As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man —
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began: —
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
—concluding stanzas of Rudyard Kipling’s “Gods of the Copybook Headings”, 1919
Or so suggests an article at Obesity Reviews. Women who gained excessive weight while pregnant had children prone to obesity both early and later in life. The opposite applies to women who didn’t gain enough weight during pregnancy.
Her response to depends on genes, training program, nutrition, discipline, adequate sleep, adequate rest, etc.
Here’s an excerpt from an interview with author David Epstein in Outside online. Epstein wrote The Sports Gene: Inside the Science Of Extraordinary Athletic Performance:
Interviewer: That’s one of the most fascinating and unexpected parts of the book, where you discuss the Heritage study’s findings on trainability. Explain its implications.
Epstein: That’s the most famous exercise-genetics study ever done. It’s the collaboration of five colleges in the U.S. and Canada. They took sedentary, two-generation families, which didn’t have a training history, and put them through stationary-bike exercise plans that were totally controlled. Families had to go into the lab and exercise over five months. The goal was to see how people would improve, and they were split into four different university centers to do the training and every center saw the exact same pattern. About 15% of people improved their aerobic capacity very little or not at all. And 15% improved 50% or more doing identical training. Families tended to stick together in the improvement curve, so about half of any person’s improvement was determined by their parents. I remember the editorial that ran in the journal of applied physiology “some people’s alphabet soup—meaning their DNA—didn’t spell ‘runner.’” One person training the exact same as another person can have completely different outcomes.
The exercise in this study was aerobic training. If I recall correctly, I’ve read similar reports regarding response to weight training, aka resistance training. Am I right?
Many folks don’t like to admit this genetic limitation, assuming it’s true. “Set your mind to it, work hard—10,000 hours—and you can do or be anything you want.” Have you ever been tortured by unrealistic expectations? The truth will set you free.
Read the rest.
Steve Parker, M.D.
Something strange is happening in the United States. A Canadian friend recently said, “I can remember when Americans weren’t afraid of everything.” Just so. Don’t run on the playground because you might fall. Don’t roughhouse because you might get a bruise. Don’t go outside at high noon because you might get skin cancer. Don’t swim after eating because you might get a cramp. If a child draws a soldier, call a SWAT team because he is a murderous psychopath. Don’t ride a bicycle without a helmet. Fill in the deep end of the pool because someone might drown. Supervise everything. Control everything. Fear everything.
If these are not the neurotic fears of women and capons, please tell me what they are. Such run the schools. They make policy.
Click for details from dietitian Franziska Spritzler. Briefly:
1. They think it’s dangerous.
2.They believe the diet-heart hypothesis.
3. They think the diet is unbalanced.
4. They think no one will follow it long term.
Franziska ably debunks these ideas one by one.
23andMe is a genetic testing company that will analyze your personal collection of genes and suggest related health—and disease—implications. If you know you’re prone to developing a certain disease or condition, perhaps you can take steps beforehand to mitigate the risk.
The company was recently directed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to stop selling their service. Click for the FDA’s warning letter to 23andMe’s CEO.
Some have questioned 23andMe’s motives. Charles Seife, writing at Scientific American, has some ideas:
But as the FDA frets about the accuracy of 23andMe’s tests, it is missing their true function, and consequently the agency has no clue about the real dangers they pose. The Personal Genome Service isn’t primarily intended to be a medical device. It is a mechanism meant to be a front end for a massive information-gathering operation against an unwitting public.
What does 23andMe want to do with all that data? Right now the talk is all about medical research—and, in fact, the company is doing some interesting work. It has been sifting through its genomic database, which is combined with information that volunteers submit about themselves, to find possible genetic links to people’s traits. (The bright-light/sneeze genetic tag is a 23andMe discovery.) More promising are 23andMe’s attempts to recruit people who suffer from certain diseases, such as Parkinson’s and a few types of cancer. Simply through brute-force pattern matching, the company has a chance of finding genetic causes of these ailments, which could lead to a way to combat them. (And perhaps a blockbuster patent or three.)
That’s just the beginning, though.
Read the whole enchilada.