Being born above my dad’s grocery store and being immersed in the grocery business, Summers and weekends, for many years, I thought I knew a few of its tricks. I’m now finding out how little I knew.

Admittedly, I have not had much recent connection with the industry, as my father retired about 25 years ago. He ended up in charge of a major regional chain’s warehouse.

Why have I had this recent epiphany? Why am I reading every label? I am on a diet.

When you go well past 300 pounds, particularly at my age, you begin to wonder why. I was following the standard diet guidelines and going to the Y 5 days a week. My metabolism was in the proper range and I had no tumor or other obvious reason for all of that weight gain.

I said to hell with the FDA’s guidelines. To hell with the AMA’s and Heart Association’s recommendations.

I did a ton of research and decided to eat the way my grandparents ate, before epidemic heart disease, fructose, soy everything, oleomargarine, processed foods, Cargill and ADM. I have rediscovered taste. Butter, butter everywhere. Real butter. I began eating a quarter or a third more food. I quit taking Crestor.

After 3 months of this heresy, I received the best blood test results ever. After a bit more than 4 months, now, I am approaching a weight loss of 50 pounds.

So, now I read the labels. No vegetable oils, except olive, coconut and flax seed. No bleached flours. No soy products, with one small exception. Reduce all sugars to the extent possible and totally eliminate high fructose corn syrup. No MSG.

However comprehensive that may seem, you could be forgiven for thinking that it was unnecessary to scrutinize every label. The food industry is the nation’s largest industry. That means it has more money to advertise its lies, so it can lie more. So, it does. It takes all of the supermarkets to contain all of the lies the industry produces.

A product may announce in large type that it is MSG-free. Read the label. If it includes natural flavors among the ingredients, those natural flavors are likely enhanced with MSG. So much for government-required labels being honest.

I look for a salad dressing. Soy oil is the first listed ingredient on almost all. There are even some vinegar and oil and vinaigrette dressings that boast of olive oil where soy oil is listed first and olive oil fourth. For any who are unaware, the ingredients are supposed to be listed in the order of the amount.

My favorite dressing was always blue cheese, even when it was still called Roquefort. Roquefort is made in France from sheep’s milk. They became upset when others called their product Roquefort and threatened lawsuits. That was when the others changed the name to blue cheese dressing. Almost all of these blue cheeses are now made from cow’s milk. Gorgonzola, a blue cheese from Italy is made both with cow’s milk or goat’s milk. I found one brand of dressing that listed Gorgonzola. It didn’t specify the animal source. Believe me, there is a difference.  Anyway, that dressing also was mostly soy oil. I can no longer find a store selling Roquefort in this area.

As much as I enjoy blue cheese, I thought I could avoid the soy oil by changing to one of those vinaigrettes. No such luck. Soy oil is everywhere. For the nonce I must also avoid salads, unless I bring my own olive or coconut oil and vinegar.

Meat should be meat, right? No, unless a soy bean has legs. No natural food is good enough for Americans unless it has been augmented with a soy product and blessed by those family farmers at Cargill, ADM, Tyson and their neighbors. I think I could put every thing in a supermarket that contains no soy or fructose into a single buggy and still have room for a couple of my grandkids.

Why are soy and corn products in everything? Is it because they are healthier? No. It’s for two special reasons. They are cheaper and more malleable in the laboratory. They are very productive per acre. They are easy to harvest with a minimal number of human workers. And, corn is subsidized. Why? Because the people with enough money to bribe Congress got what they wanted.

And I bet you thought they are putting all of those processed toxins into your food because they are concerned with your well-being. They eliminate the nutrients from your diet. Your body tries to get more. You consume more. You become obese. You consume more. They get richer.

Avoid low-fat, no-fat, skim and such. Fat, animal fat, is where all of the taste and nutrients are. Removing the animal fats would mean something less than tasty. They have found the solution. Sugar. Processed sugar, missing its few nutrients, replaces the nutrients that were removed. Without the enzymes found in animal fats, much of your food doesn’t get properly processed and ends up as fat or is discarded with its nutrients not having benefited your body.

Every few days, it seems, soy is said to cure another cancer, eliminate obesity, destroy cholesterol, save you from halitosis. Someone has to dream those things up. They have to get paid. They are marketing people, not scientists. Soy has some toxic properties; particularly in the amounts found in the American diet. It will help your body generate estrogen. Unless you are going through menopause, that is probably not a good thing.

I have a daughter-in-law that was a nurse. She is feeding my grandson a soy milk formula. That’s not good but my wife tells me to keep my mouth shut. Excessive soy in the diet is now the prime suspect in the premature development of 8- and 10-year old girls.

There is only one form of soy that is truly safe. Soy sauce was brewed from time immemorial in a process that takes 5-6 months. Scientists have now developed a method that produces soy sauce in two days. If the label says something to the effect that it is traditionally brewed, it’s safe. If not, save your money and protect your health.

They tell you that cereals are healthy, even the ones that are more than half sugar. Sorry. Not true. Steel cut oats are just about the only breakfast cereal that has any nutrients remaining after all of the processing. Granola? They are cereals without nutrients sugar, fructose, more sugar and honey.

If you don’t read the labels you miss all of the lies. If you do read the labels, the chances are they have tricked you into believing those lies.

Well, you think it might be a good idea to head over to the vitamin counter? Good luck. The pills are processed with large amounts of heat and pressure. In addition to oxygen, those are the prime killers of nutrients. It is estimated that the average vitamin pill or supplement contains from 0 to  5% of the claimed amount of that particular nutrient stated on the label.

It’s better to get those nutrients in your diet. Natural foods have those vitamins and nutrients and their co-factors. It is rare for nature to produce or use any nutrient as a singularity. Glucosamine won’t help your joint much on its own. You can get it and its co-factors from putting a joint bone with its fat and gristle into a crock pot and making a stew and some gravy and some stock. Those labs don’t make and factories don’t produce any co-factors.

Eat well.

.

.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

It’s been over half a century since I have seen my favorite teacher. That I still recall him means he made a lasting impression.

The year I first met him, counting substitutes, we had five teachers in the first semester of our junior-year English. One left due to pregnancy. One got married and moved. One went into the army and there was a substitute in there somewhere.

Max Vann came just a couple of weeks before the semester ended. He was trained as both a teacher of English and math.

In a class of over 400 I was the second shortest guy. That was true when the school year began. When it finished I was the fifth tallest – from 5’2″ to 6’3″ in nine months. My weight gain was probably no more than five pounds. Even my mother was among those calling me Stringbean McPole.

I was just a little self-conscious, a little shy and, to be kind, somewhat awkward. Mr. Vann assigned various members of the class roles from Hamlet. We were to stand and read our lines.

Though I had a minor part, I stammered, stumbled and stuttered through it. After class, Mr. Vann asked me to stay a moment. He asked why I had such difficulty. I referenced my obvious shyness and tried to prevail upon him to avoid selecting me the next day. He asked if I would be more comfortable reading the lines while sitting. I supposed so.

The next day he assigned me the lead after announcing that we would be reading our lines sitting down. The Royal Shakespeare Company would not have been impressed with my performance but I was. It didn’t cure my shyness but I made it through with minimal trauma.

The results may not have pleased everyone. Since, I have run for and held public office, given speeches across the country, taught a little and testified before legislative bodies. Mr. Vann helped me master my problem but cannot be blamed for all of the results.

He wasn’t hired to teach English. That was just to cover a vacancy. He was hired to develop a special math curriculum. He created a class that covered subjects reserved for the college level. Among other subjects, we were the first school in the South to offer calculus.

Those first classes were not available to everyone. Mr. Vann was allowed to handpick a class of 15 from among the seniors. There was a guarantee of a 5-year, full, work scholarship at either Auburn or Georgia Tech for anyone passing his course. All 15 passed.

How did I come to be selected? Why? At the time I was considering becoming a professor of History. Mr. Vann used that.

He invited all of the selected students to his home one Summer day before school restarted. We were told to look through his extensive library for books to read. Knowing my interest was in History, he directed me to the biographies of famous mathematicians. I became hooked on the subject.

I never did find out how he discovered that I had a facility for math. It was something of which I was unaware. That was a time when we were either hiding under our desks or being urged to master science, in order to out compete the USSR. Math and science is where the money, glamor and duty were.

In college I wandered from math to various physical sciences. I became enthralled with anthropology. That is a special subject, as there is both physical and cultural anthropology. One is a physical science. The other falls into the realm of social and behavioral sciences. Later I wandered around those ‘other’ sciences.

The math and science background provided me a perspective rare among those in the social and behavioral sciences. When studying economics I quickly found its basic problem. While enamoured of econometric models, I never found a professor of economics with a background in math.

Later, when researching my book on mental illness, I discovered why the pharmaceutical companies preferred that their studies be “run” by MDs, rather than PhDs. The former have no training in research. They usually accept whatever they are told. PhDs must learn at least basic research for their dissertations.

Though I strayed from math and science, the training has proven valuable in various endeavors. It even helped my accumulation of eight patents. Mr. Vann is more than deserving of a belated thank you.

Class Reunion

I was back in my home town at the time of our 25^th class reunion. I was induced to be on the organizing committee.

It was fun. It was interesting. I recommend it.

There came a time when we discussed inviting our class sponsor and a few other teachers. Mr. Vann’s name never came up so, during a break, I asked one of the guys about including him. He said they didn’t have a contact for him. They heard he had moved to Nashville.

I was told that after our graduation he had been put in charge of all math instruction in the local school system. Later, he was found to have a steady male friend. I don’t recall the subject of homosexuality ever coming up back then. Perhaps we were living in a cocoon. I have since gotten past any sense of surprise or concern over the sexuality of others. I still knew the effect he had on my educational development.

The story continued that he was dismissed and possibly took a position with the state Department of Education.

I now live in a suburb of Nashville and have made some initial efforts to locate him. He would be about 85 years old. I could find no one at the Department of Education that would provide any help. They wouldn’t even confirm if he had worked there. Privacy rules can be a bummer.

I may not recognize him after all of these years. He was short and stocky. His hair may still be somewhat kinky but I doubt that it’s still red. I really would like the opportunity to tell this teacher that he had an effect.

.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

I made a gross misjudgment. And, I failed to learn from it. No, though acknowledgment of it may be rare, making mistakes and not learning from them are not necessarily rare occurrences for me. I know you’re shocked but it is true.

When I began to consider writing my first book it seemed an easy task. After all, I had some writing background, as a foreign correspondent and writing for an academic journal.

All I needed to do was put on paper, or screen, what I knew about the subject. I had been giving speeches across the country and abroad. Some people looked upon me as having a degree of expertise. Many would suggest that I write a book. I did.

There was a problem though. The book was only 25 pages long. Basically, it was one of my speeches.

Obviously, 25 pages does not a book make. All I needed to do was elaborate, known by some as padding. That got me 45 pages or so. Still not enough. After a while I realized that I didn’t know enough to write a book.

The answer was to do some research. I decided a year of research would do it. It became a 14-year project. And that was just the research. The writing took nearly another three years.

Even with far more research materials than required for one book, I still struggled. Why? Writing is writing and I knew how to write. I had experience.

Well, there is writing short and writing long. I had no inkling of the difference. I usually explain it as one person riding a bicycle and another piloting a 747. Both are involved in transportation but there is a difference.

I struggled and struggled. I can’t explain it but, of a sudden, I could write long. The final two-thirds of the book was written in less than eight months. And it seemed the writing was better.

That covers the writing but doesn’t address the 14 years of research. During that period, the focus and scope of the book seemed to constantly change. As you research, you learn. As you learn more, it affects your perspective. It is happening again.

Before I get to the subject of the next book, I need to plug that first one. The subject is mental illness. It covers neurobiology and neurophysiology. Don’t let that scare you. It was written for the general reader. My word processor rates it as being written to the 9^th grade level. That’s the same as the New York Times.

Having observed the nonsense on which the bulk of public discourse on our economic situation is based, I thought it would be helpful to provide a reality-based primer on political and economic theories. If you’ve read many of the posts on this blog, you are aware that even the putative experts could benefit from trashing the established dogmata on these subjects.

The first step was to do the obligatory research. As with the writing of all nonfiction books, this is a necessary quagmire one must traverse. The surety of focus and scope I initially felt has evaporated.

I went back to the Greeks. I went even further. I began with the earliest organizational forms of the Sumerians, the Medes, the Babylonians, the Chinese, the early civilizations of the Indus Valley. It was obviously necessary to include the Egyptians. After all, they maintained a relatively stable society for nearly 3,000 years. No one else has come close.

The forays back to those ancien régimes lent an even starker contrast to what we have adopted and adapted from the Greeks. Additionally, it highlighted, even more than suspected, how much of those earliest models we continue to cling to.

I am stuck. I am trying to decide how deeply to go analytically. I think I have mastered the long form sufficiently to write at book length a relatively superficial tome. Even such a casual approach could still be of benefit to members of the public getting their arms around the issues. It would fail, however, to satisfy my most basic propensities.

I may be afflicted with a form of glossolalia. My chief problem as a teacher was probably in going too far; not knowing when to stop. Just because I find it interesting and enlightening doesn’t require me to inflict it upon my readers. Still, I’m leaning towards the more encompassing approach.

It would be nice to have some opinions from others before I get too far along. I intend to discuss the question with a few close friends from academia and less than friends from the realm of politics. That, however, must be delayed for a few months. If any reader wants to be an adviser on this, I am receptive to comments to this post or emails for longer missives, or for those who wish not to bear any guilt by association.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Who do you trust? John Belushi got it right. Most academics get it wrong.

Everyone in academia knows just what a symposium is. At least they think they know. Have you read Plato’s Dialogues? One was named Symposium. Yes, the Greeks had a word for it: a drunken party. I could have heard much more intelligent talk at an Animal House toga party than I heard at a medical symposium held at Vanderbilt University.

Just remember, these are the people into whose hands you put your health, well-being and life. Take no aspirin and call me in the morning.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Having been treated by at least 28 physicians and surgeons in the past three to four years, the subject is close to my heart, and my spine, and my artificial hip, and, and, and. Some are absolutely wonderful but 50 percent of all medical students were graduated in the lower half of their class. Not all are devils but neither are they all angels. Actually, there is another reason for this to be a subject of interest to me but I’ll get to that in a bit.

Some lawyers enjoy lawyer jokes. Others go ballistic. Many in the medical community will take offense at this post. Others, hopefully, will not see it a denigration of their chosen profession.

There may be a few old-timers remaining who remember Fidel Castro being referred to as Doctor Castro. Why was that? No, not why are there still a few of us geezers left. Why was Castro ever called Doctor Castro? It is due to a cultural convention. In some societies, mostly in Latin America, they address lawyers as doctor. It is an honorific.

Surprise, surprise. Here in the States we call lawyers many things, but not doctor. We do, however, apply that as an honorific to physicians and surgeons. They are doctors, you say. Wrong. They are honorary doctors.

The word was apparently first used for the trainers of gladiators. Think of trainers as teachers. Later, the word was used to identify teachers, professors. A master was someone who may have studied the same body of learning as the teacher but was not a teacher. As humans commonly do, some envied the title of doctor but didn’t want to teach. The coverage of the word was then extended to those who had endured higher learning but had also contributed to their academic discipline.

There are two kinds of doctorate degrees: earned and honorary. If it isn’t earned, it’s honorary. How do you earn a doctorate? You contribute something original to your area of academic interest. You write a dissertation. You defend that dissertation before a group of professors. You earn it. Sitting in class and learning an extensive and difficult body of knowledge is commendable. It is not the earning of a doctorate.

Am I straining over a gnat? What’s the big deal? Pharmaceutical companies are required to test their new drugs. They don’t always want their progeny subjected to rigorous testing, real testing. They design the tests. They set down the protocols. They often provide the test subjects. Sometimes they even write up the study. Sometimes a ‘doctor’ conducts the study. Sometimes the ‘doctor’ merely puts his/her name to the study and presents it to a medical journal.

The drug companies have a definite preference for physicians over people with earned doctorates. Why? Those with earned doctorates have had at least minimal exposure to research methods and methodology. Physicians have not usually had the benefit of that same training.

It is easy for someone without expertise, training or experience in research to not recognize the tricks used by the drug companies. They use techniques that contradict the most basic requirements for any scientific study. They frequently design their studies with protocols that determine the results. The study doesn’t even need to be made. The results are already known. Actually, the studies do need to be made, or claimed to have been made, because the FDA needs paper.

The drug companies know that the studies are scientifically worthless. The FDA knows that the studies are scientifically worthless. A few of the ‘doctors’ conducting the studies know that they are scientifically worthless. Very few of the clinicians responsible for writing the prescriptions know. Very, very few of the patients know.

Physicians are trained to treat patients. Researchers are trained to do research. The confusion caused by our traditional, cultural convention of calling a physician a doctor allows the drug companies an opening to exploit. They do not miss many opportunities to pervert the system to their advantage.

The next Vioxx will be the result of unscientific studies being conducted by the drug companies and accepted by the FDA.

Back in the early 1970s, the hubris of some of those in the medical profession reached its zenith. The Kansas Medical Association lobbied the Kansas legislature to pass a bill prohibiting Ph.D.s from using the title Dr. with their name. The honorary doctors wanted to call themselves Dr. and bar the real ones from doing so. There are some great individual physicians but, as a profession, they need to be categorized alongside the legal profession. Perhaps the Latin countries have it right.

Just think of this post as me doing my part for the national morale. It momentarily distracts you. It temporarily interrupts your obsessing over the price of gasoline.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites