Three Whole-Grain Portions Daily May Lower Cardiovascular Risk

Yeah--Right!
    This one's a beaut.

" Daily consumption of 3 portions of whole-grain foods (WGF) is linked to lower cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in healthy, middle-aged people mainly by lowering blood pressure (BP), according to the results of a randomized controlled dietary trial reported in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. (Am J Clin Nutr. 2010;92:733-740)


Given the role that fiber plays in slowing down the digestion of carbohydrates, everything these folk found can be explained by lowered blood glucose levels. Here's where it gets really entertaining:


"Although the mechanisms by which WGFs decrease BP remain unclear, our findings have important public health implications and provide a sound scientific basis for advising the daily consumption of 3 servings of WGF to combat CVD."


In fact, what they found was a statistical clue to do some science. They admit that the science eludes them and they can't figure out why WGF loading would lower BP.  Nor do they seem disposed to look for the science or consider the possibility that their assumptions are flawed.
    Another indicator of the shortage of three-digit IQs in the nutritional sciences.

The New Cordoba

Interesting. They want to call it "Cordoba House."
    The Fall of Cordoba in 1236 is a signal event in the Muslim consciousness. The Islamic blogger Jaraad titles his blog about the controversy "The Fall of Cordoba House." Given that the "House" has yet to be built, it's clear what "The Fall" refers to.
    The Caliphate of Cordoba, the greatest of Caliphates, fell with Cordoba. This event began the humiliation of Islam and its retreat back to nonentity in the Maghreb.
    Calling this mosque, in this place, "Cordoba" is powerful magic.

The Science of Persuasion

Want to learn about the tricks used by media and politicians to get you to do things you wouldn't otherwise consider? Want to learn enough to put them to work for you?
    There's a goldmine at Influence in an article by Robert Cialdini. You can also get the pdf here.

It may be that the greatest value is in being alert to manipulation when somebody's trying it on you, and being able to counter it. There may even be a game here: lead someone on, let them believe that you're responding to the tricks and then at the critical moment, when they think they've got you, say "No".

G8/G20

I suppose it's possible that Harper personally planned the G8/G20 conferences and personally approved the dozens of cost estimates and requisitions that added up to costing more than the gun registry.
    More likely, I think, that the federal bureaucracy, Liberal and NDP voters all, sandbagged their Ministers. Given the opportunity to divert non-trivial funds to a laundry list of pet rabbits and, at the same time, embarrass the Conservatives, they jumped on it.

The Lower Limit of Dietary Carbohydrate

How do you speak the truth about the role of carbohydrates in nutrition and keep your grant money flowing? Bury it on page 275 of a 1300-page report sporting a large panel of well-credentialed scientists as the authors.
    Here's what you'll find if you have the patience or curiosity to get that far:

The lower limit of dietary carbohydrate compatible with life apparently is zero, provided that adequate amounts of protein and fat are consumed.

There's more:

There are traditional populations that ingested a high fat, high protein diet containing only a minimal amount of carbohydrate for extended periods of time (Masai), and in some cases for a lifetime after infancy (Alaska and Greenland Natives, Inuits, and Pampas indigenous people) (Du Bois, 1928; Heinbecker, 1928). There was no apparent effect on health or longevity. Caucasians eating an essentially carbohydrate-free diet, resembling that of Greenland natives, for a year tolerated the diet quite well (Du Bois, 1928). However, a detailed modern comparison with populations ingesting the majority of food energy as carbohydrate has never been done.

That last sentence is telling. No one wants to do the definitive study for fear of what it will say. They don't want to know. On the other hand, the experiment is ongoing in trailer parks across the U.S.

See:

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10490&page=275

DIETARY REFERENCE INTAKES FOR Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids. The Food and Nutrition Board, Institute of Medicine of the National Academies.

Low Carb Labelling -- go to jail

If there's any doubt that Health Canada's bureaucrats are influenced by the starch and sugar industry, it can be quickly dispelled by the regulations that came into force 12 December 2007.

See http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/label-etiquet/nutrition/educat/te_quest-eng.php#a1

According to their FAQ, "The regulations were developed through extensive consultation with consumers, health interest groups and the food industry. " That's fairly obvious.
    According to these regs, nothing can be labelled "Low Carb". Low Fat, Low Sodium and a host of others are OK. Low Carb is illegal. The only winners are the people trying to feed us starches and sugars and the people to whom they're indebted.
    Fortunately, they screwed up and required carb content on the nutrients label, so it's easy to find good food even if it doesn't scream at you from across the aisle.