SUGAR MAKES YOU LESS VIOLENT!!!

Sweetened blood cools hot tempers: physiological self-control and aggression.
DeWall CN, Deckman T, Gailliot MT, Bushman BJ.

Aggressive and violent behaviors are restrained by self-control. Self-control consumes a lot of glucose in the brain, suggesting that low glucose and poor glucose metabolism are linked to aggression and violence. Four studies tested this hypothesis. Study 1 found that participants who consumed a glucose beverage behaved less aggressively than did participants who consumed a placebo beverage. Study 2 found an indirect relationship between diabetes (a disorder marked by low glucose levels and poor glucose metabolism) and aggressiveness through low self-control. Study 3 found that states with high diabetes rates also had high violent crime rates. Study 4 found that countries with high rates of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency (a metabolic disorder related to low glucose levels) also had higher killings rates, both war related and non-war related. All four studies suggest that a spoonful of sugar helps aggressive and violent behaviors go down.

Aggress Behav. 2011 Jan;37(1):73-80.

Why is this cool?

 Let me tell you my favorite candies: Reese's peanut butter cups, Buckeyes from Schmidt's in Columbus, Whatchamacallits, and most gummy stuff. How often do I eat these candies? All the time. I go through a pound a week and I brush often to keep my cavities at bay. Today's paper is about about how glucose is linked with violence!

 So, the researchers performed four studies that showed:

1. People who consumed a sugary drink behaved less aggressively than those that consumed a placebo drink.

2. Somehow that having diabetes correlates with aggressiveness.

3. That States with high levels of diabetes also had high levels of violent crime.

4. When an important enzyme in sugar metabolism is deficient in a particular country for evolutionary reasons then that country has more killing.

 This sounds really suspicious. It is easy to believe this paper because kids eat candy and they seem mild enough. Adults don't eat as much candy and they are the ones causing most of the violence. I think I really need to read this paper before I believe these results. Let me tell you my various suspicions. Study 3 involving diabetes is especially strange because diabetes is very prevalent in Mexican and Black communities, both of which are statistically likely to be poor. I think that the correlation could be showing economic issues versus physiological issues. Study 4 is strange because we don't know if a deficiency in the important enzyme (glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase) really affects sugar metabolism in those individuals. It is possible that deficiency in that enzyme is not a problem for sugar metabolism because there are compensatory mutations. Study 2 seems like a small scale version of Study 3, Blacks and Mexicans have higher levels of diabetes and are statistically likely to be poor and poor translates into violence. Before we can really take this study seriously, we need to know what controls were run to correct for socio-economic, racial, and historical factors.
 Just for a second, let's pretend that the results of this study were completely true, how could we apply it? Well, if people are constantly ingesting sugar, then they should be less aggressive on average. Those less aggressive people may be more easily controlled!! Is that the reason that high fructose corn syrup is in everything!? Probably not.

Baldness caused by gravity?

Baldness may be caused by the weight of the scalp: gravity as a proposed mechanism for hair loss.

Ustuner ET.

Available theories on the etiology and pathogenesis of male pattern baldness have not been satisfactory. Nonetheless, the most widely adopted theory today is the androgenetic theory. The current article introduces a new theory. According to the new theory the pressure created by the weight of the scalp is the cause of the baldness. The weight of the whole scalp over the loose areolar tissue is the operative weight. Hair follicles are pressed between the scalp skin and the cranial bones. The soft tissues around the hair follicles work as a buffer against the pressure. When the buffer decreases and becomes inadequate with age the effective pressure on the hair follicles increases. Unlike the existing theories, the new theory is able to explain every feature of male and female pattern baldness and agrees completely with all scientifically established facts and produced data. The new theory promises a radical change in how baldness is conceived and treated. Notice by the author: The materials and methods that utilize the new theory described in this article for prevention and treatment of hair loss are in patent pending status.

Med Hypotheses. 2008 Oct;71(4):505-14. Epub 2008 Jul 29.

Why is this cool?

 I'm feeling really bald today. I count the hairs that fall out and I eyeball if those were the hairs that tipped me from thinning to completely bald. How did I lose everything? My baldness seems to reflect my own inner turmoil at not finishing my degree and not being a bit more stylish. Well, in regards to my baldness, today's paper suggests that it is caused by gravity.

Slowly causing hair loss?

 Hum. How do I go about expressing my extreme skepticism of this hypothesis? I could glibly brush it off as quackery, because it doesn't make sense for all baldness. The hypothesis as it appears in the abstract suggests that the buffer zone between the scalp and the cranial bones becomes thinner with time, but what about someone like myself who is bald at the ripe age of 28? 

 I know people who have gone bald at a younger age, so shouldn't the hypothesis include a bit on genetics? It seems far from coincidental that baldness runs through families. Everyone is affected by gravity and, yet, not everyone is bald. It is entirely possible that gravity plays a part in old age baldness, but how do we separate that just being old and the body slowly losing different features? I should put up an article about genetic or biochemical evidence about the nature of baldness.

 Have you wondered why the President of the U.S. of A. is not bald? The last one was Uncle Ike. This was back when TV was a new thing and maybe youth was coming into vogue. I don't know, but, as a bald man, I think it is discrimination of such a blatant kind to not elect bald men! EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR BALD MEN!!