Newsletter 1 June 2013
Diet, scams and the process of science
I started to write this article with the theme of compost
tubes. The idea of a compost tube is very simple; replace
the typical pipe system in a wicking bed with a porous
compost path so the water flows through the compost feeding
the plant roots with a rich compost tea.
I have been using this system for some time and found some
good and bad features, so I thought this would make a good
content for the Newsletter, but first I thought I should
talk about why we should use a wicking bed for making
compost rather than just simply adding mature compost to the
soil.
The short answer is to encourage the phytochemicals which
are so beneficial to our health but need the soil biology to
release nutrients.
Adding fresh or labile (easily changed) organic
material provides the food for the soil biology which is a
critical step in providing us with the valuable
phytochemicals and trace minerals important for health.
A simple answer but since Xiulan (my wife) has suffered from
diabetes I have taken to reading anything I can find about
food and health. The literature on health product is so full
of scams that I get really steamed up which has resulted in
this newsletter changing from a simple talk on compost to a
rant about how the scientific process is being hijacked in
the unethical promotion of health products and what we can
do about it.
A world of scams
It is a sorry story; there is a massive amount of
advertising promoting weird and wonderful products, such as
magic plants from Nepal or the Amazon jungle which are
supposed to transform us back to vibrant teenagers.
These adverts typically contain pictures of healthy
young adults (often looking very sexy, probably actors) in a
lab coat and claiming that this product is
scientifically
proven.
Now this gets me mad, employing a sexy youngster wearing a
lab coat is not scientific proof. Even if we go to reputable
scientific sources I find a spiders web of conflicting
opinions, typically backed up by selected experimental data
which happens to confirm that particular view.
For example ‘We can live a healthy life on a pure vegetarian
diet, it is healthy to have a high protein diet, fat is not
really all that bad for us with the real devil is sugar?’
All these and more views are held by respected
scientific practitioners.
So what do we - as normal human beings concerned about our
health, really decipher this confusion?
The theme of how we need to interact with the
scientific process has distracted me from the humble compost
tube to look at.
The process of science
To take advantage of the scientific method we really need to
understand the process of science and innovation.
Modern science is incredibly rigorous. The experimental
process must be extremely rigorous, subject to peer review
and independent testing before results are accepted.
Science has grown into a global trillion dollar operation,
there are more scientist working now than in the entire
history of science, the amount of data being collective
defies imagination, well beyond the capacity of any one
person to digest.
With the advent of the Internet much of this
information is widely available to the public (marred by the
practise of the scientific publishing houses of not
releasing research results to the general public, even
though the research has almost exclusively paid for by
public funds.
But I better not get steamed up about that or I will lose
the thread).
Data and scientific laws
Science and technology are not the same, science is
concerned with understanding the basic laws of nature while
technology is about developing practical devices or
services. Let me explain further.
Let’s look at an example from history to see how science
works. There
was a time when the early scientists were puzzled by how
objects moved under the influence of gravity and forces.
They were busy collecting a mass of data on the
movement of bodies without any real understanding of how it
all worked.
One of the classic problems that people we trying to
understand was what happened when a man on a galloping horse
dropped a ball. Did the ball just drop vertically?
Experiment showed that this was not true but what path did
the ball take, or more specifically how far would the ball
travel from being dropped to hitting the ground?
The collection of vast amounts of experimental data
did nothing to resolve this problem, but when Newton
introduced his laws of motion the solution was extremely
simple.
The essence of science is analysing a mass of data to
develop the fundamental laws of how nature works.
First was the recognition that velocity can be separated out
into horizontal and vertical motions which can be analysed
quite separately. The time it takes to drop to the ground is
independent of the speed of the horse.
It is easily calculated knowing the gravitational
acceleration.
The distance covered by the ball is then easily calculated
knowing the speed of the horse and the time before hitting
the ground.
A problem which had baffled people for years and been
subject to much investigation and collection of data was now
readily solvable by the simple laws of motion.
The real world
The real world is typically more complex than the refined
world of science.
This is absolutely true in the case of diet, we have
a good understanding at the level of basic science but there
are many practical issues where we only have a limited
understanding. We can manage this partial understanding by
using empirical data or a working hypothesis.
Let’s see how this works in the case of our dropping ball.
Newton gave us the understanding to solve the basic problem
but this does not include the complex issue of air
resistance which will slow the ball so it will drop earlier
than predicted by pure theory - how can we allow for that in
our calculations?
The aerodynamics of a ball moving through the air is complex
and cannot be analysed from pure theory so so we have to use
a another technique of technology - the development of
empirical relations, formulae which are not based on strict
theory but are derived by analysing experimental results and
fitting formulae which just happen to work - or a working
hypothesis.
This is an extremely important part of applying technology;
there are very few cases which science can predict without
using empirical laws.
Empirical laws
But first let us modernise our problem
updating this case to a Queensland yobbo who is converted to
the cause of keeping Australia clean and instead of just
tossing his can of
FourX beer out of the car window wants to be able to
toss it into a road side waste bin, naturally being a
Queenslander he does not want to slow down but keeps on
driving at 100 kph.
How far does he have to be from the bin before he
tosses?
An engineer may guess a working hypothesis to calculate the
effect of air resistance. By instinct or gut feel she may
guess that air resistance obeys a square law, doubling the
speed increases the resistance four fold.
She can then go through a process of testing that hunch and
modifying it until it gives a reliable prediction. This
process of using a tested empirical formulae to design the
jumbo jet or whatever with some degree of confidence or in
our silly example tossing a can into a waste bin is not
basic science - it is a basic tool of technology.
The ultimate test is - does it work?
Going bananas
It is very dangerous to apply
scientific principles to complex practical problems without
real world verification. I nearly burst a blood vessel in
anger when I read in the general press reporting work on
mycorrhizal fungi which basically said that it had been
scientifically proven that increasing mycorrhizal fungi will
actually increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere.
It is absolutely true that reputable
scientists had undertaken these tests varying mycorrhizal
levels and measuring carbon dioxide levels which showed that
atmospheric carbon levels actually increase with increasing
mycorrhizal levels.
This is probably an accurate report of the
experimental data but only applies to the artificial
conditions of this test.
But the
interpretation
in the press was absolutely wrong.
In any scientific experiment the aim is
to minimise and control the variables so the test had been
conducted in soil which had been sterilised so there were no
other micro-organisms present so naturally increasing the
level of mycorrhizal fungi would increase decomposition and
hence increase the emission of carbon dioxide.
Of course fungi release some carbon
dioxide, but bacteria emit much more so if we want to
sequester carbon into the soil to improve its quality and
help resolve global warming we need to encourage fungal
decomposition (at the expense of bacterial decomposition) so
a higher proportion of the organic material is decomposed by
fungi rather than bacteria.
This is exactly the opposite of what the press
reported and no doubt the politicians and bureaucrats read.
Very dangerous!
Soil is the second largest reservoir of
carbon after the oceans and capturing carbon in the soil is
the cheapest and most effective way of reducing atmospheric
carbon dioxide. If you want to know why I went bananas you
may like to look at my trilogy Resolving Climate Change Vol
1 Innovation in Soil Carbon Vol 2 The next great change Vol
3 How science can fail us
(available on Kindle or on my web - $5 donation
appreciated).
Resolving Climate Change Vol 1 Innovation in soil
carbon
Resolving Climate Change Vol 2 The next great change
Resolving Climate Change Vol 3 How science can fail us
What shall I eat
We need to learn how to apply the same principles to our
food when we choose what food to eat.
Food science cannot give us the absolute answers so
we need to ‘manage’ ignorance looking at all sources of
information and developing a working hypothesis.
What should we eat for breakfast, lunch
and dinner and in between so we can enjoy a long and healthy
life. Sounds
simple?
The chemical composition of the basic
food groups, such as fats, protein, sugars, hydrocarbons
etc. and the role they play in health are very well
understood at the proven scientific level.
We also know that there are many other
trace compounds that are essential for the body. They may
only be needed in minute quantities and typically supplied
by plant chemicals, phytochemicals.
For example we know that iodine is
essential for brain function - the medical meaning of the
word imbecile is associated with a lack of iodine. Normally
this is supplied by plants absorbing minute quantities of
iodine from the soil. Some soil have too low a level of
iodine and imbecility is a common problem which can be
readily resolved by supplements or soil additives.
On a happier not those delectable wines
with their subtle flavours arise from the peculiarities of
local soil conditions.
Naturally long lived societies
In China there is a little village where people live healthy
and active lives into their nineties and even hundreds.
Why science cannot answer.
However testing of the water and local soil show an
abundance of what we regard as the minor elements
particularly selenium.
This was the basis for my spoof thriller ’00 and the
soil princess’ (which is available on Kindle books or from
me, with a $5 donation).
Even more interesting is another society on a little
Japanese island where again people have live long an active
lives largely on a fish based diet. Of late some have
adopted the western style of food with noticeable reduction
in health. This indicates it really is diet and not genetics
or some other reason.
The level of our fundamental knowledge
is typically just not good enough for that so we have to
rely on empirical knowledge e.g. knowledge which is not
totally based on scientific understanding but which has been
adequately tested in practise to know that it is a reliable
tool - a working hypothesis.
Simply taking the results of scientific
research without relating this to the complexities of the
real world can be disastrous.
Let me give you an example.
See my spoof thriller
00 and the
soil princess
Laws of food
There are difficulties in with developing general laws of
food (like Newtons laws), not only is the subject very
complicated but we are all different. May be we should not
wait for that magical universal truth but find out what food
works for each of us.
I recently came across a very interesting piece of research;
apparently there are two separate hormones which the body
produces. The
first tells us that we feel hungry, (so we need to eat) the
second tells us that we feel full (so should stop eating).
This is good quality research I certainly found the
results surprising with major implications.
I had thought about it I would have guessed that there was
just one chemical signal, like a fuel gauge in car gong from
full to empty.
Having two chemical signals could have dramatic
implications.
We all react very differently to these hormones. Some people
react very quickly to the ‘full’ hormone and stop eating
before they become bloated so they tend to be thin, in other
people the hormone level is quickly reduced so there is a
desire to keep on eating and they get fat.
While food science may not be able to provide us with
general laws on how any one individual should eat there is
one area of science that has been incredibly successful,
namely the development of taste additives.
This is a multi-billion industry (which seems to
prefer to adopt a low profile) supplying the processed food
industry. Much
of the processed food contains balanced proportions of fat,
sugars, salt and taste additives to make the food taste good
which in turn would be anticipated to modify these hormones
so many (but not all people) are encouraged to keep on
eating.
Junk foods and the twin hormones
I was really excited by the fact that
there are two hormones to control our eating.
The idea struck me that the ‘hungry’ hormones may be
able to sense that the body is not getting sufficient of
these crucial trace components.
As soon as the ‘full’ hormones have declined the
‘hungry’ hormones will be saying eat again.
Now I cannot run massive dual blind
trials with thousands of people but I can do tests on
myself. I know this is not science but what matters is the
diet that is relevant to a particular individual, we are all
different, so you may like to consider experimenting on
yourself,
I am natural a pig and will just keep
on eating until I feel full, naughty but nice.
Give me a pizza and I will just munch away until I
feel bloated. I
assume that the feeling of being bloated is my ‘full’
hormone cutting in saying stop eating.
But a short time later I may find
myself feeling hungry again and going back for that last
piece. But I know that I have had more than enough to eat so
why should I want to go back for more food. It is a
reasonable working hypothesis that my hungry hormone sensor
is telling my brain that I still haven’t had all the
right
ingredients so go and eat again.
So instead of going back to for that
last piece of pizza I tried eating some ‘healthy’ food like
a piece of kiwi fruit before I felt full,.
Sure enough I stopped having that nagging feeling to
go and eat again.
Conclusions
So what do I conclude from all this -
nothing in the sense of a strict scientific law. But I can
say that as a working hypothesis that
-
Trace elements in our diet
our important for our health
-
we can actually
sense dietary deficiencies in our bodies
-
eating even small amounts of
food grown in healthy soil will improve our health
-
minority elements are made
more available to plants by an active soil biology diet.
So in the next newsletter I want to
write more about our knowledge of soil biology.
So in the next newsletter I want to
write more about our knowledge of soil biology.
|