The Law of Unintended Consequences: The view from the Ivory Tower.

The US Government, long known for its accurate, science-based, sensible approach to try and coerce people to eat what the ruling class thinks they should, are obviously not happy that the traditional definition of alcoholism is not providing them with the horrible, problematic numbers that they desire, have now decided to move the goal posts in order to scare us all into never, ever touching a beer or having a glass of wine again....

Problem drinking affects 33 Million, 14% of US Adults. Lindsey Tanner, AP Medical Writer via HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)

(That's right kids, the Houston Chronicle is now placing AP copy behind their increasingly expensive firewall. Or, you can get the same article, for free, here)

The revised handbook, the DSM-5, defines problem drinkers or those with the disorder as people with at least two of 11 symptoms, including drinking that harms performance at work, school or home, frequent hangovers and failed attempts to limit drinking. Mild problems involve two to three symptoms; severe involve at least six symptoms. The new handbook combined alcohol abuse and dependence, which had been separate disorders, added craving as one symptom and eliminated alcohol-related legal problems as another.

In other words, if you drink, you're probably going to have 2 of the 11 "symptoms" that they have decided are indicative of a "condition".  Not only is that ridiculous, it's damaging to people who really do suffer from the horrible problems associated with true alcoholism.

These are the unintended consequences that arise when the government tries to shoe-horn into people's private lives and classify normal adult behavior as a 'disorder'.  It's not and it shouldn't be.

Enjoying an adult libation dates back to the ancient Egyptians, overindulging is hardly a new concept, nor is it something that makes one somehow ill, except in the crazy land of government health science.  We're to a point now that almost any behavior outside of that the vegetarian, naturapaths partake in is considered to be diseased behavior at some level or another.

Drink too much?  You have alcohol use disorder.  Eat too much, you have an eating disorder. Eat too much meat? You have a dietary disorder etc. etc.

None of it is true and it's all just a bunch of stuff dreamed up to try and stir up the populace and increase the government's control over our private lives and choices.  And, yes, the conspiracy theorists will say that this is all linked to Obamacare and the government wanting to mandate what you eat and drink going forward.

While I won't go that far, if you've ever dealt with a regulatory agency you realize that they're not smart enough to be able to operate with any degree of foresight, especially the foresight to carry out those plans, I do think that there are those in government who truly believe that they are the only things standing between the average American and a fat, slovenly life of idiocy and ignorance.  We call these people low-to-mid level bureaucrats.

Even worse, I fear that by dumbing down the idea of "problem drinking" this diminishes the personal crisis that people go through in cases of real alcoholism.  In recent years we've seen government reports that try and suggest a large portion of Americans are "addicted" to soda, sugar, salt, fat, steak, alcohol, eggs, processed foods and pretty much anything that is convenient and tastes good.  Doing this does not help the general public (never mind that most of the government's health advice is eventually proven wrong [see links at top of post]) but instead leads to confusion and distrust of the Federal guidelines that actually might hold some water.

What these chicken little proclamations really do is distract resources from those who have addictive personalities and who really need help.

If I could petition the government to consider one thing before releasing junk-science such as this it would be the following:

Is my behavior here hurting me or anyone around me in a material way?

By "material way" I mean is there any imminent risk of harm or death.  Don't tell me that drinking can lead to whatever symptom, so can life.  We're all dying we just don't know how fast yet.

If the answer to this is "no", then please, keep your study to yourself and leave me and mine alone.


Now, if you'll excuse me I believe that it's five o'clock somewhere.  A beer and burger sound like the correct response to this mess.

 

The blowback against Hydrogen cell cars is not confusing when you think about it.

Reuters ran a good story today regarding the fight over Toyota's upcoming Hydrogen Cell car. The arguments against the technology are silly however.

Toyota executive calls out Musk as battle for green car future heats up. Reuters

At the Los Angeles auto show in November, Browning, who was then chief of Volkswagen's U.S. operations, ruffled feathers by saying electric was a more viable technology because it was a lot easier for consumers to find electric sockets than hydrogen stations.

Toyota's Carter addressed the infrastructure issue on Tuesday, arguing that the number of hydrogen fuelling stations would grow in time, helped by private-public partnerships such as the one established in the state of California.

The way I see it, there are three main reasons various interests are against the Hydrogen car.

1. It would hurt existing financial plans.
2. It would blunt their arguments that the 'American way of life' is unsustainable.
3. It has a chance at working.

Full disclosure: I've long believed that Hydrogen fuel-cell technology is the wave of the future. I see great benefits in untethering our transportation fleet from fossil fuels. The arguments I've received against all have one fatal flaw. They all assume that the current levels of technology are going to be static for the next 10-20 years.

If you've followed technology over any period of time you realize the amazing lack of understanding this line of reasoning reveals. Yes, it's currently inefficient to create hydrogen fuel cells. But that doesn't mean that it will be ten years from now. Yes, the infrastructure for fueling stations is sub-standard, but it will improve in time as well, provided the cars that are made are good cars.

Arguing the future based on today's technology is not an instrument of debate, but an instrument designed to stifle debate. The reason Musk, Nissan and others are arguing against H fuel cell technology is because they're betting their financial futures against it. That doesn't mean that they couldn't adapt should it succeed (well, Elon Musk couldn't but that's another story). The ecomental argument is being made for different reasons, namely, the reasons that I've listed above.

The last thing the ecomentalists want to see is the success of hydrogen-cell cars with fuel ranges in line with existing technology. Being able to hop into your car, drive for 300 miles and stop by a gas station to fill up the cell is a horrible idea to them. Unfortunately, they can't SAY that out loud because it would lay bare the dishonesty behind their 'green planet' argument. Nothing has the potential to be greener than the hydrogen fuel-cell car. Even electric plug-ins and hybrids rely on a dirty power source. To counter that the ecos point out that current technology for hydrogen harvesting is dirty. Yes, it is, but so is current technology for electrical generation. Funny how that's not mentioned. It's also important to remember that gasoline has moved from the leaded mess that was a pollution nightmare, to today's blends that have so many detergents they create a gasoline that's pink, like babies' skin.

The big problem is that the H fuel-cell keeps the suburbs practical and affordable, and that just can't stand. In a world where one's choice of dwelling has become a moral decision allowing the unwashed, uncultured Suburbanites keep their Starbucks lattes and single-family homes is unthinkable. Letting them keep them with non-polluting technology is a fate worse than death. Because if you're not morally superior in your sardine-urbanist beliefs then what are you? In many cases for those of the lecturing type, their entire personal identity is wrapped up in some modern hipster fog.

I should go on to say that I still see a future for plug-in automobiles, as city cars, where long trips and quick refuelings are not hard and fast requirements. There will even be suburbanites who keep a plug-in electric vehicle for local runs, when they're not riding their bikes or walking to the stores. Yes, Virginia, there are walkable communities outside the city core as well, in many cases they're safer, contain more "boutique" shopping options, and are better laid out than their urban-core counterparts. In Houston especially, I predict that the future of "urban walkability" will be centered in places such as the Woodlands, Cinco Ranch and Sugar Land. Yes, downtown will have the Danger Train and reduced automotive capacity via complete streets, which will lead businesses to move out to where the people are, instead of asking them to bother with coming inside the loop. There's also the reality that the neighborhoods between the Loop and the Sam Houston Toll way will be changing as well, all of this will lead to increased walkability and the sustainability of the region, without having to make-real the unproductive class fantasy of shoe-horning all of Harris, Montgomery and Brazoria Counties into the geographic bull's eye created by 610.

While I don't believe we're in imminent threat of running out of oil soon, I do believe that it will be getting more expensive. Much of this is due to rising International demand and the reality that anti-pollution laws are making it more expensive to process and turn into fuel. Just as hydrogen technology will not remain static neither will extractive technology. Because of this I predict that huge reservoirs of oil, previously unreachable, will be opened to exploration and profitable production. If you think I'm wrong then you haven't been paying attention to fracing at all. To me, a better use of petroleum products is plastics, rather than gasoline, and natural gas for heating, cooking etc. Untethering transportation from this (in some part) would go a long way in reducing demand and keeping prices from spiking at too-high levels.

Of course, no matter how accurate my predictions are there are still going to be those who disagree and continue to make the argument that man is turning Gaia into an EZ-Bake while the American proclivity for mass-produced burgers are turning us all into a Nation of the fat and gormless. Good for them, I hope they're successful, and I hope that none of them burn to ashes in their newly-acquired Teslas.

No, really, I do.

Death to BMI

Waist to Height ratio (WHtR) is a much better determinant of your health.


It's high time we cast off BMI to the fitness scrapheap.

Weighing on the Chron's mind.

Good to see that Houston's lone major daily is concerned about Houston's bulging waist-line is it not?

Here's some wit from one of the two Lisas on Houston's "fat":

(from Lisa Gray of the Chron)

Why are Houstonians heftier than people in other cities? A few years ago the culprit seemed obvious. Urban sprawl, the argument went, packed on our pounds.

Several much-quoted studies found a correlation between obesity and spread-out, car-loving cities like ours. People who live in tight-packed metropolises tended to be thinner than people like us, whose suburban-style lives involve freeways and parking lots.

Researchers for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Rand Corporation argued that living in a car-hostile city where walking is part of daily life naturally keeps people lean.

The difference between living in Manhattan or a spread-out, car-dependent suburb of Cleveland? For an average adult, it's six pounds, according to the University of Maryland's National Center for Smart Growth.

Sprawl was blamed for Americans' soaring obesity rates. And it seemed only natural that Houston, one of the most car-besotted places in the universe, was also one of the country's fattest. Here, only the intrepid dare to journey on foot to the corner store. In a loose-packed city like ours, places of interest often lie miles apart. Our streets, designed for drivers, leave pedestrians with daunting choices: slog across muddy sidewalk-less private yards or dodge SUVs in the road. It seemed no wonder that roughly two-thirds of Houstonians are either overweight or obese.

The researchers' arguments made intuitive sense, and the message seemed obvious. To avoid becoming XXXL tubs o' lard, we'd better move to Manhattan. Or make Houston more like it.

(snip)

Lately, a new round of research has raised objections to the original sprawl-makes-you-fat studies. Suburban sprawl, they point out, was around for decades before the obesity epidemic started. But in the '50s, '60s and '70s, Americans were much thinner than we are now.

Some academics say that the sprawl researchers' methods were flawed, that it makes little sense, for example, to compare whole counties to one another.

The University of Illinois' more specific ZIP-code analysis of Chicago found that race, education and income had much more to do with obesity than a neighborhood's density. In fact, that study found, the leanest Chicagoans lived in the city's near-in suburbs — places where residents tended to be white, wealthy and well-educated.

In typical Chron fashion Ms. Gray touches lightly on the corners of the obesity issue, flanks it, and then oversimplifies it.


She does get ONE thing right however and deserves kudos for that:

Matthew Turner, one of those researchers, argues that it's not where you live, it's who you are. A fit person who likes to walk naturally gravitates toward places where walking is a pleasant part of daily life — but will tend to exercise anyway, even if it's inconvenient.

An obese person, for whom walking is miserable, will prefer life with an SUV — but is unlikely to grow much thinner even if having to sometimes schlep groceries from the corner store.

Being fit and healthy are personal choices. They take effort and sacrifice like the young lady attending fat camp is being conditioned to make:

Isabel woke before counselors began their round of knocks on campers' doors.

"This is going to be a heck of a day," she thought, her feet sliding to the tile floor of the dorm room. Her sleeping roommate, a shy teenager from Wharton, had hung posters of boy bands next to her bed. Beside Isabel's, a Tinkerbell nightlight glowed.

It was the first full day at weight-loss camp.

"All right, do we have those pedos everybody? — Pedos?" counselor Katie Barthelmes asked before the morning stretch. "Great, you don't want to miss these steps. Trust me."

The campers stretched in brand-new sneakers and sagging backpacks, their pedometers — or pedos — clipped to belts or shoes. Filtering onto the trail, they formed a straggling line on their nearly 3-mile walk, soon to be one of many routines of their summer days.

Isabel caught up with two girls, Riley Bird and Alicia Stone, from her assigned team, "Blanco," a group of 10 teenage girls. The day before, counselors had weighed and measured each of them. Isabel logged in at 179 pounds and 5-foot-1.

There's no amount of development (smart or otherwise), Government intervention or planning that's going to change this.

Fat is communicable?

A new study says that this may be the case...


(From Alicia Chang of the AP via Chron.com)

If your friends and family get fat, chances are you will too, researchers report in a startling new study that suggests obesity is "socially contagious" and can spread easily from person to person.

The large, federally funded study found that to be true even if your loved ones lived far away. Social ties seemed to play a surprisingly strong role, even more than genes are known to do.

"We were stunned to find that friends who are hundreds of miles away have just as much impact on a person's weight status as friends who are right next door," said co-author James Fowler of the University of California, San Diego.

(snip)

Obesity is a global public health problem. About 1.5 billion adults worldwide are overweight, including more than 400 million who are obese. Two-thirds of Americans are either overweight or obese.

Of course, maybe the population is biased towards obese individuals because the silly BMI index has convinced us that we're all obese?

So what say you? Are you friends with people who share your body composition? Or no?