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.

Vanity, Vanity. All is Vanity

So, I was taking some time to read the Bible this morning, something I like to do, but sometimes fail to make time to enjoy, and one verse really hit me between the eyes. It stood out, because, to me, it highlighted something that is often taken for granted or even glossed over in today's Church, particularly the Western Church.

The verse, in context, read as follows:

"Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain." 

- 1 Cor. 15:1-2 (Emphasis added)

Paul is quick to make note here that receiving and standing upon the Gospel is not enough. You can listen to the Gospel as much as you want, but it doesn't make you a Christian, he is saying. You can choose to live your life by Christian principles and believe in the historicity of Christ, but that doesn't make you a Christian. You can identify with the church and push for the moral establishment that comes with it, but that doesn't make you a Christian.

All of that, Paul says, is vanity, emptiness, nothingness, a waste of breath. If that is all you believe about Christ, if that is all you consider to be Christianity, then you have believed in mere smoke.

What, then, does true belief that brings about salvation consist of?

I means listening to the Gospel and internalising it, making it a part of your everyday being. It means living your life at the footsteps of Christ, believing in the deity of Christ. It means identifying with the church, standing in solidarity with persecuted brothers and sisters, withstanding persecution yourself and, yet, with grace and forgiveness, loving the world whose morals are so far from Christ as the East is from the West.

A faith that saves is one that, as Paul writes, holds firmly to the Gospel, never wavering or compromising in belief, no matter what storms may come.

The Christian Race

With police violence protests, #blacklivesmatter protests, and counter protests flying everywhere throughout the U.S. and much of the world, I thought I'd share something I read today that might, hopefully, spur on those of us who claim to follow Christ:

For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit. For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single member, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you," nor again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you." On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.
1 Corinthians 12:12‭-‬26 ESV

Tell me please, church, where it tells us to let our brothers and sisters struggle alone?

Paul is pretty clear here. As a white Christian, when Black Christians, Hispanic Christians, Asian Christians, Arabic Christians, Coptic Christians or other Christians suffer, I suffer. Why? We are one body.

Take a look at your body. When your toe jams into the doorway, it's not just your toe that is affected. When your tiny, seemingly purposeless appendix gets infected, your entire abdomen feels the pain.

We are all equal under Christ. There is no division by race, status, money, or language, but that doesn't mean we are all the same. Just as the body is composed of many parts, the church is a conglomeration of thousands of backgrounds, races, languages, social strata, and perspectives. If we are ever to achieve unity within the church, let alone the country, we need to begin by appreciating and supporting our brethren from different backgrounds. We need to apologise where necessary, lend a hand where needed, break bread together when able, and see each other's humanity and worth at all times.

Brexit: The Triumph of Right over Left

So, I'm sure almost everyone is aware of the UK's decision to leave the EU. The incredulity of the "Leave" decision has been lobbied and debated ceaselessly for the last 24+ hrs.

I get it; the EU provides a large-scale market economy, economic sharing, open travel, and a common currency. In a sense, it is a liberal's dream and it has many benefits, especially in the short-term. It provides a glimpse of a future world peace and shared market, of everyone sacrificing something for the benefit of each other, etc, etc, etc.

What I have appreciated, though, is the singular explanation for why one individual voted "Leave". All of yesterday, the Left was smearing the "Leave" decision as poorly-educated, the fault of the older generation, out of touch with the times, foolish, short-sighted, and even calling it the "Rise of Nationalism."

I would note that all of these individuals are decently-educated and young, invested more in the global market. I think it says something that all those who voted to leave tend to be from the poorer parts of the country (that I can discern) and from lower education levels. Blue collar jobs tend to be very locally-dependent and would benefit by greater investment in local business. It's also no surprise that the older generation voted to leave, as my experience shows that, in the West, the older generations (at least here in the US) tend to value individual liberty and responsibility, that is, Libertarianism, over a social, collective ideal.

Without much ado, the post in question (Courtesy of Facebook, via a friend:

“It would be erroneous to compare the EU to the United States. The EU is only a couple decades old and it consists of countries that were completely autonomous and sovereign before entering into the Schengen agreement. Imagine if your country were suddenly linked in every way and without wiggle-room with 28 countries like Mexico, Uruguay, Canada, Iceland and Algeria. Now imagine if you had to give a minimum of 7 billion dollars to the EU in fees every year, forfeiting any control over your country’s trade, immigration, finances and law, and allowing a group of unelected individuals who meet in another country to decide how you will be allowed to proceed in any of those areas. Imagine if there were no longer ANY restrictions between the US, Mexico, Iceland, Canada and Algeria (in our case, a total of 28 countries!), and if anyone could move anywhere within those countries, being instantly eligible for all the entitlements and aid your country offers.
By joining the EU, Britain forfeited its autonomy, its sway over its own future, its ability to combat unemployment by hiring within its borders, and its control over commerce and the trade of its own goods. We have become the subjects of a “board of directors” that has no loyalty or obligation to our country. We have sacrificed our sovereignty to leadership who are not vested with making decisions in England’s best interest. Furthermore, we’ve been anchored to sinking ships like Greece, and those same authorities have decided which of us are expected to provide the majority of the funds needed to pay off the other countries’ debts, countries that have demonstrated little desire to put their own efforts behind fiscal responsibility and recovery. Imagine if the American people were no longer able to influence the decisions and laws that impact your country and your everyday life… That’s why so many of us are dead set against staying in the EU. I trust that helps you to understand our position.”

So, the "Leave" decision wasn't pushed by some right-wing nutjobs shouting "Rule Britannia!" It was advocated for by conservative individuals who were tired of a governing body in which they had no representation, a body which had no vested interest in the sovereignty, autonomy, and overall well-being of the UK except what pertained directly to that of the EU.

In short, the UK finally understands why we left back in 1776.

A Church Divided

So, I was reading through Paul's first recorded letter to the Corinthian church (In truth, if I recall correctly, it is the second of four, though we only have records for the two we call 1 and 2 Corinthians) and partway through the first chapter, Paul begins addressing some rivalries and divisions happening within the church.

He rebuked them, calling them to ponder three questions:

• Is Christ divided?
• Was it Paul who was crucified for you?
• Were you baptised in Paul's name?

As I was looking over this passage, what came to mind first were some of the church splits I have seen, with individuals falling out between leaders or over minor details, thinking along the lines of "Did Pastor X die for you?" or "Were you baptised in the name of Deacon Y?"

The more I pondered it, though, the more I realised that the divisions within the church run far deeper than merely within an individual church. Many divisions today run along doctrinal or interpretational lines. Methodists vs Baptists, Orthodox vs Catholics (or Protestants/Anglicans vs Catholics for that matter). The church today is massively divided. Now, yes, there are some divisions along lines of preference. Those preferring a more ordered service may sit comfortably within a Presbyterian church than an Assembly of God. That being said, there are divisions along racial lines, political lines, policy lines. We have divided ourselves over minutiae.

In light of this passage, I am inclined to agree with Erasmus where he butted heads with Luther, wanting to bring about change within the Catholic church instead of fracturing and starting a separate church.

Yes, we are going to have differences of interpretation of scripture. For example, when it comes to the end times, my pastor ascribes more to the dispensational philosophy/theology whereas I fall into a post-tribulational premilennial standpoint. Does that mean I should leave my church? No.

Baptists, did the Anabaptists and early baptists die for your salvation? No.

Methodists, were you baptised in the name of John Wesley? No

Catholics, was Leo IX crucified for your salvation? No

Orthodox churchgoers, were you baptised in the name of Cerularius? No

We all were saved by the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. We were all baptised in the name of Christ.

Let me ask you, is Christ divided?

Then why do we, the church, divide ourselves?

Should we not focus on Christ as the unifying goal? Should not our doctrines be subject to Christ and should we not be able to come together under the banner of a single, catholic (not Catholic; it means "universal") church?

I mean, that was the purpose of creating the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed, to establish what is common doctrine to all Christians, that we may focus on the forest instead of getting lost amongst the trees.

These are my thoughts, though. I am no theologian. I do not know the intricacies of the dividing points in different denominations' doctrines and I do not profess to know. I merely am asking a pertinent question.

Taking a Bead

Okay, so I'm about to open a large can of worms. Unfortunately, I'm not the first one to do so and I have the feeling I will not be the last.

Something needs to be done about gun violence.

I understand the arguments in favour of owning guns - I am a prospective gun owner myself and I am very interested in the personal safety of my family. I also understand the cost-effective supplement that hunting provides to the family food budget. I even understand and appreciate the right to bear arms, both for personal security and as insurance against the government attempting to oppress its citizens through force and, to the latter effect, the opposition of many gun owners to a federal registry, making gun owners "targets" if "$#!+ hits the fan".

That being said, let's take a look at the statistics

In 2016 alone, so far, there have been:

• 23 518 reported gun-related incidents in the US
• 6 031 deaths; 12 359 injuries
• 258 children (0-11) killed/injured
• 1 289 teenagers (12-17) killed/injured
• 138 were reported mass shootings
• 519 were reported officer-involved incidents
• 147 officers shot/killed
• 372 perpetrators shot/killed
• 988 were reported home invasions
• 725 reported were of defensive use
• 1 050 were reported accidental shootings

Unfortunately, I have no suicide data for 2016, but there were 21 334 gun-related suicides in 2014, with the numbers climbing from '99 to '14

Of course, the first, knee-jerk reaction is to declare all guns evil and protest for their complete and severe restriction. Before we do that, however, let's take a quick look at some of the current laws in the US

Owning

• 18 to own shotguns and rifles
• 21 to own all other gun types
• May not own if there is a history or likelihood of family violence
• May be denied sale or have guns seized
• No civilian register/licensing records
• Open and concealed carry laws vary by state
• With or without a permit
• Restrictions
• Long guns (rifles/shotguns): regulated
• Automatic: Subject to federal licensing, regulation
• Handguns: permitted without a license
• Semiautomatic: permitted without a license
• Banned: sawn-off long guns, machine guns, silencers, armour-piercing rounds
• Subject to appropriate registration

Buying

• No set waiting period for lawful firearm purchase
• Possession of a concealed carry waived background checks

Selling

• Private sales are permitted
• Private sellers need no background check
• Dealers must carry a dealer's license
• Dealers must pass a background check

Registration

• Firearm dealers and manufacturers are required to keep records of gun and ammunition sales and manufacture

Storage

• There are laws specifying safe storage of firearms

Marking/Tracing

• All firearms sold in the US are marked and can be traced/tracked

Unlawful possession

• Punishable by 10 years in prison

So, looking at the laws shows that there is some control already in place. Honestly, I'm fairly satisfied with what is in paper. 

So, then, what needs to change?

Well, for one, enforcement needs to step up. If sales and background checks are better enforced, then we would see, in general, guns being more in the hands of responsible owners. That, unfortunately, is a bit of a wishful dream at this point.

That being said, I am a proponent of a basic gun license for owners. I hold that prospective gun owners should prove themselves capable of the responsible ownership of a gun (maintenance, storage, responsible use) and aware of state & federal gun laws. We have established such a process for driving a vehicle, so why not a similar vetting process for firearms? Such a license (let's call it the new open carry license), would ensure more responsible ownership and that, coupled with a background check with a moderate waiting period, can help ensure more responsible dealer sales. The incentive for private sales to be responsible is the threat of losing that right; having a license just makes it easier to establish rapport. Additionally, the presence of gun licenses allows for easier law enforcement. Are you carrying? Do you have your license on you? If your answers are "yes" and "no" respectively, then you are subject to the law.

So, I've taken a look at the current statistics and I've taken a peek at the law. I've given you my perspective. Let's all become well-informed citizens and arrive at a safer, yet still free, environment for ourselves and our children.

Sources:

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states