The truth wears off?

Here is an interesting article from The New Yorker. An excerpt from the article (emphasis mine):

Leigh Simmons, a biologist at the University of Western Australia, suggested one explanation when he told me about his initial enthusiasm for the theory: “I was really excited by fluctuating asymmetry. The early studies made the effect look very robust.” He decided to conduct a few experiments of his own, investigating symmetry in male horned beetles. “Unfortunately, I couldn’t find the effect,” he said. “But the worst part was that when I submitted these null results I had difficulty getting them published. The journals only wanted confirming data. It was too exciting an idea to disprove, at least back then.” For Simmons, the steep rise and slow fall of fluctuating asymmetry is a clear example of a scientific paradigm, one of those intellectual fads that both guide and constrain research: after a new paradigm is proposed, the peer-review process is tilted toward positive results. But then, after a few years, the academic incentives shift—the paradigm has become entrenched—so that the most notable results are now those that disprove the theory.

Why are there so many chemicals in our food?

I recently ate some great Fuji apples from Sam's Club.

Shiny red, extremely crunchy, with just the right hint of sourness to lift the underlying sweetness.

My curiosity drove me to the label (they came boxed). There, hidden in fine print (our farmers have learned from our bankers!), were the following items:

Treated to maintain freshness with one or more of the following: diphenylamine, thiabendazole, o-phenylphenol, ethoxyquin, 1-methylcyclopropene.

Coated with food grade vegetable and/or shellac based wax.

So I thought I'd structure my regular stroll through WikipediaLand, on a fine Saturday morning, by trying to learn more about these chemicals, and their adverse effects, if any.

Diphenylamine is used as a pre- or postharvest scald inhibitor for apples. Scald, or storage scald, are irregular brown patches of dead skin that start appearing within a week after warming fruit that has previously been preserved cold. Diphenylamine prevents oxidation, which is the principal cause of scald, and hence minimizes storage scald.

The MSDS sheet has the following to say regarding toxicity: "Toxic. Possible mutagen. Possible teratogen. Harmful in contact with skin, and if swallowed or inhaled. Irritant."

Next I turned to Thiabendazole, which apparently is used to control mold, blight, and other fungally-caused diseases. It appears to be relatively innocuous, with slight toxicity in higher doses. There seems to be no evidence for mutagenic or carcinogenic effects.


Similarly, ortho-phenylphenol is also a fungicide, and is apparently found in low concentrations in some household products including spray disinfectants and aerosol or spray underarm deodorants. Its toxicity seems to be controversial, with suppliers insisting that it is safe, while watch-groups suggest otherwise.

Ethoxyquin is another antioxidant, and apparently has been shown to cause mortality in fish. It does seem to present some toxicity concerns.

1-Methylcyclopropene (1-MCP) is an interesting one. From the wikipedia entry:

It is structurally related to the natural plant hormone ethylene and it is used commercially to slow down the ripening of fruit and to help maintain the freshness of cut flowers. The use of 1-MCP in agricultural products including apples, kiwifruit, tomatoes, bananas, plums, persimmons, avacados and melons has been approved and accepted for use in more than 34 countries including the European Union and the United States. Although there are benefits to the consumer including fresher produce and lower cost, there is some concern that consumers may be purchasing fruit that is older than expected.

Based on studies with laboratory animals, no adverse effects are expected to humans who are exposed to end products that contain 1-MCP, although eye irritation may occur if a user does not follow label directions. 1-MCP as a gas is not toxic to test animals.

Moral of the story: Never, ever forget to wash.

And yeah, the title of the post is misleading.

Does exercise really make us thinner?

I recently read through an interesting article called the "Scientist and the Stairmaster" by Gary Taubes, with the interesting "abstract" (more a longish subtitle) "Why most of us believe that exercise makes us thinner—and why we're wrong."

It has an interesting thesis, and deserves to be looked at. The reason I bring the article up is for two reasons.

First, the author brings up the topic of thermodynamics three times in the article. At one point he boldly proclaims:

Humans, rats, and all living organisms are ruled by biology, not thermodynamics.

If that was insufficient to knock you out senseless, he comes with an encore.

These physiological mechanisms serve fundamentally to work against the inevitable pull of thermodynamics (which is entropy, a.k.a. death) and so make life possible.

I think the first claim is categorically bogus, and the implication in the second statement is dishonest.

Which thermodynamic law, when properly applied, is outlawed by biology?

The second law of thermodynamics clearly allows the entropy of a "system" free to exchange energy with its surroundings to decrease.

There is nothing remarkable about it.

Even dumb, non-living stuff free from any "life-force" can do that, making the phrase "to work against the inevitable pull of thermodynamics (which is entropy, a.k.a. death) and so make life possible" inappropriately dramatic.

Some of the comments under the article are bang on (or perhaps they share my scepticism). I reproduce a few excerpts, without edits, below:

Look, you are going to get whatever validation you need from this article, these studies, these reports, that suits you. In the end, every study can be countered by another, each report has an opposing report and with our global communication, you can always find studies and reports to support what your personal habits.

Gary Taubes is trying to sell a book and I am all for capitalism but you must see it as that.

One thing that I was hoping he would clear up was if, as he says, obesity is a function of the insulin levels in the body. I have read some articles indicating that exercise will lower insulin levels in the body. Wouldn't that help in a person's fight with obesity?

Another question that should be considered is how long the studies have gone on. A person may gain muscle to a point, and then stop further development (when the muscle is strong enough to cope with the new excercise strength requirements), while the fat keeps burning off. Their weight would then go down.

I hope one day, technical journals will allow free commenting on articles like news magazines do. I kid you not - I often learn more from them - than the main article.