Today I watched a technical, but interesting, video of a University lecture given on March 26, 2013 by Stephen C. Woods about Peptides, Food Intake and Body Weight: Problems of Interpretation.

Peptides are organic substances of which the molecules are structurally like those of proteins, but smaller. Peptide Hormones include insulin, leptin, ghrelin, glucagon, growth hormone, obestatin as well as many, many others.

For many years Dr. Woods has been involved in obesity scientific research, primarily re insulin.

He said that a key question is whether the Responses that counter drug/food effects are actually Unconditional, invariant and whether or not traditional concepts of Homeostatsis are viable.

In considering this question, note the following:

Homeostaisis --- Unconditioned stimulas equals Unconditioned Response.

There are ...

Homeostatic Controls - Hypothalamus (part of the brain primarily involved with involuntary stimulas and response of Peptides)

and....

Non-Homeostatic Controls – Amugdala, Accumbens, etc ( parts of the brain involving Anxiety, social situations, learning, hedonics, etc.)

The process of Homostaisis can be disturbed by Non-Homeostatic Controls.

Food intake involves BOTH types of Controls at the same time. Food intake is a Behavior which involves BOTH (unconditioned) physiological and (conditioned) psychological factors: An Example of a Conditioned stimulas and Conditioned response is Pavlov’s dog.

Based on his many years of involvement with scientific research re Peptides, Dr. Woods states the following Conclusions:

Conclusion 1:
Different labs get different results when administering Peptides and assessing food inake.

Conclusion 2: 
Peptides alter food intake in some situations and not others.

Conclusion 3:
The ability of a Peptide to alter food intake varies within the same lab.

Conclusion 4:
Subtle, or not so subtle, environmental factors can determine whether a Peptide influences food intake, and can even reverse the direction of the response.

To watch the lecture click the following link: Peptides, Food Intake and Body Weight: Problems of Interpretation.

 Perfection Is The Lowest Standard We Can Set For Ourselves

Perfection doesn't exist.  When we expect it, we immediately set ourselves up for failure because the unattainable standard we've set in our minds can never be reached. Therefore, we've unknowingly set the lowest expectation for ourselves by mistakenly setting the highest.

It’s rather arrogant to set an impossible standard for ourselves and not for others. But we tend to be kind, supportive and understanding of our friends, seeing them through their tough times and setbacks, while beating ourselves up relentlessly for any misstep of our own.

It’s unreasonable to expect perfection and success from ourselves while holding others to a separate standard.

Lets not place expectations on anyone, not ourselves, our friends, our opponents, our family or even strangers. The truth is that no one can predict or rehearse life. Life has a beautiful unpredictability to it.

Some of the contents of the above post originated from an article by Danielle Robinson, March 29, 2013 - mindbodygreen.com,

 
I've realized that
I don't want to CHANGE my LIFE.

I LIKE my life.  ....Most of it.....

Maintaining a small body size
is only one small PART of my life.

To manage that part,
I'm willing to eat less.
That's really ALL I need to change.

                   

Sometimes it just needs to be said.

Once upon a time, an old farmer lived in a poor country village. His neighbors considered him well-to-do because he owned a horse, which he used for many years to work his crops.

One day his beloved horse ran away. Upon hearing the news, his neighbors gathered to commiserate with him. “Such bad luck,” they said sympathetically. “May be” the farmer replied.

The next morning the horse returned, but brought with it six wild horses. “How wonderful,” the neighbors rejoiced. “May be,“ replied the old man.

The following day, his son tried to saddle and ride one of the untamed horses, was thrown, and broke his leg. Again the neighbors visited the farmer to offer their sympathy on his misfortune. “May be,” said the farmer.

The day after that, conscription officers came to the village to draft young men into the army. Seeing that the farmer’s son had a broken leg, they passed him by. The neighbors congratulated the farmer on how well things had turned out. “May be,” the farmer replied.

Positive and negative events are often entwined, making predictions about consequences very complex. Sometimes when we consider the single best thing that has happened to us during past years, AND the single worst thing, we may be surprised to learn that they are often one and the same.
 


      “Joy and woe are woven fine.” (William Blake)

We can’t know immediately which events are life changing, and in what ways life will change as a result of that event.

Sometimes a totally positive event, - like winning the lottery, getting promoted, having a child, - sets into motion a crisis or deep disappointment. At other times a misfortune – like losing a job, a dream, or a life partner – is a gateway to something wonderful.

No matter how clear the way forward seems, there is no one direct path or only one way to look at our situation. Instead, there are multiple routes.

“Whatever we do, even whatever we do NOT do, prevents us from doing the opposite. Acts demolish their alternatives, that is the paradox.” (James Salter)

We can’t predict our future feelings about the results of future events,
but we can learn how to choose the way we THINK about them,
and how we THINK about things is the main determining factor about how we FEEL about things.