The Upside Down and Backwards Food Pyramid

The official US Government website www.mypyramid.gov has the following basic dietary recommendations for all Americans over the age of two years:

What is a "Healthy Diet"?
The Dietary Guidelines describe a healthy diet as one that

• Emphasizes fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and fat-free or low-fat milk and milk products;
• Includes lean meats, poultry, fish, beans, eggs, and nuts; and
• Is low in saturated fats, trans fats, cholesterol, salt (sodium), and added sugars.

That, in both my own experience and in light of the actual science that exists, is a crock. The best that can be said for it its that it recommends low added sugars; it gets most of the rest wrong.

Taking it point by point:

Fruits are almost all high in sugars, some much more than others. Sugars are one of the top two problems in the Western diet (not just ours, but everyone's at this point), fructose in particular. The less of these that you can consume in a day, right down to zero, the better off you'll be.

Vegetables are a mixed bag. High-starch things like potatoes are best avoided altogether; low-starch and low-sugar vegetables are not going to cause harm for the most part, but they don't supply you with everything you need, either. Eat what you want of them, but don't rely on them to give you basic nutritional needs.

Whole grains - ones that have NOT been ground up into flour, and still have the bran on the grain, are less damaging than those that have been processed, but not much. Grind whole grains into flour, and they're essentially just as bad as the highly-processed types; whole wheat bread isn't significantly better for you than white bread, and both are highly problematic. Grains - ALL of them - convert in digestion into glucose in large quantities, causing your body's systems to go into fat storage mode (can you say "resulting in obesity?"), as well as stressing the pancreas (eventually resulting in diabetes in many people). The more they've been processed before you eat them (particularly by conversion to flour), the faster they convert to glucose. The more glucose that reaches your bloodstream, the higher the insulin level will rise, and the longer it will take to drop back to normal (that is, non-problematic) levels. Among other things, the elevated insulin levels caused by high glucose loads can accelerate the growth of cancers. Records of indigenous populations across the globe whose diets included very little or no sugar or starch show that they had no cancer problems - until they began consuming sugars and starches with the arrival of Western influences. Grains of ALL types should be avoided, though many people can safely consume small amounts of things like brown rice. Anything made from flour is just Right Out, period; this includes breading on deep-fried foods.

Fat-free or low-fat milk still has all the lactose and other sugars of whole milk, without the nutritional value of the butterfat. (Yes, I said NUTRITIONAL VALUE OF THE BUTTERFAT. Fats are not the problem in obesity and heart disease; that's a myth that has been persistently promoted for a century by people with nothing but loud assertions that had no science behind them.) Small amounts of milk can be tolerable, but it's best to go easy on this if you're over the age of about 14. Milk products, on the other hand, can be a very mixed bag. Most real cheese is actually low in carbohydrates and high in fat and protein; read the labels, and if the carb count is less than 10% of the calories, it's probably OK. (Diabetics may need to be even more restrictive and particular about this, of course.) Whole milk is safer than low-fat; only about 30% of the calories in whole milk are derived from carbohydrates, while nonfat milk's calories are 55% from carbs. Of course, both contain exactly the same total amount of carbs, so neither is good in large quantities.

Lean meats, poultry and fish aren't bad for you, but meats with fat are better, as long as you minimize carbohydrate intake. Why? Meats have lots of protein, which you need. Fats, in the absence of carbohydrates, provide fuel for the body perfectly. The few parts of the body that don't use fat will quite happily employ protein-derived fuels instead, and those are readily produced from multiple sources. If you load up on carbs, however, both a lot of those carbs and any fats in your diet will get stored (as fat) instead of used... and then you'll find yourself hungry long before you've burned off what you stored up, because the switch-over to using fats instead of carbs isn't instantaneous when the carbs run out. The switch to using carbs instead of fats, on the other hand, can actually be so fast that the carbs haven't even reached your tissues yet, making you hungrier than when you started eating. Can you say "Vicious cycle"? And that's just one of several that carbs cause.

Beans are another mixed bag. Fresh beans - ones that were harvested green and not dried - tend to be fairly low in starches and sugars; they're OK. Dried beans tend to have lots of starches; not OK. Dried soybeans have another set of issues in the form of harmful substances that aren't found in the raw, green soybeans. Some of those persist in the products made from soybeans, though not in soy sauce and tamari (which are fermented). Overall, dishes made from dried beans and dried bean products are best avoided due to their carbohydrate content, while anything made from dried soybeans is best avoided altogether. (Sadly, this includes tofu and soy milk. Try almond milk instead.)

Eggs are OK, period. If omelets are your thing, knock yourself out.

Nuts, again, are a mixed bag. Some are high in carbohydrates, some are low; read the labels and avoid the ones that get substantial portions of their calories from carbs. (You can subtract the fiber, however; it doesn't count.) Pecans are much better than cashews, as an example; you can look up the data easily.

Fats are the most persistently vilified part of the diet for no good reason. No study has ever demonstrated a real cause-and-effect relationship between dietary fat (or cholesterol) and fats in the blood or tissues except in the rare cases of people with a basic metabolic defect of some kind. Saturated fat, in fact, is affirmatively needed in the diet, particularly if there's a substantial amount of the much-praised Omega-3 component already present. Trans fats are not a part of the natural diet, however, and there's reason to believe that they can pose problems - avoiding them on the basis of their being artificial is justified by itself.

Salt is another thing that people avoid because of misinformation. The problems that have been blamed on salt can be laid at the feet of carbs more accurately; a high-carbohydrate diet causes water retention, which in turn causes sodium retention. Drop out the carbs, and both the excess water and the excess sodium are quickly eliminated by the body as a matter of course. If you maintain a low carb intake , you can pretty well ignore salt in most cases.

Sugar is best eliminated entirely from the diet, both "added" and "natural". If you want to read an extensive indictment of that substance, try "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes. I have often mused that if the writer of the Biblical book of Genesis had been fully in possession of the facts, the stricture would have been "Do not eat the sweet fruits of any tree or plant, for they will make you ill in your old age." Sugar's problems are many; the two most important in my opinion are that it raises insulin levels (with all of the many ill effects this has over the long term), and it contains fructose which is strongly implicated as one of the causes of the development of the plaques that seem to play a large part in the onset of Alzheimer's.

So how much carbohydrate can you eat and still avoid the problems that come with the level that's commonly in our diet today? If you want all of the benefits of reduced carbohydrates, the answer is "Not much". Under 50 grams per day is a good place to aim for - and that's barely more than you get in one large slice of bread. One can of a typical soft drink has 30 to 40 grams of carbohydrates, nearly all sugar; are you starting to see the challenge here? Be forewarned; once you start reading the labels on prepared foods, you'll discover that entire huge regions of the typical grocery store are pretty much useless to you; the bakery aisle, the soft drinks, most of the frozen prepared foods, all of the breakfast cereals, large parts of the canned goods, and all of the pasta, rice, and dried-bean-based items fall off the menu right away. There really is not a lot that's useful in the center of the store; you end up shopping primarily from the fresh produce, a limited amount of the frozen vegetables, parts of the dairy case, and all of the meats. If this sounds boring, don't worry. After a remarkably short time of carbohydrate avoidance, you'll discover that you just don't get as hungry as fast when you aren't eating carbs. As a result, you'll start concentrating on quality instead of quantity. And you need not give up fast food; a double-meat McDonalds Angus Deluxe minus the bun (with water or unsweetened tea to drink) is very low in carbs, and will provide the kind of meal that will keep you going but won't make you fat. (Okay, you might not be able to finish one with double meat, but that particular item has become my standard order at Mickey D's of late, and it keeps my 160-pound mass in motion for hours without running down or getting hungry.) And as long as you aren't already diabetic, you can probably get away with the occasional bit of backsliding; a couple of slices of pizza, or one hamburger with a bun in a given week is unlikely to move your goals out of reach.

Not convinced? Not my problem. There's plenty of straight information out there, and you're welcome to believe whatever you want to. But if you really do the investigating, you'll find out that the official guidelines are a recipe for misery in the long term, not health and long life. Or you can find out the hard way, when it's too late to do anything about it. It's your choice to make.

"Universal" laptop power supplies - aren't.

If you travel, and use a laptop in business, you've probably made the mistake of leaving the power supply in your hotel room when you went off to the conference or event - or whatever. And, an hour later (or four, if you've got a newer unit), you realized that you were running really low on battery - and had no way to fix it. And that probably gave you the urge to get a spare power supply so that you'd presumably still have one in the bag with the unit.

It's a good plan. If you do it, though, I have to recommend getting one of the types that is made specifically for your model and make, not a universal one. There's a hidden reason why this is important for some laptops, particularly those from Dell. The computer and power supply trade information on many models; if the power supply doesn't identify itself to the laptop as being The Right Kind, the laptop will either refuse to charge the battery, or go into low-power mode (i.e., run dead slow with a dim screen), or both. Yes, you'll be able to run the system - sort of. No, you won't be able to use it as well as you expect.

I discovered this after having picked up a Targus universal power supply a while back. I'd made the mistake noted above - and remembered the small black velvet bag that had lain ignored in the bottom of the side pocket for a year or more. Grinning widely, I pulled it out, selected the appropriate tip (that's another gotcha point; see below), and hooked it up. And the laptop immediately went from normal battery mode (one step down in speed, two steps down in screen brightness from running on AC) to Super Power Saver Mode - screen at minimum brightness, CPU running at the *lowest* speed that the architecture would support - which was about 1/3 of its normal rate. And the battery wouldn't charge. It wasn't a case of insufficient capacity from the Targus side - the voltage and wattage ratings were identical. It was merely the fact that the Dell laptop didn't see a power source that identified itself properly, so it went to worst-case-scenario mode.

Can you say "Next to useless"?

Anyway, after an afternoon of Running Dead Slow, I made doubly sure not to repeat that error the following day, and made a mental note to pick up a spare of the right kind of power supply ASAP. If you've priced the ones from the laptop manufacturers, you know that they are Not Cheap. We have a Goodwill Computer Store in my town, so some of them can be had for $17.95 there; they used to sell them for a lot less, until the word got out. Many can also be had in generic-label form from sellers on eBay and elsewhere for prices that range from $12 to $45 - all of which are cheaper than the MSRP I've seen for the "Universal" units from either Targus or Kensington. I haven't found a webpage that lists the laptops that are picky, so as far as I know, the only way to be sure that a given "universal" power supply will work with your system is try it - or buy a power supply that's known to be dedicated to your unit.

One last note - if you have a laptop that's known not to be picky about its power source, it's still essential to take the unit with you when shopping for a replacement. All of the "universal" units require an adapter plug to hook them up, and there are so many variations in the designs of the power plugs (even within a single laptop manufacturer's line) that it's pretty much hopeless to expect that you can select the right one from a list. You really do need to plug it in and make sure it works with YOUR laptop before you buy it. And don't be surprised if they charge you an extra $10 on top of the $70 list price of the power brick in the process; that's a fairly typical price for spare tips, and the one you need is probably not going to be included in the kit that comes with the unit - if they make one at all.

Cincinnati's Neglected Potter's Field

From 1849 until 1981, a graveyard for the indigent (and sometimes for the expeditious burial of those who perished from contagious diseases) was operated in what is now officially a part of Rapid Run Park in Cincinnati, Ohio. The graves are not all recorded; prior to 1896, no written records were kept. Although it is known that there was a veteran's section in which numerous Civil War veterans are believed interred, there is nothing to identify that area or those in it today. For the most part, there is nothing to identify the cemetery itself; the only formal marker is a small sign and a smaller plaque at the southwest corner of the 25-acre plot. Occasionally, someone still places a wreath at the foot of the sign, but there is no formal entrance evident, and nothing to guide someone who might be searching for the last resting place of an ancestor or other long-deceased relative.

When the cemetery was closed, a dispute arose over ownership between the City of Cincinnati and Hamilton County (with each denying it was theirs), which was finally settled with the decision that Cincinnati held the deed. Neither the city nor the county makes any formal reference to this cemetery in their lists of such facilities in the area today. Having no interest in expending already-scarce funds on the maintenance of the facility, its custody was handed over to the city's Parks Department - and maintenance effectively ended with the decision to "maintain the facility in a natural state". The city's Parks Department map of Rapid Run Park ignores the fact that its northern reaches encompass this historic locale.

Bit by bit, in this manner, pieces of our past get lost. For my part, even though my family lived just three houses away from Potter's Field when I was born, I had no idea that it was present until I returned to the city for my oldest brother's memorial service this year, and decided to see what the former neighborhood looked like today. I had no real memory of it beyond what I had seen in old photos; I was just three years old when we moved to Florida. My remaining brother remembered it, however, and was able to provide numerous details about the nature of the place. Although I can understand the fiscal issues, I find it disquieting that such a site is being so deliberately forgotten, as though no one whose remains lay there matters enough for any effort to be expended at all.

It is often said that a telling comparison between our national predecessor and our current nation is that the British consider one hundred miles to be a long way, while Americans consider one hundred years to be a long time - but neither group agrees about this with the other. Perhaps a more cogent observation is that the British regard history as something that belongs to them, and needs to be preserved, while Americans regard history as a boring subject to be forgotten as soon as the exam has been passed. Certainly in the case of the history of Cincinnati's Potter's Field, that history is being deliberately allowed to slip away - or worse.

Addendum: Although Google maps seems aware that there was a "Potters Field" (apostrophe omission theirs) in this area, they've got entirely the wrong plot of land so designated - and thus far, as of 21 May 2011, all attempts to get them to fix the error have met with failure. It would be less annoying were it not for the fact that what they've mislabeled as Potters Field is actually a group of Jewish cemeteries that are still in operation and actively maintained. Why they haven't fixed the mistake is not apparent.

UPDATE:  Google Maps still doesn't have a marker that shows where this cemetery is really located, but as of December 2013, at least they are no longer mislabeling the nearby active Jewish cemeteries as being Potter's Fields.  

Refurbished, eh? And just what does that mean, really?

If you look in the dictionary, "refurbished" means "polished" or "cleaned up". Lots of things are sold in both conventional stores and on the Net under as "Refurbished" (sometimes even "Factory refurbished"), often with a manufacturer's warranty, and often at what looks like a really attractive price. If the manufacturer is standing behind it, what's the risk? After all, most things either fail right away or they last until it's already time to upgrade to the newer version anyway, right?

Well, if you've bought a few things like this, you'll already be familiar with the reality.

A few cases in point:

- My daughter bought a refurbished Dell D600 laptop from a large, well-respected local computer store; wisely, she also bought the one-year extended warranty. It started becoming somewhat unreliable at about 11 months after purchase - but she was in the middle of prep for finals, and couldn't do without it just then, so she coaxed it along until the term was over. The next day, it went belly-up. The original warranty had done likewise two days prior - but the extended warranty was just starting, so everything's peachy, right? Sort of - the repair took over a month. Nearly a year later, as the end of the extended warranty approached, she decided to sidestep the possibility of a second panic-time failure, and bought a brand-new laptop to replace the D600. Almost two years of service for the price she paid would have been OK for a unit with half again the performance and without the month of absence from availability while being repaired; it was a so-so bargain as it stood, however.

- From the same store, not long after the D600 was purchased, I picked up a refurb IBM desktop as a platform to update into from my old Windows 2000 system. The first one was wonky right out of the box; boot time could be as much as six or seven minutes, and often it would just hang during boot and go nowhere. The system went back to the store for exchange, and we fired up a second one right there to make sure it would boot into Windows - and then we tried a third. That one's still going, four years later. Neither box showed any sign of having been previously opened and then returned, either, so these were "bad as received from the supplier" units.

- From Sony's website, I picked up a manufacturer-refurb compact CD player at what looked like a really nice price. Like most "refurb" items, it was indistinguishable from new. It worked for about two-thirds of the warranty period, and then the display quit showing anything. I could still make it play using the wired remote, but the on-cover controls and display just didn't work at all. I shipped it back, and they shipped me a replacement which worked properly for just long enough to get a week past the end of the warranty, and then it developed the same problem. With little to lose, I dismantled the unit and cleaned the contacts on the ribbon cable that connected to the display and switches - and it worked for another couple of months. I asked a store salesman at one of the local electronics places about whether he'd heard of any problems with that style of unit; he said "Do you see any of them on our display? There's a reason - and we usually try to stock everything from Sony that we can get." I now suspect that the reason these were being sold cheap as "refurbished" was that they knew there was a problem with that ribbon cable's connector, and they wanted to dump them with a reduced warranty to cut their losses.

- From eBay, I fairly recently picked up a manufacturer-refurb FujiFilm S2800HD camera; I already had an S1500, and was happy with it, but I wanted the extra resolution and increased zoom capability of the S2800. On receipt, there were two problems. First, it was not supplied with a lens cap - which, to be fair, wasn't promised, but since nothing but the original one fits and works properly, that's a significant omission which was not noticed in the description because one tends to think of the lens cap as being a part of the camera by default. Getting the cap took two weeks; not fun. Then, cap in hand at last, I finally installed the batteries and slipped in a memory card - and on the first test shot, it became obvious that the unit had a futzed-up CCD. (The CCD is the thing in the camera that actually converts light to electrical signals, which the camera's other electronic parts can read to create the digital image file.) I called Fuji, got instructions on how to return it, did so, and here I sit, almost a month later, still with no camera. They say that they just finally got the camera into the repair department this week - about three weeks after they received it. The forecast time to repair is two weeks from when it gets to this point. Add the probable week in transit coming back, and the camera will have far less than 30 days of its 90-day factory warranty remaining when I finally get it. I am not thrilled about this, as you can probably tell. (But wait, that's no all!  The unit had to be sent back TWICE MORE before it finally arrived in fully working condition.  On the first trip, it came back with the autofocus not working, and after they supposedly fixed *that*, the zoom lost about half its range - and caused the camera to shut down.  The third time that it returned from repair, it was fully operational.  It took nearly six months altogether.)

What these experiences add up to, in my opinion, is this:

Manufacturers and resellers both are quite willing to take large lots of only partially tested (or even perhaps untested but "believed working") gear, clean it up so that it looks pretty, put it in a fresh box, and sell it as "refurbished". They also seem willing to take known-troublesome models and dispose of the stock via this route; after all, the shorter warranty means that the unit's got a better chance of lasting long enough to be somebody else's problem given the short warranty provided.

What does this mean to the consumer? Basically, "Refurb" should be viewed as synonymous with "untested, possibly broken, possibly troublesome, and possibly with undisclosed defects that will cause it to fail before the end of the warranty that would have been applied to the corresponding new product."

I certainly won't be buying anything with that label again. And I'm not sure that "recertified" is much better, so I plan to avoid those studiously as well. If you decide to take the plunge - I'd advise that you hedge your bets as best you can.