Forest and Trees

Today, I want to speak to my fellow white people, particularly my fellow Christian white people.

Many of us are missing the point

Yesterday, an innocent man, Terence Crutcher, was shot. He was an innocent man inspecting his own car. He was tazed and shot because he did not immediately follow instructions. He was unarmed. He had his hands up and visible. Now, investigations are ongoing and this article has a fairly good summary of the due process that needs to be followed and the confounding legal questions, but the shooting is not what I want to highlight.

I want to highlight our response.

You see, Mr Crutcher is a black man and, unfortunately, he is now the newest name in a growing list of black men killed by police. He is now the next name on a list in the argument against police brutality and social injustice. You would think that, after such a tragedy, there would be mourning as a community in response. No, no. I only heard about the shooting via my wife. I saw nothing from any of my white friends except a post which showed how there are good relationships between black men and police.

Yesterday, in Langa, a peri-urban settlement (lit. a shack town) in Cape Town, South Africa, inhabited almost completely by poor black individuals, was in the midst of a protest against poor services delivery. The only word I heard from any of my SA friends was from one person who had to drive through the protest, recounting the shock of riot police, guns, and the smoke of burning tires, praising God and thanking the police that she made it through safely. My fellow white people, I am ashamed. You are focusing on the minutiae, the trees, when the problem is with the forest.

The protest of police vs black violence is not about shaming the police. It doesn't require you to defend the police or discredit the victim and find opposing evidence - there will always be evidence to oppose anything, provided the inclination is there. The issue is about respect and fair treatment under the law, something assumed by many of us white people, but still being fought for by many of our fellow black men and women.

Service delivery protests/riots, while terrifying, are happening because of a real problem. While we recount the horrors and fears experienced as an outsider passing through, let us remember that what many white people have and take for granted, our black brothers and sisters are fighting to obtain - and not because they cannot afford it, but because it has yet to be delivered.

Just because we, as white people, are not immediately impacted is not a sufficient excuse to dismiss the injustice surrounding us in society. When Christ gave the parable of the good Samaritan, he did not say that our neighbour extended only to those who looked/spoke/thought like us. No, the whole point of the parable is that loving our neighbour means seeing the hurt, the maligned, the needy, and doing what we can to help.

And that help? I'm not advocating at all for the White Messiah complex. For help to be actual help, it must be the right type of assistance/aid/support, given in the right manner, at the right time. To make a comparison, if someone drops on the floor, having a heart attack, you don't begin scolding the individual for any habit he/she might have that contributed to his heart attack; you administer CPR or find someone who can. When social injustice is shown, you don't tell the victims they're imagining things or that they've contributed to their own issues; you stop and listen, giving a willing ear and a heart willing to understand, and, should the opportunity present, take some measure of appropriate action.

Are we not called to weep with those who weep and mourn with those who mourn? What would it hurt to take a moment to empathise - to place ourselves, our families in these repeated cycles of injustice? Would it hurt to turn to a black friend, relative, or colleague and simply say, "I heard about what happened. I'm so sorry."? Take the initiative. Put yourself out there in love, seeking to understand or support. Make that connection. If nothing else, it's a start.

Chicken and Egg

So, my wife and I were getting food and, while we were eating/heading home, I had a revelatory moment. It hit me that many of us have the perception of the relationship between Diet and Exercise backwards.

Instead of dieting comparative to our daily level of exercise, we often seek to exercise comparative to our dietary intake.

The more I think about it, the more backwards it sounds. That's like saying "I put two extra gallons of gas in the car this week, so I need to drive it more."

As long as we use exercise as a means to try and undo our bad dietary habits, we're never going to make any serious effect on our health. As long as we keep the attitude of "I'll just do an extra couple of laps to make up for [those] doughnut[s]," we will always be stuck in a losing battle. As a society, we are far too sedentary to eat the way we do.

____________________________________Side Note_____________________________________
Now, I need to pause here. I must admit that I am exhibiting a clear example of "Do what I say; not what I do," because, remember the food I was eating in the car - it was Taco Bell (not to mention the regrettable number of doughnuts eaten at a conference this morning). So, keep in mind that I need to work on this myself.
_________________________________________________________________________________

So, instead of viewing exercise as a tool to undo bad eating habits, how should we be eating?

Well, we should be eating like professional athletes

That may sound odd, especially for those like myself who are mostly too busy to fit a regular workout in, but it's true. When we think about how athletes eat, it becomes very clear that athletes eat to fuel their bodies. They make sure to eat enough proteins, carbs, and fats to meet the demands of their sport. After all, they are using up a lot of energy that has to come from somewhere. Similarly, for those who rarely see the inside of a gym or who don't set apart time for physical activity, we need to eat enough proteins, carbs, and fats to meet our metabolic demands. The difference is, our demands are far less.

And, let's face it: eating less is far easier than exercising more.

So, let me ask the burning questions:

• Do I really need that 12oz ribeye or would a 6oz cut be better?
• Do I really need that one/two/four (cough cough guilty cough) doughnuts?
• Do I really need to pack my plate that full this Thanksgiving?
• Do I really need that mid-afternoon snack?

If you're anything like me (rugby 2-4 hrs/week; gym 0-4 hrs/week), the answer might just be, "No," and, you know what, it's okay.

So, come join me as I re-evaluate my own dietary intake and tune it to match my output

The Role of Law

One question I've heard off and on, particularly when, in church/ministry circles, a teacher or a student is asking a thought-provoking question, is, in my own words, "Given Christ and the new covenant, what is now the role of the Law, the old covenant?"

I think many times, in my experience, we try to answer something along the lines of, "It serves to show us the standard and impossibility of perfection."

It's a good answer, but it also sells the old covenant somewhat short. After all, there are times when God had remarked to Israel that He would prefer the sincere worship of their hearts to the empty exactitude of lawfulness.

While doing some reading and spending time with God today, I came across a small little verse that really illuminated, to me, the role of the Law, especially in light of Christ:

"So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith." - Gal 3:24

The Law wasn't some cosmic quality metric to show us our imperfection. Neither was it a ball and chain, enslaving the Israelites. No, the Law served to illustrate to the Israelites the character of God, that they might grow in understanding, becoming ripe for the harvest of faith, that is, Christ. The original Greek word used for "guardian" is paidagogos, a word used for a servant whose role was (to train up a child by administering discipline, chastisement, and instruction." (HELPS Word-Studies, Helps Ministries Inc.)

studyblue.com

That Note about Generous Reassurance

So, 2 Corinthians 9 is Paul's appeal to the Corinthian church to follow up on a previous promise for donation to his work and ministry. The topic of money and giving is always a touchy one for most congregants, especially for those aware of all the prosperity gospel preachers, who then become acutely worried their pastor may be turning into one such individual. (Or, maybe it's just me, because I know I've had moments like that, being the cynic and skeptic I am)

That being said, It's not unheard-of for those in ministry to live off the donations of worshippers, after all, that was one of the reasons for the tithe back in Old Testament times - without it, the Levites would have had nothing to live on. Similarly, today, most pastors live off of either tithes alone or tithes plus a side job. To take an even more extreme example, missionaries rely almost completely on donations so as to not overly burden those they are ministering to (following the example of Paul himself).

So, giving is important, but, as Paul writes here, it is not compulsory:

"Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." 2 Cor 9:7

Yes, Paul writes the verse before that one reaps in proportion to what one sows, but it is the verses following that stand out to me:

"And God is able to bless you abundantly, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work. ... Now he who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will also supply and increase your store of seed and will enlarge the harvest of your righteousness." 2 Cor 9:8, 10

Paul is addressing what I often feel as someone looking to give, particularly outside of tithe. Basically, he's saying, "Don't be afraid to give; God will make sure you have what you need."

That's a pretty critical perspective. If we withhold charity out of fear of not being able to survive without what we'd give, the reassurance that God will give us what we need, in this case as a response to godly, charitable giving, is very, very freeing.

So, then, my question to you, the reader, is this:

What work or ministry are you missing out on because you are afraid to go without?

Aotearoa, A Cultural Heritage

One of the amazing things I am grateful for from my time in South Africa is the exposure to other cultures and ideas, different ways of celebrating facets of life. One amazing way I was able to see this was through the international rugby scene.

You see, the first time you watch rugby, it can be a little confusing, seeing all the scrums and lineouts that are called seemingly at random until some of the rules are learnt, but something that stands out for anyone, whether a tenderfoot or a veteran, is the All Blacks.

You see, New Zealand has this amazing national policy celebrating their Maori heritage, after all, they were there on Aotearoa before the very first Englishmen ever called it "New Zealand". The policy was made as part of an effort to help retain the Maori culture by making it a part of the national image.

Now, most people may look at the Haka as a war dance, or something done before sports games to intimidate opponents, but it has a far richer meaning that, as a foreigner, I do not even begin to have the right to express.

I remember a couple years ago, when the NZ national basketball team was playing in the US in the Spain Basketball World Cup, the majority of the US was dumbfounded, watching the New Zealanders shouting, stomping their feet, slapping their bodies, and making ferocious grimaces. I remember watching the replay, listening to the ESPN commentators, watching the confusion on the US teams' faces. To me, it was priceless.

Now, New Zealand's not the only nation to do some kind of war dance before sporting engagements. Samoa has the Siva Tau, Tonga has the Sipi Tau, and many other polynesian nations have a similar performance. Even the University of Hawai'i football team performs a haka before games, though the NCAA does not allow them to do it with the other team on the field as they are not allowed to "intimidate" the opponents.

But the Haka goes deeper. Like I said before, it's a celebration of a deeper heritage. Take, for example, Jonah Lomu's funeral. Arguably the greatest rugby player, he was a national icon for New Zealand.

Or take this haka performed by the family of the bride at her wedding.

What I enjoy seeing, though, is my American friends' interest and celebration of the Haka. That awareness of celebration of cultural diversity is an amazing catalyst to begin discussing the problems within our own country. America is supposedly the melting pot, but as I wrote a long time ago (albeit far more naively), we seem to be more like a really chunky stew, or, better yet, a potjie. We have a diversity of cultures here. we are not a homogeneity of whiteness. There is African-American culture, various Hispanic cultures, Asian cultures, African cultures, Native American cultures (unfortunately, many are mere remnants), even varying European cultures, and yet, the only ones we routinely celebrate and accept are the last.

Now, I'm not talking about heritage months, but I am talking about what heritage months are symptoms of. I'm sorry, but if we have to put in place heritage months for cultures to be celebrated and recognised, then we don't really celebrate and recognise them, do we?

So, to Aotearoa, New Zealand, I applaud you for recognising and seeking to celebrate your cultural heritage.

America, what would you look like were you to truly accept and celebrate the diverse members within yourself?

The Little White Crystal

I'll be the first to admit, I have a sweet tooth. I'm notorious in my family as the cookie dough thief, a title earned after my early achievement of sneaking an entire double batch of chocolate chip cookie dough from the fridge when I was 6. That title was well-earned and reaffirmed many times over the years.

That being said, I want to talk for a second about sugar.

Sugar is everywhere.

It's in your cereal, your bread, your pizza sauce, your drinks, your snacks, your desserts... It's all over the place. What's more, majority of that sugar is what are called empty calories. To break that down (excuse the pun), a calorie is a unit of energy, defined as the amount of energy required to bring 1 ml of water from 14 to 15 degrees Celsius. Empty calories are sources of calories which provide no other nutrient benefit, think for example, bread made from refined, non-fortified flour versus bread made from home-ground flour from whole wheat grains. Refined, non-fortified flour us pure carbohydrates with no other nutrients, whereas the wheat germ from the whole grain provides many essential nutrients.

Now, our energy intake is often measured in Calories, not calories. What's the difference? Calories, with a capital "C" are actually kilocalories, kcal or 1000 calories. Our recommended daily allowances are often based on a 2000 Calorie (kcal) diet. This is calculated from a simple formula:

• 1 gram of protein ~ 4 kcal
• 1 gram of carbohydrates ~ 4 kcal
• 1 gram of fat ~ 9 kcal

Now, seeing that energy difference, many of you are probably thinking, "Why are we talking about sugar then? Fat has far more Calories." You are not alone in your thinking. If you want to see the biochemistry behind the push against sugar, then check out The Fat-Sugar Metabolism Debate  (TFSMD).

Interestingly enough, we have a recommended daily amount for sugar: 24-36 grams[1]. That's not a lot; it's roughly 6-9 teaspoons per day. Two sugars in your coffee? you've already hit 1/3 of your daily allowance. 

Two sugars? Really?

Yeah, and it doesn't stop there. We've already discussed how excess sugar leads to obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and coronary artery disease in TFSMD. What's I'm trying to show you is that sugar, truly, is everywhere. The scary part of all of this is that you don't need to be eating a diet of candy for breakfast, lunch, and dinner to wind up with way more sugar than you need.

Sorry, Buddy

Next time you grab a can of coke, check the amount of sugar in it - 39 grams. Grabbing a pack of Pop-Tarts or a bowl of Frosted Flakes for breakfast? 34 and 25 grams respectively. Fruit juice isn't even safe, weighing in at around 24 grams per 8 oz of juice.[2]

All right, wise guy, what am I supposed to do, not eat anything?

No. You need to eat, but instead of buying pre-packaged, pre-made foods, why not make it yourself? Sure, it takes time and work has chewed you up and spat you out. I understand. I'm a med student and, for a while, my wife worked two jobs on top of that - we were never home and rarely had the time to cook. For the time being, we had to be content with that, but we still tried to make healthy choices when eating out (particularly after going through the GI/nutrition course). 

Don't kill yourself trying to avoid sugar, but do what you can to minimise it. That's why we have nutrition labels on foods. Find the sugars, see how much is in one serving and do the math to figure out how much sugar is in the whole bag (because we never eat just 3 oreos, right?).

Also, if you're really curious, you can look at the ingredients list to see where and what type of sugar is listed. If you didn't know, the ingredients are listed in order of amount, from most to least. So, if sugar is high on the list, you know there's a lot of it. That being said, producers have found alternative ways to get sugar in food without using literal sugar (table sugar), so you'll have to be extra canny, scanning for all of these other names for sugar (Not all of these are exactly the same as table sugar and sometimes have different structures, but they are still all empty calories and sweeteners)[3, 4]:

• Agave nectar/syrup
• Barbados sugar
• Barley malt
• Barley malt syrup
• Beet sugar
• Blackstrap molasses
• Brown rice syrup
• Brown sugar
• Buttered sugar
• Cane juice crystals
• Cane juice
• Cane sugar
• Caramel
• Carob syrup
• Caster/Castor sugar
• Coconut sugar/Coconut palm sugar
• Corn sweetener
• Corn syrup
• Corn syrup solids
• Crystalline fructose
• Date sugar
• Demerara sugar
• Dextran/Dextrin
• Dextrose
• Diastatic malt
• Diatase
• Ethyl maltol
• Evaporated cane juice
• Fructose
• Free-flowing brown sugars
• Fruit juice concentrates
• Galactose
• Glucose
• Glucose solids
• Golden sugar
• Golden syrup
• Grape sugar
• High fructose corn syrup
• Honey
• Invert/-ed sugar
• Lactose
• Malt syrup
• Maltodextrin
• Maltose
• Mannose
• Maple syrup
• Molasses syrup
• Muscovado sugar
• Organic raw sugar
• Oat syrup (avena sativa)
• Panela
• Panocha/Penuche
• Powdered/Icing/Confectioner's sugar
• Refiner's syrup
• Rice bran syrup
• Rice syrup
• Saccharose
• Sorghum
• Sorghum syrup
• Sucrose
• Sugar
• Syrup
• Treacle
• Tapioca syrup
• Turbinado sugar
• Yellow sugar

Sources:

[1] https://authoritynutrition.com/how-much-sugar-per-day/

[2] http://www.sugarstacks.com/

[3] http://www.prevention.com/food/healthy-eating-tips/the-57-names-of-sugar

[4] http://www.sugarscience.org/hidden-in-plain-sight/#.V5o4OvkrLX4

The Fat-Sugar Metabolism Debate

Back in the 50's when the heart health debates were raging, given clear connection between body fat and heart disease, scientists were divided between whether dietary fat or dietary sugar contributed to body fat. At the time, the dietary fat camp won. Today, however, thanks to modern biochemistry, we know that it's not quite that simple. To highlight this, let me give you a simplified summary of the biochemistry of metabolism when energy is needed (fasted state):

With permission from my biochemistry professor

Now that you've been thoroughly bewildered, I want to focus on two key aspects of metabolism: energy use and energy storage. (No, I won't share any more biochem slides).

Glucose, the most prevalent form of sugar used, is converted to pyruvate in all cells, which, in most cells is converted to Acetyl-CoA, which is sent through the Krebs cycle to generate more energy.

Other sugars are converted to glucose or a subsequent product on the glycolysis pathway

Fats are delivered as fatty acids directly to the muscles, which are converted to Acetyl-CoA and are slotted into the Krebs cycle. In the liver, they're converted to ketone bodies for use in the muscle and brain or packaged into VLDL for distribution as fatty acids.

So, when energy is needed, both forms are used, but I want to direct you to something in the bottom left corner entitled "Carb flame". A funny quirk about the Krebs cycle: with just the right amount of carbohydrate, the Krebs cycle skips a couple steps and becomes a super-efficient fat-burning powerhouse.

So, then, what happens when you have more energy than you need? It goes to storage. All sugars, except Fructose, are initially converted to glycogen for storage. When the glycogen stores are filled up, they are then converted to fat. Fructose, however, is not able to be converted to glycogen in the liver, which is the main processing centre, so it goes straight to fat. Yes, Fructose can be converted to glycogen in the muscle, and certain other tissues, but the volume processed is significantly less.

I want to note, quickly, that Fructose is the sweet sugar. It's found in high-fructose corn syrup and is also part of cane sugar (which includes white/table sugar, brown sugar, and molasses/treacle).

Dietary fat storage is much simpler. It's stored as fat.

Hmm... I seem to be losing my case aren't I. Well, let's consider the factors controlling whether your body is using or storing energy: your hormones.

Insulin and Glucagon are the two key players here. Now, as I promised not to inject any more biochem slides, you'll have to trust me, okay?

Glucagon triggers the body to release storage forms of energy because the body needs energy now. Remember, when Glucose is gone, you need Glucagon. Insulin triggers the body to store energy when there is excess. As such, Insulin is responsible for activating and increasing the number of proteins that convert sugars to glycogen and Fructose, fatty acids, and excess sugars to fat.

Here's the kicker: Glucose drives insulin secretion. What's more interesting, though, is that glucose taken orally (eaten) causes insulin to spike more than insulin taken by injection. Now, yes, free fatty acids also contribute to insulin production, but to a lower degree and I must note that majority of fatty acids in the body are not free-circulating.

So, what's the verdict? Both dietary fat and sugar are metabolised to produce energy when needed. Both dietary fat and sugar are stored when not needed. It would appear, then, that both are beneficial, in the right amounts. Too much dietary fat will contribute to body fat. Too much dietary sugar will also contribute to body fat. Unlike dietary fat, though, excess dietary sugar will contribute to elevated insulin levels.

Oh, if I had the space to begin discussing the effects of chronic high insulin, but, in short form, high insulin levels can lead to high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, cardiovascular disease, obesity, polycystic ovarian syndrome, and a couple other chronic health conditions.

Again, sugar, like fat, is not bad in moderation, but, in excess, it is a cause of many of the health problems that plague us today in America.