Curiouser and Curiouser! on health

Serious bugs

Tue, 09 Jul 2002 19:23:12 +0000

MEDLINEplus: Nightmare scenario of antibiotic resistance has arrived, experts say.

Quote: "Medical experts have long described it as the nightmare scenario of antibiotic resistance: the day when staphylococcus aureus, cause of some of the most common and troublesome infections to afflict man, becomes resistant to the antibiotic arsenal's weapon of last resort, vancomycin.

The nightmare scenario has arrived."

Comment: Off-topic, but important.

[Serious Instructional Technology]

» Being pretty uninformed in these matters it is not clear to me why new antibiotic agents can't be found. Is there an arbitrary limit to the number of antibiotic drugs? Or is the just no money in the research.

I guess there may be money if people start dying in large numbers.

Can you say

Tue, 24 Sep 2002 09:44:09 +0000

Twinkie, Twinkie, Little Star.

Forget Mars Bars, Twinkies Now the Deep-fried Treat

His fish-and-chips restaurant was already serving up deep-fried Mars, Snickers and other chocolate bars -- treats that originated in Scotland and have since become a staple at U.S. fairgrounds -- when his general manager suggested he toss a Twinkie into the vat of oil. Just to see.

How bad are they for your health? After deep-frying, a Twinkie packs an estimated 400 calories and 28 grams of fat." [The Globe and Mail, via Boing Boing Blog]

Gloria first told us about them sometime this summer. Apparently they were a big hit at the Illinois State Fair. I've always hated Twinkies because there's no chocolate outer coating, but this I would try!

[The Shifted Librarian]

» So let's see 400 kcal and 28g fat. Doesn't say how much of that is saturated but a good estimate is 50%. That's comes to about 9 Weight Watchers points or about 1/3 my daily allowance, i.e. the ammount I would expect to get from a substantial daily meal.

I wouldn't eat too many of those...

The signs of Ragnarok -- part #1

Tue, 14 Jun 2005 19:24:49 +0000

Okay the people who know me well should try not to get too freaked out by this, but I've started going to a gym.

This has been on the cards for some time as I've acquired a spare tyre I'd like to get rid of and, anyway, I lead such a sedentary life that I surely must be a candidate for heart problems.

The funny thing is that, iPod enabled (Chemical Brothers is my current workout music), I find I quite like it. Oh my body is screaming blue murder, but I'm looking forward to going again on Thursday.

Sickly

Tue, 20 Jun 2006 19:34:54 +0000

Malcolm Gladwell talks about a study conducted by a group of epidemiologists at University College London looking at the relative health of the US and UK. Here's what they came up with:

The first conclusion is that Americans are really, really sick compared to the British. In every socio-economic group, for instance, the prevalence of diabetes is roughly double in the United States than it is in the United Kingdom. Rates of hypertension, heart disease, heart attacks, stroke, lung disease and cancer are also all higher in the United States. And not just a little big higher. Much higher. So, for example, 2.3 percent of the English have had a stroke, versus 3.8 percent of the Americans.

There's a lot of juggling going on in how the studying was conducted and how the results should be interpreted, but:

The study’s author did a statistical exercise, where they assumed that the British group had exactly the same lifestyle risk factors as their American counterparts. The result? Nothing much changes. Americans were still far sicker than the British.

The conclusion they reach (and Gladwell supports) is that it comes down to this:

Krugman argues that this is evidence of how much more stressful living in America is than living in England.

I think it would be interesting to see work done to identify the significant stressors and then follow up with studies in other countries to see whether this is supported. Now I'm going to relax with a big glass of wine and a bowl of Ben & Jerry's.

I'll certainly be recommending him to my friends

Fri, 11 Aug 2006 00:03:46 +0000

Today I had another example of how dysfunctional our semi-socialist health care system is: I visited my doctor.

What's wrong with me is that I have a tacky throat and a bad taste in my mouth. I've had it for about a week (at least it's been bothering me that long). Today is worse in that it feels like something is trickling down the back of my throat accompanied by a slight (I emphasise the slight) sickly feeling.

The doctor was pretty much completely uninterested in my symptoms checking quickly to make sure I didn't have swollen glands, spots, or a temperature. At this point - bereft of an opportunity to prescribe me an antibiotic - he declared his interest in the matter closed and offered me a referral to an ear, nose, and throat specialist.

What choice did I have but to agree? And because I don't have private medical insurance I will be waiting for a month or more (although if it gets worse - by which I assume he means that I develop an infection he can treat with antiobiotics - I can come back).

I tried to engage the doctor in a discussion of my symptoms and possible causes but he was unmoved. When I suggested I couldn't be the first person to arrive in a doctors surgery with a sticky throat and bad taste in my mouth he said I was the first he'd come across. But this didn't provoke any interest. For him there was no mystery to solve and he obviously felt he'd discharged his duty in referring me on.

Now this is not the worst encounter I've had with a doctor. But it was unsatisfactory and, as I left, I made a mental note to ask for a different doctor next time. I also mused that I would certainly have been unhappy paying for such a consultation.

But then I didn't pay him. He got paid by someone else: central government, the local health authority, the trust, I don't know. But someone paid him for that experience (I wonder how much?) But whoever paid him has no idea of the outcome for me -- why don't they want to know if I was satisfied and thought he was doing a good job?

What's wrong with this picture is that the delivery of the service has been disconnected from me the customer using it. It's like people who have to fly a lot for work but their tickets are bought by a procurement officer who doesn't care if the journey is crap so long as it's cheap.

The system is also screwed up in that I can't take my business elsewhere. I have to go to the doctors for my area. So my doctors practice, good or bad, is granted a monopoly on delivery of doctoring to the people who live near me.

What's wrong with this picture? I think it's that doctors have a virtual monopoly on their practice and are paid irrespective of the service they deliver to their clients. I won't accept that for gardening, getting my car fixed, or buying a computer. Why the hell should I accept it for something as serious as my health?

Beyond that it can't be good for the doctor: If my doctor is great I can't recommend him to my friends. My friends can't go to his practice. His practice and his wallet can't swell because of the great job he's doing. He can't bring in new people, train them in his methods and expand.

On the other hand if my doctor offers poor service I can bad-mouth him to my friends but, ultimately, I have no sanction. It's not like I can just drop in at the practice up the road and take my money to them. I wouldn't be welcome since I'm not on their list. Worse yet, if my doctor takes a dislike to me he can get me struck off his list. Then where the hell am I?

I think the solution lies in taking the money out of the hands of the central planners and putting it where it belong: in the hands of the patient. Good doctors will thrive and grow their practices, bad doctors can find another career.

You may argue that this means that there will be competition for the good doctors and their prices will go up. Well, in the short term yes. But right now the situation is that if you get a crap doctor you're stuck. Is that better? Or fairer? At least in the market if good doctors command a premium there is an incentive there for more to get trained and join in.

I'm still evolving my thinking around this area. But I'm convinced this system needs to change.

Update: Andy took one look at my description and suggested it might be post-nasal drip. Certainly it sounds close and I was without my antihystamines last week because I didn't get the prescription filled in time. I mentioned the antihystamines to my GP but he wasn't interested.

Andy also made the point that the GP is probably tired, he's likely overworked, under-appreciated and in the system he's in, similar to HMO, just figure out what specialist he can send you to.

That's an excuse that gets trotted out a lot for underperforming doctors. I can certainly forgive the doctor but I can't forgive the system that lets a doctor who is unable to treat the patient keep on racking up his numbers.

I mean do you really have to be "Chairman, Department of Surgery" to come up with post-nasal drip as a suggestion?

My current plan is to get back into my antihystamine regime and try to avoid dry environments and see if it clears itself up. Oh and chew a lot of gum!

Update#2: And if we want to consider the economics of the thing, how much will my consult with an ENT specialist cost the NHS? If we assume that his first reaction will be post-nasal drip (which could have been ruled out before I saw him) then I just wasted a consult and maybe held up someone with a more serious complaint.

How to be a doctor

Fri, 22 Sep 2006 10:25:20 +0000

This morning I was diagnosed as having Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo (BPPV). For several weeks I've been getting dizzy spells of various length and severity which were, as you may imagine, beginning to worry me. It's a relief to know the cause is probably benign and that, in all likelyhood, it will resolve itself in a few weeks.

This was also a completely different doctoring experience to last time. In this case I had a doctor who was listening, patient, and seemed interested in finding out what was wrong with me. His attitude felt entirely different. Based on this visit I would ask for him again in future.

Ugh

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:59:19 +0000

I took a couple of days off at the beginning of the week in order to unwind and, quick as boiled asparagus, I have come down with gastroenteritis. The doctor recommended eating nothing (no problem, i have zero appetite) and drinking lots of fluids.

I'm taking this rehydration remedy:

1 spoon table salt
8 spoons granulated sugar
1 banana
1 litre of water

The salt makes it borderline repulsive. It's like drinking some kind of seawater pena colada. I'm almost through my first litre and while I still feel bad I'm hoping for the best.

In other news I appear to have "ruptured the capsule around the middle joint" of one of my knuckles so I'm really feeling in the wars right now.

Food allergy testing

Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:40:42 +0000

Does anyone here in the UK know how I can go about getting tested for food allergies? Should I be able to get this on the NHS? If so, what's the best way to get it? Otherwise where should I go.

Any advice would be very welcome.

Tiring, but good

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 19:35:05 +0000

The last couple of months my health has not been that great and to my dismay I was forced to take a break from doing karate. It had become such a regular facet of my life that it was very hard not going and this, in turn, I think didn't help. I kept putting myself under pressure to go back.

Taking the last few weeks off and relaxing seems to have done me a power of good. I went back tonight and while I am now tired, sore, and sweaty I feel pretty good to be back and am hoping that I can put it all behind me.

Something that this time off has given me is a little perspective on my practice. When I start something I tend to barrel into it, full tilt. Getting a black belt is a visible sign of "progress" but if you think of karate as a lifetime activity it becomes, essentially, meaningless. I hope, in future, to practice a little more diligently focused on the here and now.

Slow down

Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:02:12 +0000

Interesting piece from PsychCentral on some new research into weight gain:

Researchers studying food behavior have discovered that eating too quickly may be an important contributor to becoming overweight.

The researchers estimate that the combination of eating quickly and eating until full more than triples the risk of being overweight. This calculation took into account age, alcohol intake, smoking, occupation and regular exercise.

In 2002 I lost about 13kg (from 82.7kg to 70.0kg) over a long slow period (about 0.5kg per week) but I wasn't able to keep it off or even stay at what I thought was a good weight for me of about 78kg. I'm not sure what I weigh right now but I'd hazard a guess it's about 85kg.

Interesting to note that I am prone to both eating very fast and to eating until I am full. Without even getting into the kinds of food I like to eat.

Read the whole article. I think it's something to think about.

Bread head

Sun, 03 Mar 2013 00:28:56 +0000

I think I have just realised why (a) I seem to crave bread so much, and (b) I seem to prefer one bread over another.

The principal discovery that I've made is that my favourite store breads seem to have between 1.9-2.0g of sugar per slice. By contrast the bread I've just eaten has 1.2g per slice and it just didn't seem "as nice" (so, of course, I had to have two slices).

In the past when I've dieted I've given up bread because the calories-per-slice were out of kilter to the "value" of a slice of bread. Now I realise why.

So I'm going to have to start looking for a really low sugar bread or give it up again.

Where will I find hidden sugar next? If I find out there's sugar in brocolli I may weep.