In each eyebrow I have a single hair that grows very long, and at a greater rate than normal eyebrow hair. Both are normal eyebrow brown at the ends, but silver in toward the roots.
I have spent the last minute or so of exceedingly fun time at my desk plucking them out with my fingers. For I am man, me fear no eyebrow plucking pain.
Showing posts with label health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health. Show all posts
24 March 2009
23 February 2009
If only I were a Duck
I could fly to work.
The one substantial downside of our lovely new house is that we are now about four and half miles from my place of work (and my wife's place of study) instead of a little over one mile. Previously I had a gentle fifteen or twenty minute walk to the office. Now my options are:
Bus: an hour, or possibly more in the evening if the traffic is particularly heavy.
Walk: an hour and fifteen or twenty minutes.
Cycle: twenty five or thirty minutes.
Even if I could drive, which I can't, I wouldn't.
I won't catch the bus unless I absolutely have to. Not only does it cost money, but there are other people there (which makes me nervous) and lots of them (which makes me even more nervous). It also grates a little to catch a bus when it is almost as quick for me to walk.
Ultimately, cycling will be a good thing. My general fitness will improve. I will feel less guilty about having an expensive bike which I rarely use. Coming into work and getting home after substantial exercise will tend to improve my short term mood.
I worry that if I wake up and am feeling low, I will be even less inclined to face up to the cycle than I would have been to the much shorter walk. Most of the cycle is on quiet roads or off road cycle paths, so it quite safe, and my usual fear of cycling on roads is minimised.
One of the few things that has always consistently been true from all of my experiences of various health and mental health professionals is that exercise is a positive thing. The short term boost of chemicals may only be short term, but it does boost me for a while, and sometimes that boost can be enough to get me out of the rut for a day. A day that may then turn into a week. All I need is for my body not to collapse in a heap for me.
One thing that irritates me more is the doubling of travel time. I now have even less time to do useful things (and play WoW). At least I won't be catching the bus every day.
The one substantial downside of our lovely new house is that we are now about four and half miles from my place of work (and my wife's place of study) instead of a little over one mile. Previously I had a gentle fifteen or twenty minute walk to the office. Now my options are:
Bus: an hour, or possibly more in the evening if the traffic is particularly heavy.
Walk: an hour and fifteen or twenty minutes.
Cycle: twenty five or thirty minutes.
Even if I could drive, which I can't, I wouldn't.
I won't catch the bus unless I absolutely have to. Not only does it cost money, but there are other people there (which makes me nervous) and lots of them (which makes me even more nervous). It also grates a little to catch a bus when it is almost as quick for me to walk.
Ultimately, cycling will be a good thing. My general fitness will improve. I will feel less guilty about having an expensive bike which I rarely use. Coming into work and getting home after substantial exercise will tend to improve my short term mood.
I worry that if I wake up and am feeling low, I will be even less inclined to face up to the cycle than I would have been to the much shorter walk. Most of the cycle is on quiet roads or off road cycle paths, so it quite safe, and my usual fear of cycling on roads is minimised.
One of the few things that has always consistently been true from all of my experiences of various health and mental health professionals is that exercise is a positive thing. The short term boost of chemicals may only be short term, but it does boost me for a while, and sometimes that boost can be enough to get me out of the rut for a day. A day that may then turn into a week. All I need is for my body not to collapse in a heap for me.
One thing that irritates me more is the doubling of travel time. I now have even less time to do useful things (and play WoW). At least I won't be catching the bus every day.
08 January 2009
Positive bunnies.
One of the frequently occurring pieces of advice that I have received during my illness, from assorted medical and mental health professionals and from friends and family, is to try and focus on good things. Maybe this is doing things that I enjoy, even when I don't feel like being bothered to eat and wash and breathe. Maybe it is trying to think about happy things rather than the constant trains of thought about angry and violent and pessimistic situations and fantasies. Maybe it is just to use my senses and see the nice things that are there.
I am not very good at this, so I shall attempt to practice here. I will make posts about things I enjoy, about positive things that have happened to me, about good news I hear of, about cute happy fluffy bunnies.
Bunny!
I am not very good at this, so I shall attempt to practice here. I will make posts about things I enjoy, about positive things that have happened to me, about good news I hear of, about cute happy fluffy bunnies.
Bunny!
15 February 2008
Fluoridating MPs
A missive that I sent to my MP, Hugh Bayley, using the excellent Write To Them service.
---
Dear Mr Bayley,
I noted last week that the Health Secretary, Alan Johnson MP, is
leading a drive to encourage the fluoridation of water supplies. Two
parts of his statements seemed important to me. Firstly, he suggested
that there is strong evidence that the fluoridation of water is of
benefit to dental health. Secondly, he encouraged debate of the issue
at a local level.
In 1999 the Department of Health commissioned a systematic review from
the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) at the University of
York into the efficacy of fluoridating drinking water supplies. This
review was 'unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in
the fluoridation literature world-wide'[1]. The CRD has been at pains
to make its findings known, and to ensure that they are understood. In
fact, it released a statement asking that the relevant decision makers
make themselves aware of the contents of the report. The full text of
the statement and report can be found on the CRD website at
http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm .
Given the results of the review, commissioned by the Department of
Health, I am surprised that the Minister is supporting this initiative.
As my MP, I was wondering if you would be able to find out why this is
so, especially given the recent emphasis placed by many members of the
government on making evidence based decisions. Clearly, this policy is
in conflict with the existing evidence.
In addition, as the Minister suggested asked that debate occurs at a
local level, I would like to add my voice to those asking that the York
water supplies are not fluoridated, if for no other reason than it
seems foolish to waste public money on a project that has no shown
benefit. If of course any future well-conducted studies were to show
benefits of water fluoridation, I would happily change my position.
Yours sincerely,
LSNDuck
[1] CRD, October 2003: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm
---
Dear Mr Bayley,
I noted last week that the Health Secretary, Alan Johnson MP, is
leading a drive to encourage the fluoridation of water supplies. Two
parts of his statements seemed important to me. Firstly, he suggested
that there is strong evidence that the fluoridation of water is of
benefit to dental health. Secondly, he encouraged debate of the issue
at a local level.
In 1999 the Department of Health commissioned a systematic review from
the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) at the University of
York into the efficacy of fluoridating drinking water supplies. This
review was 'unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in
the fluoridation literature world-wide'[1]. The CRD has been at pains
to make its findings known, and to ensure that they are understood. In
fact, it released a statement asking that the relevant decision makers
make themselves aware of the contents of the report. The full text of
the statement and report can be found on the CRD website at
http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd
Given the results of the review, commissioned by the Department of
Health, I am surprised that the Minister is supporting this initiative.
As my MP, I was wondering if you would be able to find out why this is
so, especially given the recent emphasis placed by many members of the
government on making evidence based decisions. Clearly, this policy is
in conflict with the existing evidence.
In addition, as the Minister suggested asked that debate occurs at a
local level, I would like to add my voice to those asking that the York
water supplies are not fluoridated, if for no other reason than it
seems foolish to waste public money on a project that has no shown
benefit. If of course any future well-conducted studies were to show
benefits of water fluoridation, I would happily change my position.
Yours sincerely,
LSNDuck
[1] CRD, October 2003: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd
31 October 2007
Obesity evidence
Interestingly, following my recent post concerning Junkfood Science and obesity, a major report has been released on the subject.
The Expert Report, Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and the Prevention of Cancer: a Global Perspective is produced by the World Cancer Research Fund. According to the website the report is:
I shall read as much as I can, consider the evidence used, and report back here.
The Expert Report, Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and the Prevention of Cancer: a Global Perspective is produced by the World Cancer Research Fund. According to the website the report is:
the most current and comprehensive analysis of the literature on diet, physical activity and cancer.
I shall read as much as I can, consider the evidence used, and report back here.
30 October 2007
Newcastle University organic food study
Yesterday, the Guardian and the BBC website reported news concerning an EU funded study into organic foods carried out led by the University of Newcastle.
The Guardian article was titles 'Organic food is healthier: study', whilst the BBC used "Organic produce 'better for you'". Both indicate that the study showed organic foods (in this study, fruit, vegetables, and cow based products) to be more healthy than non-organic food.
Unfortunately, none of the news coverage linked to more detailed information, and I couldn't find any after some cursory searching.
Using the coverage as the sole source of information, I have the following concerns about the report:
It has yet to be published, or peer reviewed. Thus no comment can be passed on the accuracy of the study, or the interpretation of results. Unusually, the BBC noted this.
The main basis for the the organic fruit and vegetables being considered more healthy is that they contain higher levels of anti-oxidants than non-organic comparisons. Whilst many claims are made for the health benefits of anti-oxidants, there is very little evidence to support them. The majority of studies have either shown no benefit, or in some cases, a reduction in benefit where additional anti-oxidants are applied.
It may be that anti-oxidants are good for us, in which case these organic crops will be better in that sense. The coverage, however, incorrectly assumes that this is true, invalidating the conclusion that the study shows the organic produce to be healthier.
Assuming that the journalists were reasonably true to the press release they were given, the information seems remarkably scant. Some mention is made of increased levels of some fatty acids as well as other 'nutrients'. No details of which, and in what quantity were given.
The release itself stated that there were wide variations in results.
So, whilst it may be that organic produce is better for us in some ways than non-organic, as it stands at the moment we can't say so with any degree of certainty. This release of information does not change that position, despite the inference from the news coverage otherwise.
The Guardian article was titles 'Organic food is healthier: study', whilst the BBC used "Organic produce 'better for you'". Both indicate that the study showed organic foods (in this study, fruit, vegetables, and cow based products) to be more healthy than non-organic food.
Unfortunately, none of the news coverage linked to more detailed information, and I couldn't find any after some cursory searching.
Using the coverage as the sole source of information, I have the following concerns about the report:
It has yet to be published, or peer reviewed. Thus no comment can be passed on the accuracy of the study, or the interpretation of results. Unusually, the BBC noted this.
The main basis for the the organic fruit and vegetables being considered more healthy is that they contain higher levels of anti-oxidants than non-organic comparisons. Whilst many claims are made for the health benefits of anti-oxidants, there is very little evidence to support them. The majority of studies have either shown no benefit, or in some cases, a reduction in benefit where additional anti-oxidants are applied.
It may be that anti-oxidants are good for us, in which case these organic crops will be better in that sense. The coverage, however, incorrectly assumes that this is true, invalidating the conclusion that the study shows the organic produce to be healthier.
Assuming that the journalists were reasonably true to the press release they were given, the information seems remarkably scant. Some mention is made of increased levels of some fatty acids as well as other 'nutrients'. No details of which, and in what quantity were given.
The release itself stated that there were wide variations in results.
So, whilst it may be that organic produce is better for us in some ways than non-organic, as it stands at the moment we can't say so with any degree of certainty. This release of information does not change that position, despite the inference from the news coverage otherwise.
28 October 2007
Introduction: Junkfood Science
One blog that I have been keeping up to date with recently has been Junkfood Science. Written by Sandy Szwarc, a qualified nurse, if focusses on the science and issues around obesity. The position of the blog is largely against the message delivered by governments that there is an obesity crisis that is threatening the health of the (western) world. The main points seem to be:
1. Obesity doesn't cause disease or medical conditions as is widely reported. It can be a marker for causes, but isn't one of itself.
2. In some situations, obesity can have positive health influences.
3. Highlighting the discrimination against the obese, including the negative effect that the 'war on obesity' has on this.
4. Indicating that the 'war on obesity' is a potentially large market, especially when reinforced by government campaigns.
5. That the obesity crisis is largely a false interpretation of the real situation.
Generally, the posts are well structured and written. Sandy Szwarc makes frequent references to studies and publications, and offers her analysis of their findings, which commonly run against the popular interpretations.
The clarity and apparent evidence base of these claims has caused me to consider the subject in greater depth. That the main emphasis of Junkfood Science runs against popular opinion, and the beliefs that I have been taught, and with apparently reliable evidence in support, have interested me a great deal.
I have briefly looked at some of the opposing views, some of which are very vehemently against Sandy Szwarc, but I think I will do so in much greater depth, and report what I discover here.
1. Obesity doesn't cause disease or medical conditions as is widely reported. It can be a marker for causes, but isn't one of itself.
2. In some situations, obesity can have positive health influences.
3. Highlighting the discrimination against the obese, including the negative effect that the 'war on obesity' has on this.
4. Indicating that the 'war on obesity' is a potentially large market, especially when reinforced by government campaigns.
5. That the obesity crisis is largely a false interpretation of the real situation.
Generally, the posts are well structured and written. Sandy Szwarc makes frequent references to studies and publications, and offers her analysis of their findings, which commonly run against the popular interpretations.
The clarity and apparent evidence base of these claims has caused me to consider the subject in greater depth. That the main emphasis of Junkfood Science runs against popular opinion, and the beliefs that I have been taught, and with apparently reliable evidence in support, have interested me a great deal.
I have briefly looked at some of the opposing views, some of which are very vehemently against Sandy Szwarc, but I think I will do so in much greater depth, and report what I discover here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
