According to scientists in Canada, based at the University of Toronto, they had discovered a genetic basis for the sweet tooth a sweet tooth gene they are calling (appropriately enough), GLUT2 (though it apparently stands for GLUcose Transporter rather than gluttony).
It seems that those with the gene consistently consumed more sucrose (table sugar), fructose (simple sugar), and glucose, no matter their age or sex, than those without it.
The scientists discovered that those with GLUT2, in the older group consumed up to 30 grams of sugar a day more than those without it and those in the younger group with the variation drank up to five times more sugary drinks - and 20 times more sweets.
So it may turn out taking in more sugar and the corresponding tendancy to put on weight, rot your teeth and get diabetes may be genetic.
So for those of you with the genetic variant the good news is that there may be no need to feel guilty about having a sweet tooth.
The bad news is that there is still the need to deal with it - and it may be more difficult…
Showing posts with label Medical Science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Medical Science. Show all posts
Thursday, 15 May 2008
Tuesday, 13 May 2008
Booty is in the eye of the beholder…
Now there surely has to be a biological reason why, contrary to fashion magazine hype, the average guy (according anecdotal evidence) actually prefers a girl with a little padding especially on the derriere. I have long assumed that many of the features men find attractive in women are actually reasonably reliable indicators of good health and fertility. Signs they might make a good mate. The reverse is probably also true.
Now, according to a study published in the journal ‘Cell Metabolism’ by the Harvard Medical School, moderate amounts of subcutaneous fat on the buttocks and thighs may actually be good for you.
It seems this sort of fat decreases insulin resistance, a cause of diabetes and may produce hormones known as adipokines, which boost the metabolism.
The National Obesity Forum’s Dr David Haslam, suggested the report cast further doubts on the usefulness of Body Mass Index (BMI) as a way to assess whether someone was unhealthily overweight, as it does not differentiate between different types of fat.
Weight Concern’s Dr Ian Campbell, remarked: "If there is something about subcutaneous fat which is protective, and actually decreases insulin resistance, this could help open up a whole new debate on the precise role fat has on our metabolism."
Women have a tendency to lay down more subcutaneous fat, particularly on their legs and buttocks than men. So ladies there is probably a sound biological reason why men tend to look favourably on a j-lo stylie rear end - so wear that bootylicious padding with pride.
Now, according to a study published in the journal ‘Cell Metabolism’ by the Harvard Medical School, moderate amounts of subcutaneous fat on the buttocks and thighs may actually be good for you.
It seems this sort of fat decreases insulin resistance, a cause of diabetes and may produce hormones known as adipokines, which boost the metabolism.
The National Obesity Forum’s Dr David Haslam, suggested the report cast further doubts on the usefulness of Body Mass Index (BMI) as a way to assess whether someone was unhealthily overweight, as it does not differentiate between different types of fat.
Weight Concern’s Dr Ian Campbell, remarked: "If there is something about subcutaneous fat which is protective, and actually decreases insulin resistance, this could help open up a whole new debate on the precise role fat has on our metabolism."
Women have a tendency to lay down more subcutaneous fat, particularly on their legs and buttocks than men. So ladies there is probably a sound biological reason why men tend to look favourably on a j-lo stylie rear end - so wear that bootylicious padding with pride.
Wednesday, 7 November 2007
Selective inactivation of micro-organisms - Zapping Bugs
This could have far reaching consequences.
Specifically ‘Selective inactivation of micro-organisms with near-infrared femtosecond laser pulses’ - That means zapping targeted bugs with lasers to the rest of us.
The process is being proved by a team of 4 (K T Tsen, Shaw-Wei D Tsen, Otto F Sankey and Juliann G Kiang) in the US, based in Arizona.
Just the sort of thing they promised us in the late 50s and early 60s - and it seems that someone may be finally set to deliver on it.
Seriously, if they can bring it off practically, this could have very far reaching consequences indeed. They may be well on the way of developing an effective way of using lasers to selectively kill bacteria and Virus organisms without harming the cells that we are made of. Because of the wavelengths used the lasers will be able to penetrate body tissue.
A way of sterilising an object a room or a whole body, inside and out, that could stop and cure any germ, or viral, infection, including aids, or a flue pandemic.
Lets hope the bugs have no way to adapt to it.
Now - Where is the flying car for every family…
Specifically ‘Selective inactivation of micro-organisms with near-infrared femtosecond laser pulses’ - That means zapping targeted bugs with lasers to the rest of us.
The process is being proved by a team of 4 (K T Tsen, Shaw-Wei D Tsen, Otto F Sankey and Juliann G Kiang) in the US, based in Arizona.
Just the sort of thing they promised us in the late 50s and early 60s - and it seems that someone may be finally set to deliver on it.
Seriously, if they can bring it off practically, this could have very far reaching consequences indeed. They may be well on the way of developing an effective way of using lasers to selectively kill bacteria and Virus organisms without harming the cells that we are made of. Because of the wavelengths used the lasers will be able to penetrate body tissue.
A way of sterilising an object a room or a whole body, inside and out, that could stop and cure any germ, or viral, infection, including aids, or a flue pandemic.
Lets hope the bugs have no way to adapt to it.
Now - Where is the flying car for every family…
Wednesday, 18 July 2007
UK Doctors call for organ harvesting on death unless prior objections registered
Sir Liam Donaldson the UK Nu-Lab Government’s Chief Medical Officer is calling for a change in the law so only those who actually register their objections will be exempt from organ harvesting on death, for the ‘common good’.
If you have to specifically opt out it is certainly no longer donation. Something Joyce Robins, of Patient Concern was obviously thinking of when she stated: "Organ donation is a generous gift, not an obligation. It is, of course, less trouble to take the easy way and make assumed consent the norm.”
Predictably the BMA are fully on board. The Chairman of their medical ethics committee Dr Tony Calland said: "The BMA fully supports an opt-out system for organ donation. We must increase the number of donors available and the BMA believes that a system of presumed consent with safeguards, will help to achieve this.”
He does seem to be aware that they will need tobrainwash‘educate’ the public before introducing any change ”it is essential that a public information campaign is launched”
A spokesman for UK Transplant stated: "There is no evidence that introducing a system of presumed consent would, on its own, increase transplant figures.” Observing that an opt-out system could in fact damage public confidence in the transplant programme.
Sir Liam is apparently concerned that the shortage of spare parts is fuelling "transplant tourism" where UK patients travel abroad often paying for a donor organ, which according to Sir Liam, puts them at unnecessary risk.
One has every sympathy with those who need transplants and are unable to find suitable donors, but this is not a comfortable or proper direction to go in. What would be next on their list if they got their way and that did not do the trick compulsion, a sort of organ death tax? The opt-out is the start of a slippery slope.
An individual’s right to control their own body should not be compromised, or stampeded.
You wouldn’t expect it from interacting with your average GP, but what is it about the medical profession that it appears to attract so many patrician, collectivist, authoritarians, especially it would appear to it’s upper echelons?
People who seem to believe (the non ruling classes) most of us should be treated as some sort of wards and regulated by the state, in as many aspects as possible of our lives, from cradle to grave? They seem to see nothing amiss in promoting fascist controls at the drop of a hat.
In fact they often seem to reach for these sorts of solutions to problems almost before considering anything else. It is like some sort of sinister, creeping, menace.
If you have to specifically opt out it is certainly no longer donation. Something Joyce Robins, of Patient Concern was obviously thinking of when she stated: "Organ donation is a generous gift, not an obligation. It is, of course, less trouble to take the easy way and make assumed consent the norm.”
Predictably the BMA are fully on board. The Chairman of their medical ethics committee Dr Tony Calland said: "The BMA fully supports an opt-out system for organ donation. We must increase the number of donors available and the BMA believes that a system of presumed consent with safeguards, will help to achieve this.”
He does seem to be aware that they will need to
A spokesman for UK Transplant stated: "There is no evidence that introducing a system of presumed consent would, on its own, increase transplant figures.” Observing that an opt-out system could in fact damage public confidence in the transplant programme.
Sir Liam is apparently concerned that the shortage of spare parts is fuelling "transplant tourism" where UK patients travel abroad often paying for a donor organ, which according to Sir Liam, puts them at unnecessary risk.
One has every sympathy with those who need transplants and are unable to find suitable donors, but this is not a comfortable or proper direction to go in. What would be next on their list if they got their way and that did not do the trick compulsion, a sort of organ death tax? The opt-out is the start of a slippery slope.
An individual’s right to control their own body should not be compromised, or stampeded.
You wouldn’t expect it from interacting with your average GP, but what is it about the medical profession that it appears to attract so many patrician, collectivist, authoritarians, especially it would appear to it’s upper echelons?
People who seem to believe (the non ruling classes) most of us should be treated as some sort of wards and regulated by the state, in as many aspects as possible of our lives, from cradle to grave? They seem to see nothing amiss in promoting fascist controls at the drop of a hat.
In fact they often seem to reach for these sorts of solutions to problems almost before considering anything else. It is like some sort of sinister, creeping, menace.
Wednesday, 4 July 2007
Mother donates eggs for sterile daughter
A nice, if unusual, story about Melanie Boivin in Canada. Her daughter Flavie is only seven right now, but she is sterile.
To give her the chance to have children if she wants to when she is grown her mother has donated some of her eggs to be frozen.
Egg-freezing is most often used by women undergoing lifesaving treatment that will reduce their fertility.
If Flavie does decide to use the eggs to have children, they would need to be fertilised with her partner's sperm and then implanted into her womb as with any other IVF procedure.
Not a done deal though, as she would need to apply for further permission from the McGill Reproductive Centre ‘ethics committee’.
Now, out trot the tin foil hat squad, in the form of Margaret Somerville, who heads McGill University's Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law. She is concerned about the ‘rights’ of the child (not Flavie) – still sounds ok-ish.
She asks: "What are the rights of a child not to be brought into existence in this way?
What! Sorry? Let’s replay that one: "rights" "not to be brought into existence"?
The hypothetical child is unlikely to be brought into existence at all if not in this way. What about the hypothetical rights of any child to be brought into existence in any way. No one checked with my parents if it was OK by me to conceive me, pretty cavalier of them if you ask me, thank goodness we now have Ms Somerville to ask these difficult questions for us.
Wait! There’s more: "I think here there was a lot of good intentions, but we also have to ask about that future child.”
"Can we reasonably anticipate that a child would consent to having it’s sister be its gestational mother, and to be a sister to the woman who gives birth to it?"
Presumably they are actually paying her to come up with stuff like this too.
Well given that the hypothetical child will only get to exist if that in fact happens and their other choice is never getting to exist at all what would most people choose – to be or not to be – You choose.
And no “to sleep perchance…” Not if you never existed in the first place.
A survey might give her a pointer. Would you rather never have been born?
To give her the chance to have children if she wants to when she is grown her mother has donated some of her eggs to be frozen.
Egg-freezing is most often used by women undergoing lifesaving treatment that will reduce their fertility.
If Flavie does decide to use the eggs to have children, they would need to be fertilised with her partner's sperm and then implanted into her womb as with any other IVF procedure.
Not a done deal though, as she would need to apply for further permission from the McGill Reproductive Centre ‘ethics committee’.
Now, out trot the tin foil hat squad, in the form of Margaret Somerville, who heads McGill University's Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law. She is concerned about the ‘rights’ of the child (not Flavie) – still sounds ok-ish.
She asks: "What are the rights of a child not to be brought into existence in this way?
What! Sorry? Let’s replay that one: "rights" "not to be brought into existence"?
The hypothetical child is unlikely to be brought into existence at all if not in this way. What about the hypothetical rights of any child to be brought into existence in any way. No one checked with my parents if it was OK by me to conceive me, pretty cavalier of them if you ask me, thank goodness we now have Ms Somerville to ask these difficult questions for us.
Wait! There’s more: "I think here there was a lot of good intentions, but we also have to ask about that future child.”
"Can we reasonably anticipate that a child would consent to having it’s sister be its gestational mother, and to be a sister to the woman who gives birth to it?"
Presumably they are actually paying her to come up with stuff like this too.
Well given that the hypothetical child will only get to exist if that in fact happens and their other choice is never getting to exist at all what would most people choose – to be or not to be – You choose.
And no “to sleep perchance…” Not if you never existed in the first place.
A survey might give her a pointer. Would you rather never have been born?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)