They DON'T make them like they used to.

People sometimes say "they don't make them like they used to" -- usually referring to something that has broken down and has to be recycled, discarded, or replaced. This is a truth that has entered into a special category of use.

The reality is that the way things are made is always changing. Sometimes they are made faster, with new techniques. Sometimes they are made with new features and new technologies. Sometimes they are made, deliberately, to not last as long.

There are three general categories of change in how/why things are made. These can be called "marketing", "manufacturing", and "labor".

• Marketing. This is the active art of consumerism. This is what makes people want to buy something. The global economy is presently structured around consumerism. The rationale falls into what I would call the "three Fs" -- fashion, features, and failure.
  
  Fashion is a desire for something "new" for the sake of having something new. Change in styles are presented as being "better" than what currently exists. "Orange is the new Purple" (Purple having been the previous preferred color). "Chrome is in". Skirt lengths go up -- or down. Teak is the preferred wood. So, out with the old and in with the new (although, if you keep it long enough, the cycle will come back someday).
  
  Features. New programs require faster computers or more memory. Faster speed requires new connectors and those old connectors won't work anymore. This hat has a higher SPF (Sun Protection Factor). The new game has more versatile character sets and better graphics. There is "improvement" but marketing works to move it from the "want" to "need" category.
  
  Failure. I don't think that many manufactures REALLY design their products to fail (they rely on fashion and features more to entice you to get something new). However, they do have a desired lifetime for the product when they create it. Too short and you won't buy their products again. Too long and you won't need to buy their products again if fashion or features don't draw you away. And, within that designed product lifetime, it causes choices to be made in manufacturing. Given a choice between a less expensive part that lasts "lifetime + a little more" and a more expensive part that lasts "three lifetimes" -- they will make it with the less expensive part. So, manufacturing (next section) is designed with the projected lifetime in mind.
• Manufacturing. As mentioned in a previous blog, technology and manufacturing rely on a pyramid of tools and less complicated parts. Manufacturing a DVR requires laser technology, semiconductor technology, power technology, and so forth. What this means to the consumer is that the end product is made up of more complicated, but fewer, separate ("discrete") parts.
  
  It may be faster, smaller, and less energy consuming ("green") but it will also be more complex. Most technology is now manufactured largely by "robotic" technology with humans doing the specialized work that doesn't justify building a more-specific "robot". This is even true for things like clothing where the fibers are made, or spun, or extruded by factory processes and then machined/loomed/created by machines that may only need humans to replace spools or to adjust things that have gone slightly askew.
  
  In summary for manufacturing -- fewer, more complex parts that avoid human interaction in creation.
• Labor. This area directly goes "hand in hand" with manufacturing. In countries where labor costs are "high", it may cost more to repair something than to replace it. In countries where labor costs are "low", you can find items repaired in extremely ingenious ways (they weren't designed to be repaired) because the cost of repairing is less than replacement.

So, they DON'T make them like they used to and we probably don't want them to do so. What we do want is to have the items last as long as WE want them to rather than as the manufacturer has determined. Often, choices are available but we don't know what those choices include -- expected durability is not something that is advertised on the packing of products. We rely on consumer groups and other people's ratings to make choices. And, I guess, that is the best we'll do for a while.

Smoke Gets in Your Lungs

In the present day, there's a lot of controversy about smoking. Old substances (tobacco) are in decline and are often under public disdain. "New" ones (marijuana) are in ascendance and are becoming more acceptable and may even cross the line back into legality (it's not really new and has a long history of various stages of legality -- see the Wikipedia entry Legal History of Cannabis).

However, because of its controversial legality and use, the health aspects of marijuana smoking have not been pursued as it has been for tobacco. There are also other substances that are sometimes smoked -- heated and inhaled or brought into the mouth. So, let's take a step back and just look into the smoke.

Smoke occurs when substances are burned. Many firefighter (and people trapped in fire areas)  injuries are associated with smoke inhalation. There are good (but highly technical) sources such as Wikipedia for articles on the various possibilities depending on factors such as heat, presence of other substances, humidity, and so forth. In this blog, we will concentrate on the tobacco and marijuana smoke voluntarily inhaled in relatively limited amounts by "smokers" and "tokers".

Smoke has four major aspects: carbon monoxide, tars and particulates, active ingredients, and additives.

1. Carbon Monoxide. This gas is created by incomplete burning of the material. It is primarily a danger to those "inhaling" as it is more lung-related. It is present in all smoke in varying degrees and is considered to be a poison as the body will absorb it and it decreases general function and may cause death. It is absorbed into the blood cells and decreases the ability to absorb oxygen and, thus, reduces stamina and general ability to perform at optimum levels. There is little difference in the effects between tobacco and marijuana smoke.
   
   
2. Tars and Particulates. These are the visible parts of smoke -- if you can see it, they are present. They are what cause the darkened areas of X-rays of lungs. "Tars" are resinous substances -- usually quite sticky and they cause the staining of teeth (and lungs) and can act as a kind of glue in the lungs, reducing the ability of the lungs to absorb oxygen. The particulates can vary in size depending on the temperature of the burning material and the size of the parts being burned and can act as an irritant causing more mucous production which is a major cause of "smoker's cough". It takes about five years for the lungs to fully repair from the damage caused by these substances and is considered to be a major trigger of lung cancer. This area could use more study but it is likely that there is little difference between tobacco and marijuana smoke.
   
   
3. Active Ingredients. These are the substances that interact with other parts of the body to cause the effects anticipated by smokers and tokers. In tobacco, this substance is nicotine which has many effects but primarily acts as a stimulant. It also has a mile diuretic (body water removing) effect which may cause weight loss for beginning smokers (and cause some temporary weight gain after quitting). It is water-soluble and, thus, is ideally administered via smoking. Anecdotally, nicotine is considered to help general focus and mental activity but there are no controlled studies verifying this. Nicotine also tends to paralyze the cilia in the trachea (windpipe) and, thus, may increase mucous retention and coughing. There are a few minor medical purposes for nicotine but it is highly physically addictive
   
   The primary active ingredient in marijuana is tetrahydrocannabinol (usually referred to, for obvious reasons, as THC). Its effects vary from individual to individual and is considered primarily a "psychoactive" (acting primarily on the central nervous system) drug. Common effects include increased appetite, decreased nausea and pain, and a reduced sperm production in men. It is not considered to be highly physically addictive although a varying amount of emotional or psychological addiction is possible for both marijuana and tobacco.
   
   
4. Additives. Since tobacco has been legal for many years and is a highly competitive industry, each company does what it can to both distinguish and "enhance" its brand of tobacco. Glycerin is normally added to increase shelf life and prevent the tobacco from drying out. Formaldehyde (think of frogs in jars in biology class) is added to make absorption and crossover to the brain more rapid. This increases the risk of physical addiction. Many other additives are also present -- from spices such as cinnamon and cloves to liquids such as menthol and other oils. Formaldehyde is known as a carcinogen and the burning by-products of the other additives have not been extensively tested. However, this is an area that is highly likely to contribute to act as cancerous triggers (especially for non-lung-related cancers). Tobacco is much worse in this area than marijuana.

Inhaling or not inhaling? As a water-soluble drug, the effects of nicotine are dependent upon the surface area times the duration of exposure. This is also true for other additive burn by-products. Thus, inhaling would be worse if holding it in the mouth was done for the same amount of time. However, this is not actually the case as cigar and pipe smokers tend to allow the smoke to remain in their mouths longer. Thus, there may be close to the same exposure for nicotine and additives. However, there would still be greatly reduced effects from the carbon monoxide and particulates. With THC, it varies upon the general environment. It is not considered to be water-soluble but it IS lipid (fats) and alcohol-soluble so, if taken with food or drink, it is probably absorbed as readily (or more readily) than bringing into the lungs.

What's the fuss about GMOs?

There has been a lot of flurry about Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in the press and Internet. What is a GMO and what are the concerns about it? GMOs are actually the tail end of a sequence of food modifications -- the process is the least "natural" and the most uncertain as to long-term consequences. The series begins with natural hybridization, leads through human hybridization, and continues to GMOs.

• Natural hybridization. Plants and animals change over time. Through a process of "natural selection" and "spontaneous mutation", life changes to adapt to best survive in a particular environment. Sometimes this combination of processes is called "evolution". A "spontaneous mutation" isn't anything menacing or bad -- it just means that the "child" is significantly different from the "parent". If the change brings advantages then the "child" is more likely to survive. If the change brings disadvantages then the "child is less likely to survive. This is "natural selection" and it applies to all plants and animals.
  
  
• Human-directed hybridization. Plants and animals are naturally diverse. They have slightly different characteristics from each other. By choosing life that has attributes that are "desirable" to propagate to the next generation -- mixing and choosing -- new combinations of attributes will emerge within the offspring.
  
  The difference between this and natural hybridization is that the new attributes are not normally chosen based on the plant surviving without human intervention. In fact, the opposite is often true. Human hybridized life often requires ongoing human intervention. This may include more water than is naturally available within the region. It may require special weeding and chemical support. If left alone, without human support, it will often "revert" back to the varieties that best survive.
  
  
• A GMO takes this choice one (considerable) step further. The actual seeds, or eggs, are manipulated to add or remove genetic material from one form of life and integrated together. The goal is to make the genetic change inheritable from one generation to the next. One can look at it as "non-spontaneous" mutation. Desired attributes may include "better" flavor, easier transportation, longer lasting after harvest ("shelf life"), faster or greater growth, or greater production (more fruit or milk produced, for example).
  
  There is nothing specifically bad about this -- it is just hurrying nature along. However, many of these changes are highly unlikely to ever occur spontaneously. Some genetic material from animals may be added to plants or vice versa.
  
  The primary warning, or fear, from GMOs is that, by introducing life that would probably never occur naturally, there is little knowledge of what the long term interactions within the ecosystem, or between producers and consumers, will be. There may be little difference between the genetics of a nutritious plant and that of a slow-acting poison. Studies of new organisms rarely are long-term, checking effects through the generations.
  
  Another problem is that GMOs may be patented. The courts sometimes take a contrary view of this by applying existing patent logic. Existing patent logic is based on the idea that patented ideas/materials can spread only by being "taken" or specifically reproduced. Thus, plants that contain the patented genes have "stolen" the new material. While this follows existing patent logic it does not apply properly to living material that can naturally spread. It should be treated as "invasive" or an "infection" where the GMO is actually "attacking" the non-modified life. Patent law needs to be updated to existing realities.

GMOs are not inherently bad. They are inherently a change and changes take a while to determine benefits or risks. GMOs already are in wide use within human food. Some countries require GMOs to be labeled as such, feeling like the public should be aware they are part of a long-term study of effects. However, due to the widespread use of GMOs, food producers often fight against this notification. Specifically, corn is often a GMO plant and, in the U.S., corn syrup is used in many food products. Most food (including sweetened carbonated beverages) would need GMO labeling because the product includes GMOs.

The Science and Economics of Nutrition, Summary

We've seen that nutrition involves bringing into the body a full set of "building blocks" such that the body can build, repair, and maintain itself.

Starvation occurs when the body does not have enough calories to maintain its "operational needs" -- not enough fuel to keep going. When the body does not have enough calories, it first burns stored fats and then starts burning proteins -- which include muscles and organs (such as the heart) and eventually causes death.

Malnutrition occurs when the body does not have enough of all of the different "building blocks" to create, repair, and maintain the various components of the body. This is particularly devastating to the young when they are initially forming the body -- it can cause long-term effects. (In adults, temporary malnutrition can be recovered from unless it lasts too long.). Illness and inability to perform daily tasks well are often the outcome of malnutrition.

In the U.S., we are fortunate that private charitable food banks and government programs make starvation almost non-existent. However, malnutrition exists to a considerable degree with a greater concentration among the poor.

There are four components of achieving good nutrition. These are knowledge of good nutritional needs, action taken based on that knowledge, time, and money. Most of the focus is on knowledge -- but many educational programs in school attempt to avoid science and rely on "rote" formulas. This lack of foundational understanding of nutrition makes the task of achieving good nutritional balance difficult in an atmosphere of mass media marketing. False, or misleading, claims are easily accepted. Sometimes it causes rote formulas to be followed such as "red meat is bad" without understanding WHY read meat CAN be "bad".

Money directly enters into nutritional decisions. Good nutrition is more expensive than poor nutritive, high calorie choices. Given a sufficient budget, however, it is possible to provide good nutritional meals but it requires time to plan, choose, and prepare good meals.

I have never encountered a "30 minute meal" that I can prepare in 30 minutes. A parent who is working two (or three) part-time minimum wage jobs does not want to allocate the time -- there is homework to work with, houses to clean, medical appointments and soccer games to juggle. Well balanced restaurant meals are expensive but fast food alternatives are widely, and energetically, marketed and sold to the public.

Frozen vegetables are more nutritious but take more time to prepare than canned. Given a choice between a $1 apple and a $1 candy bar -- which do you think most children would choose?

Many books and even television series have been produced about good nutrition. In order for it to be applied, however, the underlying principles need to be understood in order to map that information to good choices that can be applied each day.

The Science and Economics of Nutrition, Part 5

In the past few posts, I have talked about the three caloric supports of nutrition -- fats, proteins, and carbohydrates. Carbohydrates only supply energy but fats and proteins also supply necessary "building blocks" for the body to build and repair itself. However, these are not sufficient -- it is also necessary to have other components which we usually call vitamins and minerals.

Vitamins are organic compounds that cannot cannot be synthesized by the human body. Thus, some items (such as Vitamin C) are needed vitamin for humans but not considered such for other animals. Vitamins primarily act as catalysts for building processes within the body. This means that they help the body produce needed cells and substances but are not directly incorporated into the body.

Minerals are often thought of as the "basic elements" such as Calcium, Iron, Copper, and so forth. However, most minerals in the diet are actually combinations of elements -- often with Oxygen but possibly a combination of various elements such as Calcium and Carbon. Since Oxygen is such a high percentage (about 46.6% by weight) of the earth's crust, it has to be expected that Oxygen will be incorporated in many minerals.

Minerals and vitamins interact in various ways. For example, it is difficult for the body to use Calcium unless sufficient quantities of Vitamin D (particularly D3) are present in the diet. On the other hand, if the body doesn't have enough Magnesium, then the Calcium will "substitute" and there might be a deficiency of Calcium available in the body. Some minerals help regulate specific processes in the body -- Chromium is often considered to be important in insulin production within the pancreatic glands.

Vitamins and minerals can be obtained via meats and other animal products. However, since vitamins can be weakened, or destroyed, by cooking, meats are not a preferred source of vitamins.

Fruits and vegetables really shine when it comes to providing the body with vitamins and minerals. They are usually cooked less, or left raw, and this means the nutrients are left intact for the body to use. In addition, the organic compounds which contain the minerals are thought to be better utilized by the body than those from an inorganic source.

Alas, fresh fruits and vegetables are quite expensive on a per-calorie basis. Canned produce are less expensive but often have reduced nutrients due to the canning process and, in the U.S., are often compromised with added salt and sugar. Frozen fruits and vegetables are often the best balance of nutrition and cost -- but, of course, requires a freezer for storage.

One of the biggest challenges in food preparation of fruits and vegetables is countering the media advertising for processed foods. The more processing, the more profits. The more home processing (or preparing a recipe, if you prefer), the more time needed. We will go more into these trade-offs in the next blog, which will be a summary of nutrition with an emphasis on economics.

The Science and Economics of Nutrition, Part 4

Carbohydrates are an important part of a general diet because they provide fuel for the body. They are not directly used as building blocks but provide energy for use of fats and proteins and incorporating minerals and vitamins into our bodies. They consist of only Carbon, Oxygen, and Hydrogen atoms -- thus, the name "carbohydrates" although they are not chemically considered to be "hydrates".

When I was double-checking my sources for this article, I found that I had incorrect ideas about alcohol. Alcohol (or, more specifically, ethanol -- drinking alcohol) is NOT considered to be a carbohydrate in spite of having only carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen atoms. However, just as ethanol can be used to fuel machines, our bodies can make use of it as an energy source. Alcohol provides about 7 calories per gram (almost as caloric as fat). Alcohol is not considered to be nutritional and burning alcohol is hard on the body (the liver in particular) and should be used sparingly. A tablespoon of pure alcohol would be about 85 calories -- an 8 ounce glass of wine about 190 calories.

Carbohydrates are largely the same as saccharides. Saccharides are grouped into monosaccharides, disaccharides, oligosaccharides, and polysaccharides. The first two are usually referred to as "sugars" while the other ones have various names including "starches". Since carbohydrates do not provide any "building block" materials the amount can actually be fairly low with calories provided by fats and proteins -- but this is not really recommended. The range of percentage of calories provided by carbohydrates in the diet is suggested to be in the 45% to 65% region.with simple "sugars" limited to around 10%.

It is difficult to discuss carbohydrates without bringing dietary fiber into the discussion. Dietary fiber is looked at as being in two categories -- soluble and insoluble fiber; "good carbs" are talked about versus "bad carbs". It really isn't a matter of the carbohydrates -- it is how they are utilized within the body. The metabolism of carbohydrates (and fats) is regulated by insulin and, thus, eating "simple" carbohydrates will cause a rapid rise of insulin in the body which is hard on the body and related to metabolic problems like diabetes. Soluble fiber works with carbohydrates to allow the digestion to be greatly slowed and extended (look at it as "time released" carbohydrates) and this allows the carbohydrates to be better utilized by the body. A system called the Glycemic Index is a good method of determining the gentleness of different carbohydrates in the diet. Note that insoluble fiber is of use, also, as it provides "roughage" to allow the muscles of the digestive and excremental tracts to be more effective.

One aspect of the Glycemic Index is that it is an isolative, or simplified, look at a single food source. It is possible to still have a gentle diet with simple carbohydrates if it is eaten WITH other foods that can supply the soluble fiber. Thus, rice is not really easy on the body -- but eating rice with high-fiber foods such as beans, or seaweed, or vegetables means that the entire meal is well balanced. This is why many diets that rely on rice are healthy -- it is because they are in combination with other foods which supply needed soluble fiber.

The economics of carbohydrates come into play because simple carbohydrates are inexpensive and, thus, are easily incorporated into unhealthy diets. More balanced carbohydrate sources, such as oats, barley, and beans are also fairly inexpensive but it requires more time to work with them. In the area of applied nutrition, time does equal money. Thus, many fast processed foods have a high percentage of simple carbohydrates and fats. In part six of this series, we will discuss how the choices for food can be made, could be made, and are normally made. (In part five, we will finish up the nutritive discussion with vitamins and minerals.)

In summary, carbohydrates provided needed energy for the body to be active and build cells. In order to be used in a manner that is easier on the body, the entire meal must be planned and examined.

The Science and Economics of Nutrition, part 3

When it comes to the area of proteins, the description of food as building blocks is even more directly true than ever. Although most of us think of proteins in terms of muscle and (possibly) hair/fingernails, proteins are an important part of our entire body -- from "scaffolding" for cell walls to acting as catalysts for general digestion.

However, protein eaten does not directly translate to protein built in the body. The body's digestive processes break down proteins into building blocks called amino acids. It then uses these amino acids, as determined by specific gene sequences, to create the proteins the body needs. There are 20 or 21 (depending on how you classify them) amino acids used within the human body. Some of these can be created by the body from general food (that is, not amino acids). Others can be created from other amino acids (changed from one to another). Some, however, must be eaten and these are the "essential" amino acids.

Essential amino acids must be part of a regular diet -- but that doesn't mean they all have to be eaten each day. The body just must have a reserve of them in the "storehouse".

Meat has the advantage in that the animal has already gathered up, or created, the various amino acids needed. However, it is fully possible to get all the needed amino acids from a varied vegetarian diet. The mixes needed to have a complete set are called "complementary" foods. Beans and rice work as complementary" foods. Lentils and barley are a great combination. There are many others.

As mentioned, meats give "complete" sets of proteins -- whether it be beef, poultry, fish, pork or some other meat from animals. Beef often gets a bad name as a meat. This is not because of the protein but, rather, from the saturated fat that is often mixed in with the protein. Depending on the particular cut of meat and the way that it is prepared, it is possible to have very lean, healthy, beef as a part of a meal. In fact, if you prepare poultry in a high-fat manner (think fried chicken), chicken can have higher levels of fat than beef. Fish is often separated from other types of meat because the fat which it contains is normally UNsaturated (including "Omega-3" (linoleic) acids). Thus, fish protein is lean and the oils that come with it are recommended types of oils.

In the area of economics, meat is an expensive choice. This is largely because it is higher on the "food chain". In the U.S., at the grocery store, chicken can average $3/pound, turkey $1.50/pound, fresh fish may cost $7/pound (depending on geographic location). It is difficult to spend less than $1.50/pound for meat but it is possible to spend more than $50/pound for particular cuts of meat or specially prepared meat or varieties of animal meat. On the other hand, a combination of lentils and barley (enough for a single person) may only cost 30 cents ($0.30). If you choose the vegetarian route then you have three advantages -- cost, a light footprint on the earth (less of earth's resources used) and an automatic advantage in not getting "unhealthy" fats (allowing you to choose what fats to incorporate within your meals). The disadvantage is that you MUST vary your diet deliberately in order to have what your body needs.

One additional disadvantage of animal meats should be mentioned. This is the fact that most meats available at grocery stores are "factory meats". The animals have been treated as raw materials to produce meat. Not only are these methods not kind to the animals but the process requires antibiotics and hormones to keep the animals alive long enough to harvest. The factory meat process is probably the largest reason for waves of recalls of contaminated meat. (Note, however, that vegetable products are not immune to this -- the recent recall of peanut products.). While you can get non-factory meat, it will be more expensive and it still requires a lot of food (particularly grain products) to produce.

I love a good hamburger -- and bacon must truly be set into a class of its own. However, I also love a good lentil and quinoa salad. We are designed to be omnivores and, as long as we are aware of what we eat, we can get good protein into our diet in many different ways.

The Science and Economics of Nutrition, part 2

"You are what you eat". This is basically true although, if you eat an apple, you are safe about not having little bits of apple roaming about your body. A good way to look at it is that what you eat provides building blocks for your body to use -- both keeping the body at operating temperature as well as to replace old cells and build new ones. The system of doing this is called metabolism and it is not really well understood although there is a new theory (and a new diet) on a regular basis.

Most of the nutritional studies are of an experimental kind. This doesn't usually mean a room full of lab rats (although such may be involved). It means that the people examine what goes in and then monitor effects that can be measured. The "in-between" mechanisms are still rather mysterious -- but there are some fascinating studies that have been published in the last few years about the symbiotic roles of bacteria, viruses, and other "critters" that exist on our skin, within our digestive track and even within our cells and organs. The mitochondria, that exist within all of our cells and are an integral part of metabolism, probably originated as one of the first symbiotic organisms.

One thing to be very careful about when considering nutrition is that the food brought in is broken down and then reused (building blocks, remember). If a person eats cholesterol (a fat with a bad reputation), it does NOT get directly rerouted to the arteries. You can eat all the protein you want and, without doing other things, it will not automatically give you huge muscles.

We mentioned in the previous blog that nutrition is involved with the availability of various components in the diet -- including fats, proteins, carbohydrates, minerals, vitamins, and dietary fiber (actually, soluble dietary fiber). This blog will focus on fat which probably has the worst Public Relations system of all.

It would probably help the reputation of fat if there were two words for different situations. Call the fat that you consume "oils" and the fat that you possibly have in excess around your middle as "reserve materials". Fat is very important in our diets and our bodies cannot produce healthy cells without it.

Oils are organic solvents. This means that organic materials tend to be able to dissolve in, and disperse within, fats or oils. This is why fat added to cooking aids the flavor significantly. Spices and other materials that cause us to say "yummy" are dispersed within the fat. This same property is necessary within our metabolism -- the fats provide a "kettle" that can be used to concoct all kinds of cells. One important class of cells that requires fat is our nervous system. A lack of sufficient fat in the diet can cause nerve damage and is why pediatricians emphasize to NOT give fat-free milk to infants -- they need the fat to help produce healthy brains and a healthy nervous system and do not have other sources for the fat.

There is rarely a consensus (everyone agreeing) within the nutrition field but, in general, it is recommended that about 25% of the calories we consume come from fats. Since fats have a bit more than twice the calories per unit as proteins and carbohydrates, this means about 12% of our food, by weight, should be fats. Excess fat, by itself, will not directly lead to greater "reserve materials" around the waist.

Our bodies are very wise and they know what we need. We are designed as omnivores -- so the easiest way that our bodies can grab all the needed building blocks from our diet is to eat a good assortment of foods, including meat, vegetables, and grains. Vegetarians, and vegans, can also have a very healthy diet (some say more healthy) but the body alone can not grab all the needed building blocks without some careful planning of our diets -- the building blocks that come from  meat (in particular, a balance of "essential" amino acids) must be replaced by equivalent building blocks from other foods. If we get all we need, the excess will be removed from our bodies. However, if we get an excess of calories (and have the base foundation nutrition that we need), the body probably WILL make use of some of the building blocks to put down a layer of those "reserve materials".

The area of greatest controversy and the fastest shifting arena within nutrition is the battle of "good fats" and "bad fats". Once upon a time, people were encouraged to eat margarine and avoid all the "bad fats" of butter which comes from animals ("moo"). Currently, butter is considered to be better than margarine because, in the process of making margarine solid, it creates certain "bad fats" known as Trans-fats. Butter also has trans-fats but less than most solid margarine and more "natural" since it was created by an animal. There are saturated fats, unsaturated fats, polyunsaturated fats, monosaturated fats, Omega-3 fats, and so forth. If you want to know more about these, there are lots of good books about various fats out there. Right now, the general idea is that the less saturated that the fat is the better it is for you.

So, what is the best fat for you? This is where economics rears its head again. A person can get oils from fruits (olives), vegetables (sunflowers), legumes (peanuts), grains (rapeseed -- canola), and animals (lard as well as Omega-3 oils). Many recipes and references just split these oils into vegetable oils and animal fats.

Canola oil is produced heavily and is, therefore, one of the cheapest oils but there is some controversy over its genetic history. Omega-3 oils are in much smaller supply and are, therefore, one of the more expensive oils. Since this area is most in flux, I certainly won't try to recommend a specific oil but, if you look into the pantry of people, the type(s) of oils you find will certainly reflect income level to a considerable degree --  and some say the more expensive oils are "better".

The Science and Economics of Nutrition, Part 1

In some ways, this is not about what most people would call technology. However, the science behind nutrition is something that can be useful to all of us. There are a lot of people who do not understand just what is involved with "good nutrition" and they rely on aids, such as food pyramids, to attempt to create a good diet. However, understanding allows making better choices and knowing why we make those choices.

A healthy diet is composed of two factors -- calories and nutrition. On average, an adult needs approximately 15 calories per pound to maintain their weight. There's a lot of variation on this. Athletes and pregnant or lactating women need more. Sedentary people need less. But let's go with the 15 calories (actually kilocalories -- but most people just call them calories) per pound. This means that a 120 pound person (or someone who wants to get to 120 pounds) needs 1800 calories per day.

Calories are a measurement of the energy from food and, once again, it is simplified in presentation. A gram of fat is about 9 calories and a gram of protein or carbohydrates is about 4 calories. In general, it doesn't matter what kind of fat it is -- it will give you the same amount of calories. So, olive oil may contain "better" (from a nutritional point of view) calories but it will still be the same amount as that from lard. Proteins, once again, are all about the same for calories but the ability to be "burned" (metabolized) varies depending on the mixture of other foods with the protein.

At any rate, fats are the most calorie-dense foods at 9 calories per gram. This means that an average 120-pound person could get their daily calories from drinking 18 tablespoons (1 1/8 cups) of oil. They would also get severe diarrhea and eventually die of other causes -- but they would have enough calories. Prices of food vary around the world but, in the U.S., you can get canola oil at about $10 per gallon. There are 16 cups per gallon, so this amount of oil would cost about 70 cents.

At the high end of the scale -- I just don't know what that would be -- probably some rare gourmet low-calorie item. Let's just say that you can probably spend more than a $1000 for your 1800 calories. This is talking about actual base food costs -- eating at a restaurant would certainly increase your costs.

OK. We see that you can spend from 70 cents up to thousands of dollars to satisfy your caloric needs. But, we said at the beginning that a healthy diet is composed of calories AND nutrition. What is nutrition? These are the various components that your body needs to be as healthy as possible. It includes a proper balance of fats (and the right kinds of fats), protein (and the right kinds of protein), and carbohydrates (and the right kinds of carbohydrates). It also requires minerals, vitamins, and dietary fiber.

In the next post, I will start talking about the nutrition aspect of a healthy diet along with the economic impact of choices.

Updating an Electronic Device

A few months ago, I talked about computer memory and its various types. One of the important types is Read Only Memory (ROM). This contains the basic instructions (including the instruction that is executed first when power is applied to the device) to bring up all of the supporting programs (Operating System, etc.) that allow you to do what you want to do.

What happens if you have a device (such as a cellular phone or a game system) that is "updatable"? This device also has ROM but, somehow, the basic system that is in ROM is still able to be changed.

This is possible because there are different types of ROM. In particular, there is a type called "Electrically Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory" (EEPROM). Like general ROM, this memory is non-volatile -- it will retain its contents even when there is no power. However, by applying a higher-than-normal power through the device, the contents can be erased and then new contents can be written. Thus, a device which is meant to be upgradable can split its base program memory into two parts -- one in ROM which still contains the initial program upon powering up the device and one in EEPROM which should not normally be altered either during use or when powered down.

The program in ROM is enhanced to include the program(s) that allow updating the EEPROM. Then, when an update is desired, it stores the new system program to be written to the EEPROM in some type of RAM, erases the original contents of the EEPROM and then copies over the new system program into the EEPROM.

There are variations on this, of course. When a device is updated via a host computer, there is the option to back up the data and current contents before doing the update. This reduces the danger involved in case power is interrupted, or an error occurs, before the update can complete. The time when an update is in progress is still a critical period of time and, if at all possible, the device should remain powered up until updating is complete.

Once the update is complete, the device should operate the same as before (with whatever improvements exist within the new system program).

The Dangers of Hi-Tech

I am NOT a Luddite. I enjoy technology and, even more, I love the thinking processes involved in creating something new and tweaking (called "hacking" in programming) existing things to make them perform even better.

However, that does not mean that I am not always aware of the dangers of advanced technology. Sure, there is the Frankenstein aspects -- designing "smart" robots that take over the world. I'm not that awfully fearful of that -- although it certainly could happen.

The Luddites were more fearful of how technology affects society and how new things cause the old things to be denigrated. What happens to the horses when a steam engine can pull the plow? Each change in technology affects the society and people involved with the old technology. That is still true today and, perhaps, even more true as the pace of change continues to increase. Still, that has always happened and it always causes chaos. The first people who made use of iron weapons were ascendent over those who still used stone weapons and the people who used bronze weapons were ascendent over those using iron and so forth. This has not changed -- only the rate of change where now the change can occur many times in one's lifetime rather than over a period of several generations.

My primary fears are the pyramid effect of Hi-Tech.

If I worked carefully over a period of a few weeks, I could make a gramophone. (This is one of those old "record players" with a big copper funnel over the needle to make the noise louder.). With more time and access to more tools, I could probably make a "record player" that connects to a home-built electric speaker. It wouldn't be of great quality but, with practice, I could make pretty good ones. But could I make a ceramic cartridge magnetic needle casing with a full powered amplifier and multiple speakers? Yes -- but only by using a lot of other tools that are a per-requisite to make it. Over a lifetime, I might be able to create the entire set of tools and then use those tools for the final product. A lifetime wouldn't be enough to create a CD player.

My father would have been even better qualified to build something than I am -- among his many jobs, he was a machinist and an auto mechanic. He could have built a working carburator from chunks of metal. However, even he could not have mined the ore, smelted the ore, refined the metal and created the metal chunks that he needed.

Every "hi-tech" product relies on components that, in themselves, are "hi-tech" and requires specialized tools to build. On and on down the line.

I have a "landline" phone in addition to my cell phone. I have no intentions of giving it up (although economics may eliminate them as an option someday in the future). Why? First, the sound quality of a dedicated circuit-switched line is better than anything you can currently find in cell phones and probably better than you ever WILL find in cell phones. But, more importantly to me, a basic landline phone is powered by the line that leads to the phone company. They have banks of batteries to supply the very low voltage current needed to power the phones. If the electricity goes out -- I still have a working phone! Even there, most people have landline phones that are connected to local electricity -- and those won't work without the power. They COULD be designed to make use of the line power but most aren't.

So, what is the danger? The danger is that a disruption in one vital element of a product will eliminate the feasibility of the product. Many things are dependent on oil products -- run out of (or be separated from the access to) gas/oil/diesel and much of society's products will stop working. Have an electromagnetic pulse take place in New York City and much of our economic records would disappear -- even worse if backup sites are attacked/broken.

So, when you pick up your smart phone, think a bit about what it really took to make it and be able to use. There's a lot of industries, professions, and people involved in that one product. Then turn on a light and do the same type of thinking -- still a lot of factors involved in the use of that light switch. If you have a gas cooktop you are reliant on a steady gas supply but if you have an electric cooktop you have a different set of dependencies.