anti- alternative milk

I've had some raw milk from Sprouts and can't get excited enough about it to pay 3x (for whole milk) and possibly risk severe food poisoning (the chance isn't high, but the severity can be).

This woman's investigation deflates many pro-raw claims (her method is to ask experts and industry representatives, which seems solid):

Homogenization is done by forcing milk through a small geometry valve at very high pressures (1500-2500 psi).  The effect of this treatment is to break the natural fat globule (average size ~10 micrometers) into  much smaller fat globules (average size <2 micrometers).  In doing this the fat globule membrane is broken and the surface area of the new fat globules is much larger than the native globules.

Within the first 10-20 seconds after homogenization, proteins and segments of the original membrane form a new membrane on the surface of the smaller fat globules.  The addition of the protein to the surface of the fat globules and the reduction in the size of the globules results in the reduction in the ability of the globules to float to the top of the milk.  During this process, the milkfat is not exposed to air as the process is done in an air tight system containing only milk.  Milkfat is made up of 98% triglycerides, which are extremely stable to changes during processing.  The only way that milk will spoil faster after homogenization is if the homogenizing system is not properly cleaned and sanitized.

Another factor that may be thrown out is the xanthine oxidase.  Dr. K. Oster proposed a theory in 1971 that xanthine oxidase released from the milk fat globule membrane during homogenization was a contributor to atherosclerosis.  To this end, I would have you read the following review article.

There is not much if any support for this theory but a lot of people are still using it to scare customers into paying higher prices for cream-line milk.

Dr. Partridge drinks homogenized store milk himself, although he said he has to take the jugs from the back to avoid the “light oxidized flavor that is prevalent in milk stored under direct fluorescent lighting.” This is not a man who drinks milk without consciousness.

Her thinking seems high quality (although she's in-your-face Christian). Recommended. 

If there's anything scary in your cow's diet (I wish I could get grass-fed cow milk easily), it will likely be in the fats, she points out. So cheap skim milk mixed with high quality cream makes sense.

lithium helps you get up in the morning

This article claims as advance in the understanding of why lithium helps protect the brain. It turns out that it's at least partially due to forcing sleep. Insufficient sleep is extremely harmful:

by blocking the enzyme known as glycogen synthase kinase, or GSK3, lithium boosts the master clock’s strength threefold.

Understanding this mechanism, Meng says, companies are already developing drugs that can block GSK3, but which would be unlikely to trigger lithium’s unwelcome effects such as nausea, dry mouth, tremor, weakness and weight gain.

Now that a mechanism is known, perhaps new patentable synthetics that target just that mechanism, but with slightly different side effects, can provide a $billions cash cow. Lithium was probably underprescribed by the medical industry due to lack of financial incentive.

I'd started low dose (1mg/day) lithium on the basis of a literature review by Scott Siskind on LessWrong and couldn't tell if it was only another nice multivitamin-like placebo, but I may have been sleeping and waking slightly better. Side effects were completely nonexistent for me at 1mg/day. An ordinary diet already supplies .5-3mg/day, though:

In 1985, the EPA, estimated that the daily lithium consumption for a 154 lb. adult ranges from 650 to 3,100 micrograms

Lithium definitely decreases suicides. That's something. There are other claims of decent strength: http://evolutionarypsychiatry.blogspot.com/2010/07/lithium-and-inflammation.html and http://evolutionarypsychiatry.blogspot.com/2011/02/lithium-and-longevity.html.

It's suspicious to me when a medicine does so many seemingly different good things. But since the mechanism at least involves sleep, which is central, it's plausible. Also, there are other medicines (aspirin) that really do have several good effects (I assume because excess inflammation can be harmful in many different ways). It's suspicious to me when something has many good effects (speeds/slows several different natural chemical reactions) and no bad effects. I'd expect most tweaks to be only situationally good, or else it's just an accident that evolution hasn't stumbled upon and widely disseminated the capability to produce something analogous to the drug.

jordan

Aaa31

Did basketball have a doping era? Talent + obsessive work ethic will get you a long way *if* you have enhanced physical recovery. Maybe that's sometimes purely genetic. Kobe looked pretty buff for a few years post-Shaq (but not unbelievably so). Jordan was never huge but there's more to chemically enhanced performance than bodybuilder physique (which hardly comes without specifically trying).

Why would an athlete *not* dope, especially if they felt it was long-term healthy and unlikely to be detected?

pro-monounsaturated anti-saturated study

Citing a brain-health study cited in this article, they claim, backed by IQ tests, that monounsaturated is better than either polyunsaturated and saturated in older women. Obviously it's correlation only, and based on diet survey responses, not direct measurement.

women who reported the highest saturated fat intake also had, on average, the worst scores on reasoning and memory tests. Those with the highest monounsaturated fat intake had the best cognition test scores on average, compared with those who ate mostly polyunsaturated fats

Kitty Genovese - martyr for psychology

From Seth Roberts:

Long after the famous Kitty Genovese story — supposedly many people watched her being murdered without doing anything — doubt was cast on its accuracy. In the meantime, John Darley and  Bibb Latane, two professors of psychology, it as the starting point for a series of experiments on what they called the bystander effect — the more bystanders, the less likely that each one will help. They concluded there was “diffusion of responsibility” — the more people that witness something, the less each witness feels responsible for doing something.

(linked Wikipedia article has a section about how the psych textbook version isn't factual, although the bystander effect is of course real and has since been rigorously demonstrated). 

And then, two fascinating anecdotes (Seth jumps quickly from anecdote to hypothesis, and I love him for it):

In China the problem is much worse. A few years ago a woman was hit by a car. A second car stopped to help her. The woman told the police that the second driver had hit her. The second driver was furious, gave many interviews, and eventually a witness was found who said it was the driver, not the injured woman, who was telling the truth. Someone I spoke to attributed her behavior to the need to pay hospital bills. The driver who hit her would never be caught, she reasoned. Maybe the second driver could be forced to pay.

I remember seeing such a video. Horrifying. It was this hit and run; the video is no longer available.

My Chinese tutor, who is Korean, told me a story that illustrates the depth of Chinese bystander inaction and suggests another reason for it. A friend of hers was visiting from Korea. When this friend was in Wangjing (in the Chaoyang district of Beijing), she saw a person lying on a busy street, bleeding but still alive. Apparently the bleeding person had been hit by a car. Three hours later, the friend returned — and the accident victim was still there! Now dead. So, with difficulty — she doesn’t speak Chinese — she called the police.

The police treated her as a suspect. She was forced to come to the police station five times, for hours each time.

What a deterrent to calling the police! I cannot believe the police were so stupid as to consider a Korean tourist on foot who calls the police a serious suspect in the death of someone lying in the middle of traffic. I believe that by causing her a lot of trouble, they wanted to send a message: Leave us alone. The fewer calls they get, the less work they have to do. No wonder everyone ignored the bleeding victim.

I agree with the "leave us alone" interpretation, but also, the person at the scene really is 1000s of times more likely to be the perpetrator than some random person from the general populace, and police have never seemed to mind getting a thrill out of an attempt to intimidate a confession out of someone who has only a 1% chance of being guilty - if they win, then they were heroic. The reason it's usually wrong to single out one person for scrutiny without a solid line of detection pointing to them from physical evidence is that the absolute chance of their guilt is still supremely low. Being at the scene should nearly be evidence *against* guilt (if enough time has passed). See also Privileging the Hypothesis and base rate neglect.

brushes with celebrity

Robin Hanson describes research about how a quick glad-handing by a CEO-figure makes people act boldly - with more presumed status:

“Illusory Power Transference” is the academic name for feeling powerful due to a superficial connection to a powerful person, such as having once been in the same room
...
Otherwise puzzling behavior can be explained by strong evolved desires to affiliate with high status (i.e., impressive or powerful) people. Apparently even very weak affiliations can make big differences. This can help explain our preferring live art and sport events, and our uncritical relations to academics, real estate agents, investment advisors, doctors, lawyers, etc. 

People often act as though everyone knows about every social interaction they have:

1. after recycling, or being told to buy a 'green' product, people feel sufficiently virtuous that they'll more likely turn down a panhandler later, effectively believing that their virtuous acts are generally known.

2. after being turned down by one woman, a man will feel less confident approaching the next, even in a different venue.

In a small tribe, it would make sense to expect every interaction to eventually count (via reputation) with everyone. But celebrity is asymmetric. It's a millions to one (or for a CEO, thousands to one) relationship. There's little chance that the politician's handshake and warm words can be relied upon for anything.

I think that the confidence (or lack of it) that carries over between independent encounters (without any small-town-gossip connection) still has power. When someone acts as though they'll be respected, they more often are. Most people can't fake this expectation. So, in a way, the information that George got a smile from the CEO does spread, dilutely.

If you're rational about it, you'll make sure your high-status affiliations are actually known. Good luck not sounding like a self-promoting name-dropper, though - and there's nothing we despise more than obvious over-reaching status-gamers.

two medical research atrocities

1: 1/3 of all breast cancer research to date is actually cervical cancer research, and most researchers won't check (to verify that the material they published about wasn't mislabeled, which should cost only $200). via.

2: Merck, via Vioxx (I had a month of it pushed on me by a competent doctor who enjoyed their kickbacks or believed their literature), killed several hundred thousand people (more precisely: destroyed a million person-years; mostly the sick and elderly were killed). via. They were fined a paltry few billion dollars for knowing of the harms and suppressing the research findings - not nearly enough.