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:

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.

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.

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.

Monitor update

Two successes:

1. I found out how to run Doom 3 in custom resolutions.

Open DoomConfig.cfg in the Doom 3/base folder.
Change seta r_mode "-1"
This tells Doom 3 to use the custom screen size you are about to use:
seta r_customHeight "900"
seta r_customWidth "1440"
with the values the screen size you want.
seta r_fullscreen "1"
Will set fullscreen mode on (1) or off (0).

Thanks to this Doom 3 FAQ and TweakGuides for this.

2. I persuaded Pharaoh (and I hope Caesar 3) run in windowed mode - make sure that you are running in 16 bit colour mode and not 32 bit. Thanks to Heaven Games for that tip.

I think I have headed off my desire for a second monitor.

Monitor woes

When I purchased a new computer, I bought a separate system and monitor. Now, in my infinite wisdom, I went for a widescreen monitor. Unfortunately, this has had unforeseen consequences.

Being towards the bottom end of the monitor market, it doesn't support proper letter-boxing. Usually, non-widescreen television owners will see this as a problem with the almost ubiquitous use of widescreen broadcast these days; the black strips at the top and bottom of the screen. For me, it is a different issue. When the computer is outputting an image in the good old fashion 4:3 ratio (1024x768 for example), the monitor stretches it across its full width, distorting the image. Some monitors will put vertical black strips to the sides, so the image is shown in the correct proportions.

I play quite a few games, a large proportion of which are of quite an old vintage. Most of them only support resolutions in the 4:3 ratio. Some of these games (Doom 3 for example) will run in a window rather than full screen, so I can play them undistorted, but with the Windows desktop partially showing. However, a lot of my games won't run windowed, so if I want to play them, I have to do so with a stretched image. Which isn't very nice.

I have tried a number of devious solutions (virtualisation for example), but none have been successful. So now I am teetering on the edge of buying a second, 4:3, monitor. I have always wanted to run dual monitors, for the toy factor as much as anything, but it seems an expensive way to solve this problem. I also lack physical space.

The trials of geekdom.

Cathartic One

My mood seems level yet there is a block. I can't take action towards going to work. The long stretches of time behind the desk are terrifying. The visits and calls of people are moments of panic. Yet I know that I can deal with the people. I know that there is plenty of work to fill the time. Yet I am still blocked. Ever act seems so hard, yet it doesn't feel hard. It is odd not having the old angry mood to accompany these thoughts. That seemed more reasonable to give in to. This is just me trying to skip my responsibilities. But why am I so thwarted? I know me when I am being selfish and lazy; and this isn't me. Or am I trying to justify my laziness behind a believable excuse? I knew this would happen when I took my first sick day. Today am I really ill or just taking advantage?

I had hoped that writing this would have washed it out of me, or made the honest answer clear.