The last sentence in a New York Times article - The Biology of Bubble and Crash - is "Finally, we should recognize, on a personal level, that 'know thyself' means know your biochemistry."
The article depicted the physiological responses of young men on Wall Street - the stress induced by cortisol that (as we all should know by now) ramps up the heart and blood pressure and decreases non-important functions like reproduction and results in pessimism and market crashes - and the highs induced by dopamine and the subsequent high risk actions and market bubbles.
Physiology and biochemistry influence us - our actions, our energy, our behaviors, our thoughts are all affected by it. And it clearly effects our economics. But the phrase "know thy biochemistry" took me down the path of thinking about whether we can truly know our individualized biochemistry rather than the general trend of a raise in cortisol causes increased blood pressure and subsequent market crashes.
Intrigued by the notion that we can know our own biochemistry, I searched the world wide web for how we can determine our biochemistry, and this phrase - know your biochemistry - appears to be the general marketing tool for nutrition-based interventions that will analyze a strand of your hair for minerals and toxins to then recommend a diet and supplements to get your body back on track. It seems slightly gimmicky, but I suppose there is value in the idea that we should tailor our diets to compensate for current states. And, even though this may have no individualistic promise now, the idea that one day we can know how our body specifically reacts to chemicals (differences in our receptors for epinephrine, per say) and how they particularly influence our behaviors, gives promise to personalized medicine and a deeper knowledge of who and why we are.
Interesting read JJ. What especially perked my ears up was reading about the hair analysis. As many of you know, I am from Boulder, born and raised. This whole hair analysis business is not news to me. I was raised by a mother who would clip sections of her hair and mail them in for analysis. Your blog made me question this somewhat routine activity that I grew up with.
ReplyDeleteUpon my search of the world wide web the first article that came up for "hair analysis" was titled, "Commercial Hair Analysis: A Cardinal Sign of Quackery." Naturally I panicked. What else have I grown up not blinking an eye at that the rest of the world (outside of The People's Republic) is laughing at?!? Very distressing. (I know many of you may be rolling your eyes at this point and thinking to yourself, "Self, That girl from Boulder is so weird!")
What I found out is that proponents of hair analysis believe that by running a few tests on hair samples they can determine whether an individual is deficient or has excess of various minerals, metals, etc. From these results they believe that they can determine the general nutritional state of the individual as well as whether that individual may have any predispositions to certain diseases. Opponents, such as the AMA, believe that this form of analysis is completely bunk as any number of factors can impact the mineral content of hair and that it should not be used as a means for diagnosis or for prescribing vitamin/mineral supplementation.
Now, the question that comes out of all of this (besides how to tell my mother she's crazy) is how those of us who want to be physicians will handle patients who believe in and/or would like to incorporate alternative medicine/treatment into whatever treatment you provide to them? I think that part of the reason people want to do these alternative treatments is because they are able to understand them better than the information they receive from their medical doctor.
Back to JJ's blog post, perhaps it would be most beneficial to treat each person on their personal biochemistry and not just based on general trends, but is this feasible? My guess is probably not, but I do think that the most effective way to treat/help people is to educate and empower them with understanding so that they can decide how they want to maintain their health rather than just laugh and call them crazy.
This study reminds me of the well known book Freak Economics, which does a great job looking at underlying facts driving economics. The book discuss how traditional economist assume the economy is a function of rational creature choices and observations. However, the book elucidates that many everyday economic descicions are made irrationally, and these decisions as a whole impact the economy. For example, the authors did a small study asking people on the street whether they would take 100$ a week later, or slightly less money right now. Surprising most wanted the money now. This impatient could be driven by that dopamine serge for immediate reward. In any study or system we always have to account for the human element to make things interesting.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.freakonomics.com/books/freakonomics/chapter-excerpts/