http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124649332091983175.html#printMode
... which is not exactly a 'man bites dog' story, more like a 'sun came up again this morning' story. It also illustrates a Friedman maxim, roughly that any govt intervention creates negative eventualities that eventually form the basis for the next govt intervention.
In this case, it's one really pathetic example of government intervention in the market place which can have ONLY negative eventualities - which then so eviscerates GM that the government "had to" intervene to 'save' the company. I wish I was funny enough to make movies about stuff like this - a kind of libertarian Michael Moore.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Learning About Cholesterol
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/weight-loss/low-carbohydrate-diets-increase-ldl-debunking-the-myth/
When is high LDL not bad? How does your doctor calculate your LDL? When is the 'standard formula' for LDL calculation not reliable? All this and more is answered in this very dense, very smart piece.
Doctors talk about cholesterol because it was one of the first significant blood markers they could measure and use to form correlations and hypotheses - and they simplified the topic to make it digestible to the masses (50% of whom have a below average IQ). However - the science of cholesterol is anything but simple. For example - US doctors are trying to get US citizens to lower their cholesterol levels to 'reduce the risk of heart disease' while Japanese doctors are trying to get their men to raise their cholesterol to 'reduce their risk of hemmoragic stroke.'
So what's the right level of cholesterol?
The answer is complex, and following Dr. Mike's post, you'll learn a bunch about how to think about cholesterol.
My answer to the question is "the right" level of cholesterol is not the same for all people. But all people want to avoid 'Syndrome X' aka 'metabolic derangement' (aka 'some other new phrase'), which is:
-high blood pressure
-high triglycerides
-high levels of small, dense LDLs
-hyper insulinemia
How do we do that? Eat a lot of protein and fat, and avoid high density carbohydrates.
Don't believe me? I wouldn't ask you to. Avoid all the speculation and try it yourself through a before and after test. BTW, if you don't read Dr. Mike's post above, you might find the before and after test is not as clear cut as it should be. If you do read his post, you'll know what to ask your Dr. to clarify your results.
When is high LDL not bad? How does your doctor calculate your LDL? When is the 'standard formula' for LDL calculation not reliable? All this and more is answered in this very dense, very smart piece.
Doctors talk about cholesterol because it was one of the first significant blood markers they could measure and use to form correlations and hypotheses - and they simplified the topic to make it digestible to the masses (50% of whom have a below average IQ). However - the science of cholesterol is anything but simple. For example - US doctors are trying to get US citizens to lower their cholesterol levels to 'reduce the risk of heart disease' while Japanese doctors are trying to get their men to raise their cholesterol to 'reduce their risk of hemmoragic stroke.'
So what's the right level of cholesterol?
The answer is complex, and following Dr. Mike's post, you'll learn a bunch about how to think about cholesterol.
My answer to the question is "the right" level of cholesterol is not the same for all people. But all people want to avoid 'Syndrome X' aka 'metabolic derangement' (aka 'some other new phrase'), which is:
-high blood pressure
-high triglycerides
-high levels of small, dense LDLs
-hyper insulinemia
How do we do that? Eat a lot of protein and fat, and avoid high density carbohydrates.
Don't believe me? I wouldn't ask you to. Avoid all the speculation and try it yourself through a before and after test. BTW, if you don't read Dr. Mike's post above, you might find the before and after test is not as clear cut as it should be. If you do read his post, you'll know what to ask your Dr. to clarify your results.
Mike Eades Hits another Homerun
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/inflammation/odds-and-ends-june-28-2009/#more-3113
This post, once you get past the luggage review, is dense with information. First, how to think about observational studies v. an intervention study (crib notes - use one to form hypotheses, use the other to test them. The former is useless in establishing causality, the later is necessary to establish causality).
Second, he summarizes what we all need to know about fat cells and children.
Third, he touches on the fact that exercise has not been shown to be an effective tool for weight loss. He concisely summarizes the info on this topic and then comments on two recent studies confirming this opinion.
Lastly, he gets into fiber. I like his perspective: "Fiber - who needs it?" I don't.
This post, once you get past the luggage review, is dense with information. First, how to think about observational studies v. an intervention study (crib notes - use one to form hypotheses, use the other to test them. The former is useless in establishing causality, the later is necessary to establish causality).
Second, he summarizes what we all need to know about fat cells and children.
Third, he touches on the fact that exercise has not been shown to be an effective tool for weight loss. He concisely summarizes the info on this topic and then comments on two recent studies confirming this opinion.
Lastly, he gets into fiber. I like his perspective: "Fiber - who needs it?" I don't.
Monday, June 29, 2009
On Being a Man
"The real work of men was hunting meat. The invention of agriculture was a giant step in the wrong direction, leading to serfdom, cities, and empire. From a race of hunters, artists, warriors, and tamers of horses, we degraded ourselves to what we are now: clerks, functionaries, laborers, entertainers, processors of information." - Edward Abbey
This quote makes my heart race ...
I think there's a connection between the sentiment in this quote and CrossFit - we were made to occasionally give the full extension of physical effort and there's a reason it feels 'good' in the larger sense (although quite bad in the moment). The reason is that those who could give the full extension and kind of like it were more likely to have and see their children's children.
This quote makes my heart race ...
I think there's a connection between the sentiment in this quote and CrossFit - we were made to occasionally give the full extension of physical effort and there's a reason it feels 'good' in the larger sense (although quite bad in the moment). The reason is that those who could give the full extension and kind of like it were more likely to have and see their children's children.
The Debt Tsunami
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/27/AR2009062701979_pf.html
One way to look at just how much debt we've taken on. Astonishing. And it is repeated at the State, City, County level as well (googling 'the death spiral' always gets some interesting budgetary results). Apparently, there's a real appeal to spending other people's money for the purpose of getting oneself re-elected.
"The death spiral" is a term to describe what will happen to the federal budget if there's not a miraculous and unlikely reversal in the current debt trend. First, as the debt becomes more and more obviously unsustainable and therefore riskier for those that lend to the govt, the treasury will be required to pay more interest to attract investors in US Govt bonds. That will drive an increase in the amount of the budget that is spent on debt payments. That will contribute to, accellerate, the inability to pay for obligations (the largest of which is currently Medicaid - as of two years ago, Medicaid's obligations exceeded all other entitlements), and reinforce the cycle making rates higher, budget more precarious, and so on, until we cannot continue to find those who will lend.
My favorite part of the linked article is how they just roll social security in with the other 'spending' programs - weren't they supposed to just hold our own money for us and give it back to us when we needed it later in life? That's not spending ... that's investing, right? Except the politicians already spent our money - to get themselves re-elected presumably - and now they're going to generate new taxes so they can pay back the loan they took ... from us .... for our own benefit ... WTF?
One way to look at just how much debt we've taken on. Astonishing. And it is repeated at the State, City, County level as well (googling 'the death spiral' always gets some interesting budgetary results). Apparently, there's a real appeal to spending other people's money for the purpose of getting oneself re-elected.
"The death spiral" is a term to describe what will happen to the federal budget if there's not a miraculous and unlikely reversal in the current debt trend. First, as the debt becomes more and more obviously unsustainable and therefore riskier for those that lend to the govt, the treasury will be required to pay more interest to attract investors in US Govt bonds. That will drive an increase in the amount of the budget that is spent on debt payments. That will contribute to, accellerate, the inability to pay for obligations (the largest of which is currently Medicaid - as of two years ago, Medicaid's obligations exceeded all other entitlements), and reinforce the cycle making rates higher, budget more precarious, and so on, until we cannot continue to find those who will lend.
My favorite part of the linked article is how they just roll social security in with the other 'spending' programs - weren't they supposed to just hold our own money for us and give it back to us when we needed it later in life? That's not spending ... that's investing, right? Except the politicians already spent our money - to get themselves re-elected presumably - and now they're going to generate new taxes so they can pay back the loan they took ... from us .... for our own benefit ... WTF?
Does Ahmadinejad Matter?
http://www.cafehayek.com/hayek/2009/06/where-does-power-lie-in-iran.html
I've never thought the Iranian President mattered much, in the grand scheme of Iranian government, but this is a more detailed examination of the topic.
I've never thought the Iranian President mattered much, in the grand scheme of Iranian government, but this is a more detailed examination of the topic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
