JILLIAN MICHAELS: How do we really decipher the thousands of studies that are out there on all of these diets? And the problem is what people will do to try to sell you a false bill of goods is take one study and blow that study out as though it's the entire picture, when of course it isn't. Imagine you have a massive painting but I only showed you this tiny piece of the painting but you had no idea what the hell else was going on over here there, there's no way you could get an accurate read on if this is a sad picture, a happy picture, like there's no way you could know, correct?
So when we look at keto here's why we're saying, or not me, but here's where some of the advocates are espousing benefits. Well, what are we doing with keto? We're removing carbohydrates, anything that elevates you got about 20 grams of carbohydrates a day that you're ingesting, which is essentially nothing, it's about 80 calories worth of carbohydrates out of what could be anywhere from a 1600 to 2500 calories a day diet so that's nothing. And it throws your body into a state of emergency that's what ketosis is. And because we don't have any glucose or glycogen, any blood sugar or stored blood sugar, we turn to fat quickly. We produce ketones and the idea is we burn through fat and we lose fat fast. And that is true and you would think that would be a good thing. And in addition, people will say well I reversed my type two diabetes. Of course your insulin level was through the floor, you're consuming zero carbohydrates so you have no blood sugar so your pancreas is not releasing insulin. And this can also affect conditions like polycystic ovarian syndrome and by virtue of that connection it can also affect fertility. Fair. Let's give it that.
But here's what we're not talking about, there's zero calorie restriction on a ketogenic diet so you have a massive amount of oxidative stress, there's no consideration of timing with regard to food so your autophagy process is totally out of whack
In addition to that it's very high in animal fats and animal proteins. So we're seeing that diets rich in saturated fats are poor for our telomeres oxidative stress, increased inflammation, your nutrient sensing pathways that are related to the health of your metabolism are overrun with constant food, heavy fats, lots of animal protein and we know it hurts your telomeres and on and on and on.
Now, what about the benefits? Is it worth it? Let me tell you, the number one way to sensitize somebody's body, again to insulin, is exercise. I've been doing this a heck of a long time, I reversed type two diabetes, I've helped people get off all medications for type two diabetes and POCOS and get pregnant after years of trying and failing through a commonsense diet where we don't eat too much, we eat real food and we have balanced macronutrients. So I can give you all those benefits with none of the negative side effects of keto. And last thought on keto, we're stripping our body of certain fruits, which have a ton of antioxidants and polyphenols in them. So again, when we look at oxidative stress and free radicals and how they're aging us we need to look at antioxidant foods that help to combat that. When you start cutting out digestive enzymes and papaya and pineapple and mango and all the beta-carotene, which is one of the top things to help keep your telomeres long, something like keto is detrimental on so many different levels. And the amount of benefit is so small when we can take a completely different path get all the benefit over here, none of the negatives over here and all the benefits over there.
- Big Think's most controversial video of 2019 stirs the pot of the keto diet debate with fitness and nutrition expert Jillian Michaels, who asks: Are keto diet advocates selling people a false—or at least a selective—message?
- The keto diet increases fat and protein intake while dramatically reducing carbohydrate intake to about 20 grams a day or about 80 calories worth of carbs out of what could be anywhere from a 1600 to 2500 calorie diet per day. That throws your body into a state of emergency called ketosis, which burns fat fast.
- Michaels' main critique of the keto diet is that there is zero calorie restriction, it cuts out nutrients and digestive enzymes from fruits, and that it's high in animal fats and animal proteins, which negatively impacts telomeres, oxidative stress, and may increase inflammation. Michaels stands by the effects of regular exercise and what she calls a "commonsense diet": don't eat too much, eat real food and get a range of macronutrients.
- 5 of the worst keto diet side effects - Big Think ›
- Keto diet: 'No one should do it,' says top cardiologist ›
Humanity knows surprisingly little about the ocean depths. An often-repeated bit of evidence for this is the fact that humanity has done a better job mapping the surface of Mars than the bottom of the sea. The creatures we find lurking in the watery abyss often surprise even the most dedicated researchers with their unique features and bizarre behavior.
A recent expedition off the coast of Java discovered a new isopod species remarkable for its size and resemblance to Darth Vader.
The ocean depths are home to many creatures that some consider to be unnatural.
Bathynomus raksasa specimen (left) next to a closely related supergiant isopod, B. giganteus (right)
Sidabalok CM, Wong HP-S, Ng PKL (ZooKeys 2020)
According to LiveScience, the Bathynomus genus is sometimes referred to as "Darth Vader of the Seas" because the crustaceans are shaped like the character's menacing helmet. Deemed Bathynomus raksasa ("raksasa" meaning "giant" in Indonesian), this cockroach-like creature can grow to over 30 cm (12 inches). It is one of several known species of giant ocean-going isopod. Like the other members of its order, it has compound eyes, seven body segments, two pairs of antennae, and four sets of jaws.
The incredible size of this species is likely a result of deep-sea gigantism. This is the tendency for creatures that inhabit deeper parts of the ocean to be much larger than closely related species that live in shallower waters. B. raksasa appears to make its home between 950 and 1,260 meters (3,117 and 4,134 ft) below sea level.
Perhaps fittingly for a creature so creepy looking, that is the lower sections of what is commonly called The Twilight Zone, named for the lack of light available at such depths.
It isn't the only giant isopod, far from it. Other species of ocean-going isopod can get up to 50 cm long (20 inches) and also look like they came out of a nightmare. These are the unusual ones, though. Most of the time, isopods stay at much more reasonable sizes.
The discovery of this new species was published in ZooKeys. The remainder of the specimens from the trip are still being analyzed. The full report will be published shortly.
What benefit does this find have for science? And is it as evil as it looks?
The discovery of a new species is always a cause for celebration in zoology. That this is the discovery of an animal that inhabits the deeps of the sea, one of the least explored areas humans can get to, is the icing on the cake.
Helen Wong of the National University of Singapore, who co-authored the species' description, explained the importance of the discovery:
"The identification of this new species is an indication of just how little we know about the oceans. There is certainly more for us to explore in terms of biodiversity in the deep sea of our region."
The animal's visual similarity to Darth Vader is a result of its compound eyes and the curious shape of its head. However, given the location of its discovery, the bottom of the remote seas, it may be associated with all manner of horrifically evil Elder Things and Great Old Ones.
On May 12, 2021, the Republican governor of Ohio, Mike DeWine, announced five US$1 million lottery prizes for those who are vaccinated. Meanwhile, in West Virginia, younger citizens are being enticed to get the shot with $100 savings bonds, and a state university in North Carolina is offering students who get vaccinated a chance to win the cost of housing. Many companies are paying vaccinated employees more money through bonuses or extra paid time off.
The push to get as many people vaccinated as possible is laudable and may well work. But leading behavioral scientists are worried that paying people to vaccinate could backfire if it makes people more skeptical of the shots. And ethicists have argued that it would be wrong, citing concerns over fairness and equity.
As a behavioral scientist and ethicist, I draw on an extensive body of research to help answer these questions. It suggests that incentives might work to save lives and, if properly structured, need not trample individual rights or be a huge expense for the government.
In the United States, incentives and disincentives are already used in health care. The U.S. system of privatized health insurance exposes patients to substantial deductibles and copays, not only to cover costs but to cut down on what could be deemed as wasteful health care – the thinking being that putting a cost to an emergency room visit, for example, might deter those who aren't really in need of that level of care.
In practice, this means patients are encouraged to decline both emergency and more routine care, since both are exposed to costs.
Paying for health behaviors
In the case of COVID-19, the vaccines are already free to consumers, which has undoubtedly encouraged people to be immunized. Studies have shown that reducing out-of-pocket costs can improve adherence to life-sustaining drugs, whether to prevent heart attacks or to manage diabetes.
A payment to take a drug goes one step further than simply reducing costs. And if properly designed, such incentives can change health behaviors.
Payments and cash prizes have been shown effective in encouraging blood donations, adherence to blood thinner drugs, blood glucose monitoring, physical activity and smoking cessation.
And for vaccination in particular, payments have been successful for human papillomavirus (HPV) in England; hepatitis B in the United States and the United Kingdom; and tetanus toxoid in Nigeria. The effects can be substantial: For example, for one group in the HPV study, the vaccination rate more than doubled with an incentive.
For COVID-19, there are no field studies to date, but several survey experiments, including one my group conducted with 1,000 Americans, find that incentives are likely to work. In our case, the incentive of a tax break was enough to encourage those hesitant about vaccinations to say they would take the shot.
Coercion concerns
Even if incentives will save lives by increasing vaccinations, there are still other ethical considerations. A key concern is protecting the autonomous choices of people to decide what they put into their own bodies. This may be especially important for the COVID-19 vaccines, which – although authorized as likely safe and effective – are not yet fully approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
But already people are often paid to participate in clinical trials for drugs that have not yet been approved by the FDA. Ethicists have worried that such payments may be “coercive" if the money is so attractive as to override a person's free choices or make them worse off overall.
One can quibble about whether the term “coercion" applies to offers of payment. But even if offers were coercive, payments may still be reasonable to save lives in a pandemic if they succeed in greater levels of immunization.
During the smallpox epidemic nearly 100 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the power of states to mandate vaccines. Compared with mandating vaccination, the incentives to encourage vaccines seem innocuous.
Exploitation and paternalism
Yet some still worry. Bioethicists Emily Largent and Franklin Miller wrote in a recent paper that a payment might “unfairly" exploit “those U.S. residents who have lost jobs … or slipped into poverty during the pandemic," which could leave them feeling as if they have “no choice but to be vaccinated for cash." Others have noted that vaccine hesitancy is higher in nonwhite communities, where incomes tend to be lower, as is trust in the medical establishment.
Ethicists and policymakers should indeed focus on the poorest members of our community and seek to minimize racial disparities in both health outcomes and wealth. But there is no evidence that offering money is actually detrimental to such populations. Receiving money is a good thing. To suggest that we have to protect adults by denying them offers of money may come across as paternalism.
Some ethicists also argue that the money is better spent elsewhere to increase participation. States could spend the money making sure vaccines are convenient to everyone, for example, by bringing them to community events and churches. Money could also support various efforts to fight misinformation and communicate the importance of getting the shot.
The cost of incentives
Financial incentives could be expensive as a policy solution. As in Ohio, lottery drawings are one way to cap the overall cost of incentives while giving millions of people an additional reason to get their shot.
The tax code could also allow for a no-cost incentive for vaccination. Tax deductions and credits are often designed to encourage behaviors, such as savings or home ownership. Some states now have big budget surpluses and are considering tax relief measures. If a state announced now that such payments would be conditional on being vaccinated, then each person declining the shot would save the government money.
Ultimately, a well-designed vaccination incentive can help save lives and need not keep the ethicists up at night.
Christopher Robertson, Professor of Law, Boston University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
