experience MH issues. And that number may actually be higher because many people hide it or are undiagnosed. They are the invisible people that silently cry out for help.

I’m on the autistic spectrum, diagnosed late in life. Most of my life has been living in a “different world” that no one else knew or saw. I know others in worse situations that live moment to moment wondering how they will cope and make it to the next day. I see undiagnosed children with less awareness of their problems, and, most of all, their futures. Some may not have a future.

We are the 'I have no mouth and I must scream.' "

Humans are not islands

"Pathosystem" 

I like that term. It encompasses a systems perspective -both pathogen and host- rather than focusing on just a single component of a system. It is an ecosystems perspective with emphasis on pathogen-host-environment. 

My academic career spanned plant, animal and human pathology (except for the last several years in physiology). A systems perspective is always inherent in the first two, less so in human pathology. It's as if Descartes binary philosophy (separation of mind and body) extended to separation of body and the environment in which bodies exist. As medical specialization demonstrates, even separation of organs from the rest of the body. 

I have wondered if this might be a contributing factor in some of the failures of modern medicine. An example is the lack of translational research of human psychology and medicine. 

The prime example is diabetes: lot of research in physiology and pharmacology, but little research and application of how/what to inform and impact people to change and adopt behaviors that prevent and reduce diabetes. This extends also to social systems: education, policy, connecting the production, supply and access of nutritious food. 

We know how this works and how to achieve these goals with plants and animals. And we practice it, most of the time. The question is why can't we do it for ourselves, and other people? 

This is what we really need to focus on. It's that part of the 'ecosystem' that is dysfunctional. Science should be the leader in this. 

Why isn't it? Has that failed us, too?

History of obesity. In Denmark.

“The origins of the obesity epidemic may be further back than we thought”

A recently published paper concluded that the rise of obesity began earlier than conventionally assumed. (See article summarizing study: The Origins of Obesity in Science.)

"This study revealed that continuous steady increases since the interwar period in the upper percentiles of the BMI distribution preceded the obesity epidemic, with an almost similar pattern in the children and the young men." (published paper)

I agree with some of the criticisms of the study and conclusions, such as population sample=1 (Denmark). Is this trend replicated in other countries? 

Another comment from a biostatistician that “slow and steady increases in obesity don’t necessarily indicate an earlier onset of the epidemic [of obesity]”. A proper data pool for that would require data before 1930’s. 

A statement from the original published paper confirms my observation over the years traveling this country: “The acceleration of the obesity epidemic has been stronger in rural and provincial areas than in densely populated urban areas, which was seen already in the beginning of the rise of prevalence in obesity in Danish young men during the 1960s.”

And, like anything involving human behavior, the contributions are multifactorial.

The high prevalence of obesity in people of all ages in rural Ohio was a shock when I moved there in late 2001. 

During a conversation on this subject with a man (late 20’s) that I was training, he commented that as agriculture became industrialized it required less physical activity by all family members. However, the culture of food and eating amongst farm families remained the same: calorically dense food, especially fats, and large portions during meals. 

Consequently, while activity levels decreased, the energy balance became very skewed towards a positive high caloric net balance. Which, over time, results in increased body mass.  

We can see an eventual similar trend in urban areas over time, albeit slower. My hypothesis is that most rural families used to grow their own food, meat and vegetables/grains. So they had an almost guaranteed supply of food and energy. 

Urban people had to purchase all their food (and still do). Purchasing power for food was based on their incomes and other debts (rent, etc). History worldwide has shown that wealthy people always have had almost unrestricted access to food. For many centuries, being overweight was a social sign of being affluent. 

It was only during the last half century when increasingly more people began moving from rural to urban communities. Industrial agriculture and food processing caused a large shift in the nutritional content and availability of food, and the culture of food. 

As Gary said that day, “People of Ohio still love their corn and pork, and there is plenty of it here. But now everyone has desk and ‘standing still’ jobs. And the kids don’t play as much; they’re glued to their phones and video games.”

Whose afraid of Virginia Woolf?

While reading this post about Virginia Woolf,  I was reminded of an internal and eternal dialogue pondering the question of how we perceive 'alone' and 'lonely'. The problem is that the two are not synonymous, although the wide perception often is. 'Alone' is not always 'lonely'. Yet, we are conditioned to think that anyone that is alone is 'lonely'. 

Semantically, 'alone' can mean 'solitude'. A person can be literally alone: by one's self away from other people. It may feel comfortable or uncomfortable. I can be alone, the only human on a mountain top, and not lonely; I feel solitude and connected to all life round me. Likewise, a person can be 'alone' and unconnected in a crowd of people, but comfortable with it. It's usually a choice. It's less about our circumstance, but how we react to them.*

But 'loneliness' is less ambiguous: it's a feeling of being alone, unconnected, and not liking it. Both are internal states, but loneliness is less related to what is going on around us. It's a fear of solitude. 

Individually there is a wide area-under-the-curve for each on what is comfortable and what is not. Yet, the cultural definition and expectations for everyone, including children, are quite narrow and contradictory. We are expected to know ourselves, but to always be 'social', e.g. with other people. Unfortunately, too many people don't know themselves, or are uncomfortable being alone with themselves. They fear it.

So it's an illusion, created by ourselves and society. 

In the medical community and the public mindset people are expected to always be surrounded by other people. Those that prefer to be alone are almost always considered 'unwell' or 'abnormal' because, culturally, 'alone' = 'lonely'. Then comes the judgement deluge.

Those two terms don't take into consideration the time element: always, occasionally, mostly, etc. Those adverbs are important because they quantify the the amount of alone time. Or even when feeling lonely. 

Some people feel they have to be with another person, or amongst other people, all the time. I've known a few people (mostly women, but a few men, too) who almost have panic attacks when they are alone. Their loneliness is overwhelming, usually because they don't know themselves, or they fear being alone with themselves. Perhaps they even fear not knowing themselves; they lack self-esteem.

There's also a gender bias: women are expected to always be surrounded by people, and in a personal relationship with another (usually a man, but that's another topic...). Men.... not so much, if at all. In a few countries, cultural acceptance of a woman alone in public, especially without a male, is prohibitive. It's like requiring your dog on a leash when in public. 

Alternatively, because I'm a woman that prefers solitude most of the time and lives alone the all too-common perception is that I'm lonely. I've had to fend off questions and comments from others implying judgement, such as pity or concern of unwellness. Especially, 'You don't have a man so you must be lonely and helpless'. Or, 'There's something wrong with you.' That's the expectation associated with perceptions of 'alone' and 'loneliness' of many women.

'Alone' and 'lonely' are illusions we create about ourselves and others (Virginia Woolf refers to it as 'a reality', which is partly correct). And with those illusions, we place judgement and expectations on ourselves and others. We celebrate self-esteem. But we stigmatize spending time with the person we should know, and like, the best: ourselves.

Woolf's writings exemplified the strong pervasive feelings of loneliness and the illusions of it. In a diary entry she wrote of this as being a 'reality': 

"That is one of the experiences I have had...and got then to a consciousness of what I call “reality”: a thing I see before me: something abstract; but residing in the downs or sky; beside which nothing matters; in which I shall rest and continue to exist. Reality I call it."

Woolf's angst (she was bipolar) with what was 'real' for her, and the societal illusions and expectations about being alone and lonely (especially as a woman), ultimately influenced her choice to end her life. Ironically, over a century later, that societal perception still exists. 

In her post, author Maria Popova writes,

"There is a kind of loneliness that lodges itself in the psyche and never fully leaves, a loneliness most anguishing not in solitude but in companionship and amid the crowd. If solitude fertilizes the imagination, loneliness vacuums it of vitality and sands the baseboards of the spirit with the scratchy restlessness of longing — for connection, for communion, for escape. And yet it is out of this restlessness that so many great works of art are born."

On the other hand, solitude lacks an illusion, or sense of loneliness, and it also feeds imagination and creativity. Journalist and Buddhist Zat Rana writes, 

"When you surround yourself with moments of solitude and stillness, you become intimately familiar with your environment in a way that forced stimulation doesn’t allow.

The world becomes richer, the layers start to peel back, and you see things for what they really are, in all their wholeness, in all their contradictions, and in all their unfamiliarity. You learn that there are other things you are capable of paying attention to than just what makes the most noise on the surface."

Being alone does not always have to mean 'loneliness'. Not all of us are afraid of Virginia Woolf, of living life free of illusion.

* Some people like feeling lonely, but that is more of a pathological issue and I'm not delving into that except for my reference to Virginia Woolf. 

The obese 'horse' and the diabetic cart

The link leads to an interesting article by a biology scientist. I especially appreciate his discussion of models for obesity. However, he shifts from criticism of the standard model, mouse, to using that of bear. Which may or may not be more useful.

Regardless, he, too, falls into the same pit as so many others: the 'bandaid' approach. Putting the cart (solution) before the horse (cause). Or, putting a bandaid over the wound without addressing the causes (which are multifactorial).

Universally neglected is how to educate, encourage and motivate humans to eat less and increase activity. The solutions, such as behavior modification and choices, could solve many of the associated issues with obesity and diabetes: weight gain, dysfunction of insulin sensitivity and glucose regulation, concomitant and/or subsequent metabolic illnesses (inflammation, cardiac dysfunction, etc).

Why does the medical and scientific communities ignore the psychology of eating and sedentary lifestyles? No drugs or animal models will magically solve these dysfunctions. Let's start with healing the horse first, then we can address the cart. 

Image by Rachel Sumpter

Don’t wait until it’s too late.

Why shine a light on my own past, 30 years later? Why speak about this so publicly? I have had a good career and achieved most of the things I had hoped to. Why rake up the past? Why not stay silent as I have for three decades? 

If a person who has reached the highest point in their specialty still feels ashamed of events 30 years ago, and is reluctant to admit it, how must those who are going through things and feeling disempowered now feel? I am determined to use my own example to point out that mental health problems are nothing to be ashamed of.*

This is sobering. Depression and suicide are not limited to just medical practitioners. It’s more common than many suspect, but it remains mostly invisible. It is a silent killer. It’s like a leprosy that no one wants to be visible or share. Relationships, families, jobs, and lives can crumble. Uneedlessly.

Anyone that has or had a friend or family member with depression knows. Many times too late.

Please. Don’t let this happen to a friend or family member. No one is an island.

*  Dr. and Professor Steve Robson, President of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstitricians and Gynecologists, in “Learn from me: speak out, seek help, get treatment.”

Judges Playing Scientists

Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle, argued that roasters and manufacturers failed to prove that that there is no substantial risk to drinking coffee, or that the benefits of drinking the beverage outweigh the risks posed by acrylamide, a substance created naturally during the brewing process. By the standards of California’s decades-old Proposition 65 law, Berle affirmed in his final ruling last week, all coffee sold in California must come with a warning label stating: WARNING: This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. *

An example of scientific ignorance and misguided judgement.

If coffee should be labeled as carcinogenic, then so should toast, grilled meat, pizza crust, and a plethora of other foods that contain a lot of carbohydrates and proteins.

BUT it is ‘okay’ to ingest foods that have been exposed to pesticides demonstrated to be neurotoxins and carcinogens, and drink water tainted with the same, without the same warnings!

The Maillard reaction that occurs during heating or breakdown of certain substrates does produce acrylamide (and free radicals). It is basic organic chemistry. Is it carcinogenic? It can be, depending on dose and the animal. This is based on experiments with mice, but not with humans. Although mice are not men (murine models have limitations for extrapolation to humans), using mice can lead to suggestive conclusions that then must be tested in humans. Pharmacology history is fraught with failures in extrapolation from mice to humans.

Should we be concerned? Possibly, if you are drinking a gallon or more of coffee every day. The greatest threat from anything involving the Maillard reaction products, including acrylamide, is smoking! And uncontrolled blood glucose levels.

The Maillard reaction that occurs from smoke inhalation and rampant metabolism of glucose and proteins in tissues causes exceedingly high free radical production and Amadori products which accelerate breakdown of connective tissue in the body (elastin and collagen in skin, tendons, ligaments, vascular tissue, eyes, etc.). That’s why smokers have accelerated aging of their skin, and it is a contribution to diabetic pathophysiology.

We shouldn’t expect judges to be scientists, but we should expect them to consult with experts in the field in which rulings are concerned.

Interesting that they don’t exert the same concern and rulings with documented toxins in our environment, other than those spurious claims.

* In Labeling Coffee a Carcinogen, California Leaps Ahead of the Science

No Single Diet for a Big Planet

The increasing pressure for everyone to convert to a vegan diet smacks of ignorance and righteousness. Yes, that includes scientists, and shame on them.

This stated universal solution for the health of everyone on this planet and all the ills of climate change is fraught with negligence to the fact that not every person can subsist in good health on a vegan diet. Nor is it necessary (some bold scientists have published data on why).

While the public, and many scientists, claim that adopting a vegan diet is the most important way to lose weight, be healthy, reverse climate change, and treat the planet better, there are reasons to believe this isn’t always the case. Despite the prevalent binary thinking and judgement of our Western society, fad science, and culture, there is no one, universal, de facto “right” diet for everyone. Our genetics, physiology, medical history, economic status, food accessibility, and aesthetic tastes are vastly varied. Absolutisms are rarely absolute.

Many people have food sensitivities and/or allergies: allergies to peanuts, gluten-related disorders (including wheat allergy and insensitivity to fructans), intolerance to yeast and/molds (such as in leavened breads, beer and several cheeses), phytates in m,any legumes and vegetable (taboo for people prone to kidney stones), “onion intolerance” (sensitivity to ingestion, even dermal exposure, to one or more plants in the Allium family), fructose malabsorption (bad things happen when eating even a small amount of most fruits), legume (including soybeans) intolerance/allergies, and the list goes on. People with these sensitivities and allergies may be unable to commit to a vegan diet without jeopardizing their overall health.

Another topic rarely seen in the lay media, and uncommon in the scientific literature, is the nutrient efficiency of a diet containing even a small amount of animal products - meat, milk, yogurt, cheese, eggs. By comparable weight, animal food products contain more protein (especially in the context of complementary amino acid profile), bioavailable minerals, and energy than any non-animal product. 

The cautionary point here is that most of the consumed energy is in the form of lipids, aka ‘fats,’ especially cholesterol. Primates -yes, us, too- evolved to store dietary fat for emergency energy in cyclic periods of famine. However, in our modern world of convenience and accessible plenty, we no longer need as much, and eat too much of it. Also, removing excess fat and eating naturally lean meat is an alternative.

The loud proclamation that everyone should embrace a vegan diet is unwarranted and impossible for many people. Nor should the reason of significantly reducing our carbon footprint be justification for imposing guilty consciousness. Some people just can't adopt a vegan diet. Moreover, a universally adopted vegan diet will not solve the demand for food and reverse climate change. 

Research at the USDA-Agricultural Research Service found that removing animal protein from the diets of many people would increase nutrient deficiencies that have been associated with certain health risks, like cardiovascular disease. Mary Beth Hall, animal scientist and one of the study researchers  at the U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center, comments in a press release,

“Different types of carefully balanced diets — vegan, vegetarian, omnivore — can meet a person’s needs and keep them healthy, but this study examined balancing the needs of the entire nation with the foods we could produce from plants alone. There’s a difference between what’s possible when feeding one person versus feeding everyone in the U.S.”

More importantly we should put more emphasis on growing some of our own or buying locally produced food, learn to make better food choices, eat balanced meals of both vegetables and animal products, plan meals centered around seasonally available foods, and stop piling so much food on our plates. 

Oh, and spending less time on our devices, in our vehicles, and getting off our butts and moving around around would not only reduce our appetite, improve our health, and possibly shrink that carbon footprint. Add supporting informed policy change at the local, state and national levels, too.

Modern stressful life and depression

"While being physically ill causes inflammation, it is far from being the only cause. Modern life itself seems to be a state which our body responds to negatively."

An article, Depression Is Only Partly a Psychological Condition, links depression, physical illness, and inflammation. But it is more complex than the process explained by the author.

"While the symptoms of depression are marked by changes in the brain, the cause of the disease may ultimately lie in the body, specifically in a family of proteins called cytokines that set off inflammation."

 One component missing here, but alluded to, is stress. Chronic stress sets off a cascade of inflammatory responses, which affects physical and mental health. For a review of the complex links of chronic stress, depression and many physical illnesses, I recommend a review by G. Slavich and M. Irwin, From Stress to Inflammation and Major Depressive Disorder: A Social Signal Transduction Theory of Depression.

"This highly conserved biological response to adversity is critical for survival during times of actual physical threat or injury. However, this response can also be activated by modern-day social, symbolic, or imagined threats, leading to an increasingly proinflammatory phenotype that may be a key phenomenon driving depression pathogenesis and recurrence, as well as the overlap of depression with several somatic conditions including asthma, rheumatoid arthritis, chronic pain, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease, obesity, and neurodegeneration."

 A complex environment of chronic stress, poor eating habits, and lack of exercise is probably responsible for more of our modern health (physical and mental) issues than most people realize, and it seems to be an acceptable state of normality in our modern world. No wonder that depression is at an all-time high.

Push, pull and grin

After nearly a six year hiatus I hit the weights. And I found myself as my own client. "Slow, and with purpose."  "Concentrate on every millimeter of movement." "Push/pull equally; don't get sloppy."

As a personal trainer with a background in physiology and kinesiology, most of my clients were older or with 'special needs' (post-physical therapy, athletes, etc). I provided instruction, demonstration, supervision, education, and discipline. Although I was a powerlifter, I did not train my clients as one, except for one client that was also a competitive powerlifter. Each person is different and requires their own tailored program. Now I am my own client; older and with special needs.

With an accumulation of broken bones (both ankles and pelvis), permanently dislocated collar bone, herniated disks, arthritis, old sprains, and muscle loss, my younger trainer self stands in front of me reminding me how to move with purpose and concentration, with focus, and with cues. "Place finger on your left abdominal muscles to feel recruitment." ( a form of biofeedback) "Push evenly with both legs, slower on the descent, concentrate on that left quad." (Old nerve impingement) "Arms and hands level with shoulders and keep those shoulders back against that pad!" (Avoid pronation of shoulders) "Yes, ma'am'" I found myself saying. 

I can feel the stress and stimulation in my muscles and joints. 'Remember this, you tissues?' I can also feel increased circulation in my low back joints. The chronic pain has been subdued. But I know what is coming tomorrow: DOMS (delayed-onset muscle soreness). And I'll do a light whole body set, stretch to reduce the soreness (repeated bout effect). And repeat in days to come. I'm on a roll, one I should never have stopped.

It feels good to be home inside me again.

Which came first: obese chicken or its obese microflora?

Which came first: The obese chicken or its obese microbiota? « Nothing in Biology Makes Sense!

Good summary of a recently published paper on how our gut microflora influences metabolism of the entire organism. Most people tend to think of the gut simply as a container to periodically fill and empty. Only until recent years has science demonstrated that our gut is an organ actively involved in our entire physiology, including communication with the brain and immune system. In fact, just as our body fat is an endocrine organ, the gut is also involved in our endocrine system, including inflammation.

While we consciously or subconsciously interact with thousands of environment components on a daily basis, our gut contains another environment, the microflora, which interacts in ways we are unaware of. Part of that is comprised of what we swallow, sometimes microbes that hitch a ride on food we eat or drink. But that is why we have such a complex environment inside our gut. Hordes of 'good' bacteria often battle with 'bad' bacteria, and sometimes the latter may win. We usually become aware of those battle victories. Others are minor skirmishes that go unnoticed.

It is the chronic battles that alert the big army of our defenses, the immune system. And when the balance is continually upset, the rest of the body responds and other systems may malfunction.

Although epidemiological studies have suggested that some enteric bacteria are associated with obesity and chronic inflammation, the authors of this study demonstrated that a specific bacteria strain causes obesity. (Remember that association is not proof of causation.) However, a limitation of this study is the model: gnotobiotic (aka germ-free) mice. Regardless, it is a logical progression from in vitro models to study interactions of the gut microflora and metabolism. But we have more work to do on this.

My comments submitted on the website's post:

Gnotobiotic studies have their limitations despite that they are a logical progression from in vitro studies and isolate otherwise complex immune and intestinal interactions. Gnotobiotic animals typically have immune systems and intestinal walls that are under-developed. Also, all the food must be antigen free, which is difficult to achieve. Often, secondary infections can rapidly kill off an entire gnotobiotic colony or mask effects of controlled dietary variables. In our experience with gnotobiotic pigs (which are more relevant to human nutrition and gut microflora), administered probiotics had no effect on morbidity when challenged by a single-strain pathogen, whereas pigs in conventional state (non-gnotobiotic conditions) fared significantly better. Animals in a germ-free environment do not fully represent their counterparts in a conventional environment, and variables in studies with gnotobiotic animals must be strictly controlled (and are very expensive).

I found it interesting that in neither the paper or the supplementary information was provided the specific ingredients of the ‘WTP’ diet except for the major nutrient composition. ‘Chinese medicinal medicine’? ‘Prebiotics’? As a reviewer, I would have requested this information be more specific.