Saturday, 10 October 2015

Missing METABOLISM arrives when pseudo-science leaves the room

For years, I've been banging on like sister from another planet about weight being all to do with METABOLISM?


All WEIGHT is produced by such. 

And no, that does not refer specifically to disorders of, or disordered metabolic function, it refers correctly functioning metabolism, its anatomy, function, physiology.  Just as referring to the anatomy and physiology of your limbs is assumed to be about said limbs, rather than disorders or diseases that can affect those limbs.

Just as the pathologization of fatness has merged somewhat with physiology of fat bodies, therefore of all bodies, and as it is also conflated with diabetes. Increasingly, metabolism has become suggestive of diabetes, metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance (whatever the latter two especially actually are) and so on.

Nor is it another way of presenting digestion or nutrition.

It is,
Now if this seems all encompassing to the point of becoming indistinct. Science to the rescue. Here's an example of how obvious and easy it can be to grasp the role of metabolic function.

Did you dare to dream for a second that I was going to link to something about 'obesity'? Lols. If you can delay gratification no further, give yourself a mental massage by putting weight in place of height, or more specifically, fatter in place of taller.

Here's what stood out,

The creation of height is automatically acknowledged as METABOLIC
.....taller people have a larger number of cells in their body......
Metabolism is in essence, the anatomy, processes and pathways that create maintain and destroy the cells of your body. Weight is just a more active aspect of metabolic function, so it is even more apt that it should be centered around what creates and maintains it. Like hunger though, this erased by 'obesity' promotions inc.

Metabolism is referenced in a very accessible way.

It is gradated for hoi polloi. First mentioning that tall/er people have a greater number of cells. Then onto the processes of the production and growth of those cells, honing in on an active aspect of that- growth hormone.
“We know that in humans growth hormone not only stimulates bone growth during our growing years, but stimulates cell growth in general and blocks cell death. So the level of growth hormone someone has could affect cancer risk by pushing up cell numbers,” 
 My emphasis. Four lines is all it takes.
An earlier study showed that people with genetic dwarfism had very little cancer. “People with genetic dwarfism have a mutation in their growth hormone receptor and we know that growth hormone and growth hormone receptor are critical to tumour growth too,” he said."
A study on mice where their genes were manipulated to make a high or low level of growth hormone was said to increase and decrease their cancer rates accordingly. Which brings me to another fundamental point.

Height is easily acknowledged as a SCALE

Each end of any scale informs understanding of either by comparison and all in between. "From 100cm (3ft 3ins -225cm 7ft 6ins)", one scale produced by the same anatomical processes. The shortest i.e. dwarfism automatically informs the taller end. Weight is the same, the thinnest informs the fattest and vice versa. Segregated focus creates an obstacle. There are bound to some at one end and some at the other.

Immediate and repeated reassurance

Taller men and women need not worry.
Swedish study sheds new light on link between height and disease – but smoking, obesity and poor diet are still greater risks
Indeed they need not. That would only do them harm. Don't be put off by the usual false equivalence. The point is to note is the keen desire to avoid upsetting tall/er people.

It's clear about the source and quality of the information.
despite taller men and women being more likely to develop cancer, according to this study of 5.5 million people born between 1938 and 1991
No declaration of "proof" from a dozen people. No confounding factors were included in the study, so how good this is, may be up for some question. That's made clear. If you are making emphatic claims, quality is requisite

Tallness is not framed as some abnormal growth happening to a 'normal' body

a) That is the construct that is 'obesity' and b) Tallness could lend itself just as well to such a faux pas, or not.

No false moralism is invoked

I include concern trolling about "stigma". The real and apt sense of morality is in the reverence for any potential impact of this news on tall/er people. This sense of potential consequence is very humanistic. Despite mentioning "higher energy intake" they go out of their way not to mention food showing how pronounced that obsession is elsewhere.

It is possible to mention higher intake without invoking that great meter of objective diagnosis- the 7 deadly sins

Perhaps the acme of this for me is,

The current state of knowledge is freely acknowledged along with the need for MORE RESEARCH 

And of what kind.
The mechanisms for this effect are not clear and are worth further study. They may relate to the fact that the growth hormones related to height also are in some way stimulating cancer cells, but details are lacking.”
Not junk science such as increased risk according to your bedtime, but not hours sleep. WTH? Obviously not designed to be of any use. Except to those getting paid [well done].

The findings are properly contextualized.
Dr Jane Green, clinical epidemiologist at the University of Oxford, said: “In general, I would caution against interpreting a link as causal – however for height and cancer there is considerable evidence that suggests that the link is not explained by other known factors.
Context also lends itself to pacifying potential anxieties. Special mention to,

No problem with paradox
“ is worth noting that taller people have lower risks for heart disease and a lower risk of death overall."
Paradox is often a fundamental part of reality fact and truth-it doesn't require special categorization.

The effort to jettison potential false causality
Clearly, adult height is not itself a ‘cause’ of cancer, but is thought to be a marker for other factors related to childhood growth.
Rather than the use of this to continue pathologization. Nor is there any pretense that a generalized catch all risk relates the same to each individual-innumerate as much as anything. 
just because a woman is tall, doesn’t mean they will definitely develop breast cancer,” said Carolyn Rogers, clinical nurse specialist at Breast Cancer Care.
For the record,
“We must stress that the biggest risk factors for developing breast cancer are being female, getting older and for some, a significant family history of the disease.”
This is pretty much how I see weight. It is 'obesity' that is deviance from basic rational standards. It doesn't take genius to work out that the absence of the above standards are malicious in intent.

No comments:

Post a Comment