Let’s Integrate Biochemistry Per Se, and Leave Basic Biochemistry to Dr. Michael Eades

I know full well that this is not the sort of post most people love.

I also know full well that the only thing that makes me a blogger people pay attention to is that lacking some fundamentals of sciences, I nonetheless have a keen sense of contradictions, posturings, logical fallacies, diversions, syntheses, and integrations. A is A.

For over a year now, I and several collaborators collectively known as "Duck Dodgers" have engaged in a dispute with Mike Eades—a dispute that he has no time for, except to take a lot of time reminding everyone how little time he has. In spite of everyone having their own opinions on how I ought to conduct my affairs, not a single vowel of an alphabetic integration—mixed with consonants of discord—means a runny shit to me. It's my blog: there's the door.

...A lot of time recently has been spent in Eades' comment section—330 of them and counting—and much of it reads like some of my own comment threads. You're perfectly free to not care a wit about it; but I do, and I disagree with all notions that I ought not take this with the utmost of seriousness. It's extremely serious to me, and it goes way beyond the Inuit and Ketosis. There's the door.

It goes to an ersatz diet guru basking in the comfort of sycophants. A man who would take it easy long-term defending basic dogma, rather than embrace new discovery, knowledge, and understanding: synthesize and integrate them.

We're dealing with a basic Guru.

“If you meet the Buddha, kill him.” — Linji

So Eades decided to put Duck Dodgers in his place; this, after promising for a year or more to "don't worry, an answer is coming right up. It's just basic biochemistry." ...If you're unfamiliar with the background, there's plenty of link fodder to go chasing after if you're better than demanding to be fed with spoons. You can start here.

Basic-psychologically, Eades has gone all in on his necessary delusion that none of "Duck Dodgers" understand basic biochemistry. (It's really advanced biochemistry; but this is the sort of characterization basic Gurus deal in for basic Guru-reasons.)

March 3, 2015 at 4:09 pm

What’s uncoupling? If you don’t know, you shouldn’t be throwing the term around.

This isn’t a debate between Peter and me, it’s between you and me. You’ve made it personal, and now when you’ve been caught in a bunch of BS showing how clueless you are about the very fat burning (for heat, as I recall) you’ve been touting, you try to foist the whole thing off as a disagreement I have with Peter.

Just so you’ll know, fats are burned in the mitochondria. They have to get in there somehow, which they do by riding in on carnitine. Attaching the fatty acid to the carnitine requires the enzyme CPT1 (and CPT2 to get through the inner mitochondrial membrane, but the CPT1 is the rate limiting enzyme). So if all Eskimos have CPT1 deficiencies, how do they get the fat in their mitochondria to burn for heat as you suggest? And if the CPT1 deficiency is widespread, how do Eskimos burn fat if they can’t get it into the mitochondria where fat is oxidized? Unlike glucose, fat can’t be burned other than in the mitochondria.

Only once the fat is burned can there be uncoupling. Uncoupling is involved in the electron transport chain, which basically consumes energy (thrown off by fat oxidation) to creates an electrochemical gradient across the inner mitochondrial membrane. This gradient is what ends up powering the turbine-like crank to make ATP. So you’ve got the electron transport chain coupled with oxidative phosphorylation, which is the process of making ATP. Uncoupling occurs when the energy required to create the electrochemical gradient is somehow dissipated and ends up not being used to create ATP. In other words the process of creating the gradient is uncoupled from the process of producing ATP.

Would you care to speculate as to how this uncoupling occurs? Or what the end result is?

Or do you need another round of basic biochemistry instruction so you’ll know the answers to those questions?

Notice how he's finally and thoroughly detailed how the Inuit are in perpetual ketosis, so keto-adapted that neither ketones nor their by-products can be detected in Eskimo, how they eat high fat, moderate protein year round, don’t need fat for lamps, cooking, or dogs, etc.

Here's the thing. The Duck Dodgers had been chewing on the questions Eades posed for about a day. When dealing with the CPT1a mutation and FFA oxidation a-la Eskimo, there are papers that both answer and raise questions. It's a bit beyond basic. But because Eades is basically most of all concerned with the basic integrity of basic low-carb dogma, he basically missed important distinctions.

Even basic veterinarian Peter seems to take it that way (but all of it prefaced as basic speculation), as he's basically unblessed with Mike's basic certitude of all being basically settled on the basic basis of basic biochemistry. Sometimes though, advanced thinking is required. Peter wrote:

This is not quite so simple.

Uncoupling is one component. Uncoupling respiration generates heat. There might just be a positive advantage to running your metabolism fairly uncoupled in a very low temperature environment. Elevated FFAs are completely essential to uncoupling and heat generation. Limiting fatty acid removal from the cytoplasm to the mitochondria might be a facilitator of uncoupling. It's FFAs on the cytosolic side of UCPs which facilitate proton translocation. Having a higher level of cytoplasmic FFAs at a given level of plasma FFAs might give an advantage over the normal level of uncoupling seen under near ketogenic diet conditions.

Fortunately, we have Dr. Eades to basically brush it all aside.

Screen Shot 2015 03 04 at 11 04 55 AM
 

Well sure. When everything hinges on Guru proclamations of "just basic biochemistry," then everything's a nail, as they say.

Whereas, there's way, way more abnormal identifications that require integration (vs. "interpretation") at that post. Like this from Peter, once again:

A Selective Sweep on a Deleterious Mutation in CPT1A in Arctic Populations

The paper itself is largely an account of the detective work involved in pinning down a specific mutation which has been positively selected for in a Siberian population living in the Arctic. The same mutation is also present in non related groups inhabiting the Arctic areas of northern America. The mutated gene is very common and frequently homozygous. It puts a leucine in the place of a proline in CPT-1a, the core enzyme for getting long chain fatty acids in to mitochondria. Putting a leucine where there should be a proline means the protein is basically f*cked. The mutation is linked, not surprisingly, to failure to generate ketones in infancy and can be associated with profound hypoglycaemia, potentially causing sudden death.

In his haste to brush up on his basic understanding of CPT1a, Eades seems to have only accounted for 70's-era basic biochemistry—where all carnitine palmitoyltransferase were about the same. The thing is: they aren't. In fact, they all do different things, and the Eskimos only had a deficiency in CPT1a. It's what you call a basic critical distinction.

The mutation that causes a deficiency in the Mark 1, Mod A form is more prevalent along coastal regions where polyunsaturated fatty acid intake was high (i.e., seafood). The Eskimos were known to be strong, intelligent, and could generate their own heat (they felt warm to the touch). To be an autosomal recessive mutation, it must be highly selective, since it causes hypoketotic hypoglycemia: low blood ketones and low blood sugar. Which, in practical day-to-day living, means: difficulty fasting. Another basic critical distinction. For example, in Pic = 1,000 style: Mouse white adipocytes and 3T3-L1 cells display an anomalous pattern of carnitine palmitoyltransferase (CPT) I isoform expression during differentiation.

CPT1a b
 Notice how CPT1b is highly active in Brown Adipose Tissue (BAT)?

So, leaving basic biochemistry to Dr. Eades, how about we get into some speculative advanced shit? Keep in mind that it requires only that you can think, spot contradictions, syntheses, and integrations—connections. You don't need a degree and you haven't to have passed a test on a bunch of shit you had to memorize but never truly understood, integrated, or connected to actual observations. In that same comment thread, Eades spurns Googling. Well of course. All Gurus hate Google—except for themselves.

This is by no means exhaustive "Duck Dodgers." Just basic bullets representing a bit of basic chewing on possible contradictions between basic biochemistry and what has been more recently discovered, enlightened, or understood, demanding integration and synthesis. We call this advanced biochemistry; or, basic thinking. It's not exhaustive, just basically a culling of a bunch of emails with ideas Duck Dodgers collectively tosses around.

  • Brown fat, where thermogenesis takes place, has CPT1b, not CPT1a.
  • The Eskimo genetic mutation we're dealing with here involves CPT1a, not CPT1b, or even CPT1c.
  • CPT1a is primarily associated with liver cells
  • CPT1b is primarily associated with brown fat, skeletal, and heart muscle cells
  • CPT1c is primarily associated with brain cells.
  • Infants in general have lots of brown fat. Eskimo infants are at the greatest mortality risk for the CPT1a mutation. Is FFA oxidation via CPT1b in brown fat what primarily gives them a chance vs. ketones, that aren't produced as normal in the liver? Do Eskimo adults retain more brown fat than humans in temperate climes?
  • Consider basic bears. Basically, they're enormous mammals that live in frigid to fucking cold environments, such that there's only enough food in late spring, summer and fall to feed them for an entire year. So they have adapted to hibernation for 6-7 months. They don't do ketosis, even in a 7-month fast-hibernation.
  • Bears and other hibernating mammals have lots of brown fat.
  • Does the CPT1a mutation protect Eskimos from excess production of methylglyoxal that specifically targets mitochondria, and inhibits manganese superoxide dismutase, since FFAs aren't getting into the liver to produce acetone, a precursor to methylglyoxal?
  • How about CPT1a residual enzyme activity on cultured skin fibroblasts? Well, in people with a CPT1a deficiency, the residual activity is 1-5%, but in Inuit with the myopathic phenotype, the activity is 15-25%. All CPT1a abnormality is not created equal.
  • Or...Brown Adipose Tissue (BAT) is a clue is a clue; thyroid is a clue; mitochondrial DNA is a clue; high N-3 PUFA matters. Gut flora? Rotten meat and blueberries? All that together?

There's a lot more, but let's jump to a couple of studies for basic fun.

A Selective Sweep on a Deleterious Mutation in CPT1A in Arctic Populations

Arctic populations live in an environment characterized by extreme cold and the absence of plant foods for much of the year and are likely to have undergone genetic adaptations to these environmental conditions in the time they have been living there. Genome-wide selection scans based on genotype data from native Siberians have previously highlighted a 3 Mb chromosome 11 region containing 79 protein-coding genes as the strongest candidates for positive selection in Northeast Siberians. However, it was not possible to determine which of the genes might be driving the selection signal. Here, using whole-genome high-coverage sequence data, we identified the most likely causative variant as a nonsynonymous G>A transition (rs80356779; c.1436C>T [p.Pro479Leu] on the reverse strand) in CPT1A, a key regulator of mitochondrial long-chain fatty-acid oxidation.

Remarkably, the derived allele is associated with hypoketotic hypoglycemia and high infant mortality yet occurs at high frequency in Canadian and Greenland Inuits and was also found at 68% frequency in our Northeast Siberian sample.

We provide evidence of one of the strongest selective sweeps reported in humans; this sweep has driven this variant to high frequency in circum-Arctic populations within the last 6–23 ka despite associated deleterious consequences, possibly as a result of the selective advantage it originally provided to either a high-fat diet or a cold environment.”

Shorter American Journal of Human Genetics: Ketosis is shit. Need something better, like brown fat. Wouldn't it be deliciously ironic if, in the end, it turns out that the primary justification for the purported "magic" of ketogenic diets—the Eskimo—were genetically dumped from that ability thousands of years ago for various reasons? I adore iconoclasm above all else.

Only in error does one attain certainty. And only in the relentless pursuit of honestly integrated understanding does one attain error. — Me

Here's something new, from January, 2015:

Adipose Fatty Acid Oxidation Is Required for Thermogenesis and Potentiates Oxidative Stress-Induced Inflammation

Highlights

  • Adipose fatty acid oxidation (FAO) is required for cold-induced thermogenesis
  • Adipose FAO is required for agonist-induced thermogenic gene expression
  • Loss of adipose FAO does not alter body weight
  • Adipose FAO is required for high-fat-induced oxidative stress and inflammation.

Summary

To understand the contribution of adipose tissue fatty acid oxidation to whole-body metabolism, we generated mice with an adipose-specific knockout of carnitine palmitoyltransferase 2 (CPT2A−/−), an obligate step in mitochondrial long-chain fatty acid oxidation. CPT2A−/− mice became hypothermic after an acute cold challenge, and CPT2A−/− brown adipose tissue (BAT) failed to upregulate thermogenic genes in response to agonist-induced stimulation. The adipose-specific loss of CPT2 resulted in diet-dependent changes in adiposity but did not result in changes in body weight on low- or high-fat diets. Additionally, CPT2A−/− mice had suppressed high-fat diet-induced oxidative stress and inflammation in visceral white adipose tissue (WAT); however, high-fat diet-induced glucose intolerance was not improved. These data show that fatty acid oxidation is required for cold-induced thermogenesis in BAT and high-fat diet-induced oxidative stress and inflammation in WAT.

It has a cool image too.

fx1
Notice how you don't need CPT1a to generate body heat through thermogenesis? Lacking CPT1a preferentially shunts FAs to brown fat cells.

I ferociously enjoy all of this on a number of levels. First and foremost is that I'm integrating new understandings and insights with virtually every email exchanged between The Duck Dodgers. Second, I appreciate my role as the primary publisher of the distillation of an amazingly vibrant collaboration.

Our chief aim is always to get a bit more right by identifying and setting aside that which is obsolete, in spite of its Newtonian usefulness for its time. We don't wait impatiently on asymptotes, but rather embrace their nature of getting ever closer.

As to Dr. Eades, well, I've just seen too much to be able to give him a pass and chalk it up to too busy, but trust me it's basic. Just hours ago, this:

That was the first paper I read. Do you just have the abstract? The entire paper is filled with weasel words, which tells me that authors are speculating about everything. Which they ultimately end up saying.

I've seen it so many times since I first began reading him in 2007. There's so many ways to unpack that, other than the way I used to do, which was to think "thanks Mike for showing me The Way, The Truth, and The Light."

My path towards understanding how he always—100% of the time—has some fatal-flaw problem with studies that contradict low-carb dogma—while regularly adoring nonsense from Phinney, Volek***—and other papers that seem to only primarily reference Phinney and Volek—came courtesy of Anthony Colpo. See, I actually read The Fat Loss Bible, a book that goes into excruciating detail over every single metabolic ward study comparing different dietary regimes.

And guess what? There's really not a dime's worth of difference in terms of fat loss. It really is predominantly about CICO. It just is. I use the term predominantly rather than all, because I do think that real food that includes sane levels of fat and is low in refined forms of sugar helps one better eat an appropriate amount, and not too much too often.

And then I think back at the exchange of blog posts between the two and for the most part, Anthony is quoting studies (like The Duck Dodgers) while Dr. Eades dazzles with basic biochemical medical pathways, since none of the studies can be trusted.

And now it's the same thing all over again, here.

To close by drawing an analogy, Eades' methods parallel those of constitutional law. In our legal system, we begin with a constitution and three branches of federal government. Two of them are legislative, and one—the Supreme Court—is judiciary. So, two branches composed of politicians making laws, and the Supreme Court is supposed to make sure they pass muster with the constitution. Basic stuff.

Only, that's not how it works. How it works is that politicians need to be elected and re-elected, and promissing the best and most bread & circuses is the prime means by which that's accomplished. Members of the high court are also appointed by these politicians and the chief way a judge gets a look is in the record of decisions and opinions whereby the constitution gets "interpreted" in a way that makes politically motivated laws promising the best and most bread and circuses constitutional.

So, rather than just read and understand the plain English in which the constitution was written, it requires constant interpretation.

Now, note how very often Eades writes of the need to "interpret" various studies "properly." What this means is that either they are by Phinney, Volek—or by someone primarily referencing them—and they're constitutional, or, they're not; and if in contradiction to the constitution, require dismissal or interpretation as needs arise. I'm more of a "common law" guy. Post it, see how it floats, go with it or drop it.

Essentially, what the LC community is up to is the establishment of echo-chambers similar to the low-fat, cholesterolphobes, and statin pushers.

*** For a current example, see in that comment thread where Eades touts all the marvelous athletic performance by athletes doing keto diets and specifically cites Phinney.

Phinney did all the early work on the ketogenic diet and athletic performance. I know him well and have had many discussions with him about it. And heard him speak on his early experiments numerous times. When he did this work, he was trying to disprove the Atkins diet. Didn’t turn out that way.

(Reminds me of the fundie born-agains telling me when I was a kid that "30 scientists set out to disprove the Bible and ended up accepting Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior.")

Anthony Colpo just recently demolished that worthless bullshit study of Phinney's once again. Dogma Destruction: Phinney’s Dodgey Ketogenic Cyclist Study Revisited.

Eat Well (Rather Than Talk About It)

Just some of the meals I've either cooked or had in restaurants recently, including the last few days up here in Arnold.

FotorCreated
Click for the full size

That is all. Busy arranging vacations for happy people, presently. And, lafing at the expense of Dr. Eades in comments.

@ Dr. Eades. I Can See What You Mean. It Just Takes Me Longer.

Given the righteous beating Dr. Mike Eades has been giving me in his comments, since he got some free time, it's time to come clean.

Well, I can see what you mean
It just takes me longer
An I can feel what you feel
It just makes you stronger

Well, you can take me for a little while
You can take me, you can make me smile in the end

Well, I can do what you do
You just do it better
I can cry like you cry
It just makes me sadder

Well, I can shine like you shine
It don't make me brighter
But if I think, oh, like you think
It don't make my load much lighter

I can see what you mean
It just takes me longer
An I can feel what you feel
It just makes me stronger

Everybody gets to interpret that via their own sets of assumptions and paradigms.

AirAnarchy: “This place is awesome. This place is magic. This place will hurt you if you’re stupid.”

The other day I was talking with Bea about how I wish to blog going forward. I told her that I want most of it to be about what I do, and not what I think...sitting on my ass, pontificating.

Well, there's the marriage between my anarchist spirit of various activities and deep appreciations right there—because you're not going to find me blogging about standing in line to get a license to live a life; or, showing my license to drive, to buy a bottle of whiskey in the land of the free. It's perfect for zoo humans though; for whom, "better safe than sorry" is their chief inspiration.

...It was about 20 years ago—maybe 19—that I began flying hang gliders. First 5 years or so was consuming and ferocious in activity—local flying and trips centered around flying. I've flown mountains on the west coast from SoCal (Marshall, San Bernardino) to Washington State (Chelan Butte and the flats to the east), and much in-between (e.g., Hat Creek; Lakeview, OR; Indian Valley at Greenville, CA; Dunlap, CA near King's Canyon: to name a few). And Ft. Funston south of San Fran, on the cliffs, was a weekly mainstay.

This post is about Big Air though.

It's an important distinction that makes for hang-glider pilot "launch butt." It's that point in time where your body is telling you to just go take a shit rather than fly into all of that scary uncertainty. It's physiological.

What in the fuck is "big air," anyway? There's no precise definition, and many of those places I named can be that, at times. But, there are places where Big Air is BIG Air; meaning, it's scary most of the time but where mentally overcoming it in the context of smarts and experience has important rewards. People tend to categorize and thus: hang gliding is dangerous and scary. To those who actually do it, there are 50 Shades of Grey and there's "country club flying" too. There's also deep red and deep black. ...There's cloud suck—where if it's black and big enough, it'll suck you into its caldron of misery and fear and freezing and you could die...though the bright side is that it might take you to 60,000 ft, asphyxiate and freeze you first. There's that.

...I'm not a particularly skilled pilot, nor vastly experienced. I have somewhere between 100 and 200 total accumulated HG flying hours. Many of those old fucks who pioneered the sport in the '70s in their late teens and early 20s are way north of 10,000 hours and still flying as often as they can. One problem in the "sport," in terms of popularizing it—stupidly assuming that's even possible—is that the average person sees it as a scary ride—like a bungee jump or skydive. They are currently unaware that the world record HG flight is north of 400 miles over 10-12 hours (hundreds @ 200-300 miles). There are many guys who do 100+ mile flights all the time. ...Of course, don't discount The X Games. So hubristic fucktard "rad."

So for my pathetic self, in contrast to the true SkyGods? I've had many flights over 2 hours and a few into the 3-4 hour range. Been above 8,000 ft many times, but the coolest was when I was setting up for a landing in Indian Valley once and the turbulence in mid-afternoon was butt puckering. I decided that if I caught a "whiff," I'd take it. I did, and I rode the same thermal from 300 ft to about 12,000 (I'm conflating MSL and AGL here, but this is for the layman). By the time I got back to the LZ a coupla hours later, it was a gentle setup, landing, and a cold beer from friends.

[Aside: I know many guys who've gotten hypoxic going to 21-22K feet without an O2 bottle and cannula—and some sailplane guys go to 30-60k feet with the O2. But officially? They got to 18,000 feet. Bonus for anyone who tells me why that's their official story and they're sticking to it.]

Hang gliding is not an extreme endeavor, but one of passion and longing. It's an endeavor suited to contemplative, thoughtful, inquisitive people who love other similar people gathered around similar aspirations. A common thread: disgust, detestation and impatience with stupid and fucktard. In that way, it eats its young. If you're new, you get dispensation to a point but at a point, if you can't get over your stupid, you get shunned. You'll make the endeavor look bad when you become a paraplegic or kill yourself, and then the community has to worry about your dependents. It's a highly social endeavor (fourth time I'm avoided using the word "sport").

Being competent at strapping tech around and over you and running off a mountain to experience, overcome and conquer the chief envy of humans in all writings forever—the envy of birds—puts you at the very top in terms of transcending those limitations and aspirations upon which doG saw fit to shackle you. You're a .01 percenter.

Hang gliding makes you a social bird, looking down at landlubbers in figure and form. It's individual in the air, but social too—pilots showing others where the lift is. But at the campfire at the end of the day, flying stories are fish stories. Plus, you will tell someone how you helped show them lift, and someone will tell you how they showed you lift.

...It also makes you an amateur geologist and meteorologist. Continental drift repercussions, timeless erosion, and the Sun in its billions of years of chicanery become your doGs. You don't fantasize about space travel, because you can fly like a bird with hawks & eagles...and there's not a president, prime minister, congress, parliament or voter on the planet who has a single fucking clue about what you do and what you know. You have great difficulty over not simply dismissing all of them, telling them to just piss off—pitching a tent with your wing alongside, waiting to be spread and free the next time.

When you watch this 5-mim very high def video, it would make me very happy if you pay very close attention on many levels, beyond assessing the age of the folks (teens and 20-something in the 70s, still at it).

  1. Look at the clouds.
  2. Look at the sunlight.
  3. Look at the shade those clouds make on the ground.
  4. Look at the shades of darkness on the cloud bottoms.
  5. Look at the terrain.

Those points are kinda essence in terms of apprehending well and getting a long or far flight, or failing, or getting hurt (though you must understand what it all means). Remember: Obama couldn't help you, even if he got tired of running the universe.

A couple of important notes before you watch. First, you'll see hang gliders that almost appear to spin on a top and go up. This is true. Big Air. Think of a pot of water at a low boil. It's a caldron. Analogously, there's air going up, and air going down, churning. You find yourself in the up, you can be in air that's 2,000 feet per minute up or more to 10K and above. But it can be right next to air that's crashing earthward at a similar velocity, and near the surface can be found predictable mixtures of the two. Safe landing please.

OK, watch for 5min: Dreaming Awake At King Mountain Idaho.

That's the video that inspired this entire post, three days chewing on what I wanted to say about it.

Anyone Want a Vacation in Cabo? I Give You Good Deal.

After first buying in just over 3 years ago, I just inked my third contract in 3 years. In fact, today is the anniversary date of my second contract a year ago.

The Grand Solmar Land's End Resort & Spa, developed by HKS, same guys who did Cowboy's Stadium.

FotorCreated

So, this puts me at a capital investment of about $160,000, with rights of occupancy for 15 Studio and 15 1BR Suite weeks per year, excluding only the last two weeks of the year (Xmas and NY). About a 10 year lease on each of the three contracts.

From here, I'll be buying in equally in the new resort just up the coast, also being developed by HKS. Golf course, wave pool, lazy river, lagoons...all the goodies. Hacienda style. First occupancy March of 2017.

I'm booked to go visit it all March 21, for a week. ...Sure beats futzing and writing about what to eat.

And now, headed out the door to the place that started it all, back in a week.  Friends coming down from N. Cal, who we met in La Paz three years ago, at the point where I bought in here at Cabo. So, it's full circle.

Laf Laf Laf. The North Carolina Board of Dietetics/Nutrition Gets Itself Sodomaized

How'ya like them apples, Kathleen Sodoma, RD, LDN – Chair, you miserable, stupid cunt?

I did three preliminary posts:

Then, this one, that actually broke the story a few hours ahead of the press release, thanks to Jeff Rowes' favor to me:

Steve Cooksey Sues the North Carolina Board of Dietetics/Nutrition in Federal Court: 1st Amendment; Free Speech

That interview is good work on my part. I especially like how I play Devil's Advocate with Jeff, asking him to draw a distinction between occupational licensing (hairdressers, dietitians, etc.) and professional licensing (doctors, lawyers, etc.). While as an anarchist I disagree with all laws imposed by initiatory force, the distinction he makes is logical in the context of where we are.

But in the end, could care less who wants to go to Bob's Garage Surgery, nor what happens to them if they do. And, what if Bob is better and more experienced than any "board certified" surgeon you can find? What if he grew up apprenticing surgery in the field, where there were no "board certified" surgeons?

What if you could Yelp and check Yelp under the garage surgery category? Oh yes, I know: You prefer to vote and feel good. Anything towards shirking responsibility at the expense of others is how you get sold on almost anything, lazy asses you always are and will always be.

Anyway, here's the news:

That last one is pure sodom[a]y.

Steve Cooksey Lawsuit Update

Successful Resolution of Lawsuit by the NCBDN

On September 8, 2014, Steve Cooksey voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit he filed against the North Carolina Board of Dietetics/Nutrition in 2012. Mr. Cooksey’s voluntary dismissal did not involve any exchange of money or any payment of attorneys’ fees.

On February 9, 2015, the Board elected to adopt a revised version of a guideline it originally adopted in 2011 in order to provide further clarity for non-licensed persons as to the Board’s interpretation of the North Carolina Dietetics/Nutrition Practice Act’s licensing requirements. The updated guidelines clarify and highlight the Board’s view that non-licensed persons whose activities are limited to expressing information, guidance, opinions, or encouragement about food, lifestyle, or dietary practices are not engaging in the practice of dietetics/nutrition where such expression is directed at the public generally or outside the context of a professional-client relationship.

Neither Mr. Cooksey’s lawsuit nor its resolution has changed the Dietetics/Nutrition Practice Act or any of the Board’s regulations. The requirements of the law remain the same. It is the Board’s hope that the revised licensing guidelines will help all North Carolina citizens in better understanding the law.

The Board is pleased that this lawsuit was effectively resolved with a voluntary dismissal and that the Dietetics/Nutrition Practice Act and its corresponding regulations remain fully intact.

Like I said, that Kathleen Sodomaizer is a real lot of cunty.

Bee Honey Collection

"Paleo" Tards like to wax on about...well, not beeswax.

Fuck Cordain. ThereISaidIt.

Check this out. It's an IndiGoGo funded to nearly 3,000% (asked for $70K, now over $2 mil).

Again: fuck Cordain; ...and his stupid cunt-bitch Casey Thaler, "B.A., NASM-CPT, FNS."

That is all.

Food Blogging Clarification; Oscar Lafs; and Another Pork & Fruit Meal

So after my revelation and ink, it appears some people are confused, since I took pics of baguettes and posted them to a bog.

My intent was not a shift in values, but in focus.

What I won't do:

  1. Blog about "anti-nutrients" in a Cordainian context
  2. Blog about "toxins" in a Cordainian context
  3. Blog about cholesterol
  4. Blog about glycolysis
  5. Blog about ketones
  6. Blog about ridiculous extremes, vegan or low carb

What I might do:

  1. Blog about the food I like and make myself, with pics (take it or leave it, don't care either way)
  2. Blog about nice food at competent restaurants
  3. Blog about things I consider still important like vitamin D (living indoors, and/or at the wrong latitude), vitamin K2 (we don't eat nose to tail)
  4. Blog about prebiotics and probiotics; not as a focus, but as an aside
  5. Blog about "anti-nutrients" and "toxins" in a human, non-Cordainian context

Are we clear?

~~~

Bea turned on The Oscars pre-laf-laf around 1 PM, I think. Here's the deal. If you look at it as a comedy show, it's actually quite good—in a Spinal Tap as serious drama sort of way. I did get her lafing a good deal about some of the over-the-top pretense that can only exist in Hollywood.

This year, we probably saw fewer of the best pic, best actor, and best actress (the only important ones, if "important" isn't too reaching) films of any recent year in memory. Last year, my sole desire over the affair was to see Matthew McConaughey get best actor for the amazing Dallas Buyer's Club. Check!

This year, I wasn't really interested in best picture and while Birdman was just-OK for me, and I like Michael Keaton, I really don't care much for Hollywood films about how much it sucks to be a success in Hollywood. Go. Fuck. Yourselves. ...As one fat-rolodex pundit put it in the lead up, "Hollywood loves a movie about itself."

...My interest this year was over 2 actors and 2 actresses (I did not see The Imitation Game, so Benedict Cumberbatch might have replaced one of those). Eddie Radmayne in The Theory of Everything, but thought Steve Carell edged him out in Foxcatchers. Reese Witherspoon in Wild, but thought Jennifer Aniston edged her out in Cake (not even nominated). The common thread I absolutely love is that two comedians really showed what they're made of as professional actors. Still can't get over Steve Carell...

~~~

For dinner, I happened to have some center cut pork chops, so got to thinking. Ever since I first did carnitas and persimmons way back in 2008, I just think pork and fruit is a wonderful thing. I've done a bunch of variations since.

Last night was courtesy of Emeril Lagasse: Pork Chops Stewed with Apples and Prunes, with Mashed Sweet Potatoes. A few variations. No fresh rosemary, so dry, and be careful (cut it in half). Fuji apple instead of Golden Delicious. White wine instead of cognac, half & half instead of cream. Also, my 4 chops were not 1 1/2 inches, so I basically did stuff 1/2 to 2/3 recipe. Also, big one: russet potatoes, not sweet potatoes. Sweets would have been a big misstep in my view, as I'll explain after the pics. Click on 'em for the higher res.

P1020975
 
P1020976
 

Beatrice will tell you that I'm my own most vicious critic. When I'm disappointed in the slightest thing, I might just leave it after a few bites. Life is too short. It's not to say it's not good or decent, but in the process of the whole process, one can build up certain expectations and for me, when not met or exceeded when it's your own hand, leave it and live to cook another day.

This one blew me away. I don't think that in my life I have ever done a dish with such a complex profile of sweet, savory, and salty. And that leads me to the mash. What really put this dish over the top was the russet mash, with just a bit of butter, bit of H&H, but very careful salt, up until the point where you taste the salt, but it's not "salty." If you know what I mean.

Additionally, when the sauce was reduced, I tasted and the sweet was a bit dominating. Just a few twists from the Himalayan pink salt mill, and it brought the sweet under better control and razed the savory immensely.

...I'm going to do this basic thing again, but next time I'm going to do as a braise in the oven at 175 until the pork is fork tender. This was my only disappointment. Pork was a bit dry (but in this case, you slice thin and dredge).

Onward.

Classic French Baguette Sandwiches

 Here are the rules:

  1. Simple. Less is more.
  2. Always a fresh crunchy baguette.
  3. Always unsalted butter, never mayonnaise.
  4. Pâté, quality charcuterie (sliced when you buy), or French-syle ham (e.g., Jambon de Paris) which is cooked, not smoked or cured.
  5. Cornichon (Gherkin) often, but not always.
  6. Moutarde rarely, but sometimes.
  7. They aren't for every day, or even necessarily every week.

Here's the ones I've made over about the last six months.

PicMonkey Collage

Rather than do it all the time, do it sometimes and always make it excellent.

Inking The Deal

You can agree or disagree and change course. You can pursue a new path.

You can vow. Promise. You can sign on the dotted line.

You can ink it.

I made a significant decision the other day and wrote about it: Life Takes a Big Turn And Everything Changes. While I surely meant it, it wasn't until I read the comments and the emails I've received that I felt like totally owning it.

So I inked it.

IMG 2940
 

OK, here's the symbolism. Black Flag.

The black flag, and the color black in general, have been associated with anarchism since the 1880s. Many anarchist collectives contain the word "black" in their names. There have been a number of anarchist periodicals entitled Black Flag.

The uniform blackness of the flag is in stark contrast to the colorful flags typical of most nation-states. Additionally, as a white flag has been used to request parley or to surrender, the counter-opposite black flag would logically be a symbol of defiance and opposition to surrender.

Hit the link for more history and usage.

And, don't forget:

"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." — H. L. Menken

Onto the classic Anarchy symbol everyone knows.

The Circle-A is almost certainly the best-known present-day symbol for anarchy. It is a monogram that consists of the capital letter "A" surrounded by the capital letter "O". The letter "A" is derived from the first letter of "anarchy" or "anarchism" in most European languages and is the same in both Latin and Cyrillic scripts. The "O" stands for order. Together they stand for "Anarchy is the mother of Order," the first part of a Proudhon quotation.[8] This character can be written as Unicode codepoint U+24B6: Ⓐ. In addition, the "@" sign or "(A)" can be used to quickly represent the circle-A on a computer.

Instead of Proudhon—whom I read in the original French in the early 90's while I was reading The Russian Radical (Ayn Rand) at the same time—I like this quote by another:

“Anarchy is all around us. Without it, our world would fall apart. All progress is due to it. All order extends from it. All blessed things that rise above the state of nature are owed to it. The human race thrives only because of the lack of control, not because of it. I’m saying that we need ever more absence of control to make the world a more beautiful place. It is a paradox that we must forever explain.” — Jeffrey Tucker

...Here's the deal:

  • I don't swallow TJeff, TPayne, or any number of other enlightenment thinkers and radicals I've read and understand, whole. From them, I take their deep understanding of despotism, "rights" of kings, etc.
  • Neither do I dismiss KMarx, VLenin, or any number of other communist thinkers and radicals I've read and understand, whole. From them, I take their deep understanding of how institutions prefer those who pay them the most.

Most importantly, I harbor no illusions from either and consider both ideologies more wrong than right.

Let me give you an example. Now, I could pick apart the hell out of this but at the same time, understand that probably at one point—if you make the slightest effort to integrate context—Lenin was speaking to hearts more than minds.

"We want to achieve a new and better order of society: in this new and better society there must be neither rich nor poor; all will have to work. Not a handful of rich people, but all the working people must enjoy the fruits of their common labour. Machines and other improvements must serve to ease the work of all and not to enable a few to grow rich at the expense of millions and tens of millions of people. This new and better society is called socialist society. The teachings about this society are called 'socialism'." — Vladimir Lenin (1903)

Well, turned out that people really don't work that way for myriad reasons and so decades later—and tens of millions dead—in the attempt to enforce Kum-Ba-Yah at gunpoint, now everyone's into fascism, which I haven't even touched on yet.

...I am above all an integrator and synthesizer, forever looking for iconoclastic opportunities for the sole purpose of making you feel like a fucktard (in consolation, I love realizing I've been a fucktard—means I'm not, in that context, anymore).

Onward.