The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets

There is excuse-making and then there is an entire damned industry that works its level best to asset-strip you to your underwear so your fat ass (and the rest) hangs out.

“The key point is that you can be on TV, you can lose enormous amounts of weight, you can go on for six years, but you can’t get away from a basic biological reality,” said Dr. Schwartz, who was not involved in the study. “As long as you are below your initial weight, your body is going to try to get you back.”

Well sure, if your "path" to weight loss is to eat damn near nothing (e.g. starve) and run your metabolic demand through the ceiling by engaging in extremely intense exercise.

Look at the quotes: "It's hard.  The cravings are there."

But the kernel of truth is right here:

“There is a lot of basic research we still need to do,” said Dr. Margaret Jackson, who is directing a project at Pfizer. Her group is testing a drug that, in animals at least, acts like leptin, a hormone that controls hunger. With weight loss, leptin levels fall and people become hungry. The idea is to trick the brains of people who have lost weight so they do not become ravenous for lack of leptin.

Pfizer wants to sell you a drug, of course.

But what if you learned that hunger is largely regulated by leptin, leptin response is largely mediated by insulin levels, and it is what you eat, not how much, that is almost-entirely responsible for insulin levels?

Guess what: That all happens to be true.

What is being discussed here is that the contestants on the show The Biggest Loser basically poisoned their metabolism through the path they engaged in -- that is, extreme caloric restriction coupled with intense exercise.

But the "big lie" is right here:

“What was surprising was what a coordinated effect it is,” Dr. Proietto said. “The body puts multiple mechanisms in place to get you back to your weight. The only way to maintain weight loss is to be hungry all the time. We desperately need agents that will suppress hunger and that are safe with long-term use.”

Agents, of course, means drugs.  Yeah that's a great idea -- hand over $10,000 a year forever to someone for a pill that will probably have side effects that destroy your life (eventually.)

Look at what they had these people eat:

His routine went like this: Wake up at 5 a.m. and run on a treadmill for 45 minutes. Have breakfast — typically one egg and two egg whites, half a grapefruit and a piece of sprouted grain toast. Run on the treadmill for another 45 minutes. Rest for 40 minutes; bike ride nine miles to a gym. Work out for two and a half hours. Shower, ride home, eat lunch — typically a grilled skinless chicken breast, a cup of broccoli and 10 spears of asparagus. Rest for an hour. Drive to the gym for another round of exercise.

Mother of God will you stop killing yourself?

Look folks, fat in the diet is not fat on the body.  This sort of "diet" is nothing other than starvation and it's stupid.

What's the problem?  Right here:

His slow metabolism is part of the problem, and so are his food cravings. He opens a bag of chips, thinking he will have just a few. “I’d eat five bites. Then I’d black out and eat the whole bag of chips and say, ‘What did I do?’”

Get the damned chips out the house!

Oh, and the rest of the carbs.

You're not sick because you're fat (and cut the "shaming" crap, facts just are) you're fat because you're sick and you're sick because you refuse to stop eating things that make you that way.

Look folks, I know you don't want to hear it because you're all looking for a drug and an excuse.

That's why you lose 10, 20 or 30lbs, then put it all back on with interest.

You can't stop eating pasta, potato chips and bread.... Really?  You're willing to trade being fat and ultimately developing diabetes causing you to have your toes chopped off one by one as they turn gangrenous, along with losing your eyesight and ultimately your life, rather than getting the damned potato chips out of your house?  REALLY?

You do understand that your body's metabolic system is capable of handling quite the level of insult before it breaks, right?  That you "pass" the common glucose test (OGTT) or have a normal (or marginal) A1c today does not mean you have not accumulated decades of such damage and that while there is a test to determine this (OGTT+insulin assay) it's expensive and insurance will not pay for it since it doesn't diagnose a disease that is occurring now.

You do understand that the majority of adults in America and damn near everyone over the age of 60 are metabolically compromised by decades of eating fast carbohydrates and vegetable oils, even if you do not today show evidence of diabetes and related diseases, and that if you are overweight, even only somewhat, or obese it is a virtual certainty you're one of them irrespective of age, right?

I've been there and done this over the space of a couple of decades.  I too poisoned myself because I was ignorant and believed that if I ate fewer animal fats, more vegetable oils and more carbohydrates while simply exercising more and eating less I'd lose weight and keep it off -- along with avoiding said disease.

Everyone who told you this either didn't know what the hell they were talking about or was lying.  The results were the same as they are for most of you -- slowly but inexorably increasing body weight.

Then I changed what, not how much, I ate and my body's regulatory system healed over time.  Is it completely healed?  I'm sure it's not, and if I was to go back to eating how I used to eat all the weight I lost and probably more would come right back on -- and quite quickly too.

But guess what?  You can do it too.  I don't care how fat you are now or how long you've been fat.  I don't care if you've yo-yo dieted before, or engaged in some sort of extreme attempt to lose weight.

You're overweight because you have poisoned the regulatory systems in your body that control your desire to eat.  You almost-certainly poisoned them unintentionally but whether it was intentional or not does not matter; what matters is that it happened and unless you change what you eat the damage will continue to accrue over time and at some point it is very likely it will manifest itself as clinically-diagnosed disease.

To succeed in allowing your body to repair itself to the degree it can, however, you are going to have to do two things: Stop making excuses and stop looking for answers in a damned pill bottle -- or a surgeons office.

The answer is found in what, not how much, is in your pantry and refrigerator.

Read this article.  Bookmark it, print it, whatever.

Go through your house -- pantry, fridge and freezer.  Throw anything on the "don't eat list" in the trash can and never let it come back into your home or pass your lips when you are somewhere other than at home.

Go to the store once you've thrown everything away on the "don't eat list" and re-stock your fridge with things on the DO eat list.  Note that almost none of them will go in the pantry because the pantry is for things that are shelf-stable and processed.  A few will go on the counter that are going to get eaten within a couple of days but the rest go in either the fridge or freezer.

Don't tell me that you can't do it because you can do it.  You can do it when you're home and you can do it when you're eating away from home.  If you absolutely must have a sub sandwich when out go to Jimmy Johns and have them make it as a wrap; they will, in lettuce -- or if want then go to Subway and have it as a salad (same thing but with the lettuce chopped up and thus less-convenient to eat "on the go.")

If you're overweight your pants will shortly try to fall off, but more-importantly your body knows how to regulate its caloric intake if you stop poisoning the mechanisms that control it.  When you reach an appropriate weight - which is not one where you're "large", but rather a body mass that looks like a normal, not-fat person in every case (no, you're not "special" in that regard: You're not "big-boned", you're fatthe weight loss will stop all on its own without you making a conscious decision to do so.

Here's the thing, however: You can't get there from here if you "diet" because as soon as you stop "dieting" you will go back to poisoning your body's metabolic signalling system and the weight will come right back on.  In fact it may come back on faster than ever because some of the damage you've accumulated is probably permanent.

This is not a matter of "blame" it is a matter of fact -- whether you undertook what you did because you were stupid, you got bad advice from so-called "professionals" or any other cause doesn't matter.

You are an adult and thus you are responsible for the outcomes that occur when you listen to various people no matter who they are.

If you take someone's advice and it doesn't work but you keep doing what you were told would work why in the hell would you keep listening to them?

Look folks, do it for 30 days.  That's all.  I'm no doctor but I can tell you what works because it did after a couple of decades of the "conventional advice" not working.  I can also point you to the comments here from others who also had it work with some of them having ridiculously dramatic results when it came not so much as to weight (in that short amount of time) but metabolic markers of serious disease such as their blood sugar.  This isn't something that was a "fad" or an undertaking that I "recently" did and thus can't give you any sort of honest answer on whether the weight I lost will stay off.

You want to know how many people I've run into who have actually done this and not had it work?  Zero.  Every one of the people I've been acquainted with that failed has admitted they just didn't do it.  They ate the pasta.  Or the potatoes.  Or they just "had to have" the pie.  Or sugar in their coffee.  They had the craving, they had a bad day exercising and had to "add back" some carbs (even though they were less than a week into it), and on and on.  Rather than tough it out for a few days, literally, knowing it would go away in a few days to a week (like a cold does) if they just kept at it, they didn't.

It didn't fail -- they simply didn't do it and they admit it.

I changed my lifestyle in this fashion in 2011.  I used no drugs, no doctors and no surgical interventions -- nothing other than what I stuffed in my pie hole and had in my house.  I did it despite having a kid at home at the time who refused to give up her Doritos, M&Ms and similar.

Despite the bad stuff being present I didn't eat them, choosing instead to reach for the broccoli or piece of leftover zero-carb roast.

If you're one of the millions of Americans who have heard that it's all "hormonal", that you need "help", that you have a "damaged" metabolism and "it's not your fault" or that nothing other than invasive surgery or drugs (and perhaps not even then) will make a long-term difference what do you have to lose by trying?

Do you really think that a month or two of changing what you eat is going to do some critical damage that all those years of piling on the pounds hasn't?  Are you really too lazy to go spend under $50 for instrumentation that will (largely) last virtually forever to test a hypothesis on your body and your metabolism and give you objective results by which to measure whether it works or doesn't?  I don't think there's anywhere in this country that's more than a 20 minute drive from a WalMart these days and if there is Amazon covers every US address within a couple of days (even without Prime) so there's simply no excuse other than willful refusal.

You can't argue with objective numbers so if you don't have them because you won't go buy the $20 worth of stuff to obtain them in the privacy of your own home where nobody else can ever see them then the only excuse is that you are consciously refusing to put such a change in eating habits to an objective, personal test.

If you're happy with being overweight or obese, or worse you expect someone else to either fix it or give you a pill then shut your pie hole and deal with the consequences of your choice.  A choice that, I remind you, given our corrupt and extortionate medical system will bankrupt you as well as having a high probability of making you both sick and ultimately dead.

Or, for nearly zero money you can change, what, not how you eat -- not as a "diet" but as a lifestyle and as a side effect it is highly like that your pants will fall off.

Your choice.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Cruz is at it again.

In two states over the weekend Cruz's "ground game" steamrolled state conventions following losses in those state primaries, putting overwhelming majorities of delegates on the state slate that support Ted.  In Arizona, for example, Cruz lost by roughly half compared to Trump; 47% to 25% (Kascish got 10% and the rest went to candidates who have dropped out.)

How does a political party manage to justify a delegate split that doesn't look like 47-25-10, roughly?  Oh sure, such a result might be "legal" under the rules of the party, and further on the first ballot the delegates are all "required" to vote as pledged, but that's not the point of the exercise and Cruz knows it.

The same thing happened in Virginia.

To top it all off we have columns like this from Townhall:

Ted Cruz and Carly Fiorina are a gift from God to America—perhaps our last chance to fully restore the gift of liberty He so graciously provided at our nation's founding.

A gift from God?

Oh really?  May I remind you of the record Fiorina actually has when it comes to economics -- specifically, jobs?  She destroyed Bell Labs and Lucent with aggressive lending practices she was neck-deep in as a sales leader, including to Winstar Communications, a company that went bankrupt in what was (up until MCI blew up) one of the largest bankruptcies in corporate history.  Of course by then she was gone and it was that ridiculously-unwise financing that literally blew up the firm, destroying its jobs and leaving the literal matchsticks that remained to be sold off to Alcatel for pennies.

Then she went to HP where she fired 30,000 people with most of those jobs going to China.  HP escape destruction but its stock was cut by more than half and while she claims "revenue expanded" during her tenure she bought it rather than growing it -- and by the head-count and equity price she failed to capitalize on those transactions.  In short Fiorina is the worst possible person who you want in a policy position if your goal is to create jobs rather than destroy them,

If that's "God's" influence I'm forced to conclude that you and I look toward different gods -- and perhaps yours is Lucifer?

Tuesday Indiana votes and we shall see how that comes out.  There's a lot of noise there in terms of the polls and the state is both an open primary and notoriously thin and hard to read.  The latest poll shows Trump with a 15 point lead, one that has grown materially in the last couple of week as the Cruz "dirty tricks" machine has picked up speed.

The voters are not happy about this sort of crap -- at all -- with two thirds of the Republicans in the latest polls stating that if nobody has 1237 going into the convention the candidate with the PLURALITY should be nominated.

The GOP ought to pay damn good attention to that figure because if two thirds of registered Republicans stay home after the nomination is stolen not only will Hillary be President the party will be destroyed both in terms of vote-getting and fundraising.  The GOP will quite-literally go from being a contender to a tiny minority party with no more chance of winning a Presidential contest in the future than the Libertarian party has since only electoral votes count in a Presidential contest and you will win exactly zero electoral votes with 25% of the electorate supporting you.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

2016-05-01 12:09 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 276 references

This sort of article infuriates me.

Fructose alters hundreds of brain genes, which can lead to a wide range of diseases.

A range of diseases, from diabetes to cardiovascular disease, and from Alzheimer’s disease to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, are linked to changes to genes in the brain. A new study by UCLA life scientists has found that hundreds of those genes can be damaged by fructose, a sugar that’s common in the Western diet, in a way that could lead to those diseases.

The essence of the claim is that fructose, in elevated amounts, is a poison.

Now some fructose is inherently in anything that is both natural and sweet.  But then again there is a natural amount of all sorts of things present in various foods that are dangerous when concentrated.

This claim, if true, would instantly implicate any food producer who intentionally concentrated fructose into something they sold as a food -- in other words, anything with "high fructose corn syrup" in it.

It is a pretty-clean argument, in fact, that selling such a "food" is actually selling a poison.

What this article then goes on to claim, however, is that Omega-3 fatty acids, specifically DHA (one of them), can reverse that damage.

The upshot?  That we should effort to obtain more DHA in our diet.

Huh?  That's like arguing that if your house is on fire instead of putting it out you should wear a Nomex suit and slather on Silvadene for the burns you receive!

The real question studies like this raise is why we're not seeing indictments alleging that these so-called "food companies" are in fact selling metabolic poisons, much like you'd charge someone with selling rat poison as a "food."

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Some time ago I commented on a pattern that was quite disturbing, when you looked at it analytically -- what articles got the most views, and thus "clicks."

Put bluntly, it was never the articles on my catching Bernanke pulling system liquidity into the maw of the collapse in 2008, while he maintained to Congress he had done the opposite.  Nor was it such articles like my recent piece on Harbor Mobile, which for anyone with a small business outlined a very simple way to take a $75 monthly cell bill and cut it in half for what amounts to the same service, which winds up saving you over $400 a year -- every year.

Nor is it articles detailing how a state decided to literally kidnap and medically experiment on a person slightly under the age of 18 -- against her express wishes.  Oh, and the experiments failed too.

No, the biggest click-gainers over the years have been quite interesting really, when one thinks about content and "what sells."  Frankly, media always does. If an article takes a certain amount of time to write, go through and edit, proof a couple of times, check and make sure the links and references are ok, and then post, why wouldn't you write that which garners the most readers and eschew that which garners the fewest?

There is an old saw in the media world that goes, roughly: If it bleeds it leads.

It's no less true in the digital media age.

So it was with little surprise that I saw the piece on Bloomberg claiming to "out" Zerohedge yesterday, or the claims of "editorial slant" that came with it.

I won't bother citing any of the riposte that was posted by them in response to Bloomberg's story, other than to note that if you want to play "let's drag people through the mud" you sure could go there.  Nor will I allow it to be linked here in the comment section; there's a certain level of decorum that IMHO applies to situations like this, including when someone who worked for or with you runs to someone like Bloomberg and starts vomiting up a stream of allegations.

I will note, however, that it's pretty easy these days to garner up a bunch of clicks and thus ad serves and revenue by writing pieces like that -- on both sides.  Never mind the blatantly-misleading headline on Bloomberg itself; the primary protagonist on Zerohedge has been known for a long time, so to call such a piece "unmasking" is more than a bit disingenuous.

Around here I do my level best to write content on subjects that I believe are worthy of expounding upon and, hopefully, garnering thoughtful debate. The latter fails more often than I'd like given what I consider to be the general intelligence level of the readership, but that goal tends to conflict directly with maximizing revenue in the ad-driven world of today.

That leads to a situation that is difficult to resolve: How do you both earn revenue and not spiral into ground of publishing more and more bull**** along with less and less worthy material if the bull**** garners the most views and thus revenue by far?

In any event I'm fairly glad to be on the back side of this sort of thing.  Frankly, it bothered me more than a few times when I looked at the detailed analytics and what was making the money.  It's nice to not look so much, and care even less.

This is certainly not a new problem but it is one that all ad-driven properties in the media market eventually wind up either dealing with or being buried by, and while it certainly isn't "investable" in the context of what Bloomberg is talking about it sure is in the public company space.

Now there's something to think about on your Sunday....

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

This sort of article, which you can find all over the net written by dozens of "pundits",*****es me off on two levels.

First, it casts blame other than where it belongs -- on the handle end of your fork, and instead blames "big business."  Second, it ignores the fact that virtually all of the monetary outcome of not being intelligent on the handle end of your fork is addressable through nothing more than application of existing law.

Since the early 1960s, the prevalence of obesity among adults more than doubled, increasing from 13.4 to 35.7 percent in U.S. adults age 20 and older.  (Source)

The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) reported in 2015 that roughly half of all adult Americans are diabetic or prediabetic (also called metabolic syndrome).

If we add up everyone in America who is either suffering from or at risk of lifestyle-related diseases such as heart disease, diabetes and lifestyle-related types of cancer, it’s clear this is an unprecedented national health crisis that has no easy or cheap medical fix.

So far, so good.

But then it all goes to hell:

To understand why this is so, we must start with the fact that we live in a highly centralized government/private-sector system that limits our choices to maximize the profits of corporate cartels: Big Agriculture, Big Oil/Ag Chemicals, Big GMO seeds (Monsanto et al.), Big Processed Foods, Big Supermarkets, Big Fast Food, Big Healthcare (what I have called sickcare for many years, because profits flow not from keeping us healthy via prevention but from keeping us alive when we’re suffering from chronic lifestyle illnesses) and last but not least Big Pharma, which is happy to provide medications that costs tens of thousands of dollars per patient per year to address the symptoms of lifestyle diseases rather than the causes, which trace back to what we eat and how we live.

Blah-blah-blah-there's nothing in the supermarket you can buy that will help, we have to burn the village down and lock up the Monsanto crowd to fix it, and we won't so we're ****ed.

In a single word: Horse****.

Want the picture again?  Here it is:

That's over an eight month period in 2011ish.  Want the current one so you know I'm not funning you?

From a race about a month ago.

Want to know how much attention I've paid to "not eating" GMOish things, or buying "organic" this or that, or exactly how much I have in square footage of my own garden?  Zero.

My A1c is normal, my fasting blood glucose is under 90, I run half-marathons regularly and often do 10ish mile runs for fun and in 2011 when I made this change I could not run a single half-mile without having to stop, was fat and getting fatter (as are most Americans) and I'm willing to bet that I was well on my way to metabolic-related disease and morbidity.

What's even better is that because I instrumented all of my exercise during the 2011 time period (and continue to, for performance-related reasons) I can tell you exactly how much of the ~60ish lbs I lost was due to exercise: 20.

Why?  Because it's math, that's why, and I know how many calories I burned exercising during that time.

All of the rest came through changing what I ate, with exactly zero attention paid to things like "organic", "grass-fed", "no GMOs", "no agribusiness sourced food" and similar.

Oh yes, you can do that if you want, but it will double your cost of food -- if not more.

I also never counted a single calorie.

Might there be an incremental benefit to doing the no-GMO, all-organic, all-grass-etc thing over what I actually did?  Maybe.  But there's an old adage that is very true in this case, I suspect, as with most others: 80% of any problem is resolvable at low cost and easily.  The last 20% requires exponentially more difficulty and cost to achieve and is of increasingly-dubious value.

Then, to confound it all, you have this horse**** in the linked article:

The full consequences of the food/illness/healthcare system take decades to manifest. Humans respond to price (buy what’s cheapest) and what triggers the reward centers of the brain (consume sugar, fat, salt). It’s remarkably easy to exploit these short-term factors to sell unhealthy food and meals whose lifetime costs are still years or decades in the future.

This sort of crap is only 1/3rd true and the rest is dangerously wrong because one of the claims is flat-out false for nearly all people (salt) and the other is by implication half wrong and thus wholly false (that is, saturated fat is what is maligned yet it is not only ok it is an excellent fuel; it is vegetable oils which never exist in nature in any material edible quantity that are the problem.)

Again, go read this article.  This is how I went from the left to the right and how I've stayed "at the right" for the last five years.

It is also how, at age 52, I have none of the markers for metabolic disease; I am not overweight or obese, I have a normal A1c and both a normal fasting blood sugar along with tolerance to glucose intake.

And finally, it is how I am able to run faster now than I was able to when I was 16 and running cross-country in High School.  I was never able to break 22 minutes for a three mile run (I required roughly 30 minutes for that distance) yet I did it right here, last year, in a race with independent timing confirmation.  That race was run on a stomach containing only two espressos in the morning, exactly as are my other races these days -- yes, including the half-marathons, of which there's one right here (Rock-n-Fly about a month ago) if you'd like to look.

If you want to be into the whole Save the Planet, agribusiness is bad, must-grow-local, must-eat-organic, etc thing be my guest.  You are of course free to do that, but the problem with promoting it as more than what it is, which is a zealotry-driven agenda that has little or no connection to health is flat-out wrong and harmful because the time, effort and monetary investment required to live that way is wildly off the charts compared against what you need to do in order to obtain 80% or better of the benefit by simply changing what goes in your damn pie hole, all of which is available at any supermarket in the United States.

There is literally nobody who today is able to pay for their food who cannot implement a change in their eating habits that effectively mirrors what I did.  Nobody.

There are plenty of people who won't do it, plenty of people who don't want to do it and plenty of people who don't believe it works or will actually kill you but there's nobody in the United States today that is able to live independently who can't do it for want of resource without materially changing their expense profile when it comes to food.

I like Charles and in fact he wrote the forward for Leverage.  However, when you're wrong you're wrong, and liking someone doesn't make them right.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
Dawn In America?

Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.


The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be reproduced or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media or for commercial use.

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.