Sometimes, language imagery is so blatant that you avoid making jokes about it, in fear of being perceived as not very imaginative. But after a week of Very Extremely Incredibly Big “Because I am The Best At It” announcements concerning Trump’s future Cabinet, KellyAnn’s presence, by her name alone, sure was a strong signalling device for a certain establishment. And the title of this article directs more to potential future “Con Artists” than to her character. KellyAnn is a marketing agent, not always fully aware of the characteristics of the products she is selling.
Since some of it is still speculation, and still may have to go through the hurdles of Congress’s “approval”, that the Electoral College could have a “change” of mood, that Clinton could “order” some recounts in strategic states, that much of the “Overseas” ballots have not yet been tabulated in those same “States”, that there is such a thing as a designated Survivor and the first of the State of the Union Address has still not come for our new “President”…much of my “observations” are here highly speculative, but it appear that corruption won’t go on a diet yet, and if something is drained, it is more likely that it will again be the “forgotten men’s” bank accounts and the little political power they still hold to.
J & J and Chuck Kushner. Jared Kushner, Son-in-Law of Donald and husband of Ivanka. His Father is Charles Kushner. Charles did prison for tax evasion, election fraud, witness tempering in 2004-2005. Yes, obviously, your usual “Good Guy”. Billionaire or multi-centi-millionnaire, another net worth difficult to establish (between 500 Mils to 2.6 Billions). Jared’s younger brother Joshua, another Ivy League graduate with the usual interest in techno networking. Interests shifted into other venture opportunities among which 500 million invested in a Health Care Insurance start-up that gathered 145,000 clients in a few months with an estimated Capitalized value estimated by Bloomberg at 2,8 billions (that is 500 millions to 2,8 Billions in 3 years), net income at only 95 millions and estimated to be in financial difficulty by Wall Street analysts, on a hurry to sell. One of the most successful Health Care Insurer of ObamaCare program…He just started another start-up (real estate) with his brother. Jared and Joshua are conservatively estimated having a net worth of 200 millions each. Jared is owner of The Observer, therefore a good foot in Propaganda news and signaling. Has many Real estate investments. So the whole trio together could create a Babylonesque back ground of conflicts of interests with Trump the president. Yet Trump wants to give security clearance the Jared and create a new executive position: Special Consultant to the President…and most of the main stream media explains that it would not be ethically disallowd…WRONG. Wrong in Principal and in Law ( here, here, here and here, and ho! this here too…now, put it all together and read my article on Ethics).
Dr. Munchkin (Treasury) and the Wilbur’s Incredible Kappa Beta Phi Circus. Wilbur Ross (Commerce) is anticipated to be named Secretary of commerce. Wilbur used to work for Bill Clinton administration where, among other things he managed the US Russia Investment Fund, funds which are supposed to help countries in need of infrastructural assistance. The fund appear to have been privatised by I don’t know which process around 2007-08 and is now managed (but it is not clear if it still runs) by 2 brothers (Kinney), the only partners of Delta Partners LLC, headquartered at 545 Fifth avenue in NY. Details are unavailable from a quick search. Bloomberg lists the fund as still active. Delta Partners LLC specializes in restructuring distress concerns. This is also the speciality of Wilbur Ross…it is how he made is fortune. Now, Wilbur also heads a somewhat “secret” Wall Street society named Kappa Beta Phi. This society holds, among other activities fund-raising events for Israel. Many of its known members (only a partial list exists) are also in the special business of reorganizing distress corporations, banks, etc…in fact all this little group is part of those who made BIG money thanks to Obama “saving us from the end of the world” movie and financial reforms.
As for Dr Munchkin, better known as Steven Mnuchin, he bought a distress Bank in 2009 which became West One. Had a special arrangement with the FED and the Obama administration where Government would reimburse much of the losses incurred until 2019. It is estimated, conservatively, that the US government has already paid 500 million dollar to Mnuchin and Friends on a Bank purchase estimated at $900 millions. What is Mnunchin good at…restructuring distressed concerns…and making lots of money thanks to government.
What is Trump really up to?
Just from these 2 appointments we can infer I believe, that traditional “Wall Street Conservative Supply Side economics” is back in force. Under Reagan, Bush the First and the Second, shrinking government was meant to say: …”we will close government offices that we believe are costly, we will sell their assets at fire sale prices to a pre-determined friend of Wall Street, privatize this concern which will offer the same service but at twice the cost, will enter into an exclusive long-term private-government service agreement where this new private company will get exclusive rights to furnish the same services the government was getting from their office.”
So, in the end, government pays twice the price to get the same service. Yes, government employs fewer people, but it must borrow even more to pay for these services that may carry half the quality, since these new services are usually set up by unqualified people who only know how to make easy money!
Yes, Trump definitely knows the “System”…but I am not sure what his Waste Management strategies are.
As for a Country of Laws and his great appreciation of the Constitution and Scalia…obviously, Mr President Elect has not graduated at Law.
Two potential appointees at Intelligence indicate that Mr The Donald, like his “legal partner” Mr Vlad of Siberia, appear to share similarities in confounding a country of Law and Order and a Police Corrupt State.
Take Mr Pompeo, anticipated to be the Next CIA Director, for instance. Mr Pompeo believes that the NSA should get access to all the information they can get their hands on concerning any citizens of their choice, that means everyone. He wants to reinstate the NSA’s power to collect registry information without warrant, and never be in the obligation to erase it (the law that has elapsed required the information to be erased after 6 months). Further, Pompeo believes firmly that this Legalistic Menu should be extended to gather any Financial transaction and any Consumer Transaction of all and any citizen at any time without warrants. That this information be structured by algorithms as to create profiles of risk that would be assigned to every citizen…need I continue.
Retired General Mattis, Potential Secretary of Defense, while quite an original and intriguing mind, believes about the same thing. All people on the Planet that don’t belong to the Deep State (understood as being the Military, Intelligence and Law enforcement agencies of any Western government), are a potential “Enemy of the State” and risk to the “Free World”.
Most articles I have read in the past week on the subject of Ethics and the future Trump administration, cite expert ethics lawyers or attorneys from both side of the political aisle, and all agree, that concerning this situation, we have just opened a Pandora’s Box. I was under the impression that all of this had already been taken care of, prepared to go into action as soon as Trump team had a Victory. But instead, it appears Trump has no intention of doing anything. As a Trump voter, I feel somewhat betrayed, but I believe I am not alone, since Eliza Newlin Carney explains :“Donald Trump vowed to “send the special interests packing,” but his lobbyist-stacked transition and business conflicts of interest may rile the very voters who elected him. ” (http://prospect.org/article/will-trump%E2%80%99s-administration-be-ethics-free-zone). And mmany Ethics lawyers cited from all avenues of the press, from liberal to conservative, from Republican to Democrat all appear to agree that something has to be done: Robert Kelner, a Washington ethics lawyer; Richard Painter, George W. Bush Chief Ethics Lawyer;Matthew T. Sanderson, a Washington lawyer and Republican; Kenneth A. Gross, a political ethics and compliance lawyer in Washington; were but a few cited by major newpapers.
They are two big concerns here, on my part, the capacity of the President to enrich himself from his Powers as President (which is not restricted by law or regulation, but against good management principal) and the capacity to enrich his close family. The President is given large authority and if he would be limited by any decision which could affect his wealth in anyway, he could not take any action. Yet, it is clear that the President cannot use his Office specifically or preferentially to enrich himself. And this is now mixed with tentative appointments, nepotistic in nature, which would give rise to further appearance and potential conflicts of interests, appointing his Son-In-Law, Jared Kushner. This is interesting because some law experts insist that the anti-nepotism rules don’t prevent the President to nominate someone from his family as defined by the clause in question, which are 1st and 2nd degree relatives.
On the other hand, H.M.Volokh explains, in discussing the power to appoint vested in the President, inTHE TWO APPOINTMENTS CLAUSES: STATUTORY QUALIFICATIONS FOR FEDERAL OFFICERS the following: “Probably the most important concern was that appointments not be used to aggrandize the individual doing the appointing: The appointer should not grant offices to increase his own power, reward his supporters, or give favors to his friends or relatives.” And… “…Efficiency: The task of appointing officers should not cause the government to grind to a halt…”.
Even an unfamiliar person with the finer science of the law, such as myself, immediately pinpoints that insisting to appoint his Son-in-Law as Council, Mr Trump is in a manner seeking self-aggrandizement from access to a network that was not elected, and by re-introducing tribal structures in a setting where they should be absent. And the multitude of potential conflicts of interests that have not been addressed but for which solutions have not even been imagined, could create, eventually, a complete halt of government.
The capacity for Congress to limit the choice of the President in appointees is protected by Constitution enumerated powers which were clarified, consolidated but also nuanced by a Supreme Court edict, as cited in 1838 by Federal Attorney General Benjamin F. Butler in the brief concerning President Andrew Jackson to appoint or dismiss Higher and Lower officers of the executive Branch.Through the Principal of Canonical Law that affirms the President must be given the capacity to chose with Scope and Judgment the best person to fill an appointment. Therefore, according to some counsel opinions, the only restriction becomes the conflict of interest posed by the appointee from the family getting a salary delivered by the signature of the Secretary of the Treasury. In the early conception of anti-nepotism law, the main considerations was the State delivering salaries to the extended family and the incompetence of the appointed family member. If the appointee refuses a salary, then it appears, he can be appointed if he meets the competence test. Yet, this is not Supreme Court opinion, simply some counsel’s opinion.
A parentheses, here, concerning the concept of Canonical in the context of Law of the Land. It is a qualitative or descriptive rarely used in common language discussion concerning the Constitutional powers of the different branches. Gerard Magliocca at concurrentopinions.com gives a concise description of Canonical Statutes of US Law and extra-canonical text. A statute is canonical when it is so entrenched and fundamental to the Constitution that it is considered indissociable of it, and therefore not subject to repeal. For example: The social security act of 1935, the civil rights act of 1964, the Voting rights act of 1965. Extra-canonical text is explained as important references without the weight of the statutes but compose a body of text that completes the spirit of our laws and values as to inform the Supreme Justices in their consideration. Outside of this, and not covered by Gerard Magliocca, are Canon edicts, that are a mosaic of text that precede the Creation of the Country but were the base of evolution of all the Philosophy of Western Law. Some of these documents were more often cited in the Supreme Court earlier in creating a base of references, in their precedence, as to anchor the concept as expressed in the Constitution. For example, think of the Magna Carta, it is cited, or some parts of it, which assist in determining the meaning of the text of the Constitution, as Canon.
For example: “It is a canon of interpretation that real effect should be given to all the words of the Constitution. P. 272 U. S. 151.”
This is important, as the powers and limitations to Appoint by the President in the enumeration of his Constitutional powers has been characterized to some extent by Supreme Court Canon. In this specific context, it was because of the Overlap with the Enumerated powers of Congress to Affirm or Reject the Appointment. This shared the duties to appoint for the Executive in the President’s person, as to assume responsibility, and for Congress, in security.
Volokh herself quotes the ample use of the Canonic origin of the Laws decided upon for the Constitution during the Constitutional Convention when she explains (from reference 89: “…See Theodore Y. Blumoff, Separation of Powers and the Origins of the Appointment Clause, 37 SYRACUSE L. REV. 1037, 1061 (1987) (“When one examines the history of the Appointments Clause, . . . one finds no evidence of shared convictions or purposes.”); id. at 1062 (“[R]epresentatives in the Convention had almost as many ideas about the rightful locus of the appointing prerogative as there were representatives.”). As Blumoff is quoted: “The Representatives at the Convention had almost as many ideas…”….much of these ideas were from the tradition of western law at that time and if they made their way in a majority opinion of the Supreme Court later, and cited as a precedent down the road, they became part of the canonical curriculum.
The problem is that the President is, as an employee, under the obligation of other ethical dispositions where he cannot enrich, through his position, members of his family, as defined by the same criteria as above mentioned, and members of his family cannot enrich themselves on the basis that their relative is the President. And this is where most ethic experts appear to have missed part of this complex puzzle. Congress will not look at any ethical disposition individually, but as an interrelated interdependent structure or web, and if all clauses concerning this situation are considered simultaneously, the President cannot appoint a member of his close family.
Secondly, there is a way to create a blind trust that has also not been considered by the expert. Not selling the assets, and creating a parallel structure through leveraging. Neutralizing the profits from Trump inc with financial instruments, and producing revenue streams from the independent leveraged structure that will be independent of the nature of the assets held in Trump Inc. Naturally, after the end of Trump’s mandate, if any major laws have changed the appreciation of the value of the residing assets of Trumps Inc, then obviously this profit will emerge spontaneously at the dissolution of the parallel structure.
To the misery of Trump, I must admit that Sharia Finance, considered the most ethical form of Finance when practiced according to the rules, is recognized, even by Western World financial institutions as having the greatest degree of ethics.
Sharia finance structured products or inspired products are increasingly offered in North America and Europe, to serve the Muslim community, but also to help address Ethical concerns among Corporations and Institutions faced with important and difficult Conflict of Interest problems.
Now, using the word Sharia may not be very popular in the current context, and this is why I will expand on this. Sharia Finance, while originally emerged from some part of Sharia law, should be considered like Finance Engineering. Sharia Finance was born from the practice of the Zakât (the muslim imposed alms or charity). The sophistication of its structure was based on the fact that when giving, you should not know where the money went, because you were giving to God. This perpetrated modesty and prevented that the Zakät would be used to reimburse debdt, or put onself in value to the eyes of others, etc…As for those receiving, so that they could only understand the money coming from Allah, no one else. It therefore prevented the perception of inferiority or submission towards those that gave. Around this, a mechanism was developed of discretion and of different accounts so the origin of the money could not be traced to the Giver.
Using these structures now should note be viewed as borrowing religious structures, but simply using Financial Engineering to solve an Ethical problem. As the word algorithm, the mathematical tool of iteration, finds its origin in the mind of a Muslim mathematician by the name of Al-Khawarizmi, we should not prevent ourselves of using algorithms, without which software technology is rendered impossible. Now, the reason the Zakât structure has evolved to create other financial solutions, is because usury is not allowed in Muslim culture. This was addressed simply, earlier on, when Muslim Civilization was closed on itself. But as the Muslim world met the Western world, where interests are a central component of the economies, Islam culture had to create increasingly sophisticated solutions to address and allow access to many forms of transactions and investments where interests had a role.
Here is where knowledge that could recreate such a structure exist, because Islam does not allow usury, therefore any interest revenue must be translated into a different form of revenue. For example, in Islam, traditional mortgages do not exist, because Muslims cannot receive or pay interest. So they created sophisticated structures where a product mimics and serves the same function as a mortgage, but no interest transaction are involved, the cash streams are interpreted as other forms of streams than interest to the eyes of Sharia Law and Western Finance and Fiscal authorities.
I am not suggesting that such structures for Trump would need to eliminate interests, but the nature of the structures are a clue to what can be created to neutralize, at least for the duration of the mandate, the short term gains born from conflicts of interests or apparent conflicts of interests with members of his family, and allow to minimize the conflicts of interests, related to the decisions of the President, their father. Naturally, this structure, together with Trump Inc would both need to be in a Blind Trust.
I was listening again to Kellyann Conway this morning, in her defence of the Trump team. I will say before being accused of being misogynistic, that Kellyann is a very intelligent person and effectively Trump owes her a lot in his victory. Yet, Kellyann, while being a brilliant strategist, is also from marketing. And while campaign pitches are sales pitches, it is appropriate to engage in campaign debates with the tone of sales marketeers. But, the campaign is finished, and while Kellyann still has her place in the Team, Trump and other strategists must understand that on central changes proposed by his future administration and in the context that specifically little detail of anything emerged during the campaign safe large strokes on both sides; when addressing a subject as crucial as Health Care, and Health Care Insurance, Americans deserve more than a simple sales pitch before any law are presented to Congress. More specifically, since most sales pitches concerning Health Care Insurance from the Trump Team has the tired resonance of yet another Wall Street Financial Economic efficiency modeling effort, economy destroying, charade.
I had the opportunity, again, for a few laughs this week, when I read in a Canadian newspaper, the same old tune: “…the electors have spoken, it’s now time for amateurs to get on the sideline and let the Pros take care of business”. This was obviously a comment aimed at the US election, the voters and many staff members of the winning team. In fact, some of it, while not stated, was probably about Bannon serving in the Trump Cabinet. The pros, as even Canadian elite journalists consider, are Wall Street, established carreerists from the political sphere such as elected politicians, consultants, lobbyists, Think Tank experts, Main Stream propagandists, etc…and the amateurs are the voters and members of a campaign that shared a vision, an intelligence, a dream, etc…I guess we should all surrender arms immediately, since the Pros must be right, we know from recent decades how the Pros are always the best at everything and anything they do!
Now, when everything from Government is simply addressed as a sales pitch, then, Government stops serving and starts to imposes. Just take the health care solutions that are put on the table by the Trump Team currently. But first, I agree that Obamacare was an open disaster on too many fronts and I won’t elaborate here because t is not the purpose if this article.
Now, currently, the only real detail we have from Team Trump is that they will repeal regulations of Congress, which saw their dawn thanks to the McCarran-Ferguson Act, that allowed for Congress to consider Insurance products as commerce, and to structure the nature of interstate Insurance commerce and which evolved as to not allow Health Insurance Commerce outside of any one State. This started as a measure to remedy an Insurance market that was largely fraudulent and exploitative, it has effectively, in many cases, created excessively small markets that have proven an impediment. It is currently perceived, by the Republicans, as the main impediment to a solid base for a good evolution of Health services and Insurance markets.
The nature of Health Insurance products do contribute to shape the manner in which products are developed, and services rendered. In this context, six years ago, there is one solution I tried to get traction on, yet most in the media and DC are so stuck up in their excessively polarized ethnocentric modeling, and I was quickly reduced to an illiterate for simply trying to participate in the debate. Yes, I am used to be called an amateur, and yes, it is what I am. And I do have a preference for when the Olympics were the Olympics…
Heath services and Health Insurance are deeply political. Health has always been a deeply political issue because of its influence on how we organize ourselves and our communities, how it carries a heavy load of both very positive and very negative externalities.
In this context, simply offering yet another Wall Street globalist solution…”we will eliminate the Borders, everybody will win…”, will simply offer momentary economies of scales, give place to 3 to 4 years of fake competition, temporarily lower premiums, surely, until markets settle, consolidation and concentration matures in this new landscape…and then, all the structural problems that were not addressed, will re-emerge.
My solution was first to respect the Sanctity of the Sovereignty of the States. It was Congress motivation behind the McCarran-Ferguson Act. In competition, in this sense, the States should be the one chosing with whom, with which, other States they would like to associate to create a Market. But markets left to themselves do not always offer the best solution, this is an erroneous theoretical statement. They are no perfect markets, because all transactions are based on friction, it’s a law of economics, thermodynamics, which was first observed in physics. The word efficiency is always ill-used in this context because when expressing the “perfection of bigness”, it always makes abstraction of negative externalities dumped on other, often smaller and defenseless, parties. Since large States such as CA, FL, TX and NY have big enough markets, they don’t need to cannibalize smaller markets to structure and offer good ones
Then, you have the cultural aspect, because Health is cultural. Should a person in Maine deal with an Insurance Company in San Francisco that may have phone personnel in India…No. In fact, the Affordable Health Care Act did integrate a clause dictating that phone services of Health Insurance companies could not be transferred to sites outside the US.
The pairing of players of equal forces has been a normal approach in preparing competitive bouts as long as we can remember. In sports, in life, in work…witnessing combats for status between uneven challengers is usually not a very interesting event because it usually carries little intelligence. A 25 years old boxer entering the ring to challenge a 5 years old; I would, preferentially, not want to witness this. When the Federal government extended its arm of regulation and asked the Supreme Court to consider Insurance transactions as Commerce, their idea was to protect the Sovereignty of the States. To respond to a market, the market for Insurance, that had become completely incompetent and fraudulent.
The Constitution states that overviewing interstate Commerce is one of the authorities of the Federal Government. The Federal Government therefore creates laws and regulations that structure this market. But it can also restrict the market for a service or product to within the borders of the State. This is what happened to Health Insurance coverage. A health Insurance business had to be resident of the state to sell coverage to those residents of that State. This is what Republicans want to repeal. And they believe that consumers will automatically get better choices and services. In this set-up, the State lose much power over that criteria that determine coverage, because many part of them will be dependent on Federal Laws. And corporations, living out the States, will dictate the structure of Health Care Services and Products.
Since cultures are local, regional first, before being national, and that much of the current political debate centers around the axis of the small and against the large, the local and the global, maybe everyone should take a few seconds to breath. Maybe States could establish larger markets in local regions. But we do NOT want the many localized health markets of the many States to be subjected to the same Schumpeterianesque Tidal Wave that globalization effected on the Steel belt and left it Rusted in abandon.
Let’s say Maine suffers from its low density population, associating it, in terms of Insurance health market, with a state like NY may simply give rise to temporary low premiums, but in exchange for what? For Maine losing jobs to NY which will, as always, rationalize and consolidate. If so, what will be the long-term gain to Maine, not that great. How will the Maine Government , in its desire to structure its own health care space, get signals and negotiate with corporate behemoths who will enjoy revenues many time greater than the States budget? But if we allow States to associate only with other States with which they share a Border, a Time zone, for example, and somewhat of a window of Population spread and Government Revenue, then you allow consolidation in which States preserve their ability to shape their Health Care markets, because forces and powers are better paired, and you Consolidate regional economies, which in the long-term is Beneficial to regions and to the Population of these regions.
For example, Maine could decide to associate with NH, VT; and Massachusetts could associate with RI and CT, etc…States could be limited to form 3 or 4 or 5 State clusters but not more. The idea is to allow for intelligent consolidation of regional economies that serves the prosperity of the Sates and their people. But New York could not associate with other states, nor could Texas, Florida or California. Markets left to themselves will give place to complacency, corruption, idiocy, vanity of Government officials, of the Elected, and of Gigantic Insurance Corporations. We have seen this played over and over and over again.
Health is a principal factor of the economic political landscape. In such, dissociating it from its core economies without concern for the Sovereignty of the Many States is robbing the vision that was enshrined in the US Constitution. States have a status to maintain, defend, increase, exactly like human beings, States are in a Quest for Status, and as such need rules of Competition that offer and allow them a fair chance to better themselves.
Naturally, it is my idea, I think it’s quite good, but obviously, for now, no other person with a status greater than my own appear to share my enthusiasm for it. To play on Twain, “the rumors of the Death of my ideas are quite understated”.
And since you have finished reading, I can now state proudly that I am, in fact, misogynistic…but don’t worry “ladies”, I am also a Misanthrope.
If a concept has been discussed and never really enlightened in the Constitutional papers, it is the all inspiring expression concealed in the Declaration of Independence : “…and The Pursuit of happiness”.
The context of the expression is consolidated by the flamboyant spirit of the Declaration itself and augmented by the words that just precedes it : “…the unalienable rights of Life, Freedom and the Pursuit of Happiness”.
What are unalienable rights? Frequently misunderstood in popular beliefs, unalienable rights are rights that precede the Organisation of Humans into spontaneous institutions of communities. These rights sit with ambivalence on an invisible frontier that precedes civilization but is not the primitive. It exists in a philosophical moment that could only have emerged with perplexity in the mind of civilized men.
As a newborn must wait a few years before experiencing his first existential crisis, the idea formulated as unalienable rights might have been something experienced as an intuition, but certainly not articulated at the dawn of organization.
But these rights are those that belonged to the idea of a civilized human before he engaged in a civilized structure. And in this sense, they cannot be diminished, truncated, amputated from each or any individual by the political. These rights precede the idea or the materialization of Government. This is the floor that is set for the civilized proposition against all future rights and liberties which could be diminished by the actualization of Government, the Rights and Liberties that are diminished but real against the Ideal of an Infinite degree of Freedom and Liberties that can only be an abstraction.
The first gestures of organization that brought us from Packs to Tribes and then to Communities imposed spontaneous forms of authorities in which not much pondering was given to human rights. Force, pure force, was the driving factor of organization, one imagines.
The Declaration of Independence authors concluding with Hope, by enumerating the core of the inalienable rights as pillars of the New World, sure had a solid sense of their meanings and values. But do we still understand them for what they are or were meant to be and protect?
What, in this context, could mean the Pursuit of Happiness. Happiness is not joy, Happiness may be a form of content, it could be accomplishment; is it absolute? is it relative? While the word carries large implications for commitment, could this word in fact mean something else in todays language.
I have not been a happy person for a very long time, could it be that my Pursuit of Happiness been impede? Yet, these terms did not help me figure out what…what pursuit? what happiness?
And then, suddenly, accidentally, a word surged in my mind that offered many answers. It was the word Status. What is our endeavour on this earth, if it is not first, as individuals, the consolidation of our status as persons. So I taught what if we replaced the word happiness with status, would this make sense?
Status is often used in a very limited way, as a pejorative qualifier, but status is a term that defines us as soon as we exit the womb, we engage in a fight, a fight to survive. We are obviously assisted in this in the early decades, but still we fight. And this fight, how could it be defined if it is not a Quest for Status. Status, not the limited understanding that is only expressed by the description upper echelon of material competition, but status as in what is our position of authority, of influence, of appreciation within our proximate environment. Isn’t the child, even in his early relationships, measuring his position, and attempting to distinguish himself by gaining status in his perception of himself and in from the affirmation by others.
Have we not witnessed a young child playing effectively consolidate what he perceives as the “importance” of his place around us. Building status is a natural instinct of animals. It inhabits us. It precedes our organization into social human beings. We mediate a status with our environment and then we…compete, yes, we compete with our owns to gain what? To gain status. And status will dictate the authority our community will bestow in us. And this status will translate in a degree of happiness.
And therefore, is not the Pursuit of Happiness the Quest for Status?
And for the Quest for Status to be meaningful and productive, is not Competition an essential ingredients in which Status is affirmed at every moment. Every time we go to work in the morning, aren’t we walking to a battlefield where by dusk we will measure our gains and lost, and intuitively conclude that it was a good or bad day at work…why? Because either I gained or lost status in the eyes of those that surround me at work, at home and even in the community.
Status is not the privilege of Giants, even if they may have more of it at a certain time, obviously. So let’s forget the pejorative use of it, it is of no help here, and let’s try to understand what makes Status, or what made it so important in the eyes of our Forefathers.
If the Pursuit of Happiness is a Quest for Status, what are the basic tools that must be made accessible for it to persist as a Unalienable Right.
Status building is constrained at the onset because it must be learned in part. The intuitive expression of it must be tempered, as can be observed easily among other mammals like Mountain Gorillas, Wolf Packs or Prides of Lions. The parents will mediate somehow the spurts of status consolidation of the young until he earns the age of independence. And the more these mammals are organized in structures, instead of lonely mammals such as foxes, the more the finesse of status measurement by the community is nuanced. Posturing, looks, sounds all become signaling device that in many cases are built on existing status or to seek further status.
If status exists among mammals un-blessed of unalienable rights, then what may distinguish our status institution from that of animals.
Animals compete, and effectively, competition is indissociable from status consolidation or evaporation. So competition cannot be an exception. We know that children left to themselves will experience competition at different levels of intensity, but we don’t want the child in his quest, taking a hammer and hitting the head of his brothers and sisters…not exactly the status building we are seeking.
Must we understand then that the choice of tools for competition must somewhat be constrained, or could it be a question of context? If we limit the tools of competition, aren’t we limiting the potential beneficial outcome of competition.
Maybe this is where the other inalienable rights come in and create a circumferencial structure that consolidates the expression that then cannot be deconstructed, and to which each element if interdependent.
Status building in an organized human society creates a set of rules that modulate competition?
Life…an unalienable right, the right to life…what kind of life? This had to be somewhat defined.
Obviously, the right to life in the animal Kingdom is not unalienable. So how is Life defined in Human organization that distinguish our consideration of Life compared to that of the animal world. One must acknowledge that Prior to the American Constitution, life might not have, effectively, been protected by sanctity. Yet the word “quality” is not juxtaposed to Life, meaning it only means Life. But we have put evolutionary modulations on our understanding of Life. No one can interfere with the integrity of your physical life without permission or authorization of yourself and/or within the limits of the laws.
And Life becomes, then, also defined in part by Freedoms, for Life must be Free to be Life and allow for the Quest for Status. For example, Slavery was considered acceptable, and it took only some 100 years to reconcile, by amending our Constitution, our understanding of “Men being born equal” to repudiate a concept that emerged in the African Continent at least some 35,000 years ago. While some may be offended, it is a quick learning curve which was only made possible by challenging ourselves to the rigour of the Standards set forth in the Constitution itself.
But who sets, and how are, the rules for competition set forth, how do they evolve, are they fixed? Well this is a Pandora’s box. Because while some rules of competition are set in the Constitution by the enumeration of Powers and the Amendments, others evolve with the laws and regulations as set forth by the US Congress and others lie in the States Legislatures and Constitutions and the Remainder with the People.
Is the quest for Status relative? One can quickly understand that if unalienable rights set a floor to the quest for status, then, in that area, status must be highly absolute. But as one consolidates his status, and as one tests new grounds of status…familial, communal, financial, political, professional, etc…then progressively status becomes relative. And while competition sets the gains and losses, affirmation of status, a prerequisite to competition, may take many forms of expression, including posturing of psychological traits such as Psychopathy, Narcissism and Machivallism. This is where Dominance and Status meet.
Everyone of us cannot be millionaire, and status is hierarchical in nature, it is unavoidable. Status is not money itself and not the single source of status, but money can be an acknowledgement of status and a good tool to gain more status. But the Pursuit of Happiness is rendered impossible in a State that does not respect basic unalienable rights.
Socialism cannot truly create Happiness, because the basic premise of Status requires true competition and Socialism denies the principal ingredient to hierarchical structures attained or accomplished from the result of the respect of unalienable rights. In socialism the State is Sovereign, and if so, the idea of unalienable rights is futile. The Citizen serves the Status of the State.
As for Monarchies, the Ultimate power being held arbitrarily by a Sovereign, no matter the extent of the tradition that has carried him or her in a position of absolute power, unalienable rights are absent, because true competition is absent.
And for Feminism, since it has at its core philosophy a conceptual organization inherited from Communautarism, it also can only fail in protecting those rights, because again, it fails at understanding competition, true competition.
As for the American Constitution, it should still allow for the Quest for Status, because it is still written with the Ink it was Written with when First Signed. But do we still respect this Constitution, this is the question that should be answered. As the Deep State takes progressive control of our Freedom and Liberties, have they not in effect kidnapped the very document that set the road for our experience of Happiness.
If a floor is set, and respected, by the rights that as enumerated in the Declaration of Independence that are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit for Happiness, than this floor must establish natural constraints on a certain ceiling to Status. This Status ceiling must not be dictated but will impose itself by the negative forces activated by the inefficient allocation of resources of futile affirmation of Status, absent of true competition, employed when true Opportunities become rare, when the State itself has tricked the genuine landscape of True Risk and Competition that must accompany our Citizens with the Highest State of Status.
Is not the Deep State robbing us of our Constitution when it plot to destroy true Competition in all spheres of our organization by self oriented goals, self-serving policies, and a true lost of appetite for the respect of the Genius in Ethical risk taking.
When the Deep State spits on the Constitution, it pulls the rug at the Floor set in the Constitutional papers, in the Declaration of Independence that states, but not grants, rights that precede any Organization of our Communities, that precede the Political, and guarantee us the right to the Quest for Status. In this context, no natural ceiling exist to the Babylonian Vanity of Men and Women; and then, the Sanctity of Life, Freedom and the Pursuit of Happiness can only be embodied in the Few.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Before you read this article, keep in mind I am not a medical professional, I am self read. I do not give medical advice. I am not promoting any products. Some suggested litterature may somewhat promote either pharmacological products or nutritional products. I am not promoting them and chose the texts in questions because they explained, often, in the simplest manner, the mechanisms involved in the concerned metabolisms and pathologies. Some will be easier to grasp for the novice reader, others may prove challenging, but I support only one approach here, and that is in the quest to adressing the Metabolic syndrome and Diabetes Pandemic, and their associated multiple pathologies, the first course of intevention should be a change in diet. This change in diet is, I believe, an elimination of starchy foods from the diet of those who have pathologies of this nature, and a very tight control of starchy foods in the diet for those who do not show these signs yet. Promoting the elimination of starchy foods from diets is not a medical advice, and food is not a drug, I can therefore give advice on the diet without having to answer to the FDA or other authorities. Promotting some foods in a manner that associate them with medical benefits is a concern of the FDA. The human body does not need starchy foods to survive, It does not need grains or legumes or root vegetables.These foods offer the lowest nutrient density per calorie.
FDA’s New Nutrition Fact Labels Fall Short on Key Nutrient
Last Spring, the FDA made public its proposition and format for the new Nutrition Fact Labels present on manufactured and transformed foods. Much accent has been put on the added sugars, since, as to the FDA, they represent the biggest danger to health. To the right is the proposition from the FDA material disseminated on May 20 2016.
It astonishes me that in the current catastrophic Obesity and Diabetes Type 2 demographics in the USA, the principal Substrate responsible for this heath catastrophe still can’t find a place on our nutrition fact labels. On the other hand, my identification of the key substrate is in disagreement with that identified by the FDA.
Much litterature disagrees on the root cause of Obesity, Diabetes and the Metabolic Syndrome which have reached Pandemic proportions in the USA and Western World. Principal substrate proposed are Fats (some have theories as to specific fats), Fructose, Added Sugars (that also contain Fructose, but also Glucose). Very few, and more recent, litterature has pointed to the possibility that Digestible Starches, a Carbohydrate found in very high densities in Cereal grains, in Legumes and some Root Vegetables may be responsible.1,2,3
I am not a medical professional, nor a professional researcher, I am self-read. I have read extensively on the subject from peer reviewed litterature, and my opinion on this subject is that I also conclude that the principal substrate responsible for the health drift of Americans is Digestible Starches, and Starchy foods of our diets.
Furthermore, it appears that Fats are not the culprit of neither of the afformentioned conditions. Instead, Fats in the diet become a problem when juxtaposed to a High Glucose diet, which is what is procured by the high digestible starches content of the North American diet.4
It appears that the FDA is under the impression that starches, digestible starches (Amylose and Amylopectins, which are respectively unbranched and branched Glucose polymers, Figure 1 at bottom of page) are safe for the health, and are therefore still not described explicitly on food labels, and must be calculated by differentiation and approximation.
Most doctors and nutritionists I have spoken to, either ignore that digestible starches are pure glucose, or, when deciphering a Nutrition Facts Label, believe that the “Total sugars” incorporate the count of glucose from starches. Now, this is inexact and as an FDA published document explains in:
“Food Labeling: Revision of the Nutrition and Supplement Facts Labels (dated march 3 2014)”
“…“Other carbohydrate” represents different types of carbohydrate, and, unlike sugars and dietary fiber, carbohydrates covered under this heterogeneous category have no shared physiological effects. Moreover, there is no well-established evidence to support the role of particular types of carbohydrate that fall within the “other carbohydrate” category, such as starch and oligosaccharides, in human health that is based on reliable and valid physiological or clinical endpoints. In addition, a quantitative intake recommendation for “Other carbohydrate” is not available from relevant consensus reports. Given the lack of public health significance or a quantitative intake recommendation for “other carbohydrate” as a category, consistent with the factors discussed in section I.C., we tentatively conclude that “Other carbohydrate” should no longer be permitted to be declared on the Nutrition Facts label.”
It is astonishing that something as self evident as dietary glucose excess as cause, in the first hand of hyperglycemic bouts, that then gradually creates a progressive multi-organ health degeneration, metabolic disorganisation, can still be ignored by a whole discipline in their decision process. Yet, some litterature, which appears to have been ignored by the FDA is quite clear on this.
First: why self evident…when we test for Diabetes, we test with either Fasting Glucose (FG) or Oral Challenge Glucose Test (OCGT) postprandial glucose. The standard test used to be 50 or 75 gram equivalent of glucose from white bread, while the new standard is usually 75 grams glucose solution (which is much like a soft drink safe that any sucrose is changed for only glucose. Soft drinks were once made with sucrose (50% fructose – 50%glucose); from the 1990s and on, different mixtures of fructose-glucose ratios were used in a bracket of 40%-60% interchangeably. And the use of 55 High Fructose Corn Syrup, which is a mix of 55% Fructose and 45% Glucose, akin to honey, was agressively introduced.)
Now, the difference in response between white bread and glucose testing, in terms of metabolic response is important, yet once again ignored by scientific and political decision makers. Glucose solution drinks (single bound mono-saccharides form) creates a sudden but shorter lived metabolic plasma spike, while white bread, in fact the starchy component of white bread, because of the time needed to decompose the polymer structures slows the time to peak, and the time to trough. Important also, is that there is no food we eat that contains large amounts of unbounded glucose (free glucose), while we eat tremendous amounts of starchy foods (glucose polymers).5
The graphic to the right depicts the response to 3 different diets. High CHO (High Carbohydrate- high starch) American (Median Carbohydrate – moderate starch, diet of the 1950s America) and Experimental (Moderate carbohydrate and Low starch). As one notices imedediatly, the lower the starch conten, the lower the glucose plasma response even with equivalent carbohydrate content.5
In fact, it is estimated that close to 25% of the North American diet is composed of starchy foods against the 12% of dietary energy from added sugars.(see calculations below) Yet the whole health establishment focuses only on added sugars in terms of health focus, absolutely neglecting the greater ill that are starchy foods.
Calculations (approximative) for starch consumption by US adults: Now, the USDA is not making things easy when estimating this and it is incomplete because we only have numbers for refined grains (5,63 ounces), whole grains (0,83 ounces) and potatoes (0,37 cups). So,
Refined grains is 5.63ounce*28gr*71%starch content*4 Kcal/gr = 447Kcal a day;
Whole grains 0.83*28**63%*4 = 59Kcal a day;
Potatoes 16*0.37*28*44%*4 = 291Kcal a day.
This is a total of 797Kcal a day of starches per US adult. This implies 200 grams of Glucose from starches a day. If we included all starchy foods (for exemple other starchy root vegetable and legumes), the number could be quite higher. Remember that this is an average, some may eat less, which means others eat more. For added sugar, the USDA (USDA website – NHANES 2007-2010 report) estimates that an adult consumes 17,5 teaspoons a day. Again,
Added Sugars 17,5tsp*4grams/tsp*4 Kcal/gram = 280Kcal a day.
This can be approximated as being composed half glucose and half fructose. Therefore, Glucose from added sugars add up to approximatly about 35 grams of Glucose a day and 35 grams of Fructose a day. That is 235 grams of Glucose against 35 grams of Fructose from these 2 food sources alone. Obviously, both together add up to monstrous amount of all digestible saccharides, yet the added sugars component may be better metabolized because they are paired fructose-glucose mollecules. As you see, in this calculations, starches are way more than 25% of the estimated recommended 2000Kcal a day for an average adult. But people do overeat.
In England, it is estimated that an adult eats on average 110 to 135 grams of starches a day from all sources.6
Starchy foods need be the principal object of focus in the context that coupled sugars of differing type are better metabolized than single sugars.
One must be careful here and I will explain to avoid any confusion. When we ingest sugars, referred to as saccharides (more recently called glycans in the scientific litterature), they come in different structures.8 Their nomenclature is based on the number of attached unit they present. Saccharides bound between them from one of their Carbon atoms. Almost all sugars from our diets are hexose, meaning they are a six carbon structure. When one of these carbon is conjoined to another sugar, they share a common oxygn atom at that site, this is the carbon bond of the saccharides chain. So, in our most common foods, they are very little free sugars, mostly glucose and fructose from fruits. Otherwise, most sugars are of di-, tri-, Oligo-, Poly-saccharides structures. This means you have 2, or 3, or more attached molecules between them forming a chain. Oligo-Saccharides are sugars that form chains of from 3 to 9 carbons bonds. And Poly-saccharides are chains of more than 10 carbons bonds. Sometimes, litterature will refer to both oligo and poly-saccharies simply as polysaccharides. The most common di-saccharides from our diets are Sucrose (Fructose-Glucose), Maltose (Glucose-Glucose) and Lactose (Galactose-Glucose).
The Nutrition Fact Labels subcategory Sugars from the Carbohydrate category do not include Digestible Starches but sugars with 3 carbon bonds and less (that is mono-, di-, tri-, and tetra-saccharides). The digestible starches were included in a general oligo- and poly-saccharides called other carbohydrates (but which excluded fibers which are undigestible starches and are specifically described). The “Other Carbohydrate” category won’t be presented anymore on New Labels.
Now, back to metabolization. One must make the distinction between ingestion, digestion and metabolization. Ingestion is when the food enters the mouth and its pathway down the gut. From its ingestion a breakdown (digestion) of structure occurs mechanistically from chewing and biologically from saliva. As the food founds its way to the Gut and lower, it is progressively dcomposed into smaller units by gut enzymes. All sugar structures that we ingest and that are categorized as digestible are broken down to simple unbounded molecules9. Then they are ready to be metabolized by going through the lumen (Brush Broder membrane for Glucose). Other non-digestible sugars, such as fibers, find their way towards the colon where they ferment. Rarely, a sugar structure greater than a single molecule will be metabolized.
So, when scientists tested, in empty stomachs, how different sugar structures were metabolized, they tested free glucose, free fructose, free galactose, sucrose, lactose, maltose, etc…A recent study has made a meta analysis of past research on the subject. They observed that when more than one variety of sugar molecule is present in the diet, the sugars were metabolized quicker and at a greater rate.7 For example, 50 grams of sucrose, or 50 grams of glucose polymer were not metabolized identically. The sucrose or a fructose + glucose solution was metabolised at a rate of 40 to 65%, while the Glucose monomer was metabolized at between 30 to 40%. Which indicates that a heigthen level of plasma glucose will persist longer with a single kind of sugar in your diet than when you ingest structures that are paired or coupled of different mollecules. This is because the different sugars don’t follow the same pathway. The fructose finds its way quickly to the liver where it is either used for energy or stored for fat, while the glucose travels through the blood and is directed, in preference towards organs that are insulin dependant for the glucose to metabolize, such as muscles.10
When the diet procures an excessive load of glucose in our diets, mostly through the ingestion of starchy foods, then, the insulin dependent organs are incompetent at handling the load, a state of hyperglycemia occurs. That is a state of heighten plasma and metabolic glucose. In this case, glucose must find new metabolic paths. It is actively redirected towards none insulin dependent tissue and organs where it will accumulate and eventually create inflammation by provoking a steril endocrine reaction. The excessive glucose concentrations are perceived by the endocrine system as a threat and inflammation is a line of defense aginst metabolic threats.11
Un-metabolized excessive glucose from hyperglycemia also agonizes the polyol pathway11, which converts some of the excess glucose to fructose. Now, for many years, scientific medical research had identified fructose as the enemy substrate in our diets, but this is largely believed to be inexact now.
The reason that fructose appears to have created liver damage, non-alcoholic-fatty-liver steatosis (condition encountered in most obesity and diebetes patient at differing degree of pathogenesis), is precisely, not because of the dietary fructose, but because of the excessive amounts of dietary glucose from starches that metabolically are converted, in part, to excess fructose, by the polyol pathway. Further, if glucose level are excessive, and the liver has met its energy needs, the fructose thus produced is converted to fat in the liver and accumulates in it. And in a context of impaired beta-oxidation of lipids, which hyperglycemia is now known to effect, these fatty deposits are never reconverted to fructose or glucose for energy, nore decomposed in free fatty acids or ketone bodies, they just accumulate.. As you know, it is accepted knowledge now, that hyperglycemia, especially chronic hyperglycemia, induces impaired beta-oxidation, and impaired ketolysis also.
Cahill (2006) 12 gives a good overall view of the increasing understanding of Ketone Esters metabolism. In this review, the mechanisms and differences between Starvation and Glucose starvation, the place of Ketone Esters (refrred to as Ketone Bodies or Ketones which are AcetoAcetate, Acetone and Beta-hydroxydutyrate) metabolism are simply explained. It also concludes, and rightly so that Carbohydrates are not essential to the diet. Describes the Inuit diet made simply of meat and blubber (adipose tissue) which allowed this population to survive the harsh climate of the North for thousands of years. Cahill also explains that the human body needs about 100 gr. of Glucose a day, but all this glucose can be produced endogenously through the Glucose – Glycerol cycle, no need for eating carbs.
Ketone bodies are the product of triglyceride decomposition. They are another principal metabolic fuel, together with glucose and lipids (fatty acids). These 3 fuels form the Triumvirat of principal fuel substrates. Other subtrates are used marginally in certain tissues, for exemple Vitamin C (Absorbic acid). As a person accumulates hyperglycemic bouts, the body shifts progressively to give preference to glucose (no unique theory of these mechanisms appear to have imposed themselves up to now) as the unique fuel metabolite, and this is when pathologies start to occur. Our body need these 3 fuels for different processes, and when one fuel dominates over the 2 others, then metabolic balance is prevented. The most impotant contribution of Ketone bodies are their capacity to rebalance the mitochondrial redox (reduction-oxidation) complex, where metabolic stress translates in the accumulation of overexpresion of free radicals such as SuperOxide and Peroxynitrite. Beta-Hydroxybutyrate has been demonstrated to specifically neutralize inflammasome NLRP3. 13,14,15,16,17
So, our diets contain very few uncoupled fructose mono-saccharides or polymers (this surprises again most health practitioners who mostly believe that most fruits are pure fructose, while in fact most contain some sucrose, some fructose and some glucose to different proportions. Very few have high fructose concentrations. Among fruit commonly part of the North American diet, pears appear to have the greatest fructose to glucose ratio, and is about 3,5:1. While the majority of fruits have a ratio of about 1.25:1 to 1.5:1, and a few have ratios under 1. And so by far Glucose occupies the greates density on the North American diet.
Galactose in our diet mostly always comes coupled (most common form being galactose-glucose referred to as lactose). It is the sugar of dairy products.
Information for these “sugar content” comes from an FDA publication that are used as reference for food labels: Sugar Content of Selected Foods: Individual and Total sugars (USDA, Human Nutrition Information Service, Home Economics Research Report 48, September 1987, R.H. Matthews, Pamela L. Pehrsson and Mojgan Farhat-Sabet.). Note here that sugars (on the Nutrition Facts Label) excludes digestible starches, again, which is incredible, because the whole USDA excludes digestible starches from their descriptive calculations of sugars, yet it is composed of glucose, a saccharides. Why include digestible mono-, di-, tr-, tetra- saccharides while excluding digestible starches is incomprehensible.
The reason is certainly political. The metabolic syndrome, and associated pathologies such as Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) costs the American health system an estimated $250 Billion in 2014 annualy. Hammond and Levine estimated that in 2008, the cost of Obesity alone was $150 Billion annualy in the US32. Yet, the most important contributor source to the Syndrome from the North American diet, GLUCOSE from starches, is ignored.
Only dietary glucose, in our diet, comes in very high density. Yet, these glucose polymers from digestible starches are to ones we cannot find explicitly on nutrition fact labels.
To understand the Metabolic Syndrome, Obesity and (T2DM), one effectively has to understand T2DM differently. For decades now, Diabetic “Complications”, cardiovascular diseases and neuropathies being the principal, were conditions believed to originate from the diabetic state. This implies that there must be somewhat of a causetive relationship between the complication pathologies and diabetes, from the metabolic changes provoked by T2DM in the appearance of these “complications”.
But this may be a errounous understanding of the biology of Diabetes. Yet, it is true, that under the etiology of Diabetes, a progressive degeneration of the self regenerating rate of beta cells from the Pancreas, insulin secretion becomes impaired. With insufficient insulin secretion, glucose is progressivly not metabolized and provokes hyperglycemic bouts. Yet, diet alone, with heavy starch loading, creates such metabolic demand that insulin production is insufficient. It is these bouts of hyperglycemia, when repeated over and over, often on a daily basis that will eventually damage the pancreas endocrine tissues lodging the endocrine beta cells. But yet, one may not need to ever develop diabetes or have beta cell insufficency to suffer metabolic damage from hyperglycemia. Elevated glucose levels, independant of insulin secretion, creates damage to most sites of the human body. The litterature is deep in knowledge with this. This is why diabetes is referred to as as multi-metabolic dysfonctional state. 18,19,20, 21, 22,23,24,25,26
Yet, it has progressively become clear that the “complications” can be diagnosed in the pre-diabetic phase and even in the absence of any diabetic etiology. And less evident, is that what often appear to be idiopathic conditions of cardiovascular or neuropathic origin can also be associated with another unifying factor, and this is hyperglycemia bouts.
This means if one ceases to view cardiovascular diseases and neuropathies as complications of diabetes (which implies as a consequence of), but rather the consequence of chronic hyperglycemia bouts, than one can understand T2DM as also a consequence of hyperglycemia bouts. And at the origin of hyperglycemia bouts are dietary starches. This would be a novel and useful way to understand the Metabolic Syndrome and T2DM and would have interested parties focus a lot more on lifestyle modifications first instead of pharmacological intervention therapies when the disease, and hyperglycemia events, have often aleady created irreparable damages.
It is primordial here that hyperglycemic bout should not be understood in a bureaucratic manner as by consensus thresholds as established by the World Health Organization, or the different Diabetes Association across the western world. These criteria were not meant to set exclusionary standards of treatment or considerations. But rather increase awarness of the caracteristics of the disease and perceived by biological markers. Yet, most clinical research tests in animals offer supradosages for analysis, but the opposite for humans where does of 50 and 75 grams of carbohydrate are the standards, even when the North American diet, for some people, often can contain 300 to 400 grams of carbohydrates in a meal.
In this view, not being restricted by the protocol, may allow quick modification of lifestyle choices.
This is a small exemple I prepared in my communications with the FDA to demonstrate the necessity to include total digestible starches on the Nutrition Fact Label. A fast food meal: A Big MAC, a Large Fry (without ketchup) and a Large regular Coke; Just looking at the Total Carbohydrate category of the Nutrition Fact Label (actual versus suggeted change in 2018) :
Before (now until 2018) :
Total Carbohydrate 192 grams
Total Fiber 7 grams
Total Sugars 77 grams
New Label (2018) :
Total Carbohydrate 192 grams
Total Fiber 7 grams
Total Sugars 77 Grams
Added Sugars 77 grams
Now one would think then that taking a Diet Coke would solve the health problem concerning sugars..bringing total and added sugars to 3 grams. But this is inexact…because food labels don’t explicitly describe digestible starches. Therefore, if, as I have proposed, Digestible starches are explicitly described on the label, you would get something like this :
Total Carbohydrate : 192 Grams
Total Digestible starches (glucose) 108 grams
Total Fibers 7 grams
Total Sugars 77 grams
(the FDA could add added sugars if they pleased)
The consumer can now see clearly his total consumption of monosaccharides the total glucose, added to the sugars, he consumes in this meal approximatly 146,5 gr of glucose and 38,5 gr of fructose. ” But he could simply read it as 185 grams of monosaccharides or 108 grams of glucose and 77 grams of added sugars. Incontestably, he is better informed…Would you like an apple struddel with your order….”. The argument of the FDA that starches are not considered, according to them, a threat to health, that there is no need to put them on the label, is ignoring there on logic. They put salt because if you put too much it may be dangerous, yet this agurment is progressively loosing steam in the scientific community. They put cholesterol because they believe that too much cholesterol in the diet is harmful. Yet we need cholesterol, women to produce Estradiol (estrogen) and men to produce Testosterone. Also, we can synthetise cholesterol in our body, therefore we don’t need to eat it. Yet, if our metabolisms are not impaired, we can eat too much of it and excrete the excess.
The problem with cholesterol, as with other fats, its that their metabolization is impaired by the High Glucose diet. If cholesterol increases in the blood as a marker, it is because its use is impaired by too much glucose. This is why Low testosterone is a strong predictor of Diabetes in men, and High testosterone is a strong predictor of Diabetes in women (in women Estradiol metabolism is dysregulated by impaired cholesterol metabolizatiion which leads to higher levels of testosterone).
Since nutritionists always explain, as does the FDA, that the only problem with starches is when you eat excessive amounts, then their reasonning is that there is no reason to put them on the labels, then why put salt or cholesterol or anything else for that matter. Digestible Starches is the nutrient that has increased the most in caloric value and as a percentage of our diets in the past 20 years.
It is again mind boggling, to an outsider, a low information participant to this debate, that almost no research has been done to identify thresholds of hyperglycemia in humans where metabolic damage occurs, where metabolic mechanism are switched to pathological ones (polyol pathway for example). I have found one single animal research were a threshold of 180 mg/dL plasma glucose for 60 minutes activates the polyol pathway in rabbits.
Most animal models otherwise use supradosage to obtain clear readings of certain processes. Yet an increasing amount of litterature does observe the damage of high concentrations of glucose in all major organs, including the brain (brain atrophy for exemple31), the clear signaling center to our metabolism through hypothalamic functions, glucose sensing neurons, and from the limbic system.
What metabolic damage occurs with the accumulation of glucose, fructose, myo-inositol, and other sugars, “en masse” in certain tissues and organs, which don’t necessitate insulin for glucose metabolization? For example, nerve system tissues can metabolizes glucose, at a slow rate though, without insulin. But a large accumulation of glucose and other sugars creates an endocrine defense reflex, either steril or RAMP. responsible for triggering inflammasome NLRP3. This is the principal Inflammasome of the Diabetic etiology. An Inflammasome is a complex that releases substrates that are a first line of defense to protect the integrity of our body. Subtrates such as Interleukins and Necrotic Nuclear Factors. Inflammation sets in the tissue, often locking fluids in certain compartments, preventing proper osmolality, and unbalancing ionic metabolite (sodium, potassium, and even metals such as zinc). 27, 28
On the short term horizon, inflammation is a beneficial reaction, but when it persists, it is the opposite, it weakens the metabolism, making it even more vulnerable to diseases.
Remember, that which often is forgotten by the scientific community, that glucose is a polarized substrates, and this is why, among other ills, hyperglycemia is responsible for osmollality dis-regulation. Glucose doen’t transport itself within the human body but is assited by 2 classes of Transporter, the non sodium dependent diffusin Transporters (GLUT family..GLUT1 to GLUT8 have now been identified) and at least 2 Sodium-Glucose Co-Transporters (SGLT1 nd SGLT2).
As glucose loads increase in the Stomach, SGLT1 and SGLT 2 are geneticly expressed at a greater rate to meet Glucose supply. SGLTs are small molecules which mobilize 2 sodium molecules. When transported in this fashion, SGLTs by their sodium mobilization, effect changes in sodium gradient and in electric potential. This in turn modifies osmolallities locally as SGLT also displace water in their structure : “While these experiments clearly demonstrated that there is a close relationship between Na+/glucose cotransport and the initial rate of water transport, controversy remains as to the interpretation of the results. We have favored the water cotransport hypothesis, while others favor a strict osmotic coupling, i.e., water flowed in response to the osmotic gradients set up by Na+/sugar cotransport into the cell.” 29 and when Glucose is in excessive quantities, disregultates the capacity of the Hypothalamus to properly manage basoreceptor signaling, dysregulating water metabolism, from a multitude of mechanism, of which Arginin Vasopressin Secretion (Anti-Diuretic Hormone) is principal.30
Diabetes and Obesity are both Chronic Inflammed Conditions. Tissues suffering inflammation in diabetes, among others : adipose tissue, muscle tissue, cardiovascular tissue, nervous system tissue, epithelial lumen tissue, etc…it should be clear by now…if one single metabolite must be identified as central in the context of diet induced diseases in general, but particularly in the context of the Metabolic Syndrome, Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus…IT IS GLUCOSE..
My FDA Food Labeling proposition is therefore:
for the category Total carbohydrates
Total Carbohydrates………………………………..x gr.
Total digestible starches……………..x gr.
Total Fiber…………………………………x gr.
Total Sugars (excluding starches)….x gr.
(They could add “Added sugars” if the want as a subcategory)
This should guarantee better and adequate information yet must be accompanied by proper nutritional education from the health community. Then and only then, will the public be truly well equipped to better their health situation and provoke a quick and massive drop in the upper mentioned conditions tied to bad nutritional habits.
1. High Carbohydrate intake from starchy foods is positively associated with Metabolic disorders: A Cohort study from a Chinese Population (Rennan Feng et al.) 2015 – Nature
2. Refined Grain comsumption and the Metabolic Syndrome in Urban Indians (Ganesan Radhika et al.) 2009 – Metabolism, Clinical and Experimental
3. Carbohydrate intake and Refined grain Consumption are associated with the Metabolic Syndrome in Adult South Korean Population (MS SuJin Song et al.) 2013 – Journal of the Academic of Nutrition and Dietetics
4. Fat: The new health paradigm (Stefano Natella, Vamil Divan and Marcella Geraldo) 2013 – Research Institute, Credit Suisse Research. (Please take note here that this is produced by an investment house as an economic perspective on new scientific insights that could strongly modify some sectors of the economy). It does not directly sell any investment products or services, it is meant for Investment decision Makers. It is well written, with excellent references, and very accessible in terms of content. I am not associated in any way with Credit Suisse orrganization).
5. Acunte Metabolic Response to High carbohydrate, High starch meals compared with Moderate Carbohydrate, Low starch meals in Type 2 Diabetic Patients, (MC Gannon, S Fang, FQ Nuttal, N Ercan-Fang, SA Westphal) 1991 – Diabetes care 21: pp. 1619-1626
6. Carbohydrates and Health, 2015, Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition, England
7. Fructose Metabolism in humans – What Isotropic Tracer studies tell us. (Sam Z Sun and Mark W Empie) 2012 – Nutrition and Metabolism 9:89
8. Essentials of Glycobiology 2nd Edition – Editors: Ajit Varki, Richard D Cummings, Jeffrey D Esko, Hudson H Freeze, Pamela Stanley, Carolyn R Bertozzi, Gerald W Hart, and Marilynn E Etzler -2009, The Consortium of Glycobiology Editors, La Jolla, California (available online as Open Access at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1908/?report=printable) Excellent, it covers all aspects of carbohydrates.
9. Hypoglycemia as a pathological result in Medical Praxis (G. Bjelakovic et al.) 2011 – Chapter from the book available online: Type 1 Diabetic Complications ( http://www.intechopen.com/books/type-1-diabetes-complications) Edited by Professor David Wagner
10. Normal Glucose Homeostatis (MZ Shrayyef and JE Gerich) 2010- Principles of Diabetes Mellitus L. Poretsky Ed. – Chapter 2
11. The pathobiology of Diabetic Complications : A Unifying Mechanism (Micheal Brownlee) 2005 – Diabetes
12. Fuel Metabolism in Starvation ( George F. Cahill) 2006 – Annual Review of Nutrition 26:1-22
13.The Determination of the Redox States and Phosphorylation Potentialin Living Tissues and Their Relationship to Metabolic Control of Disease Phenotypes (Richard L. Veech) 2006 – Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education Vol 34 No 3 pp 169-179
14.Ketone body β-hydroxybutyrate blocks the NLRP3 inflammasome-mediated inflammatory disease (Yun-Hee Youm, Kim Y. Nguyen et al.) 2015 – Nature Medicine. 2015 March ; 21(3): 263–269. doi:10.1038/nm.3804.
15. Nutritional, Dietary and Postprandial Oxidative Stress (Helmut Sies, Wilhelm Stahl, and Alex Sevanian) 2005 – American Society for Nutrition Sciences
16.Type 2 diabetes mellitus and inflammation: Prospects for biomarkers of risk and nutritional intervention (Badawi et al.) 2010- Dovepress
17. Diabetic cardiac autonomic neuropathy, inflammation and cardiovascular disease (Aaron I Vinik, Tomris Erbas, Carolina M Casellini) 2013 – The Journal of Diabetes Investigation Volume 4 Issue 1
18. Hyperglycemia in Critical Illness: A Review (David Brealey and Mervyn Singer) 2009 – Journal of Diabetes Science and Technolog Volume 3, Issue 6
19. Ketogenesis prevents diet-induced fatty liver injury and hyperglycemia (David G. Cotter and Baris Ercal) 2014 – The Journal of Clinical Investigation
20. Pathogenesis of Chronic Hyperglycemia: From Reductive Stress to Oxidative Stress (Liang-Jun Yan) 2014 – Journal of Diabetes Research
21. Contribution of polyol pathway to arteriolar dysfunction in hyperglycemia. Role of oxidative stress, reduced NO, and enhanced PGH2/TXA2 mediation (Akos Keller et al.) 2007 – American Journal of Physiology – Heart and Circirculatory Physiology
22. Hyperglycemia Activates Caspase-1 and TXNIP-Mediated IL-1b Transcription in Human Adipose Tissue (Tim B. Koenen, Rinke Stienstra et al.) 2011 – Diabetes
23. Association of ketone body levels with hyperglycemia and type 2 diabetes in 9,398 Finnish men (Yuvaraj Mahendran) 2013 – Diabetes
24. Modulation of gastrointestinal vagal neurocircuits by hyperglycemia (Kirsteen M. Browning) 2013 – Frontiers in Neuroscience
25. Dietary Hyperglycemia, Glycemic Index and Metabolic Retinal Diseases (Chung-Jung Chiu and Allen Taylor) 2013 – Progress in Retinal and Eye Research
26. 50 years forward : Mechanisms of Hyperglycemia driven diabetic complications (Nicholas D. F. Russell and Mark E. Cooper) 2015 – Diabetologia
27. Upregulated NLRP3 Inflammasome Activation in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes (Hye-Mi Lee, Jwa-Jin Kim, Hyun Jin Kim, Minho Shong, Bon Jeong Ku and Eun-Kyeong Jo) 2013 – Diabetes Vol 62
28. Sterile inflammation: sensing and reacting to damage (Grace Y. Chen* and Gabriel Nuñez) 2010- Nature Reviews of Immunology
29. Biology of Human Sodium Glucose Transporters (Ernest M. Wright,, Donald D.F. Loo, and Bruce A. Hirayama) 2011 – Physiological Review 91: 733–794
30. Sugar for the brain: the role of glucose in physiological and pathological brain function (Philipp Mergenthaler et al.) 2013 – Trends in Neuroscience
31. Brain Atrophy in Type 2 Diabetes (Chris Moran, Gerald Munch et al.) 2013 – Diabetes Care 36:4036–4042
32. The economic impact of obesity in the United States, RA Hammond – R Levine (2010), Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity: Targets and Therapy