Science desk
< March 24	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 26 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 25

Why can't humans hibernate?

Winter seems to be the worst time to grow food. It's too cold and snowy. Why can't humans hibernate during the winter and feast on as much food as possible during other seasons like squirrels? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is some material near the bottom of this page. Matt Deres (talk) 02:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit Conflict] Because humans evolved in Africa, quite recently in evolutionary terms, where there was no 'winter' corresponding to your description, and where in any case they did not grow food, being hunter-gatherers.

After spreading out from Africa, they did not live long enough in latitudes with significant winter seasons to evolve hibernation before their burgeoning intelligence and culturally preserved learning enabled them to combat winter conditions by other means (for example clothing, use of fire, shelters, seasonal migration); some of them also evolved physically to withstand colder climates better. Once agriculture was invented, they became more tied to remaining in one place, but also learned to stockpile food to sustain them over the winter.

Hibernation has drawbacks as well as advantages, in that hibernating individuals may be very vunerable to predation – if you're rare, large and/or fierce when awakened, or well hidden like squirrels your species can survive, but humans became too numerous and to findable by intelligent predators in the shape of other humans for this ever to be viable. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.12.80.28 (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At Hypothermia#Signs_and_symptoms there is mention of a few states some of which are also associated with hibernation. But indeed we're not adapted for it. Also, other than predation, even for hibernating animals, there is an increased risk of death, they still must face a type of shock. Unfortunately I didn't find information about this latter part in the current hibernation article with a quick look. But I remember that some domestic animals which can hibernate in natural conditions can also enter ~~stupor~~ torpor if the temperature is slightly too low. Sometimes they don't recover. PaleoNeonate (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When you cite squirrels, I assume you mean members of the ground squirrels such as groundhogs because most tree squirrels don't hibernate. (There might be exceptions?) Dbfirs 12:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same question. Chipmunks and woodchucks are closely related and hibernate, but I see more squirrels in the winter than I do in the summer. μηδείς (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tree squirrels behave like many of us humans in that, when the weather is particularly bad, they stay warm and dry in their dray and perhaps eat some of their stored food, but that isn't hibernation or even torpor. Dbfirs 16:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Humans react badly to disruption of their 24-hour Circadian rhythm that is controlled by a Circadian clock within the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), a bilateral nerve cluster of about 20,000 neurons in the hypothalamus.Experiments have found that normal people cannot entrain even to a longer 28-hour day and prolonged Circadian rhythm sleep disorders are associated with harmful psychological and functional difficulties. An Induced coma such as doctors may induce using a Barbiturate e.g. during major Neurosurgery or when treating rabies cannot be compared with a Hibernation and may result in cognitive impairment after recovery. Animal Dormancy is not well understood, particularly what triggers their Hibernation, or brumation the comparable reflex in Reptiles, but it can be noted that some are obligate hibernators and others are facultative hibernators i.e. they hibernate only when cold stressed or food deprived. Suspended animation of humans is at present a subject of speculation, experiment and fiction. Blooteuth (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution is a random process and different species survive by evolving different strategies for survival. As an example, the Polar bear and the Arctic fox both live in Arctic but Polar bears hibernate and Actic foxes don't, so even if humans had originally evolved in a cold climate they wouldn't necessarily have evolved into a species that hibernates. Richerman (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But can we say that evolving in a cold-winter climate is a necessary, although non-sufficient, condition to result in a hibernating species? We did evolve in Africa, so not a single chance that we would be hibernating. --Lgriot (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the medical establishment blame fat?

Agenda-pushing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Let's have a look at the actual science. The fact is that, regardless of people's belief, a high-carbohydrate diet is incompatible with our Paleolithic genome. It causes epidemics of obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Out diet should be consistent with our hunter-gatherer genetic legacy. [1]

The Case Against Sugar is a book which gives a detained outline of the misguided dietary beliefs. Sugar industry paid scientists to blame fat [2][3] [4].

Despite all these, why does the medical establishment blame fat? --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 12:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blame fat for what? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Illness. --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What illness? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a statement about Paleolithic diet more than a clear question. But yes, nutritionists are still divided on a number of issues. PaleoNeonate (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not about paleolithic diet, it is about the fallacy that eating fat makes one fat. --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Next thing you'll be telling us is that eating fat doesn't clog up your arteries. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A reference: "Any fat not used by your body’s cells or to create energy is converted into body fat. Likewise, unused carbohydrate and protein are also converted into body fat... Too much fat in your diet, especially saturated fats, can raise your cholesterol, which increases the risk of heart disease". National Health Service - Fat: the facts. Alansplodge (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add to this that fat has loads of calories per weight unit. Sugar does not lack far behind. Eating 100 g adds 387 calories to your diet in the case of sugar, and 541 in the case of fat. Hofhof (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you formed a opinion based on reading one pop science book, and your question is why doesn't the entire medical establishment share that opinion? ApLundell (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

don't use labels like "pop science book" to judge, look for logic. And you should be aware of a logical fallacy called argument from authority. --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 05:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And there's a big dubious supposition in the need of a citation needed tag: "why does the medical establishment blame fat." Does it blame fat? Hofhof (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Why did the medical establishment become fat?" PaleoNeonate (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Salt, sugar and fat are poisons that we're addicted to. The salt, sugar and fat industry have made propaganda for more than a century to sell the idea that what they produce is healthy. The medical establishment consist of people who are not immune to indoctrination, it's quite similar to the issue of smoking in the late 19th century when there was evidence that it was harmful. The attitude of the medical establishment at the time was:

"In the mid- to late-19th century, doctors determined that lip and tongue cancer rates were higher among smokers of pipes and cigars. Despite this link, major medical journals mocked those who opposed smoking. The Lancet, the leading journal of the time and still one of the most important medical journals in the world, wrote in 1879, “We have no sympathy with prejudices against … tobacco, used under proper restriction as to the time and amount of the consumption. ... A cigar when the mood and the circumstances are propitious [is] not only to be tolerated, but approved.” Moderation, not abstinence, was the order of the day."

Now, fat is bad because we're using large amounts in refined form, just like sugar is bad when used in that way. And salt is very bad for health too. The human body has evolved to take in about 0.1 grams of salt a day, and sugars and fats from whole foods found in nature, e.g. from fruits and nuts. The reason why refined sugars and fats are bad is that we use a lot more of it than our bodies are designed from and in refined form it enters the body much faster than if you consume the same quantities from whole foods. Also, your body needs a lot of nutrients like vitamins and minerals, refined oils and sugars yield calories without those nutrients. So, we're then at risk of falling short. Now overt shortages casing diseases like scurvy is easily avoided, but we don't know how much we need for optimal health. Heart disease at old age may be considered to be normal, but it could also be that the normal intake of oils and refined sugars leads us to a suboptimal intake of nutrients leading to diseases that would otherwise not occur. It's unfortunately not the medical establishment that is making a big deal about such issues.

There now exist a lot of evidence that suggests that about 90% of the health care expenditure in Western countries can be accounted for by lifestyle factors. If everyone consumed only whole foods, limited meat intake to small amounts and would do a lot of exercise, then the rates of heart disease, strokes, common cancers, type 2 diabetes etc. would be an order of magnitude lower. It's probably just a matter of time before governments will start to take measures to force people to stick to a healthy lifestyle. A possibility is that insurance companies will be allowed to offer lower premiums to people who agree to their health and lifestyle to be monitored. People like me who already stick to a healthy lifestyle will then switch to such insurance companies and pay a lot less, other people who are addicted to eating Big Macs will finally see the real price of their bad habits. Count Iblis (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Near starvation diet does improve biological parameter: blood pressure, BMI, blood sugar, at least temporary, before the subject dies of course :-) however on a large scale the food really has nothing to do with obesity. If the reverse were true we would not see slim and even skinny people around, everyone would have been fat. Look at documentaries shot around 1900, almost everyone had been slim or at least of normal proportions and nobody, nobody suffered from the lack of food back then, nobody starved. So, why so many people are obese now. Obesity is a biological, evolutionary phenomenon and can be blamed on progress of medicine. Before modern era, until Pasteur demonstrated that some diseases are caused by bacteria, and in the era of epidemics, out of 10-12 children only 2 or 3 survived and those who died could have become overweight or obese had they grown to adulthood. Their immune system could not manage the challenge of measles, scarlet fever, mumps and other infections. Overweight and obese start with the skeleton which is typically wider. You can see it in their pelvis and shoulders. Overweight people need more food to maintain their fat mass which is much larger, otherwise they are hungry all the time. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The obese people I have encountered don't eat a lot, way less than I do calorie-wise, but they eat a junk food diet and they don't exercise. While they eat more than what they would eat had they been slimmer, their higher energy needs for carrying their fat mass around doesn't compare to my energy needs due to heavy exercise every day. One hour of fast running will burn more than 1000 Kcal, the metabolic rate needed to sustain this on the long run needs to be a factor of 3 to 4 higher than this, which is why I eat 4000 Kcal a day and still have a low body weight of about 55 kg. The healthier you are, the more you'll look like Frank Medrano. Count Iblis (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Wikipedia article [5] states otherwise, refuting the Count Iblis's claim. I quote: "The view that obese people eat little yet gain weight due to a slow metabolism is not generally supported.[6] On average, obese people have a greater energy expenditure than their thin counterparts due to the energy required to maintain an increased body mass." The obese people may eat moderately in public but make up with additional food at home and they also eat more frequently. They really need more energy. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone up there says: You are obese because you don't exercise. This is ridiculous. Many slim people don't exercise at all or do it sporadically. On the other hand try to load yourself with 50 pounds of extra weight and go running. I want to see how far you will go. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with these facts, they do eat more because they need to support their larger body mass. Now, given that if I were obese, my larger energy intake would be balanced by me having to carry more bodyweight around, I choose to burn that and a lot more energy by exercising hard. So, I can be at a low bodyweight despite eating 4000 kcal of healthy foods. Also, I have yet to see someone who is obese who doesn't have an obvious medical problem causing that (e.g. thyroid problems) and who only eats healthy foods like I do (at least 1 kg of fruits and vegetables a day, at least 70% of calories from whole grains etc.). Count Iblis (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the paleo diet, there would have been a lot more gathering than hunting success, so more carbs than fat, especially if much of the fat burned off when cooking the meat over the fire on sticks. However, prior to the invention of milling, grains were not very edible, so those carbs would have largely been from root vegetables (starches) and fruit (sugars). Also, the animals that were killed and eaten would have been far leaner than modern, corn-fed cattle and hogs. StuRat (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Count Iblis comments rings a bell ! Obese people appear to have trouble feeling long term satiety. Their body wants those things that are missing in their diet, so the individual feels very quickly hungry again but eats the same food that that causes the hunger in the first place, regardless of the calorific value. Thus, caught up in viscous circle. A ancient prophet once said you can not live on bread alone. Yet some modern humans are trying to go against this ancient wisdom. Leaves them with little 'motive' energy to run up the stairs (which is quicker) instead they wait for the elevator - which gives them the chance to pause, to think, about how hungry they feel... Eat a balanced diet.--Aspro (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One reason the medical establishment originally "blamed fat" was a failure to distinguish between different types of fat, like unsaturated fat, saturated fat, and trans fats. Of course, at the time, food products, in the US at least, were only labelled with fat content, and did not break it down by type. So, if that was all the info you had, then avoiding all fat wasn't a terrible strategy, since there was so much trans fat and saturated fat you couldn't otherwise avoid. StuRat (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AboutFace 22 said "Look at documentaries shot around 1900, almost everyone had been slim or at least of normal proportions and nobody, nobody suffered from the lack of food back then, nobody starved." However, List of famines would seem to disagree with around 45 famines listed from 1900 to present. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Such as in concentration camps in the Boer war. StuRat (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do they have to do with the documentaries of the United States cities we see in the channels? Nobody kept the documentaries of famines of peoples in the Soviet States. Current obesity epidemic has nothing to do with abundance of food. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it does. Abundance of food = dirt cheap prices = overeating. And, in particular, unhealthy food is cheap in the US, because of government subsidies, aimed at things like meat, potatoes, and milk, rather then berries, nuts, and veggies. StuRat (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AboutFace 22 you never said anything about it being confined to starvation in the US. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 02:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also interesting:

"A high carbohydrate diet of rice, plantain, manioc and corn, with a small amount of wild game and fish – plus around six hours’ exercise every day – has given the Tsimané people of the Bolivian Amazon the healthiest hearts in the world."

"“This study suggests that coronary atherosclerosis [hardening of the arteries] could be avoided if people adopted some elements of the Tsimané lifestyle, such as keeping their LDL cholesterol, blood pressure and blood sugar very low, not smoking and being physically active,” said senior cardiology author Dr Gregory S Thomas from Long Beach Memorial Medical Centre in the US.

“Most of the Tsimané are able to live their entire life without developing any coronary atherosclerosis. This has never been seen in any prior research. While difficult to achieve in the industrialized world, we can adopt some aspects of their lifestyle to potentially forestall a condition we thought would eventually effect almost all of us.”"

Count Iblis (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carbohydrates are not essential for human nutrition [6][7] Despite this, the medical establishment supports the pseudoscientific theory of balanced diet that 50 to 60 percent of your total daily calories should come from carbohydrate. Is not this view similar to the view of the astronomy community 500 years back that the Sun revolves around the earth? --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 09:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} for your claim it's pseudoscience. As others have said you can't rely on popscience books, flawed evolutionary explainations or simplistic 'well it's not essential' ones to make such bold claims, that's not how science works, nor is it logical BTW. This is the science reference desk, not the Daily Mail science pages. P.S. As for funding issues, if you think the various vegetable oil industries, the meat industry, the dairy industry etc aren't extensively involved in funding research, you need to do a lot more reading. Nil Einne (talk) 10:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning is full of fallacies. "Popscience" is a faulty generalization, you need to look at the contents, not on stamps. The Case Against Sugar is reviewed in leading mainstream newspapers like NYT, Guardian, FT etc. By your reasoning, Cosmos (book), The Naked Ape, A Brief History of Time are unreliable books. And don't make use of irrelevant comparisons like Daily Mail. No one is talking about Daily Mail here. And the "flawed evolutionary explanation" statement is an argument by assertion. --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 10:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to the contents. It's not a book which looks at the totality of research, considering the quality of each study cited like a quality review does (e.g. those Cochrane reviews). Instead it makes a bunch of claims, cites a few studies and claims that this is correct. Cosmos, The Naked Ape and A Brief History of Time are interesting books but they are ultimately popscience books. Where they contradict with established research, it makes more sense to trust the research, not one authors opinion, no matter how notable that author (or the book) is. Where they don't necessarily contradict established research, but present claims where the the research is fairly limited or contradictory, it makes sense to treat it as a case where the research is unclear, not one where the research is clear simply because this popscience book presented one side. You definitely should not treat popscience books as some magic truth. And a good popscience book will make it clear where the research/evidence lies, and if the author disagrees with the research, or is only presenting one claim when the research is uncompelling or contradictory, also make this clear. Of course people will disagree on how compelling or contradictory the research it. That's why if you lack the ability to evaluate it yourself, you should read multiple different views and try to get a sense of where it's at. Note a key point here, if you can't sufficiently understand the research to evaluate it yourself, you should take great care in deciding based on what seems logical or right to you based on some popscience book. Instead you should try and get a sense from what those who do understand are saying of what the research and evidence says.

And the Daily Mail comparison is apt, because you've presented no real evidence, made several clear errors, but ignored it when numerous people have pointed these out to you.

This isn't the time or place for discussion for evolution but if you think "we have a paleolithic genome therefore we shouldn't eat significant carbohydrates" is actually a compelling argument with any actual evidence backing it up, you need to get a significantly better understand of evolution (and logic). When you've actually got a basic understanding of how evolution works, you're welcome to come back and ask questions here about the parts which confuse you. If you're unwilling ot unable to get a basic understanding of evolution before you make such bold claims without evidence, you could at least read Paleolithic diet. It's no coincidence that few evolutionary biologists embrace the idea of the paleo diet. At best, you may get them saying there are some parts of it which have some utility. At worst: [8] [9]. This doesn't of course mean they are right. But when most of the people advocating something based on some supposition have backgrounds in other areas to that supposition, and the people who've actually spent most of their lives studying what that supposition comes say well actually your supposition seems to be wrong because...., chances are higher that it's the later group that are right. Now the paleolithic diet could still be better than some other diets generally for various reasons. But you've presented the claim that it's some wonderous diet and one of your key pieces of evidence is this flawed evolutionary explanation so the question comes back to what I said earlier, what's your evidence?

Nil Einne (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Satiety - dietary fat or dietary fiber?

I've heard and read that dietary fiber regulates digestion and creates a sense of fullness. I've heard and read that dietary fat creates a sense of fullness, while sugar inhibits fullness. Okay, fine. How about eating something like an avocado, nuts, seeds, and mushrooms in a meal? Avocados, nuts, and seeds are relatively high in fat compared to carbohydrate and protein content, and mushrooms are relatively high in protein. Is satiety even measurable? Is it easier to reach satiety with a combination of both dietary fat and fiber, or is one better than the other? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can measure satiety indirectly with surveys and by recording how much more of the same item people eat after a meal. And a combo is likely better than one or the other, although, if the goal is to lose weight, the dieter may want to emphasize dietary fiber over fat, since it had no calories. StuRat (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how the researchers would deal with confounding variables. One participant may be given a high-fat food (almonds) or high-sugar food (cherry). The cherry is sweeter and may be more appetizing than the almonds that are just eaten raw and plain. Then, the researcher would probably conclude that high-fat is filling, even though it may be the taste or personal preference of the participant. The researcher could swap out the almonds for a piece of fatty bacon, but not everybody likes bacon because of the extreme saltiness. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First give group A, X calories of high-fiber food, and measure how much of food Y they eat after. Then give group B, X calories of high-fat food, and measure how much of food Y they eat after. One week later, repeat the study, with the groups reversed. Not perfect, and the foods aren't going to be pure fiber and pure fat (and still be edible), but good enough to see the trend. A mixed fat and fiber group may also be added. StuRat (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its a bit more complicated yet simple. For instance, the Inuit (which I think is the pleural too) up in the far north, had a very high fat, low fiber diet, yet they had very low incidences of modern health problems until they adopted modern food stuffs. Dietary fiber does give the sensation of fullness but a high fat diet also provides satiety. Its satiety that you want to aim for. Start off with the paleo diet, then listen to your body telling you what it needs. Not what the food industry needs you to buy to incease their profits. Don't have to follow any fancy dietary régime – just listen to your body. This next bit is stupidly simple. After a meal – is your mind clear. After a meal – do you fit to take on the World. If yes to both questions, you are probably eating right.--Aspro (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pleural isn't plural, it's singular, even though there are two lungs. :-) StuRat (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Inuit cuisine and Inuit is plural and Inuk singular. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting — I didn't know that about the singular. I did know about the mess about "Inuit" versus "Eskimo". Short version: In Canada "Inuit" is usually preferred and "Eskimo" is one of those slightly risky words, not exactly a slur but something people learn to avoid. But that's because anyone in Canada who would be described as "Eskimo" probably is Inuit. The use of "Inuit" doesn't translate well to Alaska, where it's just plain inaccurate, so "Eskimo" is probably going to stick around a while, refined sensibilities notwithstanding. --Trovatore (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This is largely a Canadian issue. All the Eskimos in Canada are Inuit, but not all Eskimos are Inuit. The Eskimos of South and Western Alaska are Yup'ik, they comprise a separate branch of the Eskimo language family, and their languages are more diverse. Given there's no common native word for both groups, Eskimo serves to cover both (and a few other dwindling or extinct historically known peoples). That, say, Russains might want to be called Russians, and not Slavs, makes sense. But that doesn't mean the term Slav is inaccurate, insulting, or a needless term. μηδείς (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Forgot the reference for the plural/singular and Inuit is preferred in Greenland as well. I'm aware of the use of Eskimo in Alaska especially after an interesting talk I heard in Iqaluit where a person from that state explained to a rather uncomfortable group of predominately Inuit that he, and others, in Alaska, didn't like being called Inuit. Until the last few years Eskimo was used from Ulukhaktok west, they preferred Inuvialuk or Inuinnaq with inuit (no capital) being the equivalent of person or human (Inuinnaqtun to English). By the way the organization that represents all Inuit/Eskimo globally is called the Inuit Circumpolar Council. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 01:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to a dietician and an endocrinologist if your general practitioner recommends it. Experiment on yourself, and keep a journal. I have lost 40lbs after bariatric surgery in January. But I have noticed my hunger pattern has changed, and have had a variety of discomforts.

I used to find food unappealing before the mid afternoon, a pattern for the last 30 years. I'd then have two normal meals, usually high in carbs (back when fat was evil) and then end up binging at bedtime. When I went off carbs after being diagnosed as diabetic, I still didn't eat in the morning, but then I had two all-I-could eat meat and salad meals. Then at bedtime, a tablespoon of peanut butter or 100g of black beans would quite satisfy me.

Since the surgery, I have been on a very high protein diet, with three small meals a day, and still low in carbs and fat. The surgery made me unable (and not wanting) to eat more than 100g, usually 2/3 meat, 1/6 veg, 1/6 starch at one sitting. But since the surgery I have been waking up starving, even if my blood sugar is 140. (I discontinued all diabetes meds with the approval of the doctor, as my blood sugar didn't warrant it.) Yet 30 minutes after a meal I would be hungry again to the point of distraction, even though I was eating the equivalent of a lb a day.

The nutritionist said that getting all my calories from protein was causing the hunger, and suggested two things: avoid any protein supplements except for whey; add ground flax seed (Metamucil until I go grocery shopping next) and eat banana, rice, applesauce and toast (see brat diet). Over the last week, the constant starving has gone away, my morning eating is normal, a tablespoon of peanut butter is my bedtime snack, and the other discomforts I had been suffering are greatly ameliorated.

But that's me. You can't expect to find a one-size fits all solution. μηδείς (talk) 03:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because of Gluconeogenesis, avoiding carbohydrates (good idea of course with diabetes) and "getting all calories from protein" doesn't make sense, for some of the protein will be converted to glucose. So fat is usually a major component of a low carb diet for diabetes. As the OP notes, it provides satiety and is of course an essential macronutrient.John Z (talk) 05:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Getting "all my calories from protein" was an exaggeration understood in the context of our conversation, but not by far, as I was consuming non-fat protein drinks, and having only one meal a day with fat, usually one egg or two ounces of not very fatty meat. The nutritionist wanted me to eat fiber, bananas, rice and toast, none of which is famed for its fat content. In any case, calling fat a "major" part of a low carb diet is still quite misleading; I am supposed to get 20% of my calories from fat. By weight that would even be less than 20% fat in my diet. μηδείς (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant by fat is usually major in "low carb diet for diabetes" is something like what Richard K. Bernstein (and many others now) suggest and follow: "low carb with unrestricted fat" for diabetes - Since he is perhaps the best known figure recommending the return to "low carb for diabetes". Low carb diets which did not eschew fat were the norm for diabetes before the discovery and use of insulin and in some places afterwards. As you say, everyone is different, some people may have specific reasons to restrict some fats.John Z (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An all bratwurst diet does sound good. :-) StuRat (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I lost 20lbs one summer by eating only mozzarella sticks and froot loops. That may explain a lot. μηδείς (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)+[reply]

Like why you are loopy ? StuRat (talk) 04:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Surprised that μηδείς didn’t remind us of that little ditty of the 1960's :

“Oh I'm Popeye the Eskimo.

I live in a house of snow.

I lay on my belly and wobble like jelly.

I'm Popeye the sailor man.”

He must have been a keene devotee of the Mediterranean diet too, because apart from eating spinach he was in love with Olive Oyl. Neither was Popeye a potato. After all, he said it himself many a time : “I Yam What I Yam”... which you would agree, is a different type of tuber.--Aspro (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wind direction, high and low

I've asked this before, but still don't get it.

This says the wind is going from east to west (an east wind). This (click play) says the wind is going from west to east (a west wind).

From what I remember being told, the first link reports ground level wind, and the second reports higher wind. Is this right?

If this is right, does that mean Haikou is now getting its weather from Vietnam rather than Hong Kong?

Many thanks, and sorry to bother you all again with this.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A pollution record and forecast are about where people live, which is close to the surface. In this case the wind direction should be the surface wind direction. There are a number of different ways to derive wind data from satellite data, see for instance NOAA wind products. But if in your second link you simply mean the apparent wind direction as measured from cloud movement, then yes, clouds move according to wind at cloud levels. It is often the clouds that determine the general pattern of weather, so the satellite animation would be a more accurate view of where recent weather came from. --Mark viking (talk) 00:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so, so much, Mark. This has been driving me nuts for ages. I find it astonishing that the wind here at ground level is so often opposite to the direction of incoming weather. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In meteorology, wind direction is always mentioned as to where the wind is coming from (an East wind is a wind that is blowing in from the East) no matter what height the wind is being measured at. Guy1890 (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sick and then not sick again for a long time

After you get a cold or flu, you don't get it again for a while. You never get another flu a week later. Why? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See epidemiology. A pathogen spreads by any sort of contact. It may be macroscopic contact (you touching a doorknob) or microscopic contact (you breathing in water vapor from someone's sneeze). Your body attempts to fight these foreign invaders and builds immunity so that you don't get sick again. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Immunity (medical)--Aspro (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But you build an immunity to that exact bug, right? So how come you don't just get another bug. There are lots of them. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Common cold notes that there are over 200 viral strains. Your question is similar to what I've always understood. Although the article doesn't say it, the immunity you develop for a cold is supposedly to a specific virus. So if you get exposed to another cold virus sometime later, you could be vulnerable. People seem to get fewer colds as they get older, and one theory I've heard is that each time you get a cold, your immune system checks off another strain. However, as the article notes, colds are caused by exposure, and kids seem to get exposed a lot more often. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might, but there is usually only one flu bug and one cold bug in circulation at any one time. Abductive (reasoning) 23:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, I see. Okay, that explains it. Many thanks! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's correct. As noted in Influenza vaccine, multiple strains are included in the vaccine every year. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, silly rabbit, that is done in an attempt to predict which strain will win. Abductive (reasoning) 02:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you present a source for "only one flu bug and one cold bug in circulation at any one time"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's something the NHS do every year, an annual report. Page 22 will demonstrate that one or maybe two viruses are prevalent at any one time. Vaccinations usually work against a handful of variants (see this CDC page) so there's always a significant chance that the wrong virus strain will be that which dominates against researchers best efforts. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdotally, when my mother worked in preschool, she would get at least 3-4 colds/other bugs every winter. Since she retired 5-6 years ago, I think she's been sick once. Kids are germ factories. --47.138.161.183 (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are total germ factories! They're all jammed (jambed?) together in schools and have a lot of physical contact. Speaking of jam, their hands are always sticky, and if you ever let them have a sip of your drink, hold it up to the light after. It will be filled with an enormous amount of backwash particles, even if they've had nothing to eat. Try it and see. Extraordinary! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A good argument for teleteaching, especially if the anti-vaccination lobby gets more converts and the diseases become deadly.

On an episode of 3rd Rock from the Sun the (alien) family thought they were under biological attack: "They've sent in a human petri dish in a miniskirt to infect us !" StuRat (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

I've had back-to-back colds (a week apart, say) over the holidays, especially from my niblings visiting. It's actually become somewhat of a morbid family joke, asking what symptoms we should expect a few days after their arrival. But otherwise, I've certainly gotten sick far less often as I've aged, and the severity of the colds is much less. Can't remember the last flu I had; probably the late 80's, before I started getting the shot. Bronchitis is what I dread, but that's bacterial.μηδείς (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely wrong, bronchitis is usually viral. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the talk page, this would be better taken to a user talk page, and you should also back off from your confrontational tone. Nonetheless, according to the Bronchitis article, nearly all bronchitis is caused by virus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We've been over this already. There is no confrontation, just a precise explanation that the medical advice given here is completely incorrect. That does not belong on a user talk page, the OP needs to know that they are being given false medical advice. Saying that something is "absolutely wrong" is clear statement of fact, especially when backed up reliable sources which demonstrate to the OP that some users here are providing false and unreferenced medical advice. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure you are right, but I usually get white patches and am put on antibiotics when I get throat infections. Those are definitely bacterial. μηδείς (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

side discussion--Jayron 32 19:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

No, it's not me, and this is a good example as to why sources are important. It's the NHS that says that most of the time bronchitis is viral. And when did a throat infection == bronchitis? Your claims, and StuRat's unreferenced ramblings are harmful here as they purport to tell the truth whereas they are nothing like that, just unreferenced anecdotes. Particularly harmful when making claims about medical conditions. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

μηδείς has a point. Our article on bronchitis says that that the color of the phlegm is no indication. Who writes this rubbish? If the phlegm is yellow or green it indicates a bacterial infection. Not saying that antibiotics are always needed, because I think they are over prescribed but for an older person, not in good health, they might be a life saver. Most people don't go to their doctor with viral bronchitis, because all they have is a bad hacking cough – but they do - when they cough up green phlegm, because it is more severe than the average bad hacking cough. Therefore, most people only know that they have bronchitis when it is bacterial and their doctor diagnosis it as such. So, think Rambling man is just rambling. --Aspro (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TRM likes to draw blood. (And seems not "And when did a throat infection == bronchitis?" to know Greek ([ http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bronchial&allowed_in_frame=0]) My comments are indeed anecdotal, but the last time I had a "sore throat" (this last December) I went to a very nice Polish doctor and asked her to examine me, since I had surgery pending. She said I had bronchitis, and prescribed azithromycin. I asked whether I needed an antibiotic (I avoid them, knowing the problem of their abuse) and she replied it was indeed bacterial. So had I said "bacterial bronchitis" in my earlier post I could have avoided provoking this virulent response. μηδείς (talk) 00:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If he likes to draw blood, that I suppose makes him a closet phlebotomist. Anyway, I digress... Used to suffer bronchitis every late November, then it suddenly stopped. Maybe, because I was no longer working in a office breathing in other people bugs, or my immunity built up, or I was unconsciously compensating for the lower light levels at that time of year producing less vitamin D. Had a big change in diet starting at that time and began eating properly (because I now had the time to prepare my own food). This happened before I heard that Vit D is suspected of being important in maintaining the immune system. Makes one think though, if it was the latter or a mixture. --Aspro (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aspro far from rambling, I'm actually using reliable sources (e.g. the National Health Service) to refute the incorrect and unreferenced claim made above that bronchitis is caused by bacterial infection. In most cases this is simply not true. It's time the reference desks started taking responsibility for giving out such incorrect medical advice. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's not a matter of "not to know Greek", a quick glance at our own article on Bronchitis tells us that "Bronchitis is inflammation of the bronchi (large and medium-sized airways) in the lungs." and is not a "throat infection". Please refrain from offering incorrect medical advice to readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you're so keen to quote from the NHS so will I. It mentions sore throat more than once here: NHS Choices, Your health, your choices: Bronchitis. The term is derived from classical Greek used to describe infections such as encephalitis etc. If you had learned classical Greek you will understand that it simply means inflammation of the bronchi (βρόγχος) & -ίτης rather than its cause. As I pointed pointed out above did-I-not, that viral inflammations often don't need treatment so goes undiagnosed. Where am I saying 'most' are bacterial?!! So please don't pontificate. Because the score on reliability so far appears to be μηδείς 3 TRM 0. Oh, and I will throw this one in for free as it may not be RS. [10]. Maybe the etymology could be added to the articles to bring clarity?--Aspro (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow your logic. Bronchitis is not a throat infection, its inflammation of the bronchi, we don't need Greek to tell us that. I'm not sure I ever said that you said "most" bronchitis is bacterial, it was Medeis who made the plain statement "Bronchitis is what I dread, but that's bacterial." which is patently untrue. The throwbacks to Greek are all very interesting but are of no use in this discussion, in which false medical information has been presented to the readers on numerous occasions. This isn't about "scoring", it's about failing the reader time after time after time, because so many people fail to use reliable sources and make false statements based on personal or anecdotal information. This is particularly hazardous when relating medical information to our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In which way was μηδείς comment patently untrue? --Aspro (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I've explained this clearly at least twice, if you still don't understand there's not much more I can do. I'm done here, but for a final request, please stop giving our readers unreferenced, incorrect medical advice. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion on the ref desk talk page, you all should be conducting this argument on one of your own talk pages, not here in front of the OP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think making a request to here to ensure that incorrect medical advice is not provided to the OP is perfectly acceptable. The OP should know what value to place in the various unreferenced and anecdotal responses here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, you should take your complaints to the user talk page, rather than trying to "show them up" here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you missed the point. The OP has been provided with incorrect medical advice here. It must be corrected here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should take it to the user talk page, politely work out a solution, and THEN bring it back here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, at this point, because you, Baseball Bugs, can't leave well-enough alone, the conversation is inappropriate. Me to, for that matter. But the initial note that TRM left was, is, and will continue to remain appropriate and any further similar notes should be encouraged to let the OP know that a shit answer is a shit answer. The rest of this I am boxing up presently. --Jayron 32 19:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No, it is inappropriate to leave incorrect and unreferenced answers uncommented on here, lest the OP actually believe them. We exist to serve the OP, and where a user gives an unreferenced answer, the OP should be told to ignore the answer, and WHY they should ignore the answer. When someone provides an answer which lacks utility, they should expect the answer to be flagged as such directly under the useless answer so the OP knows why it is useless, not buried on some talk page where such warnings of the uselessness of the answer would go unnoticed. Simply put, if you don't want your answer flagged as lacking a source, don't provide answers which lack sources. --Jayron 32 19:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The right way to respond to Medeis' apparent factual error is, "According to the Bronchitis article, nearly all bronchitis is caused by virus." And that's it. No drama, just facts. Throwing barbs at other users is the wrong way - which is why we had that discussion on the ref desk talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You mean exactly what TRM did? --Jayron 32 19:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you were in your late 80's when you last had a flu, it's no wonder you can't remember. :-) StuRat (talk) 03:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

The OP went on to ask: “ But you build an immunity to that exact bug, right? So how come you don't just get another bug. There are lots of them.” which I don't think has been fully answered. Both cold and influenza virus tend to mutate very slowly (OK there are sometimes exceptions). Once the body has acquired immunity to one virus strain, it can normally cope and adapt to close variants picked up through normal contact. Meaning, that the new virus strain is only present in small quantities, too small to evoke an illness. So the immune system can update itself in small doses. Preventing another cold etc. Working in a germ factory (say a school) overrides the speed that the immune system can update. There are some little bacterial horrids too, like cholera, tenuous, anthrax, botulism etc., that are ubiquitous in our environment but they don't cause problems unless the victim is exposed to too many of these pathogenics at once. --Aspro (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's also not quite true to say the immunity is to the exact bug. Your immune system "learns" to recognize (by producing an antibody for) a specific antigen on the surface of the virus, and react accordingly (OK, it's a little more complicated than that, but this is just a first-order explanation). So it's possible for the virus to mutate in a way which preserves the antigens your body uses to recognize it, and you would still have immunity to that strain. This was actually the basis for the first vaccine, as smallpox (deadly) and cowpox (inconvenient) share enough common antigens that the immune system can recognize smallpox if it has been previously exposed to cowpox. Therefore, infecting people with cowpox deliberately prevents them from contracting the much worse smallpox infection later. Of course, if the virus mutates to no longer show the same antigens, then your body does not recognize it, and you get a new cold or flu. MChesterMC (talk) 09:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a good way of putting it. The viral RNA may be slightly different from the last virus but immune system recognizes the common protein coat (capsid) on the new virus as not self and attacks it. Or perhaps another way of putting it ( because the way immune system works is very complicated) The foreign protein is not self meaning that the immune system sees it as potential food. This is because it part of the immune systems function to examine all the food stuff particles which permeates through the gut wall and convert it into food for the body. --Aspro (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. I'm watching and reading. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The common cold article explains that it is common for multiple strains of viruses to be present. For example, during the SARS outbreak two were circulating together so frequently that as I recall it took months to figure out which was the one responsible for the symptoms. Of course, when people are infected with two at once they tend to call it a "bad cold". But I've certainly also suffered where a cold strikes, then there is a false hope, and another. Conceivably some interference might occur due to interferons; they are produced in response to colds and in more technically advanced countries like Soviet/ex-Soviet Russia interferon 2-alfa is used to help treat them. But the downside of being sick while trying to fight off a new infection is also substantial... Wnt (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]