The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets
2017-07-01 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Social Issues , 503 references
[Comments enabled]  

I've heard this comment, or some derivative of it, far too often lately: "We now live in a LGTBQ{whatever} world and it's just how it is."

Uh, sorry folks, but words mean things and science trumps feelings.

Let's break this down.

There are three sexual orientations:  Straight, Gay, and Bi.

If you have no attraction to members of the same sex, you're straight.
If you have no attraction to members of the opposite sex, you're gay.
If you have some attraction, some of the time, to members of both sexes, you're bi.

If you have any degree of attraction to someone of the same sex as you, then you're Bi.  You might be 1% Bi, you might choose to never act on your attraction (just as I choose not to sleep with a married woman) but that has exactly nothing to do with whether I find her attractive -- or whether you find someone of the same sex attractive in a sexual manner.  You either do or you don't on a categorical basis.

As to sexes there are exactly two: Male and Female.

There are, however, varying degrees of satisfaction with a person's draw in the genetic lottery.  Spare me the horsecrap about "androgenous" people; there are none.  You might be a ****ed-up male (e.g. XXY, Klinefelter's syndrome) but you're still a male genetically.  If you have no "Y" chromosome in your cells you're female.  You might be a ****ed-up female (e.g. single X, Turner's syndrome) but you're still female.

Bluntly, there is no such thing as "transgendered."

There is, however, among a fair number of people, the state of being unhappy with your draw in the DNA lottery.  Unhappiness is not "illness" (mental or otherwise), it's unhappiness.  We are all unhappy about this or that from time to time, and we have the right, as humans with a full range of emotions, to be unhappy about anything -- including our sex, for as long as we like.

I note that the Founding Fathers, wise men that they were, recognized this as they called out in the Declaration of Independence the fundamental human right to the pursuit of happiness.

Nowhere is attainment of happiness mentioned, nor can it be assured, and for good reason -- it's mostly in our heads!

If you're unhappy with your luck in the DNA lottery (over which you had exactly zero input, of course) you might choose to dress to please yourself (so what?) or you might choose to cut some things off and add others so as to alter your appearance on a more-permanent basis.

The risk with that, however, along with drugs taken to suppress various parts of your sex-chromosome expressed physical characteristics, is that hormones are not well-understood as to side effects and all of them have very significant risks associated with their use.  In addition, and far worse, most of the time one's unhappiness, when it expresses in this fashion, is either not limited to their draw in the DNA lottery or it is truly with that draw and not one's appearance, which is the only thing it is physically possible to alter no matter how drastic the actions you take.

How do I know this?  That's easy: A large percentage of people who go through "gender reassignment" commit suicide.

Nobody who is happy intentionally kills themselves and obviously, if they do so after such surgery then altering their physical appearance did not address their unhappiness.

That's likely, by the way, because you can't change your sex -- only your appearance.  I find it outrageous, in fact, when someone is misled to believe they can "become" that which they can't "if only they take this pill or have this cut off or that sewn on." Indeed, it is my considered opinion that anyone who misleads someone in such a fashion should be held criminally responsible should that person commit suicide in the future after "taking their advice."

You see, I'd be despondent too if I was led to believe that I could change my sex and then discovered it was a lie, especially when one considers that such a set of changes is irreversible and leaves a man who makes such an election a man who looks like a woman and a woman who makes such an election a woman who looks like a man!

For a societal perspective there's another problem, however, which is that if you pander to someone who claims to be something they're not in one area of life you're asking for that same refusal to accept scientific fact to show up in other places in their life, and quite possibly in places that would matter to you in your interaction with them.  If that's the standard you set why would you be surprised when they meet it?

That's a bad deal all the way around -- for both you and them.

We're well past the point where we need to cut the crap in this regard and be honest with people -- both about sexual preference and the physical, scientific realities when it comes to the two (and only two) sexes.

This crap has gone on long enough.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2017-06-30 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 363 references
[Comments enabled]  

There's a meme flying around the last few days that has managed to "snag" a few people I know on Zuckerpig's site related to vaccinations.

I've seen two variations of it.  One "features" a kid (but not an infant) who cannot be vaccinated because she's immunocompromised and a "attenuated" live vaccine could kill her.  The other features an infant too young to have been vaccinated against the evil (in this case, whooping cough.)

Both are attempts to shame people who are "anti-vaxxers", and take a shot at the autism claims.

Let's start there.

There is no evidence that vaccines in fact cause autism. Zero.  There are a lot of claims that said occurs, but there's no scientific evidence for it.

The "meme" is basically a my kid got screwed because of you evil bastards who didn't vaccinate your kids.

The problem is that the meme is false.

Let's deconstruct it because down this road lies a dangerous and false set of beliefs.

First, there's the explicit claim that "if your kid was vaccinated mine would not have gotten sick."

This is false unless every single kid is vaccinated with vaccines that are 100% effective.

But most of these memes include a kid who can't be vaccinated either due to age (too young) or immune compromised.  Therefore if exposed they are likely to get ill.

Second, no vaccine is 100% effective.

Behind the dangerous falsity of these memes is a blatantly false claim about how "herd immunity" works.  It does not prevent disease from being transmitted, in short.

What herd immunity does is attempt to prevent transmission from turning into epidemic.

That is, let's say you have measles.  It doesn't matter why you have measles.  Maybe you didn't get vaccinated whether for "conscious objection" reasons or not (e.g. you're a refugee) or maybe the vaccine failed (and yes, they do!)  It doesn't matter why you have measles, all that matters is that you do have measles.

Measles happens to be extremely contagious.  That is, if you have it and come close enough to someone to transmit it, and they are not immune (either from vaccination or previous exposure) the odds are extremely high they will get it.  Different diseases have different efficiency of transmission; some like chicken pox and measles are very easy to transmit, others like HPV or HIV require direct intimate (bodily fluid) exchange.

Herd immunity has exactly nothing to do with the singular event of someone who has a disease coming into contact with the unprotected person.  If that happens and the vector is completed then the odds of infectious transmission are extremely high.

What herd immunity does is make the percentage of people who are immune high enough that the probability of the infected person contacting a susceptible person and transmitting the disease falls below the infectious percentage (that is, what percent of those who come into contact will get it.)  So long as that number is <1.0 for anyone who has the disease then you have what is called "herd immunity" because the infection cannot reproduce at a rate sufficient to nail everyone who is susceptible.

You'd think that herd immunity would make a disease eradicated because with an insufficient transmission rate it would quite-quickly wind up disappearing.  You'd be right about that except for one problem: For it to work you must reach that level for all populations that can serve as both reservoirs and impacted entities (which may include species other than humans.)  If you do that the disease literally disappears.

So why do Whooping Cough, Chicken Pox and Measles still exist?

Because there are populations where that level of immunity was never achieved.

Who are those people?

Do you really want the bad news?

They're largely illegal immigrants and refugees -- that is, people from third-world ****holes where there is no vaccination and thus those diseases are still common.

So if you actually want to reduce the risk of your little kid getting Whooping Cough then you want to kick out every single illegal immigrant and every refugee, and prevent any from coming into the country until they are both vaccinated and quarantined for a sufficient time to know their immunity is good.

The fact is that we have "herd immunity" for most common diseases for which vaccines are available today in the Untied States and other western nations, despite the few "objectors."  The exceptions are nearly all traceable to not those scared of autism but rather to refugees and illegal immigrants, both of whom come in without any documentation as to their immunization status and in many cases with not only no immunizations but latent disease as well!

That's where the problem is but what you have to understand is that the random risk of someone, even if we kick all those people out, getting past the screening or simply having a vaccination failure -- and it does happen -- still exists.

In short if your kid is either incapable of taking the vaccines or is too young to have done so herd immunity does not protect them from the singular infection that could hose them.  If someone who has failed immunity to said disease for whatever reason, including not of their own fault, is shedding the virus (or whatever) and manages to meet the transmission requirements to your kid they're going to get sick -- period.

Vaccines are also not without risk.  The HPV vaccine, for example, has a record of occasionally causing Guillian-Barre syndrome.  Some cases of this "side effect" are fatal and many cases that are not fatal produce permanent partial paralysis.  Since HPV is a sexually-transmitted disease and cannot be transmitted by casual contact to claim that everyone "must" have said vaccine is an outrage -- that is a matter of personal choice where one must weigh the risk (very small, but real) of a severe adverse event against the risk of transmission of the condition through voluntary or violent sexual encounter.

Frankly, I don't think anyone has the right to make that decision for someone else and thus it's a decision that should be made by adults at the time of turning 18.  That's my view and others may differ; one of the pleasures (and pains) of being a parent is that you get to choose in that regard for your kids -- but not for mine.

There are, however, some states that have tried to mandate it for anyone in schools and from my perspective what that amounts to is an admission that the school cannot manage to keep kids from ****ing one another in the buildings and on the school grounds, which says a lot about their level of competence in running said school!

So let's not conflate "vaccines" into one bucket, because they're not.  There are those that I believe you can make a very clean argument for -- DTaP, MMR and Polio being the poster children for that group.  Why?  It has nothing to do with "herd immunity" but everything to do with the fact that if you contract these conditions they are dangerous and can kill or permanently and severely harm you and the vaccines, while not 100% effective, are extremely good at providing lifetime protection against the disease in question.  Here the balance of risks and benefits are clearly on the side of choosing the vaccination.  If you draw the "short straw" and get harmed by the vaccine that's awful but you are far more-likely to get injured or killed by the disease itself and remember -- herd immunity does not prevent you from getting sick -- it only prevents your illness from turning into an epidemic!

Then there are those vaccines that have a less compelling argument: Varicella (Chicken Pox) is in that category.  That's a live (attenuated) vaccine.  Further, in up to a third of the people vaccinated it fails to provide complete protection -- that is, if exposed you will get the chicken pox and can transmit it anyway, although it will likely be a milder case!  Whether that one's worth the risk (and there are some risks, but not terribly severe ones) is an open question.  Chicken Pox almost never produces any permanent harm in someone who gets it, which makes the balance much harder to accurately estimate -- but since the vaccine itself is an attenuated virus the risk of taking the vaccine is rather low too.  Note that one of the "memes" circulating relates specifically to Chicken Pox exposure to an immunocompromised person and the vaccine has a 30% failure rate.  So much for the claim in the meme that the transmission was "preventable" -- the truth is that it probably was not as the odds are much higher that the person who gave the kid the pox was vaccinated but had a partial failure than someone who wasn't vaccinated at all.  (Note that the zoester vaccine, given to older adults for shingles, is even harder to evaluate -- shingles sucks but since the vaccine for it too is attenuated the risk of it giving you shingles if you have an un-diagnosed immune problem is quite real and, if it happens, you're hosed.)

Finally, in the next (and last) bucket we have the HPV vaccine (and others that are similar and undoubtedly will be developed in the future.)  That vaccine only protects against some strains of HPV, not all and thus might lead someone to engage in riskier behavior than they would otherwise believing they are immune from that condition.  Since virtually all cases of HPV transmission are a result of voluntary intimate contact anything that causes people to believe they're immune from a potential bad outcome but is less than 100% effective might actually increase, rather than decrease, the risk of disease.  In addition there is a small but non-zero risk of a severe or even deadly side effect.

In short you cannot take all of these different immunizations as a "package"; they each have individual risks and benefits and must be evaluated on that basis.

Finally, the bottom line when it comes to vaccination is that, to nearly a 100% degree, they are all about personal benefit in the form of immunity (partial or complete) conferred in the person vaccinated.  The side effect of "herd immunity", if achieved, prevents transmission of the disease in question from turning into an epidemic but does not, in any case, prevent one infected person from infecting a second susceptible person.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2017-06-29 11:19 by Karl Denninger
in States , 5357 references
[Comments enabled]  

Listen up bitch:

Yes, you, and all the other rat bastards in Illinois government.

You cannot get blood out of a stone.

You built a government system that promised the impossible.  You promised "state employees" they could retire with fully-paid, lifetime medical and pension benefits at 50.  You allowed them to game their pension payouts with outrageous practices such as "best earnings years" and then let them run up overtime to boost those figures, resulting in ridiculously pumped pension obligations.

In addition you sat back and watched the medical system, top to bottom, implement policies including differential billing, cost escalations of 10%+ annually, refusing to quote prices, screwing people blind left and right, restraining trade and more -- which you knew was going to continue happening and that it would continue to ramp cost at ridiculous rates well beyond the expansion of the economy because those practices have been going on for 30+ years.  I saw that crap when I ran MCSNet in Chicago and its impact on our health insurance premiums; there was not one year that the increases were not in double-digit percentages for poorer coverage.

Where this was leading was obvious and you not only didn't give a **** then you still don't.

Instead of enforcing 100+ year old anti-trust law against every one of those providers and breaking the back of escalating medical costs you tried to cheat.  You admit that when you had no budget you intentionally screwed providers of services to the state by not paying them and you would have continued to do that had the courts not told you to cut it out -- that what you were doing was illegal.

Now you're whining.

What you could be doing is instead going to the law enforcement side of your government (you do have one) and tell them to enforce the damned law.  Break the medical monopolies.  Drop costs by doing so by 80% or more for medical care in Illinois.  End the provision of care on the taxpayer's dime to illegal immigrants.

In short you thought you could keep pretending that there is a Unicorn that ****s out skittles and your fantasy-land bull**** has blown up in your face.

Instead of facing that fact and admitting the truth, including that you have violated the law and the courts have forced you to pay people for services already provided you now whine to the public.

I left your corrupt state in 2000 because I can do elementary arithmetic.  I can use a calculator.  I understand exponents as do you and I saw the first pieces of this lie factory in both Chicago and Springfield running this same crap 17 years ago.  When I got a parking ticket if I didn't pay it within days the cost went up at outrageous rates and yet when the very same city owed my company money it thought it could pay whenever it wanted and it was only my cutting off the library's service that resulted in prompt payment of my invoices as originally agreed.

I left your state because I knew the state government would not stop lying, would keep screwing people and eventually it would blow up in your faces.  I did not know exactly when it would, but I knew that it would.  And it sure as hell has; my former home's property tax levy has roughly doubled since I lived there and yet you still refuse to stop the scams.

Eat the grenade, Illinois.  You pulled the pin, you kept lying to everyone for nearly 20 years since I left your putrid state, you have refused to stomp on the medical monopolists and financial rapists in your state and you deserve what is happening.

The people of Illinois will flee.  They should flee.  They should all let you sit and soak in your own **** -- because you deserve to do exactly that until and unless every one of the medical facilities that are at the root of this mess are forced to post prices, charge everyone the same price and stop the monopolist games, all of which certainly appear to be illegal under both consumer protection and 100+ year old Anti-trust law and which you COULD choose to enforce, along with an end to practices such as double-dipping and salary-stuffing in the last years of employment with those who did so having their payouts reset to claw back their previous abuse of same.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2017-06-29 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Politics , 264 references
[Comments enabled]  

I've long raised hell about the Libertarian Party's refusal to insist on two things:

1. Wage and environmental parity tariffs.  These are anti-exploitation tariffs.  They are one of my proposals to prevent people from dumping toxic waste in the air, water and ground as a means of making production in one place cheaper than the other and thus moving their manufacturing to that location, along with making the exploitation of workers through non-voluntary measures that amount to extortionate work arrangements unprofitable.

2. True medical system reform that stops medical extortion in this country.  I left the party formally during the 2012 election cycle over this issue.

Well, it's come up again.  The most-virulent attacks against my one sentence bill to stop medical extortion have come from..... Libertarians.

Let's note for the record the alleged non-aggression principle that Libertarians claim to profess: One shall not initiate aggression via force or fraud.

That leaves as perfectly-legitimate the exercise of self-defense.

The second principle is that any voluntary transaction is perfectly fine.

I agree with this provided that the transaction is truly voluntary.

Let's look at the current medical system.  It is a fact that if you show up at a hospital with no health insurance they will try to bill you at 2, 5, 10 or even 100x more than they will bill someone who has insurance, whether that insurance be private, Medicare or Medicaid.

Note that in every case we are talking about the same malady, the same procedure, the same drugs and the same people.  The only thing that changes the bill by a factor of, in some cases, 100x, is whether you did or didn't buy a service previously from some favored party.

Please explain how this does not fit the legal definition of extortion?  Does not "buy this or be bankrupted!" fit the definition?

There is no "bargaining" and there certainly is no consent either when you're flat on your back having a heart attack -- or if you were just bit by a snake.

What's even worse is that hospitals will allow and even encourage "out of network" doctors to, without the knowledge or consent of the customer, treat them when they know said charges will not be paid by the insurance company.  This is known as "balance billing" and in many states it can saddle with a bill for thousands or more without your consent.

Let's extrapolate these practices to a common purchase -- gasoline.

Let's say there's a hurricane coming.  There is a line of cars leaving town.  Some percentage of them are low on gas and thus will have stop to buy fuel.  Since Libertarians believe prostitution should be legal let's now have a gas station owner on said route who decides that when there is a hurricane coming if you're a woman the price of gasoline is one sex act per five gallons, paid in advance, and he will accept nothing else.

I will note that this does not violate legal tender laws (since there's no debt; you must pay before you pump -- or, perhaps it's better put that you must hump before you pump.)

How outrageous would you find such a practice?  What if it only applied to people who had SR-22 insurance -- that is, had previously driven drunk and been caught, or driven without insurance and been caught?  Or, perhaps it applied only to people who bought insurance from, oh, State Farm?

Now what if every gas station in town adopted the same policy -- or effectively all?  What if none of them would give you a price for the gas until after you put it in the car and all of them had similar policies?

This is the sort of******that takes place daily in the medical industry.  Maybe you think that it's not sex being demanded of you but I assure you that when you get a $200,000 bill for a snake bite you will sure feel like you got sexed -- and it wasn't pleasant either!

The Libertarian Party as a political party at both the State and Federal levels has refused to take this on.  Indeed the loudest pushback that I got on my proposed one-sentence bill to stop this extortion was from self-professed Libertarians!

I'm sorry folks -- this is why I can't call myself one.  The Democrats and Republicans, who I note also have refused to take this up, at least don't call me a communist or a promoter of a jackbooted government for putting forward a proposal that would stop practices that I believe fit the definition of extortion -- all of it -- in one single day.

Libertarians do, almost to an individual.

The Libertarian Party has destroyed any credibility it once had, and it's done so right here on this issue.  Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, it has refused for the last two full Presidential cycles to take its alleged banner of "non-aggression" and actually demand it in any of the state or federal races I am aware of nor will any of the state and local party subdivisions take this banner and make it their key issue, arguing to fix this problem before and in preference to anything else.

In short the Libertarian Party has refused to take a 90% issue -- that is, one that would instantly win 90% of the vote and at the same time fully comply with its own internal policy and platform claims and make it the centerpiece of both its state and federal election cycle efforts.

Just one state that passed my proposed law would see an instant detonation of all "forced insurance" schemes in the medical realm.  Medical insurance companies would no longer be able to sell their products based on the fear of being bilked and bankrupted if you didn't buy them.  They would have to offer actual value for the price paid since for most people in most circumstances the option to simply pay cash at a reasonable and profitable price for the providers would immediately exist.

If there is a just purpose for government to exist in the first place it is to prevent entities, whether singular or in concert with others, from sticking you up when you have no effective means of resistance or refusal. If the government will not do that then there is no purpose to and no justification for government at all.

That the Federal and State government refuse to look at these actions, all taken in concert by providers on a near-universal basis, as worthy of investigation and sanction is an outrage.  That we actually need to codify this by separate statute is likewise outrageous, given that there is 100+ year old Anti-Trust Law found in 15 USC Chapter 1 which makes clear that any scheme to fix prices or tie sales where the result or intent among persons or firms with market power is to decrease competition is a crime, and that such statutes apply to the medical and health insurance industry has been litigated twice all the way to the Supreme Court with said firms trying to argue they were exempt (in the 1970s and early 80s) and the medical firms lost both cases.

Nonetheless here we are, and if the Libertarians, say much less any other political entity, want my support or assistance this needs to become their primary, singular and forceful focal point.

Thus it should be with you as well.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2017-06-28 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Personal Health , 795 references
[Comments enabled]  

God, the Stupid is strong....

Placing a plastic sheath in the gut triggers weight loss and could reverse diabetes, according to health experts.

The treatment has a similar effect to a gastric band but avoids the need for risky and expensive surgery.

Instead, a 2ft (60cm) sheath known as the EndoBarrier is positioned at the top of the small intestine using an endoscope — a thin, flexible tube inserted via the mouth — while the patient is under general anaesthetic or sedation.

This device is a plastic sleeve that basically covers the first couple of feet of the small intestine, preventing food from being absorbed there.  It's "wired" in place.

So why am I throwing aspersions at this, when the results are pretty dramatic?

Because it's an invasive procedure, it's expensive and the same results or better can be had by getting carbohydrates out of your diet -- at zero cost and procedure risk.

Second, there's no long term study on this thing thus far, but I'm certainly not sold on the long term (decades long!) safety of such a device -- even though it is removed after a year or so.  Does it engender some sort of change in the intestinal wall?  Who knows.  We won't know for years or decades and you are the lab rat.  By the way, in case you were unaware you only have one intestine, can't grow a new one, and without a small intestine you're dead as you can't absorb nutrients from your food.

Look folks, when you get down to it the science on this is quite simple:

1. When you eat fast carbohydrates, any of them, they are turned into sugar in the body -- and quite rapidly.  Fast carbohydrates include all refined grains of any sort (e.g. anything with wheat, rice, etc) and nearly all white vegetables (potatoes, etc.)  Many of these "foods" are turned into sugar in the gut as fast or even faster than plain old table sugar is absorbed and most of them are nearly as fast.

2. When there is glucose available for your body to burn it will do so in preference to burning fats.  That's because it's metabolically "easier" to burn glucose and insulin inhibits the breakdown of fats to fatty-acids, which is necessary for fat to be metabolized, and in addition it stimulates the production of fat from glucose.  This does not mean it's better to burn glucose, just that it's easier.  You can't, for example, make the argument that you should live on nothing but alcohol even though alcohol is in fact a carbohydrate and is burned first before other carbs.  You'd be laughed out of the room if you tried to argue for a "booze only" or even "booze heavy" diet, so that you have a metabolic preference for carbs does not mean you should consume them.

3. The required daily amount of carbohydrate in your diet is zero.  That is, there is no metabolic requirement for them whatsoever.  Your body is able to function perfectly well without any carbohydrate going down your pie hole.  While the brain requires glucose your body can manufacture what it needs from fats and will do so to meet your brain's requirements.  The rest of your tissues can run perfectly well on fats for fuel.  Note that in point of fact your body's cells do not actually run on glucose -- they run on ATP, which is synthesized by the body.  It's simply easier (metabolically) to do so from glucose (or glycogen stores) than fats and your metabolic systems are biased so as to inhibit fat metabolism in the presence of glucose.

4. There are multiple populations that have hundreds of years or more of history eating nearly-zero carbohydrate and none of them have elevated risks of serious health problems.  In fact those populations tend to have near-zero rates of obesity along with cardiac disease and diabetes.  However, with no known exceptions every one of those populations that have introduced carbohydrates in any sort of volume into their diets have seen obesity, diabetes and heart disease rates increase; some of them have seen rates skyrocket from among the lowest in the world to the highest.

5. There are no good "vegetable" oils.  Some are worse than others but none are good.  Some nut based oils (e.g. coconut) are perhaps better, but were talking in relative terms, not absolutes.  Unsaturated oils are not shelf-stable without chemical modification -- that's what "unsaturated" means, that there are open chemical bond sites on the hydrocarbon chain.  Hydrogenated oils (if that word appears anywhere on the label) are trans-fats and the safe amount of them in your diet is zero.  All plant-based oils are high in Omega-6 and while you do need some small amount of them in their natural form they are pro-inflammatory and thus promote heart disease.  Note that historically the balance of Omega-3 (mostly in animal flesh) and Omega-6 (mostly in plants) was about 1:1.  Concentrating the amount of Omega-6 oils by processing plants into oils has dramatically increased the ratio to, in most people, 10:1 or more!

6. The pharmaceutical industry is well aware of point #5 and has been for decades.  In fact all of the OTC NSAIDS (Ibuprofin, aspirin, etc) work by reducing the metabolism of Omega-6 fatty acids into inflammatory compounds.  Let that sink in for a minute or two: Both your doctor and the pharmaceutical industry know, as a matter of scientific fact, that consuming these oils fuels inflammation because the method of action of some of the most-widely used over-the-counter drugs is to reduce that metabolic process.

Those who argue for a "plant-based" diet, especially for weight control or metabolic problems are deluding themselves.  That's math and metabolic science folks.  It's impossible to have a "plant-based diet" that is not heavy on fast carbohydrates, extremely high in Omega-6 oils or both.  This is simply due to the fact that "good" vegetable sources of nutrients are sparse in calories and thus you can't possibly eat 1,800kcal of them in a day.  It can't be done.  Doubt me?  Go look at the calorie count for a cup of broccoli and then tell me how much broccoli you need to eat!

Those foods that are high in caloric content and vegetables are also either fast carbs or Omega-6-rich vegetable oils.  The exception for those who want to eat "plant based" is if you allow for cheeses and eggs you can (mostly) get there if you exclude vegetable oil products.

When you eat carbohydrate until it is completely metabolized your body does not burn fat -- including the fat around your belly!  What's worse is that carbohydrates spike your insulin level and when it falls after you eat them you get hungry.  It is very hard to resist your body telling you to go raid the refrigerator.

If you are overweight or obese and want to burn the fat on your body you cannot do so until all of the carbohydrate in your system, in your digestive system in the process of being released into the blood or in the form of glycogen in your liver is exhausted.  That's metabolic fact; in order to burn fat your body has to engage in metabolic processes that produce ketones, otherwise known as "ketosis" but it will not do so as long as carbohydrates are available because it is metabolically easier to burn carbohydrates than it is to burn fats and as long as insulin levels are high metabolism of fats is biochemically inhibited.

That process is not dangerous, it's natural, perfectly fine and it is in fact the only way to lose weight.

If you have excess carbohydrate in your system beyond what is required for your body at any given point in time that amount will first be converted into glycogen and stored in the liver and muscles. Muscle storage is local to that muscle because muscles lack the enzyme necessary to release the glycogen back into the blood; "mobile" glycogen, that is, available to the body as a whole, is limited to that which can be stored in the liver.  Between these two you can store about 2,000 kcal of energy.  When that storage is full any additional carbohydrate will be converted into fat -- that is, weight -- and stored on the body.

Further, if you are already metabolically compromised (and if you're fat then you are) it's even worse.  The more carbohydrate you take in the more your body is unable to cope with it and effectively convert it into glycogen and consume it because your cells do not respond normally to the insulin signal in your blood.  In other words your cells are "starving" even though you have eaten enough carb-based foods.  If you're metabolically compromised, say much less outright diabetic then there is no excuse for eating any carbs beyond that which you must consume to get needed vitamins and similar and choosing fruits over low-carb vegetables is idiotic.  Broccoli has more vitamin C in it than do oranges -- by a lot -- and at the same time it has nearly zero impact on blood sugar where an orange, being full of sugars, is the opposite.  It's even worse if you juice that orange since that greatly increases the rate the sugar is absorbed.

And finally if you try to "substitute" animal fat and protein sources with vegetable-based oils you're ridiculously unbalancing the Omega-3:Omega-6 balance of fats which directly promotes inflammation and heart disease.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
A One-Sentence Bill To Force The Health-Care Issue

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 sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means 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, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

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.