Why Do I Like Putin?

The title of this post was the question I was asked on Facebook recently. Let me reword the question in this way: "Which world leader would I like to have a beer with?" There is Putin and then there is ... there is ... well, I can't think of a second one. I do like the Russian beer Baltika, Baltika 4 in particular, so that's a plus. One beer should not cause me to have a gout episode, it would be worth it. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. This one-eyed man is Putin. 

But the question really is along the lines of another question. "Why do you hate America so much?" I don't. But I am not blind to the policies of the US. I saw a bumper sticker that I agree with, so I know I am right. It said.  "Support the troops." Who could disagree with that? But above this caption was a Star Wars figure, a storm trooper. Is this fair? Not entirely. But look at the numbers--how many Iraqis have died directly and indirectly to US war-making? The answer is at least one million. How many have died as a result of Putin's adventures in Ukraine? The answer is less than ten thousand. I have heard the argument that "Sure America is bad, but other countries are worse." I am not sure the math supports this argument. 

What do I mean about the blindness of the American leadership? The proposal for a "no-fly zone" in Syria is a good example. There aren't that many candidates that are against it. Rand, O'Malley, and Sanders are against it. Clinton is in favor of such a zone. Apparently Trump and Cruz do not have an opinion. I had thought that Trump was against and Cruz in favor, but the research I did says otherwise.  (One of Trump's advantages is that the voter reads their own ideas onto Trump, "He is my candidate.") All other candidates are in favor. One candidate, who out of kindness I will not name, proposed to "punch the Russians in the nose." 

What is a "no-fly zone"? From Wikipedia: 

A no-fly zone (or no-flight zone) (NFZ) is a territory or an area over which aircraft are not permitted to fly. Such zones are usually set up in a military context, somewhat like a demilitarized zone in the sky, and usually prohibit military aircraft of a belligerent power from operating in the region. Aircraft that break the no-fly zone may be shot down, depending on the terms of the NFZ.

The previous incarnation of this policy in Libya was approved by the UN. This will not happen in Syria due to an obvious Russian veto. This means that the zone would be illegal under international law. The "red meat" Republicans, and Hillary Clinton, don't seem to care. 

To understand how catastrophic this policy would be we need to look at the civil war in Ukraine. Ukraine could either join the Russian free trade block, with whom they did most of their trading, or the European trade block, the EU. Ukraine could not join both. If they joined the EU then Russian tariffs would kick in, and visa-versa.  They had to choose. Ukraine was ready to join the EU, but a last-minute increase in the Russian offer led Prime Minister Yanukovych to change his mind. Riots ensued. While there was obvious anti-Russian sentiment in Ukraine, the riots were funded by the West. How do we know this? Victoria Nuland admitted it. 

The US spent 5 billion dollars to get Ukraine "into" Europe and it is not going to let a little thing like an elected Ukrainian government get in the way!  

The US basically selected the new Ukrainian government. How do we know this? Victoria Nuland admitted it. 

Of course the US was quite miffed that the Russians were able to intercept this phone call. While the US did not get everything it wanted, this call shows the large measure of control that the State Department has over Ukrainian governmental decisions. As the saying goes, "He who pays the piper, decides the tune." 

Why was Russia so concerned about the Ukraine joining the EU? One reason was that all EU countries have mutual defense agreements. While Ukraine's entry into the EU would not technically be an entry into NATO, in a de facto way it would be. In addition to the obvious NATO plan to encircle Russia, this would leave Russia's most important warm-water naval base eventually in NATO control. As an artifact of the dissolving of the Soviet Union, these naval facilities, even though they had been Russian for 150 years, were inside the new Ukraine. Russia leased these facilities from Ukraine. These leases were due to expire in 2042. It would be unacceptable to any Russian leader for these bases to be NATO bases, as they would have been eventually. To give you a time frame for how long Crimea was a part of Russia, this is about as long as California has been a part of the United States. How fond are Americans of California? No leader of the Russian Federation is going to allow these ports to leave Russian control. War would be preferable to them. 

The idea that Putin is being provocative is just not an adequate read on the situation. For a longish article on why Putin is doing what he is doing, click here.  

Putin is like a circus juggler. He has to keep the balls of Russian interests in the air while dodging the balls Victoria Nuland throws at him. So far he hasn't dropped anything-- not even the spinning plates on a stick. You have to admire his skill. 

Since I still think Hillary Clinton will be the next President, and she favors a no-fly zone, aka war with Russia, one can only hope for the best. Do I "like" Putin? I do not see the question as important or even interesting. I hope he does well with his juggling. If Putin "drops the ball," we are all dead. 

Week 10: What the Fructose?

There were some surprises in various foods and their effect on blood sugar that we talked about last time. Being aware of these surprises is crucial to having a good mix of foods. The general rule was that starches and sugars converted quickly into sugar and that vegetables and fruit are converted more slowly. For metabolically-damaged people this is important.  

So does understanding how fruit turns slowly into sugar in the blood mean that one should eat a lot of it? To answer this question one needs to study how the body converts fructose into energy. Alcohol, sugar alcohol, and fructose are taken to the liver and changed there into a type of fat, a triglyceride. (Sugar alcohol is a product often found in diet foods as it does not affect blood sugar and is regard by many as a free carbohydrate. I was always suspicious of this idea. Sugar alcohols are often found in low carb productions like diet bars and in some dietetic ice cream.) Note that individual cells can convert these items into sugar directly, but as a general rule it is the liver that does the "heavy lifting." This is why alcoholics often destroy their liver by overwhelming it with alcohol. The dosage is the poison, so a little of these products should not be a problem, unless your triglycerides are too high. Hopefully you have had your blood work done and you know how high your triglycerides are. 

When I began my quest for personal health, mine were crazy high at 268. Now they are at an "acceptable" 110. Several factors are involved in your triglyceride levels. If you a overweight then they will be higher than they should be. Losing weight by any means will reduce them. But ironically, losing weight will drop more triglycerides into your blood as you lose weight and your body burns your fat. So in the short run as you lose weight your triglyceride level should be monitored but not a high priority for intervention.  

So for me the answer to the question as to how much fruit, alcohol, and sugar alcohol one should eat depends on the level of triglycerides in the blood. If your level is over 150, the standard consensus level for danger, then one should be greatly limiting these items in your diet. There is considerable debate about what the best level of triglycerides is. Some want it to be less than 100. This is my personal goal. So as a result of this I try to limit my alcohol, fruit, and sugar alcohol consumption to one serving in total a day. This is usually some berries in the morning, although I have been known to have an adult beverage in the evening in addition to this. 

So our goal for this week is to consider how much we are eating that our body is turning into fat flowing in our bloodstream. Remembering that the dosage is the poison, have yourself tested to determine how much of these foods you need to be eating. If your triglycerides are more than 150, you need to consume very little to none. If you are in the 100 to 150 range then you need to limit your intake to one or two servings a day. If less than 100 then this does not seem to be a problem for you and you can consume more. Be sure to periodically retest your levels. And no, you cannot have your weekly allotment of alcohol all at once. 

The homework this week is a presentation by one of the main "fructose is evil" advocates, and my critique of his ideas from a previous blog post. 

I think he is greatly oversimplifying. Looking at other interviews he has done, he said that carbohydrate and fat cannot exist in the same food. This is really strange, because they do. To make the details of what he is proposing even more confusing, he said that fruits are all right because they have fiber. Well, that depends on the fruit. Bananas have little fiber.

Even vegans like Dr. McDougal recognize that fruits can play a negative role in the formation of triglycerides, which are associated with heart disease. More discussion of this would have strengthened Lustig’s case.

He also said in the video that early humans ate 100 to 300 grams of fiber a day. That is rather high. Most estimates I have read place it at 100 grams. The only way they got this much was that ancient foods had not been artificially selected to make them sweeter and have more carbohydrates.

The recommendation is that humans should consume 25 grams. The average in America today is 12. Obviously there is room for improvement. Today I ate 55 grams of fiber, 15 of it artificial from a protein bar. How did I get the other 40 grams naturally? I ate a grapefruit, a banana, an apple, and one cup of strawberries. I also ate 3 cups of Brussels sprouts and three cups of various types of lettuce. I also got fiber from nuts. I had some spinach and beans with my fish. With this huge fiber feast, I still only got 40 grams of fiber. To approach what our ancestors ate may not be practical. (For those curious I am trying various dietary combinations to see how I feel. Note that I am not eating that much fruit now but I am still getting a lot of fiber from vegetables.)

So while I have some reservations about Dr. Lustig's presentation due to oversimplification of complex issues, the reminder of the dangers of fructose is something that needs consideration. I doubt I will eat as much fruit as I did today on a regular basis. That seems like too much fructose. Lustig's explanation of fructose metabolism makes that clear to me.

Here is how Gary Taubes, no friend to sugar, describes "The Bitter Truth About Sugar" in the NY Times:

It doesn’t hurt Lustig’s cause that he is a compelling public speaker. His critics argue that what makes him compelling is his practice of taking suggestive evidence and insisting that it’s incontrovertible. Lustig certainly doesn’t dabble in shades of gray. Sugar is not just an empty calorie, he says; its effect on us is much more insidious. “It’s not about the calories,” he says. “It has nothing to do with the calories. It’s a poison by itself.”

Taubes presents a much more balanced approach, I recomend the whole article he wrote as a supplement, or substitution, to this viral video. 

So I am suggesting that during a perioid of weight loss that one needs to limit the fruits, alcohol and sugar alcohol one eats as this tends to raise triglycerides. 

Century of the Self, Part 4

I would say that this series has done a good job of pointing out the problems with our modern mass market society. But the solution it offers is totalitarian in nature—salvation by politics. There is a yearning for completeness that the producers think can be provided through society. It can't. 

Last week I wrote about a Jesus-shaped whole in us that needs to be filled, and fill it we will with sex, drugs—even with Rock ‘n’ Roll. The producers of this series, as people of the left, might try to fill it with society. There is an element of society in our individual Jesus-shaped holes. The assembling together of believers is a good thing. But it has a downside.

We risk confusing the shape of the Jesus-sized hole and trying to make it a church-sized hole. 

 The corporations want you. Government wants you. Society wants you. Even the church wants you. And God wants you too. But what he wants from you is different from what society wants. Jesus said this at the end of the parable of the unjust servant in Luke 16 (from The Message paraphrase version): 

 No worker can serve two bosses: 

      He'll either hate the first and love the second 

   Or adore the first and despise the second. 

      You can't serve both God and the Bank.

 ^14-18When the Pharisees, a money-obsessed bunch, heard him say these things, they rolled their eyes, dismissing him as hopelessly out of touch. So Jesus spoke to them: "You are masters at making yourselves look good in front of others, but God knows what's behind the appearance. 

    What society sees and calls monumental, 

      God sees through and calls monstrous.

While the point of this is that you cannot serve money and God, what are corporations, governments, society, and yes, most churches, really after? You know the answer. 

You cannot serve Babylon the Great and God. You must choose. Maybe the toughest part of leaving Babylon for a Christain is to understand that most churches are a part of the system we must leave. They too use these techniques in order to make you a slave. I quoted the Phillips translation last time saying, “Do not let this world squeeze you into its mold.” Do not let your church do this either. 

I hope this series has helped you understand the process by which Babylon wants to choose for you. I hope you choose wisely. Choosing to choose, and not drifting with the crowd—what a concept! 

If you want to catch up on the series here are some links to the videos I embed here in the blog.

Part I 

Part II

Part III

and here is part 4.

On the Corner of San Bernardino and Waterman

Week 9: What Is the Glycemic Index?

We tend to think that all carbohydrates, proteins, and fats are created equal. Instead there are important differences between the various types. There are some surprising differences in how our bodies process things—carbohydrates in particular. Our assignment for this week is to understand and apply the glycemic index to our dietary choices.  

Here is a video that explains it

You do not need to buy their fiber pill. Eat better instead. I am not saying that this product is bad, I have no idea. It is better to get your fiber from real food. If Since you are keeping track of what you are eating, you know how much fiber you are getting. A product like this might be an option if you are not getting enough.

What the glycemic index measures is how quickly the carbohydrate turns into sugar in your body. There are some surprises. One of the worst offenders is the ubiquitous potato. It turns into sugar very fast, faster in fact than sugar itself. Oatmeal is not bad, but instant oatmeal is, well, it is instant in its turning into sugar. So it you are eating this you are just fooling yourself. 

Here is a chart from Harvard.edu:

FOOD	Glycemic index (glucose = 100)	Serving size (grams)	Glycemic load per serving
BAKERY PRODUCTS AND BREADS
Banana cake, made with sugar	47	60	14
Banana cake, made without sugar	55	60	12
Sponge cake, plain	46	63	17
Vanilla cake made from packet mix with vanilla frosting (Betty Crocker)	42	111	24
Apple, made with sugar	44	60	13
Apple, made without sugar	48	60	9
Waffles, Aunt Jemima (Quaker Oats)	76	35	10
Bagel, white, frozen	72	70	25
Baguette, white, plain	95	30	15
Coarse barley bread, 75-80% kernels, average	34	30	7
Hamburger bun	61	30	9
Kaiser roll	73	30	12
Pumpernickel bread	56	30	7
50% cracked wheat kernel bread	58	30	12
White wheat flour bread	71	30	10
Wonder™ bread, average	73	30	10
Whole wheat bread, average	71	30	9
100% Whole Grain™ bread (Natural Ovens)	51	30	7
Pita bread, white	68	30	10
Corn tortilla	52	50	12
Wheat tortilla	30	50	8
BEVERAGES
Coca Cola®, average	63	250 mL	16
Fanta®, orange soft drink	68	250 mL	23
Lucozade®, original (sparkling glucose drink)	95±10	250 mL	40
Apple juice, unsweetened, average	44	250 mL	30
Cranberry juice cocktail (Ocean Spray®)	68	250 mL	24
Gatorade	78	250 mL	12
Orange juice, unsweetened	50	250 mL	12
Tomato juice, canned	38	250 mL	4
BREAKFAST CEREALS AND RELATED PRODUCTS
All-Bran™, average	55	30	12
Coco Pops™, average	77	30	20
Cornflakes™, average	93	30	23
Cream of Wheat™ (Nabisco)	66	250	17
Cream of Wheat™, Instant (Nabisco)	74	250	22
Grapenuts™, average	75	30	16
Muesli, average	66	30	16
Oatmeal, average	55	250	13
Instant oatmeal, average	83	250	30
Puffed wheat, average	80	30	17
Raisin Bran™ (Kellogg's)	61	30	12
Special K™ (Kellogg's)	69	30	14
GRAINS
Pearled barley, average	28	150	12
Sweet corn on the cob, average	60	150	20
Couscous, average	65	150	9
Quinoa	53	150	13
White rice, average	89	150	43
Quick cooking white basmati	67	150	28
Brown rice, average	50	150	16
Converted, white rice (Uncle Ben's®)	38	150	14
Whole wheat kernels, average	30	50	11
Bulgur, average	48	150	12
COOKIES AND CRACKERS
Graham crackers	74	25	14
Vanilla wafers	77	25	14
Shortbread	64	25	10
Rice cakes, average	82	25	17
Rye crisps, average	64	25	11
Soda crackers	74	25	12
DAIRY PRODUCTS AND ALTERNATIVES
Ice cream, regular	57	50	6
Ice cream, premium	38	50	3
Milk, full fat	41	250mL	5
Milk, skim	32	250 mL	4
Reduced-fat yogurt with fruit, average	33	200	11
FRUITS
Apple, average	39	120	6
Banana, ripe	62	120	16
Dates, dried	42	60	18
Grapefruit	25	120	3
Grapes, average	59	120	11
Orange, average	40	120	4
Peach, average	42	120	5
Peach, canned in light syrup	40	120	5
Pear, average	38	120	4
Pear, canned in pear juice	43	120	5
Prunes, pitted	29	60	10
Raisins	64	60	28
Watermelon	72	120	4
BEANS AND NUTS
Baked beans, average	40	150	6
Blackeye peas, average	33	150	10
Black beans	30	150	7
Chickpeas, average	10	150	3
Chickpeas, canned in brine	38	150	9
Navy beans, average	31	150	9
Kidney beans, average	29	150	7
Lentils, average	29	150	5
Soy beans, average	15	150	1
Cashews, salted	27	50	3
Peanuts, average	7	50	0
PASTA and NOODLES
Fettucini, average	32	180	15
Macaroni, average	47	180	23
Macaroni and Cheese (Kraft)	64	180	32
Spaghetti, white, boiled, average	46	180	22
Spaghetti, white, boiled 20 min, average	58	180	26
Spaghetti, wholemeal, boiled, average	42	180	17
SNACK FOODS
Corn chips, plain, salted, average	42	50	11
Fruit Roll-Ups®	99	30	24
M & M's®, peanut	33	30	6
Microwave popcorn, plain, average	55	20	6
Potato chips, average	51	50	12
Pretzels, oven-baked	83	30	16
Snickers Bar®	51	60	18
VEGETABLES
Green peas, average	51	80	4
Carrots, average	35	80	2
Parsnips	52	80	4
Baked russet potato, average	111	150	33
Boiled white potato, average	82	150	21
Instant mashed potato, average	87	150	17
Sweet potato, average	70	150	22
Yam, average	54	150	20
MISCELLANEOUS
Hummus (chickpea salad dip)	6	30	0
Chicken nuggets, frozen, reheated in microwave oven 5 min	46	100	7
Pizza, plain baked dough, served with parmesan cheese and tomato sauce	80	100	22
Pizza, Super Supreme (Pizza Hut)	36	100	9
Honey, average	61	25	12

The complete list of the glycemic index and glycemic load for more than 1,000 foods can be found in the article "International tables of glycemic index and glycemic load values: 2008" by Fiona S. Atkinson, Kaye Foster-Powell, and Jennie C. Brand-Miller in the December 2008 issue of Diabetes Care, Vol. 31, number 12, pages2281-2283. [end quote] 

This list is not the only metric you should use. High fat foods will have a low gylcemic index. 

Here is a video presentation on the glycemic index as your homework for this week. Also study the chart.

Note that the presenter makes some errors. As good as fiber is, the difference between white and wheat bread is not that high unless you get very coarse bread. But an important point she brings out is that sweet potatoes, and especially yams, are much slower to convert into sugar. I still remember the shock when I discovered the whole wheat bread I was using was not helping my blood sugar. 

The glycemic Index of foods is important to everyone, but particularly important to those whose metabolism is faulty—those with diabetes and metabolic syndrome. We need to be aware of the glycemic values of what we eat. 

Action Plan: Your action for this week is to take the high glycemic foods you are eating now and replace them with different foods of the same type. So replace whole wheat/white bread with coarse whole wheat bread; replace potatoes with yams; and replace bananas with grapefruit. 

Remember, if you are not writing down what you are eating, you do not really know what you are eating. Drop diet drinks from what you drink. Remember all the steps you have been making and continue with them.