Anti- Alternative Milk

I’ve had some raw milk from Sprouts and can’t get excited enough about it to pay 3x (for whole milk) and possibly risk severe food poisoning (the chance isn’t high, but the severity can be).

This woman’s investigation deflates many pro-raw claims (her method is to ask experts and industry representatives, which seems solid):

Homogenization is done by forcing milk through a small geometry valve at very high pressures (1500-2500 psi).  The effect of this treatment is to break the natural fat globule (average size ~10 micrometers) into  much smaller fat globules (average size

Within the first 10-20 seconds after homogenization, proteins and segments of the original membrane form a new membrane on the surface of the smaller fat globules.  The addition of the protein to the surface of the fat globules and the reduction in the size of the globules results in the reduction in the ability of the globules to float to the top of the milk.  During this process, the milkfat is not exposed to air as the process is done in an air tight system containing only milk.  Milkfat is made up of 98% triglycerides, which are extremely stable to changes during processing.  The only way that milk will spoil faster after homogenization is if the homogenizing system is not properly cleaned and sanitized.

Another factor that may be thrown out is the xanthine oxidase.  Dr. K. Oster proposed a theory in 1971 that xanthine oxidase released from the milk fat globule membrane during homogenization was a contributor to atherosclerosis.  To this end, I would have you read the following review article.

There is not much if any support for this theory but a lot of people are still using it to scare customers into paying higher prices for cream-line milk.

Dr. Partridge drinks homogenized store milk himself, although he said he has to take the jugs from the back to avoid the “light oxidized flavor that is prevalent in milk stored under direct fluorescent lighting.” This is not a man who drinks milk without consciousness.

Her thinking seems high quality (although she’s in-your-face Christian). Recommended. 

If there’s anything scary in your cow’s diet (I wish I could get grass-fed cow milk easily), it will likely be in the fats, she points out. So cheap skim milk mixed with high quality cream makes sense.

Lithium Helps You Get Up in the Morning

This article claims as advance in the understanding of why lithium helps protect the brain. It turns out that it’s at least partially due to forcing sleep. Insufficient sleep is extremely harmful:

by blocking the enzyme known as glycogen synthase kinase, or GSK3, lithium boosts the master clock’s strength threefold.

Understanding this mechanism, Meng says, companies are already developing drugs that can block GSK3, but which would be unlikely to trigger lithium’s unwelcome effects such as nausea, dry mouth, tremor, weakness and weight gain.

Now that a mechanism is known, perhaps new patentable synthetics that target just that mechanism, but with slightly different side effects, can provide a $billions cash cow. Lithium was probably underprescribed by the medical industry due to lack of financial incentive.

I’d started low dose (1mg/day) lithium on the basis of a literature review by Scott Siskind on LessWrong and couldn’t tell if it was only another nice multivitamin-like placebo, but I may have been sleeping and waking slightly better. Side effects were completely nonexistent for me at 1mg/day. An ordinary diet already supplies .5-3mg/day, though:

In 1985, the EPA, estimated that the daily lithium consumption for a 154 lb. adult ranges from 650 to 3,100 micrograms

Lithium definitely decreases suicides. That’s something. There are other claims of decent strength: http://evolutionarypsychiatry.blogspot.com/2010/07/lithium-and-inflammation.html and http://evolutionarypsychiatry.blogspot.com/2011/02/lithium-and-longevity.html.

It’s suspicious to me when a medicine does so many seemingly different good things. But since the mechanism at least involves sleep, which is central, it’s plausible. Also, there are other medicines (aspirin) that really do have several good effects (I assume because excess inflammation can be harmful in many different ways). It’s suspicious to me when something has many good effects (speeds/slows several different natural chemical reactions) and no bad effects. I’d expect most tweaks to be only situationally good, or else it’s just an accident that evolution hasn’t stumbled upon and widely disseminated the capability to produce something analogous to the drug.

Films

good: The Painted Veil
ok: XXY
boring: My Summer of Love (didn’t finish)

Jordan

Aaa31

Did basketball have a doping era? Talent + obsessive work ethic will get you a long way *if* you have enhanced physical recovery. Maybe that’s sometimes purely genetic. Kobe looked pretty buff for a few years post-Shaq (but not unbelievably so). Jordan was never huge but there’s more to chemically enhanced performance than bodybuilder physique (which hardly comes without specifically trying).

Why would an athlete *not* dope, especially if they felt it was long-term healthy and unlikely to be detected?

Pro-monounsaturated Anti-saturated Study

Citing a brain-health study cited in this article, they claim, backed by IQ tests, that monounsaturated is better than either polyunsaturated and saturated in older women. Obviously it’s correlation only, and based on diet survey responses, not direct measurement.

women who reported the highest saturated fat intake also had, on average, the worst scores on reasoning and memory tests. Those with the highest monounsaturated fat intake had the best cognition test scores on average, compared with those who ate mostly polyunsaturated fats

Kitty Genovese - Martyr for Psychology

From Seth Roberts:

Long after the famous Kitty Genovese story — supposedly many people watched her being murdered without doing anything — doubt was cast on its accuracy. In the meantime, John Darley and  Bibb Latane, two professors of psychology, it as the starting point for a series of experiments on what they called the bystander effect — the more bystanders, the less likely that each one will help. They concluded there was “diffusion of responsibility” — the more people that witness something, the less each witness feels responsible for doing something.

(linked Wikipedia article has a section about how the psych textbook version isn’t factual, although the bystander effect is of course real and has since been rigorously demonstrated). 

And then, two fascinating anecdotes (Seth jumps quickly from anecdote to hypothesis, and I love him for it):

In China the problem is much worse. A few years ago a woman was hit by a car. A second car stopped to help her. The woman told the police that the second driver had hit her. The second driver was furious, gave many interviews, and eventually a witness was found who said it was the driver, not the injured woman, who was telling the truth. Someone I spoke to attributed her behavior to the need to pay hospital bills. The driver who hit her would never be caught, she reasoned. Maybe the second driver could be forced to pay.

I remember seeing such a video. Horrifying. It was this hit and run; the video is no longer available.

My Chinese tutor, who is Korean, told me a story that illustrates the depth of Chinese bystander inaction and suggests another reason for it. A friend of hers was visiting from Korea. When this friend was in Wangjing (in the Chaoyang district of Beijing), she saw a person lying on a busy street, bleeding but still alive. Apparently the bleeding person had been hit by a car. Three hours later, the friend returned — and the accident victim was still there! Now dead. So, with difficulty — she doesn’t speak Chinese — she called the police.

The police treated her as a suspect. She was forced to come to the police station five times, for hours each time.

What a deterrent to calling the police! I cannot believe the police were so stupid as to consider a Korean tourist on foot who calls the police a serious suspect in the death of someone lying in the middle of traffic. I believe that by causing her a lot of trouble, they wanted to send a message: Leave us alone. The fewer calls they get, the less work they have to do. No wonder everyone ignored the bleeding victim.

I agree with the “leave us alone” interpretation, but also, the person at the scene really is 1000s of times more likely to be the perpetrator than some random person from the general populace, and police have never seemed to mind getting a thrill out of an attempt to intimidate a confession out of someone who has only a 1% chance of being guilty - if they win, then they were heroic. The reason it’s usually wrong to single out one person for scrutiny without a solid line of detection pointing to them from physical evidence is that the absolute chance of their guilt is still supremely low. Being at the scene should nearly be evidence *against* guilt (if enough time has passed). See also Privileging the Hypothesis and base rate neglect.

Brushes With Celebrity

Robin Hanson describes research about how a quick glad-handing by a CEO-figure makes people act boldly - with more presumed status:

“Illusory Power Transference” is the academic name for feeling powerful due to a superficial connection to a powerful person, such as having once been in the same room
Otherwise puzzling behavior can be explained by strong evolved desires to affiliate with high status (i.e., impressive or powerful) people. Apparently even very weak affiliations can make big differences. This can help explain our preferring live art and sport events, and our uncritical relations to academics, real estate agents, investment advisors, doctors, lawyers, etc. 

People often act as though everyone knows about every social interaction they have:

1. after recycling, or being told to buy a ‘green’ product, people feel sufficiently virtuous that they’ll more likely turn down a panhandler later, effectively believing that their virtuous acts are generally known.

2. after being turned down by one woman, a man will feel less confident approaching the next, even in a different venue.

In a small tribe, it would make sense to expect every interaction to eventually count (via reputation) with everyone. But celebrity is asymmetric. It’s a millions to one (or for a CEO, thousands to one) relationship. There’s little chance that the politician’s handshake and warm words can be relied upon for anything.

I think that the confidence (or lack of it) that carries over between independent encounters (without any small-town-gossip connection) still has power. When someone acts as though they’ll be respected, they more often are. Most people can’t fake this expectation. So, in a way, the information that George got a smile from the CEO does spread, dilutely.

If you’re rational about it, you’ll make sure your high-status affiliations are actually known. Good luck not sounding like a self-promoting name-dropper, though - and there’s nothing we despise more than obvious over-reaching status-gamers.

Films

good: Mar Adentro, Fish Tank
ok: Adam
bad: Shame

Two Medical Research Atrocities

1: 1/3 of all breast cancer research to date is actually cervical cancer research, and most researchers won’t check (to verify that the material they published about wasn’t mislabeled, which should cost only $200). via.

2: Merck, via Vioxx (I had a month of it pushed on me by a competent doctor who enjoyed their kickbacks or believed their literature), killed several hundred thousand people (more precisely: destroyed a million person-years; mostly the sick and elderly were killed). via. They were fined a paltry few billion dollars for knowing of the harms and suppressing the research findings - not nearly enough.

Films

good: Tyrannosaur13 Assassins (2010)

ok: Martha Marcy May Marlene

eh: Public Enemies

Films

great: When the Wind Blows
good: A Very Long Engagement

Red Meat May Be Harmful

Red meat correlates with death.

The researchers carefully controlled for intakes of total energy, whole grains, fruits, and vegetables; age; body mass index; race (white or nonwhite); smoking status; alcohol intake; physical activity level; multivitamin use; aspirin use; family history of diabetes mellitus, myocardial infarction, or cancer; and baseline history of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, or hypercholesterolemia. In women, they also adjusted the data for postmenopausal status and menopausal hormone use.

Seems reasonably solid.

There are plenty of possible causal mechanisms, detailed here. Still no proof of overall causality, but it’s enough evidence to encourage moderation.

Things cooked at high heat (fried, well done, BBQed) are probably additionally unhealthy. 

Loss of Brain Matter With Age (non-AD)

G10

Disgusting stuff. My poor brain!
 
brain cell death (both neuronal and glial) is a process that begins at ~ 2 years of age – at least for the neurons that comprise the gray matter of the cerebral cortex, and which proceeds relentlessly throughout the individual’s lifetime (Giorgio, 2010) Brain cell loss and degeneration become morphologically apparent in the brain’s white matter by the time we are in our early 20’s, although there is evidence that more subtle changes have been afoot for much longer. (Hedden, 2004) Losses in gray matter volume proceed approximately linearly with age in normal aging, and the average gray matter volume decreases from ~390 mL at age 22, to ~300 ml at age 82. (Courchesne, 2000) Total loss in brain mass between age 20 and age 80 is, on average, ~450 g, or roughly 1/3rd of our youthful brain volume.

via

White matter peaks at 30 and declines slowly, though (note: the graphs are of different individuals at different ages; changes could also be due to generational environmental differences, perhaps).

Films

good: Weekend (warning: slow), A Dangerous Method (warning: Keira Knightley), The Interrupters

ok: FractureTinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Give People(liars) Time to Reflect Before Answering, and Isolate Them From Excuses.

Honesty requires time (and lack of justifications) [Shalvi et al]:

the average roll, if people reported honestly, should have been 3.5. This gave them a baseline from which to calculate participants’ honesty. Those forced to enter their results within 20 seconds, the researchers found, reported a mean roll of 4.6. Those who were not under any time pressure reported a mean roll of 3.9. 

This in an experiment with a reward of about $10 for lying.

My guess: immediate temptation to cheat for $10 if you think you can get away with it. On reflection, caution accelerates:

1. The gain is small.
2. Maybe people will find out via mechanism X I didn’t think of (hidden cameras?)
3. maybe my report of 6 will be suspicious. maybe a 5 … no, may as well just go with my original 3 …
4. How will I feel having cheated? How good will I feel going away having a story of how I was honest even when it cost me?
5. I want to impress my psych teacher with how honest we college freshmen are.
6. Now that I’ve hesitated so long, I feel even more cautious. I’ve spent so much time deliberating, when I could have just taken the extra $5 immediately … I must actually not want to cheat.

Perhaps also noteworthy: the above experiment was with 3 dice rolls, but the instruction to report the first. In a second experiment with only 1 die roll, the averages result claimed by both the hurry-up and take-your-time groups was 0.2-0.4 lower. This suggest that people in the 3 die roll group felt more comfortable cheating by reporting the 2nd or 3rd roll, perhaps in their mind lamely equating it with what could have been the 1st roll, or having a justification ready of having honestly misunderstood (I doubt anyone did honestly misunderstand). A difference of 0.2 is surely significant (comparing between N=76 and N=74 freshmen under the 3-dice and 1-die conditions).

via (a not very useful Economist article, if you’ve read this far).

Same Thought, Different Art

Nujabes - Eclipse:

Elton John - Your Song:

Films

good: Take Shelter (even though the ending is awful)

nice: Hugo (except for the second half)  

ok: Like Crazy

bad: The Vow (shameless pandering to the Notebook demographic - stopped watching after a terrible opening 5 minute “getting to love each other” montage w/ voiceover)

More “Low Dose Alcohol Is Good for You”

 A recent meta-analysis found that men who drank moderate amounts of alcohol had considerably less risk (a risk ratio of 0.3) of liver cirrhosis than men who drank no alcohol.  It wasn’t clear if some forms of alcohol (e.g., wine) were more protective than others. I came across this study because another article called the association “biologically implausible”, whereas I think it is highly plausible due to vast experimental literature on hormesis (animals given small amounts of poisons are healthier than animals given none).

The findings about cirrhosis join a much large body of evidence that moderate drinking is associated with less heart disease.  A recent meta-analysis reached this conclusion once again and found, in addition, that moderate drinking is associated with less all-cause mortality.

These are more examples of the health benefits of fermented foods …

via 

This is weak evidence for believing that fermented foods that are regularly consumed by others are healthy, and that small amounts of some poisons are good for you. It’s stronger evidence that small amounts of alcohol are a net health benefit. 

It’s a shame I believe both:

1. I sleep worse after drinking beer or wine (I need to experiment more w/ lower sugar alcohols, perhaps)

2. I suffer lasting minor brain damage from alcohol, not just momentary uncoordination, 

or else I’d drink (moderately) to this news. (1. is surely true; 2. may be a nocebo effect)

Films

great: After Hours
good: Night on Earth
nice: Secret (Jay Chou, 2007)
ok: A Bittersweet Life

Cardio vs Weights vs Sloth

Piaw Na reviews “Which Comes First: Cardio or Weights?”:

your body can either improve the circulatory system or strength, but not both, so which one you start an exercise session with determines whether or not you build strength or aerobic fitness. This is a counter-intuitive result, and therefore worthy of attention.

(Presumably he means once you’ve been training for a long time, improving one lessens the other. Untrained individuals can improve both strength and cardio). 
 

Running is given extra attention, as is weight lifting. You’ll get interesting answers as to whether you’re lifting heavy enough weights, or whether your cardio workouts are intense enough. What’s good about the book is when it steers into areas that I always wanted to know but never bothered to find good answers to because Google searches would only turn up advocate’s results.
 
For instance, I’ve long suspected that Yoga doesn’t actually do anything good for your body compared to actually doing cardio or weight lifting, and this book confirms that with references to literature.

 
Ouch. Yoga feels nice, though. I was in a single-car accident after evening yoga once, I was so relaxed. (there obviously exist more and less cardio-intensive and strength-intensive yoga practices, though)
 
Where the book covers topics I had previously read about elsewhere, it doesn’t contradict well known existing literature. For instance, it points out that your spouse is the biggest influence on your exercise habits. It also shows that if you want to stay young, “vigorous aerobic exercise makes your DNA look several decades younger than it is. And that’s bad news for the sedentary groups.” In recent years, it’s been fashionable to dismiss exercise as useless for losing weight, but the reality has been that exercise is important for reasons more than losing weight:
Only the diet-plus-exercise group had significant improvements in insulin sensitivity, LDL chloresterol, and distolic blood pressure—crucial risk factors for heart disease and diabetes, but changes you can’t measure by looking in the mirror or stepping on a scale… (Pg. 157)
In addition, the author takes on the typical prescriptions for exercise as being too little to even maintain your weight and not gain weight: “Managed to avoid significant weight gain throughout the study, and these women averaged a full hour of moderate exercise every day. Anything less was unusuccessful. That’s a lot of execise—unless you compare it to the daily lives of our ancestors who didn’t spend most of the day sitting at desks or in cars.” (Pg. 160)

Combine this with recurring warnings about savage correlations between long desk-computer-hours and death rate (even after controlling for amount of physical training, etc, although causality is far from proven, yet) , and you have to believe it’s worth exercising pretty hard and regularly. Failing that, at least eat very little. Getting fat just means more chances to get cancer (along w/ the risk of hard to escape vicious-cycle metabolic syndrome + heart disease + adult-onset diabetes + increased food cravings from increased fat cells that don’t die off when you lose weight again).