 |
| Horsetail Falls |
 |
| Oneonta Canyon |
 |
| Oneonta Canyon |
 |
| First signs of spring in the Gorge |
 |
| Wahclella Falls |
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Waterfall Hike
Yesterday, I went on a photo shoot with my friend Miles out in the Gorge. Our destination was a series of waterfalls about half an hour east of Portland. Miles only shoots as a hobby, but he has a really impressive portfolio: Miles Morgan Photography. I myself have never been much of a landscape photographer. It requires a great deal of patience, effort, luck, and you need to be a bit of a perfectionist. I typically prefer candid photos of people because it really just requires luck - to be in the right place at the right time. But I do appreciate good landscape photography and I'm always up for trying new things so when he invited me to join him and his buddies, I took the opportunity. My equipment isn't well suited for landscapes, but I have a tripod and I have a circular polarizer so I figured I'd start with that and see what else I could learn along the way. It ended up being an amazing day out. Finn had an awesome time and was exhausted by the end of the day. I had a great time with some good guys chatting about camera equipment, and ended up getting a few useable shots. There's definitely room for improvement, but besides the shots, I found myself really enjoying the whole composing, measuring exposure, and climbing up or down to different precarious locations to get a certain shot. I'll definitely be looking to do some more landscape photos now. Especially since it gives me another good reason to get outdoors.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Ah Sugar, Oh Honey Honey
Once in a while, a scientific theory comes along that's interesting to think about. Once in a *really* great while, a scientific theory comes along that changes everything you thought you understood. These are the ones that are worth paying attention to. They're often tough to recognize because they tend to defy all conventional wisdom and so one's first instinct is to be dismiss it. And that includes those who are supposedly experts in the field. Last week, a NY Times article presented just such a theory: Is Sugar Toxic?
The article's writer is Gary Taubes who has previously written a book called Good Calories, Bad Calories that's actually nearly a decade old now. That will be next on my reading list, but from what I'm told, it is extremely well researched and uses quite a bit of common sense. Something that is often lacking when it comes to nutritional science. The theory itself is well over thirty years old, but was long ago dismissed by many nutrition "experts" as being incorrect. That is slowly changing now.
The theory basically states that table sugar (sucrose) is bad for you. That seems obvious until you delve into precisely what is meant by this claim. It is not just that it provides "empty calories" and little nutritional value, but that it actually causes damage to your body. Obesity is the most obvious health threat (and probably the one people care most about), but the implications suggested by its metabolic pathways and the byproducts are actually far greater. It has been proposed that sugar may be responsible for a lot of the chronic disease that seem to be epidemic in first world countries, and most especially in the USA. Many of these diseases have inflammatory components with unknown etiologies. Experts often concluded they were simply the result of genetics and some unknown environmental component. If this theory implicating sugar (specifically fructose) turns out to be correct, the implications are mind-boggling, both on a public health and economic level.
The NY Times article revolves around a popular YouTube video of a lecture given by UCSF pediatric endocrinologist, Dr. Robert Lustig. Since being uploaded, the video has received a little over 1 million hits, which is quite remarkable considering it is a 1 1/2 hour medical lecture.
Here's the basic idea of the theory: sucrose is 50% glucose, 50% fructose. Glucose is fine and good. In fact most of the energy metabolic pathways in your body have the ultimate goal of producing or storing glucose. This means starchy foods like rice, potatoes, and pasta get a pass. Fructose has a very similar chemical structure. However, it is metabolized very differently from glucose and this is where the bad stuff happens. It not only gets converted to fat, it wrecks havoc on your satiety hormones, and leads to production of an inflammatory substrate that causes damage to the lining of your blood vessels (among others consequences). The health implications are staggering. FAR more so than the fat and cholesterol we consume, it contributes to heart disease and may very well be the single largest factor. The epidemiological evidence supports the biochemical implications - the rise in heart disease in the USA correlates very well with the rise in average daily consumption of sugar, which all began when our well-intentioned nutrition experts waged a war on dietary fat in the 70's and 80's. We are now still paying for the repercussions.
What about fruit? Good question. Many people excuse fructose because it's found "naturally" in fruits, which sounds reasonable at first glance. But in nature, fructose (or sucrose) is almost always found with equal or much more amounts of fiber, such that A) it's difficult to consume a large quantity without getting full from fiber and B) fiber slows down the absorption of whatever fructose is there. There's nothing natural about fruit juice or crystallized sugar (even "unprocessed" raw sugar). When we drink down a glass of orange juice (or other fruit juice), we are not only ingesting a much greater quantity of fructose, but removing fiber which would've slowed its absorption. And that leads to an interesting thought: what if fructose is nature's way of getting us to eat fiber and the other nutrients in fruit that we wouldn't otherwise eat? Here's another thought: because of farming and mass shipping, we are capable of eating fruit 24/7 365 days a year. This is what our nutrition experts propose with our silly food pyramid. What if we weren't supposed to eat it all the time? Unless you live in the tropics, you would naturally only have access to fruit several months out of the year and even then in limited quantity. So this raises an interesting question, is it truly healthy to eat fruit every day?
If you get the chance, read the article and watch the video. The video is 1 1/2 hours long and Dr. Lustig can be a little annoyingly smug at times. However, his ego not withstanding, it's an interesting lecture and the evidence he presents is very compelling. It makes complete sense biochemically and epidemiologically. To be fair, Dr. Lustig didn't come up with this theory. It's at least thirty years old, but because of politics and and economic forces, it was dismissed by nutrition policy makers and conventional wisdom held that it was generally a harmless food item and that fat/cholesterol was the real danger - a true public health disaster. I'll post my thoughts on the details in followups, but suffice it to say, I'm sold on this theory.
The article's writer is Gary Taubes who has previously written a book called Good Calories, Bad Calories that's actually nearly a decade old now. That will be next on my reading list, but from what I'm told, it is extremely well researched and uses quite a bit of common sense. Something that is often lacking when it comes to nutritional science. The theory itself is well over thirty years old, but was long ago dismissed by many nutrition "experts" as being incorrect. That is slowly changing now.
The theory basically states that table sugar (sucrose) is bad for you. That seems obvious until you delve into precisely what is meant by this claim. It is not just that it provides "empty calories" and little nutritional value, but that it actually causes damage to your body. Obesity is the most obvious health threat (and probably the one people care most about), but the implications suggested by its metabolic pathways and the byproducts are actually far greater. It has been proposed that sugar may be responsible for a lot of the chronic disease that seem to be epidemic in first world countries, and most especially in the USA. Many of these diseases have inflammatory components with unknown etiologies. Experts often concluded they were simply the result of genetics and some unknown environmental component. If this theory implicating sugar (specifically fructose) turns out to be correct, the implications are mind-boggling, both on a public health and economic level.
The NY Times article revolves around a popular YouTube video of a lecture given by UCSF pediatric endocrinologist, Dr. Robert Lustig. Since being uploaded, the video has received a little over 1 million hits, which is quite remarkable considering it is a 1 1/2 hour medical lecture.
Dr. Lustig himself is a bit of a controversial figure in that he takes a hard stance on sugar and flat out calls it a "toxin". Which is technically true if his theory is correct in that it causes damage to your body. However, much of the lay public will refute that claim because people tend to think of toxins as substances that will make you drop dead very rapidly after you ingest it. But in the lecture he describes it as a chronic toxin - fair enough. One could argue that things like lead, ethanol, and tobacco are also chronic toxins, and there would be far less controversy. But only because those substances are already accepted as being bad for you. Human nature being what it is, we tend to resist ideas that change our fundamental understanding of things. Sugar causing diseases is not a widely accepted idea and understandably faces much resistance. Judging from some of the discussions online, some even consider it heresy.
Here's the basic idea of the theory: sucrose is 50% glucose, 50% fructose. Glucose is fine and good. In fact most of the energy metabolic pathways in your body have the ultimate goal of producing or storing glucose. This means starchy foods like rice, potatoes, and pasta get a pass. Fructose has a very similar chemical structure. However, it is metabolized very differently from glucose and this is where the bad stuff happens. It not only gets converted to fat, it wrecks havoc on your satiety hormones, and leads to production of an inflammatory substrate that causes damage to the lining of your blood vessels (among others consequences). The health implications are staggering. FAR more so than the fat and cholesterol we consume, it contributes to heart disease and may very well be the single largest factor. The epidemiological evidence supports the biochemical implications - the rise in heart disease in the USA correlates very well with the rise in average daily consumption of sugar, which all began when our well-intentioned nutrition experts waged a war on dietary fat in the 70's and 80's. We are now still paying for the repercussions.
What about fruit? Good question. Many people excuse fructose because it's found "naturally" in fruits, which sounds reasonable at first glance. But in nature, fructose (or sucrose) is almost always found with equal or much more amounts of fiber, such that A) it's difficult to consume a large quantity without getting full from fiber and B) fiber slows down the absorption of whatever fructose is there. There's nothing natural about fruit juice or crystallized sugar (even "unprocessed" raw sugar). When we drink down a glass of orange juice (or other fruit juice), we are not only ingesting a much greater quantity of fructose, but removing fiber which would've slowed its absorption. And that leads to an interesting thought: what if fructose is nature's way of getting us to eat fiber and the other nutrients in fruit that we wouldn't otherwise eat? Here's another thought: because of farming and mass shipping, we are capable of eating fruit 24/7 365 days a year. This is what our nutrition experts propose with our silly food pyramid. What if we weren't supposed to eat it all the time? Unless you live in the tropics, you would naturally only have access to fruit several months out of the year and even then in limited quantity. So this raises an interesting question, is it truly healthy to eat fruit every day?
If you get the chance, read the article and watch the video. The video is 1 1/2 hours long and Dr. Lustig can be a little annoyingly smug at times. However, his ego not withstanding, it's an interesting lecture and the evidence he presents is very compelling. It makes complete sense biochemically and epidemiologically. To be fair, Dr. Lustig didn't come up with this theory. It's at least thirty years old, but because of politics and and economic forces, it was dismissed by nutrition policy makers and conventional wisdom held that it was generally a harmless food item and that fat/cholesterol was the real danger - a true public health disaster. I'll post my thoughts on the details in followups, but suffice it to say, I'm sold on this theory.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Life As We Know It
Freedom. It's been quite a few weeks since I've had much choice in what to do with my time. Work coverage kept me away from home for most of it. I finally returned last night. It feels like I've been traveling for the past month, but I see now why business travelers hate it. Living out of a suitcase sucks when you're doing it for work. But, it went by fairly quickly and I kept reminding myself that I am so lucky first of all to have a job, and secondly, to have one that usually allows me to set my own schedule and pays me well for it. Quite a few of my friends are struggling to find a job, and those who have one worry about how much longer it will last. But even beyond the worry about jobs, there is this general palpable tension in the air. I feel it every time I watch or read the news. I don't think I'm alone in this. Most seem to know exactly what I'm talking about. In recent times, the world appears to have gone insane and one feels helpless to do anything about it.
However, as I've only started to realize in recent years, life is really more about the little things. Today, I'm making a day trip up to Seattle for a long overdue visit to some friends and their one year old's birthday (nothing like kids to make you really feel like time is flying by) Next week is the debut home game of the brand new MLS Portland Timbers (*PLEASE* don't rain!). In a few weeks, I fly out to the East Coast for a cousin's wedding and to see friends I haven't seen in years. With the free time I have until then, I'm going to try and find some opportunities to go out shooting with the camera and maybe do some fly fishing if the fishing reports are good. Maybe both at the same time. The one nice thing about all this foul weather is that it sometimes makes for some spectacular photogenic scenery. I still have some photos from my trip, but I'm feeling lazy so I'll post them here...well, whenever I get to them. I need fewer things planned out and I'll start with this. It's not much, but...baby steps.
Babies. I think I'm finally permitted to say - my sister is due in late September with a boy! I'm pretty stoked by the news and very happy for Sue. She's resistant right now, but I'm doing my best to convince her to name him Finn. Yes, after my dog. :) I can't wait to meet him.
However, as I've only started to realize in recent years, life is really more about the little things. Today, I'm making a day trip up to Seattle for a long overdue visit to some friends and their one year old's birthday (nothing like kids to make you really feel like time is flying by) Next week is the debut home game of the brand new MLS Portland Timbers (*PLEASE* don't rain!). In a few weeks, I fly out to the East Coast for a cousin's wedding and to see friends I haven't seen in years. With the free time I have until then, I'm going to try and find some opportunities to go out shooting with the camera and maybe do some fly fishing if the fishing reports are good. Maybe both at the same time. The one nice thing about all this foul weather is that it sometimes makes for some spectacular photogenic scenery. I still have some photos from my trip, but I'm feeling lazy so I'll post them here...well, whenever I get to them. I need fewer things planned out and I'll start with this. It's not much, but...baby steps.
Babies. I think I'm finally permitted to say - my sister is due in late September with a boy! I'm pretty stoked by the news and very happy for Sue. She's resistant right now, but I'm doing my best to convince her to name him Finn. Yes, after my dog. :) I can't wait to meet him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)