In 1992 when Bill Clinton won the Presidential Election by the fewest votes possible I was re-loading quite a lot. I received a catalog from a company called Dillion Precision and after the election the man who owns Dillion Precision blamed those of us who voted for Ross Perot. It pissed me off. At the time I was saving to buy a special reloading press that Dillon made and I decided not to buy it. Mistake? maybe, they still make one of the best reloading presses in the world.
What I realized then, and I had reaffirmed in 2000 when Ralph Nader stole a few votes from Al Gore, allowing George W. Bush to win the election, was that some people hate Democracy.
These people hate the idea of other voting for the candidate that seems best to them, voting for anyone but their candidate is evil because they hate the democratic process.
So what if people voted for a candidate from a political party other than the two primary political parties. That is Democracy in action.
I'm reading this ridiculous book called "Making Sense of People" and the author gets off on doing psychological analysis of public figures like politicians. Moron. Public figures wear masks and we never see them the way they really are. We can analyze their mask, maybe get a couple of peeks behind the mask, but, without personally knowing someone, without being with them in situations where they drop their mask we don't ever know them.
Everyone has two images, a mask they show everyone and an internal image they typically keep to themselves. Like a book with a cover and pages. We all know this. To a large extent figuring out what someone will do based on their external mask works, but, not always.
People whose internal mask and external behavior are most closely aligned are supposedly called "self actuated". Yeah, I've read a bunch of psych books, both popular and text books over the years.
So what does this have to do with Democracy?
In a Democracy we choose people based on the mask they show us and then we hope that their actions will be congruent with our beliefs. That's why we vote for them. We have no fricking idea if they are going to follow through on their promises or be the people we think they are when we vote for them.
Yet, these people believe their subjective assessments of a mask are so much better than the subjective assessments of others that they blame others when their desires falter.
Some morons, like the guy writing this book, want people like Ralph Nader and Ross Perot to take responsibility for the loss of the candidate they prefer. In other words, take responsibility for participating in the Democratic process. I would say "Yes, thank you" and the moron would probably be mystified.
The reality is that all presidents, all democratically elected leaders, fall short of their promises and their potential. Get over it.
There are some decisions that make no credible sense, and people get mad at me for pointing out something based in facts.
One night a friend asked me to come with him and check out a truck. I'm, or was, a pretty fair mechanic. I went and I heard a ticking (sounded like a valve lifter issue) and I asked the seller about the ticking. The seller got mad and shut down. Really, all I did was ask, "what is that ticking noise?"
My buddy was angry with me for pointing out the ticking sound. Truthfully the truck was really nice looking, but, a valve ticking usually means the oil wasn't changed regularly so the engine is screwed. I figure it was pretty lame of him to be upset with me, but, this happens all the time.
People become focused on some idea, buying a clean looking truck or electing a candidate, and then when someone points out something wrong with the idea they become angry and blame the messenger. I point out that Obama has no experience and idiots say something like "You don't need experience to run the largest, most powerful, most complex country in the world."
President Bush 1 wimped out on taxes and kicking Sadam's ass. After watching Reagan pussy around for years, especially about Iran, I wasn't voting for someone who pussyed out on Iraq. People disagree with me, and that's fine. The world becomes better with open dialogue.
Not everyone wants open dialogue or a democracy though. Some people hate the idea that others have different ideas or want different things, and that idea, the belief that people have different ideas and want different things is the basis of democracy.
People who get angry when others vote for a different candidate, people who censor others, people who refuse to accept that others have different beliefs and ideas hate the foundational principles of Democracy and Democracy itself.
People have different ideas, get over it. Accept it.
Saturday, May 11, 2013
Friday, May 10, 2013
Obama Administration: Guilty until proved innocent!
The BBC published this article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22478310
Reporting that a member of the Obama Administration has converted "innocent until proved guilty" into "guilty until proved innocent":
"The Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance wrote to Defense Distributed founder Cody Wilson demanding the designs be "removed from public access" until he could prove he had not broken laws governing shipping weapons overseas by putting the files online and letting people outside the US download them."
For those of you who are not aware the office of the president is the chief law enforcement agency in the three arms of the United States government and as a result has authority over the enforcement and prosecution of federal law such as "The Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance".
Republished under the "Fair Use" law. Mostly I have noticed that under the Obama Admin stuff vanishes from the web so I am posting a screen grab of the data I am blogging about before the Obama Admin forces the BBC to censor it. Please notice this is not a news story in the United States because the Obama Admin owns the U.S. media.
The Obama administration has declared war on two of the most important aspects of freedom in the United States: The freedom of the press and Innocent until proved guilty.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22478310
Reporting that a member of the Obama Administration has converted "innocent until proved guilty" into "guilty until proved innocent":
"The Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance wrote to Defense Distributed founder Cody Wilson demanding the designs be "removed from public access" until he could prove he had not broken laws governing shipping weapons overseas by putting the files online and letting people outside the US download them."
For those of you who are not aware the office of the president is the chief law enforcement agency in the three arms of the United States government and as a result has authority over the enforcement and prosecution of federal law such as "The Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance".
The Obama administration has declared war on two of the most important aspects of freedom in the United States: The freedom of the press and Innocent until proved guilty.
Thursday, May 09, 2013
FDA Nutrition Labeling
On a mid-term recently I was asked if nutrition labeling was required by law and I answered No. This is because I have been reading labels since my mother taught me to back in the 1970s. It became a law in 1990. Who knew?
Okay, so I read in the text book that the FDA required labeling. Since I knew from research in the 80s that labeling was voluntary I just figured my text book was wrong. Should have checked my facts. Once again, amazed by ignorance.
So now that I know there is a law I decide, "hey, lets go check it out at FDA.gov". I'm publishing some screen grabs from FDA.gov based on the fair use copyright law. Get over it.
Interesting experience. Being a manufacturing engineer I crunch numbers using basic statistics all day long, or I used to. I can look at a range of numbers and tell you if it makes sense, or, if there is a problem.
So I checked out:
http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm063113.htm
and reviewed how they calculate the info on labels. There was a line on this page that made no sense to me:
The line reads, "The upper limits of the cv have been calculated to show that, if the
sample cv is smaller than the upper limit: 1) the predicted value for
class II nutrients always exceeds the corresponding sample mean, and 2)
the predicted value for the third group of nutrients is always less than
the corresponding sample mean."
So here I am, thinking, "well, if it is the minimum value or the maximum value how can it also be the mean?" A mean, or average, (by definition) is always going to be greater than the minimum and less than the maximum. So I scratched me head. "The mean is the maximum or the minimum, depending". I must have missed that day in grade school.
The "cv" or "coefficient of variation" is just a percentage based on the standard deviation used when negative numbers make no sense. No problem there, how they use it though....
Being me, I checked their math and all the math on the page between the sample values and the ridiculous "mean is the minimum some cases and maximum in other cases" statement is correct. But, my experience is not in math and compared to a lot of people I know my math sucks. My expertise is recognizing problems and developing solutions.
Lets take a look at the values in their 12 item sample:
So the values are: "mean = (2.8 + 2.5 + 2.9 + 3.5 + 3.1 + 4.1 + 3.3 + 3.1 + 3.3 + 2.8 + 3.1 + 2.8) / 12 = 3.1083"
Looks good? No, looks very bad! (so I have been studying Spanish lately, sue me)
Why? This is not a normal distribution so typical rules don't apply. This is a skewed distribution which means I need a larger sample size. All distributions are normal distributions IF the sample size is large enough. When I have a skewed distribution it tells me there is something influencing the sample distribution (like a manufacturing process issue) OR the sample size is too small. A skewed distribution means the sample IS NOT representative. Maybe the protein level is higher because some of the sample units was pissed on and there was a lot of protein in the piss OR maybe the sample size isn't big enough. I don't know. In any case, this sample is fucked.
I charted the information because I am lame and I have no fricking life OR maybe just because I don't like stuff that does not add up and I like to check it out.
So what does this confusing bunch of numbers mean? I used Libre Office which has no analysis pak or histogram chart creating procedure.
Look at the numbers on the left. Those are the values from the FDA web page I gave the URL to at the beginning of this blog. I included a screen grab and you can check me if you want.
Underneath that set of numbers is a bunch of pretty self explanatory numbers. Average is =average(A2:A13). STDEV is =stdev(A2:A13). Max is =max(A2:A13). Min is =Min(A2:A13). Range is =(max-min). the number without a title, 3.3 is the minimum plus half of the range. =A16+(A18/2). This gives us a Median or middle. The mean does not equal the median so the distribution is skewed.
The last two numbers, calculated max and calculated min, are based on a normal distribution. I take the mean and add three standard deviations and subtract three standard deviations. =(A14+(3*A15)) and =A14-(3*A15).
With a normal or Gaussian distribution (Bell Curve) 997 out of 1000 samples will fit within plus or minus 3 standard deviations or a range of 6 sigma. Huh? If this distribution was normal, about 66% of sample items would fit within plus or minus One standard deviation of the mean, about 92% of items would fit within plus or minus Two standard deviations and 99.7% of samples items would fit within plus or minus Three standard deviations.
Let's look at my homemade histogram chart. A histogram is just figuring out how many times a particular value occurs. If we look at the chart the value 2.8 occurs 3 times and the value 3.1 occurs 3 times. 4.1 occurs 1 time and that value skews the chart. I figure that 4.1 is the sample some meat eating rodent pissed on. The Modality, or most items, in this chart is about 2.95. So my mean is 3.1, my median is 3.3 and my modality is 2.95. This analysis is a FAIL.
If this were a normal distribution we could fit a bell shaped curve over those columns. It isn't normal so either my sample is fucked or it isn't big enough. I need to sample more items in this case. I should probably clean everything up and re-do the experiment and then compare the results.
Sampling is expensive so typically a manager will just say "pitch the out-liar(sic)" since it makes more "bean-counter" sense to throw data away than spend money increasing the sample size. Also, sometimes samples are contaminated in the lab so the 4.1 out-liar might be contaminated. I don't know so my best option is to spend money like it is going out of style and sample a few hundred items. I just need to get my boss to approve increasing my budget ten fold so I can test the protein level in broccoli. Heck, we are in a deficit and spending money like crazy anyway.....
I'm leaning toward the "some rodent came and pissed on the broccoli and contaminated my sample" theory. I could be wrong though so I should wash the next sample, which won't help because the piss soaked in. Never thought of that? Too bad, now that image is in your head and now every time you eat organic foods you know that the shit they spread to fertilize the crop got onto and into the crop. So sorry. Get over it.
Enough frivolity (got to love Uncharted).
Lets look at the minimum and maximum for a moment. If the FDA was really interested in publishing either the minimum or the maximum they would publish a number based on TWO or THREE standard deviations from the Mean of a NORMAL distribution. In this case the minimum amount of protein should be 1.86 grams.
In other words they would be publishing the "calc min" or the "calc max" and not some "mean is actually the minimum or maximum depending on how you look at it" kind of number.
But wait, is publishing the minimum number a good idea? Norflok and Wayman! Some people, like those who have had a kidney transplant, are protein intolerant and should know the Maximum protein that they could be eating. IMO, the calc max and calc min should be published on the label, after sampling enough to develop a normal curve. Sample size is important in developing accurate statistical predictions.
None of this is happening so I figure labeling is screwed. Better than nothing I guess. Oh well, I figured that labeling was screwed anyway so no news here, just proving my theory that labeling is screwed and the FDA has some interesting ways of justifying their methods like calling the "mean" the minimum or the maximum, depending.
Okay, so I read in the text book that the FDA required labeling. Since I knew from research in the 80s that labeling was voluntary I just figured my text book was wrong. Should have checked my facts. Once again, amazed by ignorance.
So now that I know there is a law I decide, "hey, lets go check it out at FDA.gov". I'm publishing some screen grabs from FDA.gov based on the fair use copyright law. Get over it.
Interesting experience. Being a manufacturing engineer I crunch numbers using basic statistics all day long, or I used to. I can look at a range of numbers and tell you if it makes sense, or, if there is a problem.
So I checked out:
http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm063113.htm
and reviewed how they calculate the info on labels. There was a line on this page that made no sense to me:
So here I am, thinking, "well, if it is the minimum value or the maximum value how can it also be the mean?" A mean, or average, (by definition) is always going to be greater than the minimum and less than the maximum. So I scratched me head. "The mean is the maximum or the minimum, depending". I must have missed that day in grade school.
The "cv" or "coefficient of variation" is just a percentage based on the standard deviation used when negative numbers make no sense. No problem there, how they use it though....
Being me, I checked their math and all the math on the page between the sample values and the ridiculous "mean is the minimum some cases and maximum in other cases" statement is correct. But, my experience is not in math and compared to a lot of people I know my math sucks. My expertise is recognizing problems and developing solutions.
Lets take a look at the values in their 12 item sample:
Looks good? No, looks very bad! (so I have been studying Spanish lately, sue me)
Why? This is not a normal distribution so typical rules don't apply. This is a skewed distribution which means I need a larger sample size. All distributions are normal distributions IF the sample size is large enough. When I have a skewed distribution it tells me there is something influencing the sample distribution (like a manufacturing process issue) OR the sample size is too small. A skewed distribution means the sample IS NOT representative. Maybe the protein level is higher because some of the sample units was pissed on and there was a lot of protein in the piss OR maybe the sample size isn't big enough. I don't know. In any case, this sample is fucked.
I charted the information because I am lame and I have no fricking life OR maybe just because I don't like stuff that does not add up and I like to check it out.
So what does this confusing bunch of numbers mean? I used Libre Office which has no analysis pak or histogram chart creating procedure.
Look at the numbers on the left. Those are the values from the FDA web page I gave the URL to at the beginning of this blog. I included a screen grab and you can check me if you want.
Underneath that set of numbers is a bunch of pretty self explanatory numbers. Average is =average(A2:A13). STDEV is =stdev(A2:A13). Max is =max(A2:A13). Min is =Min(A2:A13). Range is =(max-min). the number without a title, 3.3 is the minimum plus half of the range. =A16+(A18/2). This gives us a Median or middle. The mean does not equal the median so the distribution is skewed.
The last two numbers, calculated max and calculated min, are based on a normal distribution. I take the mean and add three standard deviations and subtract three standard deviations. =(A14+(3*A15)) and =A14-(3*A15).
With a normal or Gaussian distribution (Bell Curve) 997 out of 1000 samples will fit within plus or minus 3 standard deviations or a range of 6 sigma. Huh? If this distribution was normal, about 66% of sample items would fit within plus or minus One standard deviation of the mean, about 92% of items would fit within plus or minus Two standard deviations and 99.7% of samples items would fit within plus or minus Three standard deviations.
Let's look at my homemade histogram chart. A histogram is just figuring out how many times a particular value occurs. If we look at the chart the value 2.8 occurs 3 times and the value 3.1 occurs 3 times. 4.1 occurs 1 time and that value skews the chart. I figure that 4.1 is the sample some meat eating rodent pissed on. The Modality, or most items, in this chart is about 2.95. So my mean is 3.1, my median is 3.3 and my modality is 2.95. This analysis is a FAIL.
If this were a normal distribution we could fit a bell shaped curve over those columns. It isn't normal so either my sample is fucked or it isn't big enough. I need to sample more items in this case. I should probably clean everything up and re-do the experiment and then compare the results.
Sampling is expensive so typically a manager will just say "pitch the out-liar(sic)" since it makes more "bean-counter" sense to throw data away than spend money increasing the sample size. Also, sometimes samples are contaminated in the lab so the 4.1 out-liar might be contaminated. I don't know so my best option is to spend money like it is going out of style and sample a few hundred items. I just need to get my boss to approve increasing my budget ten fold so I can test the protein level in broccoli. Heck, we are in a deficit and spending money like crazy anyway.....
I'm leaning toward the "some rodent came and pissed on the broccoli and contaminated my sample" theory. I could be wrong though so I should wash the next sample, which won't help because the piss soaked in. Never thought of that? Too bad, now that image is in your head and now every time you eat organic foods you know that the shit they spread to fertilize the crop got onto and into the crop. So sorry. Get over it.
Enough frivolity (got to love Uncharted).
Lets look at the minimum and maximum for a moment. If the FDA was really interested in publishing either the minimum or the maximum they would publish a number based on TWO or THREE standard deviations from the Mean of a NORMAL distribution. In this case the minimum amount of protein should be 1.86 grams.
In other words they would be publishing the "calc min" or the "calc max" and not some "mean is actually the minimum or maximum depending on how you look at it" kind of number.
But wait, is publishing the minimum number a good idea? Norflok and Wayman! Some people, like those who have had a kidney transplant, are protein intolerant and should know the Maximum protein that they could be eating. IMO, the calc max and calc min should be published on the label, after sampling enough to develop a normal curve. Sample size is important in developing accurate statistical predictions.
None of this is happening so I figure labeling is screwed. Better than nothing I guess. Oh well, I figured that labeling was screwed anyway so no news here, just proving my theory that labeling is screwed and the FDA has some interesting ways of justifying their methods like calling the "mean" the minimum or the maximum, depending.
Monday, May 06, 2013
e-Readers and Open Source
I've been reading e-books for over 15 years now. After over 2 years I still use my Kindle more than anything else. Before that my favorite reader was my Palm Tungsten W, although a Chinese Android tablet was really great even though battery life was short and after 2 months it died. I've used different computers including a OLPC XO as readers. The XO is a little big, but, worked well and I was able to manage my library on it. I use Calibre to manage my e-book library.
I'm considering picking up a Kindle Fire HD and seeing how that works since I enjoy my Kindle. Now that the Nook is including Google Play so a proper Adobe reader could be installed I may take another look at that. I hear the iPad works really well also. It looks like the e-Reader "wars" are winding down so that everyone has around the same functionality and quality.
Personally, now that the Nook can install apps that read text files and native PDF files I don't think a Nook is any worse a choice than the Kindle and it might even be better now that it is becoming an Android tablet. The Nook used to be a "retarded Android" tablet with too much of the good stuff disabled unless a user hacked it. Why buy a Nook and hack it when someone can buy an Android tablet for the same or cheaper?
Reading PDF files is still the biggest problem on e-readers. Just about everyone who writes a thesis uses PDF and pretty much every thesis or paper I have ever received has been published using PDF. Anyone working in cutting edge, or developing the cutting edge, needs to be able to read PDF files. There are so many PDF publishers that reading them can be difficult, especially when it comes to the way images are handled. How a reader handles the images in a PDF file is a big deal.
The iPad's popularity is partially because it is a great PDF reader and iReader works really well. iPad wins as far as I am concerned in every area except price and open source and that is a big deal. Since Open Source is huge to me Android is my choice regardless of other features.
Looking around and thinking about upgrading I like android tablets. Finding a quality 10" or so Android tablet seems to be a little on the difficult side. The Nexus 10 32GB is $500 bucks. Is it really worth the extra $300 over the Chinese 10" tablets? I'd need to invest in both of them to find out and I don't think I am going to do that.
These days I don't need to keep up with research and ongoing cutting edge development so my dependence on PDF files has been reduced. I think I am going to stick with the Kindle and cheap Android tablets for now.
By the time I am in a position to work on cutting edge development in Anthropology, if ever, the tablet and eReader wars should be completely over. The basic technology will be settled and pretty much everything will be the same except for a few features that appeal subjectively to different users.
Open Source is a huge deal. Back at the founding of the United States intellectual property laws were a big deal because we were entering the industrial age. Patent protection laws were restricted to 20 years to help encourage development. These days no one cares about encouraging development, everyone is just trying to make a buck so most intellectual property is protected by Copyright, not patents, because code is written like a book.
Copyright protects intellectual development for the life of the author plus 75 years. These kind of oppressive intellectual property laws suppress technological development.
Why is copyright so different than patent? Lawyers don't invent stuff, they write stuff and they don't give a rats ass about inventors or the common good. The blood sucking lawyers just want to make money. Copyright laws are literally retarding technological development.
Open Source is trying to change that, and it is working. All code should be open source. People whine about making money with Open Source, but, look at Google. Google developed Android and they are making money hand over fist. Google is also driving technological development.
In my opinion, as we enter the time of the end of the e-Reader wars, e-Readers need to be Open Source and they need to be able to handle the multiplicity of PDF files published by Masters and Doctoral candidates and Researchers.
If you are looking for an e-Reader Open Source development should be a primary concern in the selection of an e-Reader. Screen clarity is the second most important concern. After that, the ability to read PDF files and TXT files is important. Finally battery life is my final consideration. After that everything is gravy.
I'm considering picking up a Kindle Fire HD and seeing how that works since I enjoy my Kindle. Now that the Nook is including Google Play so a proper Adobe reader could be installed I may take another look at that. I hear the iPad works really well also. It looks like the e-Reader "wars" are winding down so that everyone has around the same functionality and quality.
Personally, now that the Nook can install apps that read text files and native PDF files I don't think a Nook is any worse a choice than the Kindle and it might even be better now that it is becoming an Android tablet. The Nook used to be a "retarded Android" tablet with too much of the good stuff disabled unless a user hacked it. Why buy a Nook and hack it when someone can buy an Android tablet for the same or cheaper?
Reading PDF files is still the biggest problem on e-readers. Just about everyone who writes a thesis uses PDF and pretty much every thesis or paper I have ever received has been published using PDF. Anyone working in cutting edge, or developing the cutting edge, needs to be able to read PDF files. There are so many PDF publishers that reading them can be difficult, especially when it comes to the way images are handled. How a reader handles the images in a PDF file is a big deal.
The iPad's popularity is partially because it is a great PDF reader and iReader works really well. iPad wins as far as I am concerned in every area except price and open source and that is a big deal. Since Open Source is huge to me Android is my choice regardless of other features.
Looking around and thinking about upgrading I like android tablets. Finding a quality 10" or so Android tablet seems to be a little on the difficult side. The Nexus 10 32GB is $500 bucks. Is it really worth the extra $300 over the Chinese 10" tablets? I'd need to invest in both of them to find out and I don't think I am going to do that.
These days I don't need to keep up with research and ongoing cutting edge development so my dependence on PDF files has been reduced. I think I am going to stick with the Kindle and cheap Android tablets for now.
By the time I am in a position to work on cutting edge development in Anthropology, if ever, the tablet and eReader wars should be completely over. The basic technology will be settled and pretty much everything will be the same except for a few features that appeal subjectively to different users.
Open Source is a huge deal. Back at the founding of the United States intellectual property laws were a big deal because we were entering the industrial age. Patent protection laws were restricted to 20 years to help encourage development. These days no one cares about encouraging development, everyone is just trying to make a buck so most intellectual property is protected by Copyright, not patents, because code is written like a book.
Copyright protects intellectual development for the life of the author plus 75 years. These kind of oppressive intellectual property laws suppress technological development.
Why is copyright so different than patent? Lawyers don't invent stuff, they write stuff and they don't give a rats ass about inventors or the common good. The blood sucking lawyers just want to make money. Copyright laws are literally retarding technological development.
Open Source is trying to change that, and it is working. All code should be open source. People whine about making money with Open Source, but, look at Google. Google developed Android and they are making money hand over fist. Google is also driving technological development.
In my opinion, as we enter the time of the end of the e-Reader wars, e-Readers need to be Open Source and they need to be able to handle the multiplicity of PDF files published by Masters and Doctoral candidates and Researchers.
If you are looking for an e-Reader Open Source development should be a primary concern in the selection of an e-Reader. Screen clarity is the second most important concern. After that, the ability to read PDF files and TXT files is important. Finally battery life is my final consideration. After that everything is gravy.
Friday, April 19, 2013
Caught in the hype, Glycemic Index
Back around 2004 I read the South Beach Diet and since it was actually pretty close to what I was already doing I modified my diet more along the lines of the South Beach Diet. Good carbs, good oils. I started eating more sourdough, more brown rice and used more olive oil. I began drinking metamucil before meals.
According to the South Beach Diet people should eat brown rice because it has more fiber and a lower glycemic index than white rice. Sounds good. Is it true?
Recently I decided to take a look at the glycemic index of rice on the University of Sydney's Glycemic Index database. These are the guys who started the GI craze. That's my understanding anyway and as readers know our ignorance overwhelms us. For all I know some kid in Siberia actually developed the idea, or maybe an African grand mother.
Open up http://www.glycemicindex.com/index.php and put "Brown Rice" in the search engine and what do we have?
A lot of information actually. So what is the first thing I do? Open up a Libre Office Spreadsheet window and copy and paste the info from the pages into the worksheet. Now we can look at some numbers.
The Average GI for "Brown Rice" is 62. Pretty high if you ask me. The low is 39, the high 87.
Libre Office Spreadsheet calculates the Median at 62. The Median is half way between the MIN and the MAX so in this case the Median is 39+24 or 63. I'm not sure what is up with Libre Office, maybe they are using a formula similar to the one the government uses for calculating "median income".
The low is from a country specific Brown Rice, Brown rice, high amylose (IR42) rice, boiled 30 min, from the Philippines. How much rice can they produce on a set of islands? According to http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/rice-producing-countries.html they produce 11 million metric tons of rice per year and are the 7th largest producer of rice in the world. So are chances must be pretty good of getting that low GI rice? Not a chance. The other six countries combined produce around 360 million metric tons of rice. Most of that is white rice.
IF all things are equal, the Brown Rice we eat is probably the generic Brown Rice listed at item number 11 and 12 from UofS. The GI is 66.
Medium GI foods run between 55 and 69. High GI foods run 70 and up so this means Brown Rice is at the high end of the medium range.
Now I have a problem because I know these numbers are not absolute. That 66 comes with a standard deviation and a range, but, I have no idea what that is.
According to this chart, if I was eating "Chicken Flavored Brown Rice, Uncle Ben's® Ready Whole Grain (pouch)" with a GI of 46 I would be doing a whole lot better.
What is that axiom about packaged and processed foods being bad for you? I actually agree with that so it really annoys me when a packaged food is "better" than a "whole food".
What about fiber? Well, we already know that all Brown Rice is not created equal so lets look at the fiber in Uncle Ben's and "typical" Brown Rice.
First off, lets check the serving size which is typically based on volume BUT also includes weight. Why is that an issue? Because 1 cup of Uncle Ben's packaged and processed Brown Chicken Rice is 150grams per serving and 1 cup of Brown Rice is 195g per serving, according to http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/cereal-grains-and-pasta/5707/2
Lets break this down per 100 grams to make this fair.
Uncle Ben's is: 147 calories per 100 grams and has 2.0 grams of fiber per 100 grams.
Brown Rice is: 111 calories per 100 grams and has 2.0 grams of fiber per 100 grams.
I used http://nutritiondata.self.com as an example. If you check out that page the glycemic load of Brown Rice is 22. What does that mean? To calculate the glycemic load we multiply the glycemic index by the number of carbs and divide by 100. Is that good or bad?
The higher the glycemic load is the more the food impacts a person's blood sugar.
22*100 gives us 2200 and 2200 divided by 45 (carbs in the nutrition information) gives us a glycemic index of 49. I call "BullShit".
Are we confused yet?
This is pretty typical of "new technology", everyone jumps on board and no one really knows what they are talking about. I think I will stick with the UofS numbers for glycemic index for now.
What about White Rice? According to http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/cereal-grains-and-pasta/5714/2 which does not have an entry for Bismati Rice the calories are 122 per 100 grams and .6g fiber per 100 grams, and the glycemic load is 22.
Interesting, lower fiber and the same glycemic load.
Lets check out Bismati Rice, that should be easier. Nope, about fifty gazillion different kinds with different info at caloriecount.about.com
Lets try: http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-rice-i77261 which gives us a whopping 349 calories per 100 grams and 1.5g of fiber per 100 grams.
Now lets run a search on "Basmati, white rice, boiled" on http://www.glycemicindex.com/index.php and we have 6 results, the first has a glycemic index of 43, but, looking down the list we can see the longer we cook the Bismati Rice the lower the index. That is counter intuitive to me, I would think that shorter cooking times would make the grain harder to digest so it would take longer, apparently not. Bismati Rice has a GI of 43, well below that of Brown Rice.
Don't run out and grab a bag of white rice though, the lowest GI for white rice is 17 and the highest is 94 so you could be really screwing yourself. Run a search on "White rice, boiled, type not specified" on http://www.glycemicindex.com/index.php and we have 9 results, running from 43 to 89. dump the results with a specific cooking time and the salt water results and we have an average GI of 64.4. Calories vary wildly also so....
On the surface, it looks like Brown Rice may be marginally better for people than White Rice, but, it doesn't look like a big deal. Brown Rice does have more dietary fiber.
According to Harvard, http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fiber-table/ , we are supposed to have 14 grams of fiber for every 1,000 calories. If we eat brown rice we need 700 grams or around 3.5 servings to achieve that goal. If we eat white rice we can't achieve that goal, to get 14 grams of fiber we would have to eat 4,000 calories of white rice.
A glass of sugar free metamucil has 20 calories and 3 grams of fiber so if we drink a glass of metamucil and then eat white rice we can meet the goal.
White rice is shitloads cheaper. A 50lb bag of white rice runs 20 bucks at Costco.
According to the South Beach Diet people should eat brown rice because it has more fiber and a lower glycemic index than white rice. Sounds good. Is it true?
Recently I decided to take a look at the glycemic index of rice on the University of Sydney's Glycemic Index database. These are the guys who started the GI craze. That's my understanding anyway and as readers know our ignorance overwhelms us. For all I know some kid in Siberia actually developed the idea, or maybe an African grand mother.
Open up http://www.glycemicindex.com/index.php and put "Brown Rice" in the search engine and what do we have?
A lot of information actually. So what is the first thing I do? Open up a Libre Office Spreadsheet window and copy and paste the info from the pages into the worksheet. Now we can look at some numbers.
The Average GI for "Brown Rice" is 62. Pretty high if you ask me. The low is 39, the high 87.
Libre Office Spreadsheet calculates the Median at 62. The Median is half way between the MIN and the MAX so in this case the Median is 39+24 or 63. I'm not sure what is up with Libre Office, maybe they are using a formula similar to the one the government uses for calculating "median income".
The low is from a country specific Brown Rice, Brown rice, high amylose (IR42) rice, boiled 30 min, from the Philippines. How much rice can they produce on a set of islands? According to http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/rice-producing-countries.html they produce 11 million metric tons of rice per year and are the 7th largest producer of rice in the world. So are chances must be pretty good of getting that low GI rice? Not a chance. The other six countries combined produce around 360 million metric tons of rice. Most of that is white rice.
IF all things are equal, the Brown Rice we eat is probably the generic Brown Rice listed at item number 11 and 12 from UofS. The GI is 66.
Medium GI foods run between 55 and 69. High GI foods run 70 and up so this means Brown Rice is at the high end of the medium range.
Now I have a problem because I know these numbers are not absolute. That 66 comes with a standard deviation and a range, but, I have no idea what that is.
According to this chart, if I was eating "Chicken Flavored Brown Rice, Uncle Ben's® Ready Whole Grain (pouch)" with a GI of 46 I would be doing a whole lot better.
What is that axiom about packaged and processed foods being bad for you? I actually agree with that so it really annoys me when a packaged food is "better" than a "whole food".
What about fiber? Well, we already know that all Brown Rice is not created equal so lets look at the fiber in Uncle Ben's and "typical" Brown Rice.
First off, lets check the serving size which is typically based on volume BUT also includes weight. Why is that an issue? Because 1 cup of Uncle Ben's packaged and processed Brown Chicken Rice is 150grams per serving and 1 cup of Brown Rice is 195g per serving, according to http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/cereal-grains-and-pasta/5707/2
Lets break this down per 100 grams to make this fair.
Uncle Ben's is: 147 calories per 100 grams and has 2.0 grams of fiber per 100 grams.
Brown Rice is: 111 calories per 100 grams and has 2.0 grams of fiber per 100 grams.
I used http://nutritiondata.self.com as an example. If you check out that page the glycemic load of Brown Rice is 22. What does that mean? To calculate the glycemic load we multiply the glycemic index by the number of carbs and divide by 100. Is that good or bad?
The higher the glycemic load is the more the food impacts a person's blood sugar.
22*100 gives us 2200 and 2200 divided by 45 (carbs in the nutrition information) gives us a glycemic index of 49. I call "BullShit".
Are we confused yet?
This is pretty typical of "new technology", everyone jumps on board and no one really knows what they are talking about. I think I will stick with the UofS numbers for glycemic index for now.
What about White Rice? According to http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/cereal-grains-and-pasta/5714/2 which does not have an entry for Bismati Rice the calories are 122 per 100 grams and .6g fiber per 100 grams, and the glycemic load is 22.
Interesting, lower fiber and the same glycemic load.
Lets check out Bismati Rice, that should be easier. Nope, about fifty gazillion different kinds with different info at caloriecount.about.com
Lets try: http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-rice-i77261 which gives us a whopping 349 calories per 100 grams and 1.5g of fiber per 100 grams.
Now lets run a search on "Basmati, white rice, boiled" on http://www.glycemicindex.com/index.php and we have 6 results, the first has a glycemic index of 43, but, looking down the list we can see the longer we cook the Bismati Rice the lower the index. That is counter intuitive to me, I would think that shorter cooking times would make the grain harder to digest so it would take longer, apparently not. Bismati Rice has a GI of 43, well below that of Brown Rice.
Don't run out and grab a bag of white rice though, the lowest GI for white rice is 17 and the highest is 94 so you could be really screwing yourself. Run a search on "White rice, boiled, type not specified" on http://www.glycemicindex.com/index.php and we have 9 results, running from 43 to 89. dump the results with a specific cooking time and the salt water results and we have an average GI of 64.4. Calories vary wildly also so....
On the surface, it looks like Brown Rice may be marginally better for people than White Rice, but, it doesn't look like a big deal. Brown Rice does have more dietary fiber.
According to Harvard, http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fiber-table/ , we are supposed to have 14 grams of fiber for every 1,000 calories. If we eat brown rice we need 700 grams or around 3.5 servings to achieve that goal. If we eat white rice we can't achieve that goal, to get 14 grams of fiber we would have to eat 4,000 calories of white rice.
A glass of sugar free metamucil has 20 calories and 3 grams of fiber so if we drink a glass of metamucil and then eat white rice we can meet the goal.
White rice is shitloads cheaper. A 50lb bag of white rice runs 20 bucks at Costco.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
