Airport Names

I have been thinking about the names of airports and how they come to be.   It seems that some airports are named to honor a great and well-deserving person, some commemorate unknown or much less deserving people, and some are not named after people at all.   Some examples -

JFK - John F Kennedy International Airport.   This was New York City's second airport, built to relieve conjestion at LaGuardia airport.   It was originally called "Idlewild", named after the Idlewild Beach Golf Course that it displaced.   I remember as a kid, I thought Idlewild was a cool name, and felt bad when it was re-named for JFK, but it's hard to argue against that tribute.


By the way, after JFK died, they re-named Cape Canaveral, Florida to "Cape Kennedy"...   At the time, people referred to "Cape Canaveral" meaning the space center, and so it seemed like a nice tribute to JFK, to change it to Cape Kennedy.   But the locals said "Oh no you don't!"    You are not re-naming our cape.   So the cape was re-named back to Cape Canaveral and the Space Center was named the Kennedy Space Center.  Good solution.

LGA - NYC Laguardia -  named for Fiorello La Guardia, the mayor of New York when the airport was built.

ORD - Chicago O'Hare.    I wonder how many people know that this very busy airport was named for Edward "Butch" O'Hare, the U.S. Navy's first Medal of Honor recipient during the war.   I don't want to take anything away from Mr. O'Hare, who lost his life defending our nation, but wow, one of the busiest airports in the world bears his name.  By the way, a US Navy destroyer is also named in his honor.  And why is the code "ORD" and not something like "ORH"?   Because the airport was originally called "Orchard Field" hence ORD.

MDW - Chicago Midway.   Sometimes called "The World's Busiest Square Mile".  Formerly Chicago Municipal Airport, it was renamed in 1949 to commemorate the Battle of Midway.  










MKE - Milwaukee General Mitchell International Airport.   Was named Mitchell Field in 1941, in honor of General William "Billy" Mitchell, generally regarded as the father of the US Air Force.  The name was updated to General Mitchell International Airport in 1986. 

SAN - San Diego - Was originally called Lindbergh Field, but no longer.   I have no idea why.  Charles Lindbergh seems like a deserving guy.

STL - Lambert.  Named for Albert Bond Lambert, an Olympic medalist and prominent St. Louis aviator.  It seems to me he's not on the same level as some of the other honorees.

CLE - Cleveland Hopkins International - named after its founder, former city manager (not even a mayor) William R. Hopkins. 

DTW - Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport - The airport is not named after a person, however, the largest terminal within the airport is named the "McNamara Terminal" after Edward H. McNamara, former county executive of Wayne County.   McNamara's 40 years in politics ended under a cloud of suspicion. FBI agents and state police raided his office in November 2002, seeking evidence for a federal grand jury investigating alleged corruption in airport contracts and campaign fundraising by his administration.  He died shortly thereafter, so no charges were ever filed.  Nevertheless, his name remains on the terminal.

ATL - Hartsfield-Jackson.   The airport was named "Hartsfield" in 1980 for former Atlanta mayor William B. Hartsfield, who did much to promote air travel.  The airport was re-named Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport in 2003, to honor former mayor Maynard Jackson, who died June 23, 2003. (Not Jessie Jackson or Michael Jackson!) The council planned to rename the airport solely for Mayor Jackson, but public outcry prevented this.

LHR - London Heathrow - Named after the small town where it was built.

LGW - London Gatwick - is named after a manor house that once stood in the place of the current airport. The name is also derived from the family name of the former owners of the said manor house.

PHX- Phoenix Sky Harbor - Just a cool name.   The name dates back to 1928.

CDG - Paris Charles DeGaulle - A war hero and president of France.   By the way, if you've ever been there, you know it's pronounced "Sha-da-gah" as opposed to Char-ells-dee-gall.

LAX - Los Angeles International - The airport is almost exclusively known by its three-letter IATA designation "LAX".   It needs no other name.    It is also known by its iconic "theme building" shown here: 

PDX - Portland (OR) International - This airport is does not have a catchy name but is most well known by its carpet.   In fact there is a wikipedia article on the carpet.    This photo shows the "original" PDX carpet which was replaced by a new design in 2015.







FCO- Rome Leonardo da Vinci–Fiumicino Airport.    Since the IATA designation is FCO, everyone just calls it "Fiumicino".   Until looking it up, I did not even know it was named for Leoardo da Vinci.

MCO - Orlando International.   Like a little brother to FCO, MCO is another airport you would never guess by its IATA designation.   "MCO" comes from the airport's former name, McCoy Air Force Base.

YYZ - Toronto Pearson International Airport.   The airport was officially renamed Lester B. Pearson International Airport in 1984, in honor of Lester B. Pearson, the fourteenth Prime Minister of Canada and recipient of the 1957 Nobel Peace Prize.

IAD - Washington Dulles - is named after John Foster Dulles, the 52nd Secretary of State who served under President Dwight D. Eisenhower.   Why this particular person?   I have no idea.  The airport is known for having one of the most recognizable terminal buildings.





AMS - Amsterdam Airport Schiphol.   (By the way, pronounced "ski-pole", or at least that's what it sounds like to me).  Long story on the name - (from Wikipedia) - "Schiphol's name is derived from a former fortification named Fort Schiphol, which was part of the Stelling van Amsterdam defence works. Before 1852, the Haarlemmermeer polder in which the airport lies was a large lake with some shallow areas. There are multiple stories of how the place got its name. The most popular story is that in the shallow waters sudden violent storms could claim many ships. Winds were particularly strong in the Schiphol area since the prevailing wind direction is from the south-west, and Schiphol lies in the north-eastern corner of the lake. In English, Schiphol translates to "Ships Hell", a reference to many ships supposedly lost in the lake.

Interesting fact - Schiphol is one of the few airports in the world where aircraft take off and land below sea level.

Sea-Tac (SEA)  -  Seattle–Tacoma International Airport, known as Sea-Tac.    Like Phoenix, it's a cool name, and needs no further name.

FRA - Frankfort, Germany.  The airport is known as Flughafen (airport) Frankfurt am Main, also known as Rhein-Main-Flughafen.   The word Main does not mean it's the "main" airport in the area (or the main terminal for that matter), it refers to the Main River.   Rhein-Main refers to the fact that it's near the point where the Main River empties into the Rhine.




NRT - Tokyo Narita International Airport.    Named after the city it's nearby.

IAH - George Bush Intercontinental Airport, Houston TX.  Was named for George Bush in 1997.   One of several airports named for a person while still alive.  Others include Gerald R. Ford Airport in Grand Rapids, Reagan National Airport (Washington DC), and John Glenn International (Columbus, OH).

I wonder if "naming rights" might be sold for airports in the future (like stadiums and arenas.)    I can hear it now.   "Welcome to Detroit DTE Energy Airport" or "Welcome to Chicago Chase Bank International Airport". 

Best Chicken Kabobs Ever

Today we had chicken kabobs for dinner.  Usually I think of chicken kabobs as a distant second place to beef kabobs, but these were very good.   In fact, it occurred to me they were the best we had ever made.   So I thought it's time for a way-overdue blog post to record the event.  Luckily I took a photo of the last remaining kabob before they were all gone.

Ingredients:

(Makes about seven kabobs)

Three boneless skinless chicken thighs
One green bell pepper
One red bell pepper
One medium sized onion
Approx 10 medium sized mushrooms
One small zucchini
Approx 1 cup Italian salad dressing
Small amount of white wine
Salt and pepper*

• Combine salad dressing and white wine to make marinade
• Marinate chicken for several hours in the mixture
• Cut ingredients (except mushrooms) into appropriate sized chunks (approx 1.5 inches).
• Place ingredients randomly on skewers
• Cook on low to medium indirect (or semi-indirect) grill for approx 30 minutes.
• Baste the kabobs with the marinade mixture during cooking, but only in the early stages.   Since the marinade might contain raw chicken juices, you want to make sure it's all cooked in the end.  So don't baste for the last 10 minutes or so.
• Turn kabobs a few times while cooking
• Season a few times while cooking
• Check chicken with thermometer (I use approx. 145 degrees F)

What made them good:

1. Use chicken thighs, not breasts.   They are much juicier.
2. Do not try to cook them over a very hot grill.   You will get too much charring before the chicken is cooked.   I have a 3-burner grill.   I set the two side  burners on high, and the center burner on low.  Then placed the kabobs only over the center burner.   And closed the lid.  It's more like baking them.   Give them plenty of time to cook.
3. The mushrooms add flavorful juice.
4. Don't waste your time adding cherry tomatoes.   They cook much faster than everything else, turn to a saggy mess and fall off.
5. Don't bother with pineapple either.  Unless you really like the combination of fruit and meat.
6. Be generous with the onions.   They add a lot of flavor.

* oops, how could I make such a grievous error.   I meant to say SEA SALT and FRESH GROUND PEPPER

Shrimp Tomato Bisque Recipe

I don't have many recipes that I made completely on my own, but this is one.  It always turns out well:

Shrimp Tomato Bisque

1/3 cup refined coconut oil (other oils may be substituted)
2 tablespoons extra virgin olive oil (for flavor)
1/2 medium sized onion, chopped
1 large stalk organic celery, chopped
1/4 cup green pepper, chopped
2 cloves garlic, chopped
1 lb uncooked wild caught shrimp (preferably buy them not peeled)
1 can (14.25 oz) Health Valley (or other) chicken broth
1 cup crushed tomatoes
1 cup tomato sauce
splash of white wine
4-6 tablespoons potato starch (corn starch or white flour can be substituted)
8 oz crème fraîche
salt and pepper

• Saute the onion, celery, and green pepper in the coconut oil until tender.   Add the garlic and olive oil, and cook a few minutes longer.  Then place them all in a ~5 qt saucepan.
• If the shrimp are unpeeled, peel and devein the shrimp and save the peels.    Boil the peels in a small amount of water in a small saucepan (to capture the flavor).  Add the water to the large saucepan and discard the peels.  
• If the shrimp are large, cut them into small pieces (approx 75 pieces total per pound of shrimp).
• Add the chicken broth, crushed tomatoes, and tomato sauce to the saucepan.  Bring to a boil and add the white wine.
• Add the shrimp, and simmer about 1/2 hour or more.
• Thicken the soup with potato starch  (mix the potato starch with cold water, shake until completely suspended and add slowly to the soup while stirring.)
• While the soup is simmering, fold in the crème fraîche.
• Salt and pepper to taste.
• If desired, cooked rice can be added upon serving.

Top Ten Things I Used to Eat, Thinking They Were Healthful

In no particular order....

1.  Diet Pop.

Well, on this one, maybe I was partially correct.   At one time many years ago I decided that aspartame-containing diet pop was a healthier choice than regular pop, which was loaded with sugar.   (At that time, I hadn't even heard of sucrose's evil cousin, high-fructose corn syrup).   It is true that ordinary sugar-containing soda is awful.   It has absolutely no redeeming value.   BTW, I never drank soda pop "thinking it was healthy" so it does not make this top ten list.   If you drink soda pop it should be the first thing you eliminate from your diet.  The only argument you will get on that would be from the people who make or sell it.

Back to diet pop...  Just do a google search on "dangers of aspartame" and you will find numerous articles, many of which have documented references to back up their claims.  Some of the side effects linked to aspartame  include headaches/migraines, dizziness, seizures, nausea, numbness, muscle spasms, weight gain, rashes, depression, fatigue, irritability, tachycardia, insomnia, vision problems, hearing loss, heart palpitations, breathing difficulties, anxiety attacks, slurred speech, loss of taste, tinnitus, vertigo, memory loss and joint pain.

You will also find many articles vehemently insisting that aspartame is safe.   They seem to get quite worked up about it.  For example this one.  Dig a little deeper and you will find that website is published by "The Calorie Control Council".  And who are they?  Well, according to their website, they represent "manufacturers and suppliers of low- and reduced-calorie foods and beverages, including manufacturers and suppliers of more than two dozen different alternative sweeteners, fibers and other low-calorie, dietary ingredients."   Most other websites insisting aspartame is safe have similar roots.    Hmm, would that mean they are anything but 100% objective?  Do you trust your health and well-being to them?  The way I look at it, we are about 30 years into a lifetime experiment.  So skip the aspartame.  What's to lose?   Living with neither diet or regular pop is actually quite easy.  I decided not to be a guinea pig.

So if you wonder which is better, diet or regular soda pop, I think the best answer is clearly "C - neither".

2.  Margarine

It boggles the mind that we were once told (and many people still believe) that margarine is more healthful than butter.  In fact, many websites still say that.   They say that butter is bad because it contains some cholesterol and some saturated fats.  Well, time to wake up, Rip Van Winkle, there's new info!  It has been known for decades that dietary cholesterol is not a significant source of serum cholesterol, and saturated fats are mostly vindicated also.   It is just that the old information takes a long time to die out, and apparently many of the old guard are too lazy to keep up with new information or are so conditioned by faulty research of the past they they can't accept the new information.  If this information is news to you, here is a good place to inform yourself.

The best butter with the most healthful lipid profile is from grass-fed cows, and the easiest way to make sure you are getting the best butter is to go with Kerrygold butter from Ireland.

3.  Ramen Noodles

There was a time when I thought that the best diet was lots and lots of carbohydrates.   If that's the case, what's not to like about cheap and easy Ramen noodles?   Well, I will tell you what.   Checking the list of ingredients reveals: Enriched Flour, Vegetable Oil (whatever oil they happened to have that day), Salt, Textured Soy Protein (nasty stuff!), Hydrolyzed Soy (nasty stuff!), Corn and Wheat Protein, Onion Powder, Monosodium Glutamate (super nasty stuff!), Caramel Color, Garlic Powder, Autolyzed Yeast Extract, Sugar,  Potassium Carbonate, Sodium Carbonate, & Sodium Tripolyphosphate, maltodextrin, "natural flavor" (could be anything!), disodium insonate , disodium guanylate, and lactose.    Hardly what one would call "food".    A good axiom you might have heard... if your grandmother would not recognize an ingredient as food, it's probably not food.

4.  Egg Beaters

Doesn't everybody know by now that "eating cholesterol does not raise your cholesterol level".    If someone tried to tell you that eating liver would grow your liver, or eating beef tongue would cause your tongue to grow, you might get a weak chuckle, yet some people still believe that egg yolks are unhealthy, for the sole reason that they contain some cholesterol.    As mentioned above, dietary cholesterol is not an unhealthy food, and even the mainstream dieticians are coming around to learn this.  Only the most ignorant or uninformed "experts" continue to advise not to eat egg yolks. If you still don't believe it, you need to check out Liz Wolfe at Eat the Yolks.

5.   Fake Meat

OK, if you choose not to eat meat, I accept that.   Most animals are raised in terrible, unnatureal conditions, and I understand not wanting to support that.   That's why we eat, to the extent possible, humanely raised meat and poultry.   Including grass fed pasture raised animals, not from a CAFO (confined animal feeding operation), factory pig farm, or mass produced chicken factory.


But if you do choose not to eat meat, be careful about the meat substitutes.   Many contain unfermented soy.  (As does soy milk!)  Soy is often thought to be a health food.    Probably the #1 danger of eating unfermented soy is phytoestrogens.  Phytoestrogens are plant-based estrogens that mimic estrogen in our bodies.  A leading cause of breast cancer, endometriosis, uterine fibroids, infertility, and low libido is unopposed estrogen, or estrogen dominance. Why, then, would anyone argue that we should consume more of a food high in estrogen?  Unfermented soy is also a goitrogen that will destroy your thyroid.

One of the best sources of information on soy is The Naughty Nutritionist, Dr. Kaayla Daniel, and her book The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America's Favorite Health Food.

6.  "Fat Free" Stuff. 

Many people continue to eat "fat free" food due to the mistaken notion  that "fat is the enemy".   (I once saw the notation "Fat Free!" on a bottle of soda pop!)   However, "fat free" foods are often loaded with more sugar (in many forms) than their non fat free counterparts, and also a laundry list of synthetic chemicals to improve their flavor and "mouth feel".    Best to just eat the regular version, sticking to the "healthy fats".  (Which is the subject of another whole post).

By the way, you have probably heard hundreds of times, that "eating fat makes you fat" because "fat contains 9 calories per gram but carbs only contain 4 calories per gram."   That would only make sense if you at the same number of grams of each food.   People eat giant bagels and muffins containing "healthy whole grains", big bowls of  "Fruit Loops",  and all-you-can-eat pasta bowls.   Do you think they are counting the grams of carbohydrates?   People do not eat bowls of butter.  A slice of bacon might appear to contain a lot of fat, but we do not fill a cereal bowl full of bacon and eat it.  So comparing fat vs carbs on a gram-for-gram basis makes no sense at all.

7.  Edamame

Soy Beans.     Unfermented.   See #5 above.

8.  Granola

Granola conjures up feelings of "back to nature" and "healthy whole grains"... but in reality are anything but healthy.    They are usually loaded with sugar, with 15-17 grams common per serving.  A bowl of granola is a lot of food, as it is dense and not full of air like most breakfast cereals.  So you might be eating way more than you think.  Many granolas have an ingredient list that looks more like a chemistry lab inventory.  We decided long ago that there is no place for granola in our food lineup.

9.  "Quorn"

Have you heard of "Quorn".  We used to eat this food.  We would get breaded fake-chicken patties.  What is Quorn?  Even their own website has a hard time explaining.   "The main ingredient in Quorn™ is mycoprotein, a high quality meat-free protein, which is naturally low in fat and saturated fat."  And what, you might ask, is "mycoprotein"?   Well, they don't really tell you, but according to Wikipedia, it is a protein derived from a fungus.   Talk about a "Franken-Food".  It is reported that some people react with nausea to this food.   I have to say that several times after eating it, I did feel a bit queasy.  Now it all makes sense.   I was putting something very unnatural in my stomach.  My stomach was saying "What in the Sam Hill is this?   I am not sure if I want to continue to process this or send it back where it came from."  I'm getting a little queasy just writing this and looking at the photo, so let's move on!

10.  Canola Oil (and other vegetable oils)

Ok, most of the anti-fat people came around some years ago and admitted that olive oil was a "good fat".  The reason being that it contains a large amount of mono-unsaturated fatty acids, which were deemed to be the best for heart health.   An then along comes "Canola" oil, which, lo and behold, also is largely mono-unsaturated.  Bingo!   No need to look further, another "healthy oil" is born.   Well, not so fast!   There is more to the story than that.   The processing of extra virgin olive oil has essentially one step.   Press the olive.   It's then strained and centrifuged to remove pieces of olive, and packaged.   That's it.  Canola oil processing could not be more different.   It's gross!   Look at this flowchart of canola oil (and other industrial vegetable oil) processing.  It is literally an oil refinery.  It turns out that man-made refined oils like corn oil, sunflower oil, and canola oil are not heart-healthy.  They promote inflammation, which is a major cause of atherosclerosis.  Instead of canola other vegetable oils, we use coconut or macadamia nut oils.

Dr Neal Barnard... Hanging on to "High-Carb / Low-Fat"

Today I was in the library and I thought I would skim through a copy of "Vegetarian Times"... just to see what those folks are thinking these days.   (It's good to read differing viewpoints from time to time, to avoid confirmation bias.) There was as "Q&A" section written by Dr. Neal Barnard.  Dr. Barnard is a staunch advocate of the  "low-fat / high-carb" diet.  As such, one would think him to be a firm supporter of the now-superseded USDA "food pyramid".    (As an aside, I wonder if he has heard of this book:)

He is also an advocate of the plant-based diet, presumably a vegan himself.

Anyway, the question from a reader goes something like this... "I am worried about eating all those carbohydrates you recommend.  Isn't that going to make me fat?" 

His answer (paraphrased) was basically, no, you don't need to worry about that.  After all, one gram of fat contains 9 calories and one gram of carbohydrates only 4 calories.   In fact, the only reason carbohydrates have a bad reputation is the fact that people often eat them with fat.  (Really?)  So, for example, it's not the baked potato that makes people fat, it's the butter that people put on it.

My first reaction was... "the 1980's called, they want their nutritional advice back".  

So let's think about this a minute.  The argument might make some sense if people ate foods by the gram.   But they don't.   A large restaurant-sized baked potato might weigh 400 grams.   This would contain about 70 grams of carbs, and about 300 calories.  Now, say we add a pat of butter.   That's 5 grams.  Heck, let's go wild and make it two pats.  That's 10 grams.  The 10 grams of butter contain about 8 grams of fat, and 72 calories.  In the Doc's opinion, the 300 calorie potato is the bad actor because it entices one to add 72 calories of butter?   I don't think so.   Just don't eat 400 grams of butter (about 3-1/2 sticks) with your 400-gram potato.


And, in case you missed it, this post explains why the potato calories are actually worse than the butter calories if you are tying to control weight.  Those 300 carb calories cause your body to release a big slug of insulin, which is like a little switch that tells your body "don't burn those calories, save them for later (i.e. store them as fat.)"  The butter, being "zero carb", triggers no such response.

One final note... the magazine contained an ad for fake cheese...this stuff.   Ewww!  I wonder if it melts?  Ingredients: Filtered Water, Organic Palm Fruit Oil, Modified Food Starch, Natural Flavors, Less than 2% of: Pea Fiber, Pea Starch, Bamboo Fiber, Rice Flour, Vegetable Glycerin, Sunflower Lecithin, Sea Salt, Sunflower Oil, Carrageenan (Vegetable Source), Calcium Sulfate, Citric Acid, Enzymes, Xanthan Gum, Disodium Phosphate, Sodium Citrate, Titanium Dioxide (a naturally occurring mineral).
BTW, "natural flavors" means pretty much anything.  So, this is modern science in a laboratory trying to re-invent the cow.  No thanks, I will gladly eat real cheese!  Dairy fat and all!

Ingredients: (vegan, gluten-free, dairy-free, non-gmo, soy-free)
Filtered Water, Organic Palm Fruit Oil, Modified Food Starch, Natural Flavors (Plant Sources), Less than 2% of: Pea Fiber, Pea Starch, Bamboo Fiber, Rice Flour, Vegetable Glycerin, Sunflower Lecithin, Sea Salt, Sunflower Oil, Carrageenan (Vegetable Source), Calcium Sulfate, Citric Acid, Enzymes, Xanthan Gum, Disodium Phosphate, Sodium Citrate, Titanium Dioxide (a naturally occurring mineral). - See more at: http://followyourheart.com/products/mozzarella-shreds-27/#sthash.kEPXjh4e.dpuf

Ingredients: (vegan, gluten-free, dairy-free, non-gmo, soy-free)
Filtered Water, Organic Palm Fruit Oil, Modified Food Starch, Natural Flavors (Plant Sources), Less than 2% of: Pea Fiber, Pea Starch, Bamboo Fiber, Rice Flour, Vegetable Glycerin, Sunflower Lecithin, Sea Salt, Sunflower Oil, Carrageenan (Vegetable Source), Calcium Sulfate, Citric Acid, Enzymes, Xanthan Gum, Disodium Phosphate, Sodium Citrate, Titanium Dioxide (a naturally occurring mineral). - See more at: http://followyourheart.com/products/mozzarella-shreds-27/#sthash.kEPXjh4e.dpuf

Ingredients: (vegan, gluten-free, dairy-free, non-gmo, soy-free)
Filtered Water, Organic Palm Fruit Oil, Modified Food Starch, Natural Flavors (Plant Sources), Less than 2% of: Pea Fiber, Pea Starch, Bamboo Fiber, Rice Flour, Vegetable Glycerin, Sunflower Lecithin, Sea Salt, Sunflower Oil, Carrageenan (Vegetable Source), Calcium Sulfate, Citric Acid, Enzymes, Xanthan Gum, Disodium Phosphate, Sodium Citrate, Titanium Dioxide (a naturally occurring mineral). - See more at: http://followyourheart.com/products/mozzarella-shreds-27/#sthash.kEPXjh4e.dpuf

Should You Be Concerned About Your Cholesterol Numbers?

"Cholesterol" is one of the big things people think about when evaluating their health.  It's been drummed into our consciousness.   (Largely by the drug companies who want to sell us drugs to lower our cholesterol).    This despite the fact that most people can't really tell you what exactly "cholesterol" is.   We are told things like "heart disease is the number one killer"...  We all have "ticking time bombs" inside, "heart attacks waiting to happen".

Standing around the water cooler, the subject might come up.   What's your cholesterol?   Umm... kind of high....  220.    Uh-oh.   Better do something about that!    What's yours? .... 165.    Hey!   That's great!  How do you stay so healthy?  How about you?  Umm..  265.   OMG!  We better call 9-1-1 right now!

What if I told you there is no correlation between total cholesterol and heart disease?  Hogwash, you would say.    You must be reading some "alternative" (i.e. "quack") website.   After all, anyone can put anything on the internets.  Just because you saw it does not mean it's true.

First, let me show you a couple charts.  The first shows a "risk vs. total cholesterol" for a 60 year old non-smoking male:

What???  A chart showing that total cholesterol does not matter?  What a bunch of crap!.   Which quack website did that come from?  Well, what if I told you this data came from the National Institute of Health?   Yes, the "N.I.H."...  The US Government!   Certainly that's about as far away from "quackery" as you can get, right.   (Well, that's "a whole 'nother subject", better leave that alone for now.)    The chart above came from entering numbers into this calculator.  Ok, what is the catch?   Well when I entered the numbers, I assumed a constant Total Cholesterol / HDL Cholesterol ratio of 2.5 to 1.   So, the low end point of 150 total cholesterol has an HDL of 60, while the high end point of 250 total cholesterol has an HDL of 100.  (Not out of the question... my own HDL has been as high as 99, and my ratio has been as low as 2.7.  So in other words, it's entierely possible for two people, one with a total cholesterol of 150 and the other with a total cholesterol of 250, to have the same heart disease risk, if as they have the same Total/HDL ratio.

Now let's look at another chart.  This one also shows CHD risk for the same 60 year old non-smoking male, but this one shows all points having at total cholesterol of 250:

The difference?  All of the points on this chart are for a person with a total cholesterol of 250.  However, they have differing HDL values, hence different Total/HDL ratios.   The point on the far left would be an HDL of 100 (actually same data as the far right point in graph #1) while the far right point has an HDL of only 44.   A range of 44 to 100 for HDL is not unreasonable for the general population.

So what's the message?  Should you be concerned about your "total cholesterol" number?  Probably not!   Should you be concerned about your Total/HDL ratio?  Yes!    Should you try to decrease your total cholesterol number?  Not if your HDL goes down too!

So here's what's crazy...  Look at these recommendations from the Mayo Clinic.    "Total Cholesterol" is the first thing on the list.   The recommendation is to be below 200, with 200-239 being "borderline" and 240 and over being "high".    But do you see any reference to Total/HDL ratio?   I don't either.   My own former doctor suffered from this same blind spot.  He would look at my lab results (total cholesterol is usually about 230) and immediately try to "put me on" as statin drug.   Once he even did this when my HDL result was 99!     A visit to this doctor sometimes seemed detrimental to my health, as my blood pressure would increase in anticipation of the debate we were about to have!

In my case, I find it much easier to increase my HDL thru "diet and execise" than decrease my total colesterol.   So what steps can accomplish this?   That's for another post.

"A Calorie is a Calorie"... Yes or No?

Everybody understands the concept of "calories in - calories out"...  We eat a certain amount of food, and whatever does not get "burned" gets "stored"...  as fat.   It makes intuitive sense.  We can easily understand analogies from our experience.   If I earn $1000 per week and only spend $900, my bank account will grow.  If I bring home 10 bags of groceries every week and only eat 9 bags, my home will fill up with groceries. 

Regular people like you and me, as well as "experts", professionals, and other pundits, invoke this analogy all the time.  I have been known to say it myself.  "Calories in / calories out"...  To lose calories, you must either "eat less or burn more".   End of story!  Being an engineer, I'm familiar with the laws of thermodynamics.  The first law of thermodyanmics is the law of "conservation of energy".   This means that any excess food you eat cannot vanish into thin air, therefore, it must be stored as fat.  And if you don't eat enough calories, your body cannot create them out of thin air, and you will lose fat.  But... is that really the "end of the story"?

Let's say we subscribe to the "calories in / calories out / end of story" theory.  Let's consider another analogy.  Down the road from me is Michigan Stadium, home of the Michigan Wolverines, where on Saturdays in the fall there are typically about 115,000 people shoehorned into the bleachers to watch a football game.    Down the road a few miles to the east, is Rynearson Stadium, home of the Eastern Michigan University Eagles.  This stadium is also hosting a game, but the spectators are few and there are plenty of extra seats.  You might ask, why are there so many people in Michigan Stadium?  Simple...  it's just a matter of people in / people out!   More people entered the stadium than exited.   True enough, but why did they enter and not leave?   And why didn't the same thing happen at Eastern Michigan University?  Clearly, "people in / people out" does not answer all the questions.  Just like calories in / calories out does not fully explain weight control.

One milestone in this discussion was the publication of "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes in 2007.  Here is Taubes' explanation in a nutshell:  Our food-burning, energy-producing, fat-storing metabolism is complex.  Foods affect our bodies in different ways and are processed through different metabolic pathways. Not only that, but the foods we eat can directly affect the hormones that regulate when and how much we eat, as well as what our body does with those foods.  The most important of these hormones being insulin.  How the body processes its food intake is strongly dependent on insulin.

Consider another analogy - the automobile and its fuel tank.  Imagine that there is a tiny valve somewhere in the car that directs a cupful of gas of each tank to a "reserve tank"?   This reserve tank is available to be used by the car, but not easily.  The tiny valve sometimes opens to let gas into the reserve tank, but does not often open to let gas out of the reserve tank.  And this reserve tank is separate the main tank.  So when the main tank is empty, the fuel gauge says "fill me", even though there is plenty of gas on board in the reserve tank.   And so the reserve tank gets larger and larger, filling up the trunk, the roof top carrier, the u-Haul trailer, etc.  

There is such a reserve tank on the human body - the fat cells.  And, it turns out there is exactly such a "valve" on the human body... over the course of time, an abundance of insulin directs the body to store an inordinate amount of reserve energy in fat cells.  And the insulin makes it difficult for the body to access this fat, so we feel hungry.  Instead of using the fat, we do what comes naturally when hungry, we eat! 

What causes excess insulin?   Long-term consumption of carbohydrates!  So we have a vicious cycle.   Eating carbohydrates increases blood sugar, causing the body to produce insulin, which directs the body to store excess energy as fat, and makes it hard to burn the stored fat.  This makes us hungry.  What do we do?  Eat more carbohydrates.  And the cycle is repeated.  That is explained briefly in this video segment from the film "Fat Head" Tom Naughton:

By the way, Fat Head is an excellent documentary and tells the whole story.  If you have the time, I recommend you watch the whole thing!  It's free on Hulu.

So, in conclusion...  A Calorie is a Calorie... Yes?  or  No?    Actually, both yes and no.  On one hand, yes, if you eat more calories than you expend, the excess calories will be stored as fat.  There is no getting around it.   If you want to lose body fat, you must eat less than you expend.

On the other hand, they type of food you eat does affect what your body does with its calories.  If you eat a high carbohydrate diet over a long period of time, your body (thanks to lots of insulin) will develop the tendency to store lots of fat, whether it needs to or not, and lock that fat up, making it difficult to burn.

So what does this mean?   Can you eat all the bacon and steak you want and still lose body fat?  No.  On the other hand, can you eat a high carbohydrate diet, large servings of pasta and "healthy whole grains", as instructed by the USDA "Food Pyramid"...  (now superseded by "My Plate") and expect to lose body fat?  No!  And the evidence suggests that you will feel hungrier and eat more when eating a high-carbohydrate diet.

Does it work?  In my case, I would have to say yes.  In the past it seems like my weight would drift up over the years, as if there were a "set-point" it was aiming for.   If I was not watching carefully, "counting calories" my weight would constantly creep up.  I was able to reduce my weight by about 25 pounds over the course of a several years by "counting calories".  This was from 1995 to about 2003.  Then I quit paying attention, and all 25 pounds came back over the next three years.  Back up to the "set point".  So I worked at it again and lost the weight again.  For the last three years I have been able to maintain the reduced weight, about 25 pounds below the maximum, without "counting calories" or consciously eating less.   I just cut out the sugar, sweets, and the a great deal of the carbohydrates, while increasing fats and proteins.   (It is important to eat the "right" fats.  More on that in a future post.)

So if you are following the USDA's advice, and eating lots of whole wheat pasta and other "healthy whole grains" and lots of "low fat" foods, and yet the pounds keep creeping up, perhaps you need to cut back on the carbohydrates and increase your fat and protein intake. But wait! Isn't the high-carb, low-fat diet also known as the "heart-healthy" diet?   Won't we "plug up our arteries" eating "artery-clogging saturated fat"?   Shouldn't we be eating lots of "healthy whole grains"?  Surprisingly, the answer is "no"!  More on that in a future post!