Please Note: This post does not constitute an endorsement of DMAA. I'm not a medical practitioner, and DMAA is not considered a legitimate medical product. Also, some of the information in this post is no longer accurate. See my update here on the legal status of DMAA.
I didn't choose this subject, it chose me. Backhanded FDA tactics, tweaking Marines, Youtube marketing of an untested synthetic stimulant, and a quick profit buzz followed by a nasty crash. I <3 this stuff.
DMAA aka Methylhexanamine is the latest stimulant to become available over the counter. As of this posting, I have no idea whether it is available at reputable workout supplement store shelves, next to the Horny Goat Weed and the creatine jelly beans. But you can definitely still buy it online. In New Zealand, DMAA was put mostly into party pills and has already been banned outright, much like Piperazines before. But in the USA, the substance has mostly been put into so-called pre-workout blends, extending the half-life of it's legitimacy. These pre-workout blends, like the cult favorite Jack3d, tend to be powder-potions of amino acids, artificial sweeteners, caffeine, and other marginal stimulants like schizandrol and synephrine, designed to get you pumped to pump. Adding DMAA makes these blends way more potent.
What is this stuff? Supposedly it is a trace ingredient in geranium oil, but there is little dispute that most DMAA sold is synthetically manufactured. But that technically shouldn't impact it's status as a natural ingredient by law. A large percentage of the "natural" products available in nutritional supplements are made synthetically, including the vast majority of Vitamin C. What matters is that these ingredients exist in nature, especially in foods or other organic matter with a long history of human consumption. This is a fairly low bar on a planet with millions of species where millions of people have been putting things in their mouths for quite a few years now. So, provided that this stuff really is contained in geranium oil, it is de facto legal in the USA.
What does this stuff do? Nobody knows, or if they do they aren't telling. Most likely, companies that market DMAA are better off that way, because that information could help justify a ban. People have made strong educated guesses based on it's chemical structure and effects on the heart that it increases the concentration of adrenaline and its cousin Norepinephrine in the body and brain. This is the same effect as ephedrine, an ingredient in the Chinese herb Ma Huang which was the ingredient behind blockbuster diet drugs like Herbalife and a handful of cautionary after-school specials, before getting yanked by the FDA due to "cardiac events"--all this after synthetic ephedrine was yanked from shelves in the form of decongestants like the Mini-Thins popular with a pre-stardom Eminem and his ilk. After Ma Huang was pulled, a handful of other ingredients were tried in diet pills and "pre-pump" blends but none caught on like DMAA.
Okay, but what does this stuff actually do? It's a stimulant, and personal reactions to stimulants vary quite a bit. One important thing to remember is that if you have experience only with caffeine or nicotine then that will not always generalize to "real" stimulants (those with a direct effect on dopamine or norepinephrine). Some people do find high enough doses of DMAA to be euphoric or similar to speed, but generally say that they "lose the magic" after trying it just a few times. DMAA has a short half-life in the body, and does not last as long as caffeine, but it might not feel that way for new users because your body is not adjusted to this type of stimulation. There is also a mini-debate online about whether DMAA has a very minimal comedown (making it preferable to caffeine) or a hellish emotional-hangover crash landing that will have you swearing it off forever. For the number of people taking DMAA products right now I am not seeing as much evidence online of addiction as I expected, but the cases I have seen tend to focus on the sex-enhancing and social lubricant aspects of the drug.
Is it safe? I need to reiterate the warning starting this post. The short answer to the question has to be NO because drugs, like cities, oysters, pre-washed spinach, cars, do-it-yourself home repair, cell phones, and intramural sports are definitely NOT safe. Or, at the very least, these things cannot ever be definitively proven to be safe. Some studies have been conducted to establish a safety profile for DMAA, but these studies have mostly been conducted by the companies that market it as a supplement, meaning they do not meet the sample size, control, and oversight standards of pharmaceutical studies. . .pharmaceutical studies which definitively established the "safety" of such balms of human wellness as Fen-phen and Raptiva. The good news is that, taken at recommended doses, DMAA doesn't seem to increase heart rate. Increasing heart rate tends to be associated with some of the nastiest potential effects from stimulants such as tachycardia and heart valve irregularities. It does increase blood pressure, and this is fairly standard for a thermogenic drug (a drug that can cause weight loss by increasing metabolism). Is it healthy to increase your metabolism and blood pressure by taking a drug? Maybe if you have chronic low blood pressure. But for most of us? Well, try composing a sentence containing the phrase "hypertension is healthy". Also note: Eli Lilly trademarked DMAA in 1944 as a decongestant.
Why is DMAA being banned? The short answer is because it is popular and effective. DMAA was first banned in 2010 by the World Anti-Doping Agency who decided that it had the potential to enhance athletic performance. This is the sort of endorsement that money can't buy. Soon Jack3d, which is available in flavors like Grape Bubblegum and Strawberry Pineapple (extra macho!), and a few other products were slanging "germanium" as fast as they could bundle the baggies. The Army pulled all DMAA products from on-base stores after two soldiers had heart attacks with DMAA in their system, although the same Army is also conducting a study on it's own soldiers to see whether DMAA is safe. Just because, you know, the Army is really worried about safety and not, say, interested in performance enhancement. At the end of April, the FDA sent out letters to major makers and retailers of DMAA products that they should pull them from shelves, based both on the arguement that DMAA is unsafe and that it is not actually a constituent of Geranium oil(!)obviously leading to an internet fire sale of these products along with pure DMAA powder and capsules, none of which are actually Federally banned substances at this time. But much to the chagrin of the FDA, big chains like GNC and Vitamin Shoppe did not obey. Retailers and manufacturers are hamstrung at this point: pulling the items from their shelves prior to an outright ban could be construed as an admission that the substance is harmful, and there are already consumer lawsuits alleging that it is. Either way, those who profit from the sales are going to need plenty of cash on hand to defend against these lawsuits, cash they can only get by selling more drugs to more consumers. If the FDA actually had solid evidence that DMAA should be banned it would be, but they haven't done their homework on a product that has been commercially available for at least six years. Maybe they are hoping that the huge surge of consumers buying DMAA in anticipation of a ban will cause a surge in adverse events (deaths, hospitalizations, etc) associated with the drug, helping in turn to justify the ban. You have to love a self-fulfilling prophecy. Meanwhile, supplement companies are combing through millions of "natural" molecules to find the next "weight loss miracle".
Saturday, June 9, 2012
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Rochambeau Politics
Obviously there is much more that goes into politics than issue and policy discussions, a fact that is essential in unmaking our Democracy. But I hope that this post helps you see how the way that different policies interact creates an environment that necessitates that politicians always choose their policy positions cynically and with an eye on statistics and group psychology. This doesn't have to mean deceit, but that is obviously helpful in the case that the politician actually had values or insight to begin with, which of course is often not the case.
Most people with a passing interest in political science have heard of wedge issues. It's not essential to be familiar with the term to read this post, but I should note that the ideas here are in the same vein of thought but argue the case that all issues can be wedge issues when deployed appropriately. Like all systems of classification, this one tends to caricature and thus will certainly always be wrong in some details when applied. With that said, ALL relevant political issues fall into the following three categories:
Polarizing Issues
[SCISSORS]
These are issues that neatly divide the electorate along relatively clear lines. Often times this sort of issue is confounded with "wedge issues" in the media, but that is a huge mistake, which I hope should become clear down the line. Normally, polarizing issues divide the electorate into two major groups, but even here there will still be fence-sitters or people whose views confuse or undermine the debate. These issues tend to make large numbers of people very passionate. Politicians tend to be pressed by these passionate interest groups to take a firm stand on their positions. Doing so will tend to enhance turnout and donations from decided voters, and alienate undecided voters. At core, that's because being undecided is a habit, like picking your belly button or lying: it is self-perpetuating. This habit can be adaptive, and comes about as close as possible to the trait of "open-mindedness" that is possible without bias entering the picture.
Polarizing issues usually have extremely clear policy implications. For instance, the banning or allowing of a certain act or the granting or denial of a specific right. That is not to say that there are not incremental policy steps taken towards achieving the goal, but that tends to be a result of expediency rather than preference. While public opinion on a polarizing issue can shift, sometimes quite rapidly, there tend to be strong cultural institutions in place that prevent the debate from being radically reframed. That is largely because the issues involved are very simple and appeal to emotions: these issues are fundamentally charismatic from both angles. Lastly, a polarizing issue will tend to come closer than other issues of splitting voters 50/50.
Good examples: gay marriage, abortion, marijuana legalization, affirmative action
Splintering Issues
These are issues that require constant consensus building and debate even within broadly supportive coalitions. One reason is because there are multiple policy approaches to achieve similar goals, but often the nature of the goals and the motivation of parties are also wildly divergent. The default position of most politicians is to try to be seen as "moderate", "pragmatic", or "nuanced" on these issues by taking an extremely status quo approach. If a politician is in a position to use these positions well, it is a "populist coup". This requires using the right rhetoric to take advantage of a fluctuation of public opinion. The complexity and vague boundaries of these issues means that they are littered with language traps (often sprung cleverly right next to the language gold bars) to gaffle and confabulate the out-of-touch, genuine, and untested alike.
Splintering issues might sometimes present superficially with a pro/con sheen, but any real examination of the issue on a policy level will cause it to evaporate into marshmallow-vapor. What does it mean to be pro-environment or in favor of immigration reform? A real answer requires a level of hair-splitting beyond the capabilities of a layman. Another sign of splintering issues is a kaleidoscope effect on perception: some facets of an issue will seem to be opposed to other facets, creating ridiculously ardent supporters or opponents of oddly specific policies that seem barely worth mentioning. If a candidate chooses to pursue a splintering issue, there will usually be a 60-70 percent support on one side of it, but if the question is changed slightly, that support might go the other way.
Good examples: immigration, environment, labor regulations, gun rights, taxes
Bewildering Issues
[PAPER]
These are often not real issues, but vague yearnings masquerading as choices. Sometimes this is the graveyard of polarizing or splintering issues where the illusion of cultural consensus has warped the debate into talking points. But even more often these issues are born when the public affixes itself on a goal without consideration of the causes of the problem. Other times, even experts cannot figure out how to solve the problem. Perhaps it is insoluble or outside of our control. Either way, because of the difficulty hashing out the underlying facts and emotional content, these issues tend to allow the public to be easily manipulated by politicians and interest groups that should be disturbing to supporters of representative government.
Bewildering issues are often nonsensical to poll, except by either breaking out specific sub-policies where coherent clash exists, or asking voters to prioritize different issues against one another, as these vague urges compete for people's awareness. The media will tell the public that a candidate is "not talking about [bewildering issues] enough" without ever saying wtf they should be saying or what exactly people would want to hear. The reason these issues are important is that they create a bond of understanding between the candidate and the public that is beyond reasoning, a deeply coded path to authentic human desire.
Good examples: the economy, crime, terrorism, public trust, global competitiveness
The reason I chose the rock-paper-scissor motif is because I believe that on average, each class of these issues is most effective in neutralizing another. I'll give some examples using concrete issues. My real goal here is not necessarily to correctly ID these relationships but to simply demonstrate how different issues interact in the public-opinionscape, in order to erode public trust in politicians and the political process.
Scissor Cuts Paper
A recent example of polarizing bewilderment is President Obama's announcement of his support for gay marriage after a long history of fence-riding and chrome-polishing. The reason this strategy was deployed is that polarizing issues are easy for people to understand and force a confused public to make rapid choices. This can help close people off to the subliminal persuasion of bewildering messages, in this case Romney's perceived advantage on "jobs" and "the economy". The Druidic murmurings of the corporate media were replaced by the gossipy squawk of half the people you know, at least for a few weeks. This helps reinforce party prejudices, which can cut both ways, but most importantly it cuts through clatter with a message people actually understand. This destroys the news cycle.
Paper Covers Rock
The environmental movement based around fear of global warming, and the closely aligned alternative energy and "green jobs" issues, peaked in 2007 before the economic crash but took some time to fade almost completely out of view. The recession pretty much broke the issue's spine, but it swayed and lurched around for another couple of years due to politician's past commitments and the genuine enthusiasm of a small group of intensely passionate activists. It usually takes more than one blow to take an issue down, even if it's a massive body blow like the 07 crash. But cheap gas officially pulled the plug on the climate party, taking a key ace out an already weakened hand: the "we're running out of oil anyways, so windmills will save industrial civilization, save you cash, and shame Arabs" card. Does it matter the gas price went back up? Hell no. Did you listen to the state of the union? Global warming as a general election issue is dead as disco. RIP. And/or expect a big comeback in 7-9 years.
Rock Breaks Scissors
Pulling this off takes some solid strategery. When politics become extremely polarized this leads to entrenchment and stagnation. The advantage of splintering issues in these situations is twofold. On the one hand, temporary fluctuations in voter opinion based on current events can be massaged into persuasion with the rhetorical contortions these limber issues allow. And the confusing nature of these issues means that micro-blocs of voters can be targeted with tailored messages. . .messages most voters won't even understand. "Tax fairness", "religious freedom", and immigration are all issues that could swing the upcoming election. ever. so. slightly.
Dear Ohio, please enjoy picking our next president.
Much love.
Most people with a passing interest in political science have heard of wedge issues. It's not essential to be familiar with the term to read this post, but I should note that the ideas here are in the same vein of thought but argue the case that all issues can be wedge issues when deployed appropriately. Like all systems of classification, this one tends to caricature and thus will certainly always be wrong in some details when applied. With that said, ALL relevant political issues fall into the following three categories:
Polarizing Issues
[SCISSORS]
These are issues that neatly divide the electorate along relatively clear lines. Often times this sort of issue is confounded with "wedge issues" in the media, but that is a huge mistake, which I hope should become clear down the line. Normally, polarizing issues divide the electorate into two major groups, but even here there will still be fence-sitters or people whose views confuse or undermine the debate. These issues tend to make large numbers of people very passionate. Politicians tend to be pressed by these passionate interest groups to take a firm stand on their positions. Doing so will tend to enhance turnout and donations from decided voters, and alienate undecided voters. At core, that's because being undecided is a habit, like picking your belly button or lying: it is self-perpetuating. This habit can be adaptive, and comes about as close as possible to the trait of "open-mindedness" that is possible without bias entering the picture.
Polarizing issues usually have extremely clear policy implications. For instance, the banning or allowing of a certain act or the granting or denial of a specific right. That is not to say that there are not incremental policy steps taken towards achieving the goal, but that tends to be a result of expediency rather than preference. While public opinion on a polarizing issue can shift, sometimes quite rapidly, there tend to be strong cultural institutions in place that prevent the debate from being radically reframed. That is largely because the issues involved are very simple and appeal to emotions: these issues are fundamentally charismatic from both angles. Lastly, a polarizing issue will tend to come closer than other issues of splitting voters 50/50.
Good examples: gay marriage, abortion, marijuana legalization, affirmative action
Splintering Issues
[ROCK]
These are issues that require constant consensus building and debate even within broadly supportive coalitions. One reason is because there are multiple policy approaches to achieve similar goals, but often the nature of the goals and the motivation of parties are also wildly divergent. The default position of most politicians is to try to be seen as "moderate", "pragmatic", or "nuanced" on these issues by taking an extremely status quo approach. If a politician is in a position to use these positions well, it is a "populist coup". This requires using the right rhetoric to take advantage of a fluctuation of public opinion. The complexity and vague boundaries of these issues means that they are littered with language traps (often sprung cleverly right next to the language gold bars) to gaffle and confabulate the out-of-touch, genuine, and untested alike.
Splintering issues might sometimes present superficially with a pro/con sheen, but any real examination of the issue on a policy level will cause it to evaporate into marshmallow-vapor. What does it mean to be pro-environment or in favor of immigration reform? A real answer requires a level of hair-splitting beyond the capabilities of a layman. Another sign of splintering issues is a kaleidoscope effect on perception: some facets of an issue will seem to be opposed to other facets, creating ridiculously ardent supporters or opponents of oddly specific policies that seem barely worth mentioning. If a candidate chooses to pursue a splintering issue, there will usually be a 60-70 percent support on one side of it, but if the question is changed slightly, that support might go the other way.
Good examples: immigration, environment, labor regulations, gun rights, taxes
Bewildering Issues
[PAPER]
These are often not real issues, but vague yearnings masquerading as choices. Sometimes this is the graveyard of polarizing or splintering issues where the illusion of cultural consensus has warped the debate into talking points. But even more often these issues are born when the public affixes itself on a goal without consideration of the causes of the problem. Other times, even experts cannot figure out how to solve the problem. Perhaps it is insoluble or outside of our control. Either way, because of the difficulty hashing out the underlying facts and emotional content, these issues tend to allow the public to be easily manipulated by politicians and interest groups that should be disturbing to supporters of representative government.
Bewildering issues are often nonsensical to poll, except by either breaking out specific sub-policies where coherent clash exists, or asking voters to prioritize different issues against one another, as these vague urges compete for people's awareness. The media will tell the public that a candidate is "not talking about [bewildering issues] enough" without ever saying wtf they should be saying or what exactly people would want to hear. The reason these issues are important is that they create a bond of understanding between the candidate and the public that is beyond reasoning, a deeply coded path to authentic human desire.
Good examples: the economy, crime, terrorism, public trust, global competitiveness
The reason I chose the rock-paper-scissor motif is because I believe that on average, each class of these issues is most effective in neutralizing another. I'll give some examples using concrete issues. My real goal here is not necessarily to correctly ID these relationships but to simply demonstrate how different issues interact in the public-opinionscape, in order to erode public trust in politicians and the political process.
Scissor Cuts Paper
A recent example of polarizing bewilderment is President Obama's announcement of his support for gay marriage after a long history of fence-riding and chrome-polishing. The reason this strategy was deployed is that polarizing issues are easy for people to understand and force a confused public to make rapid choices. This can help close people off to the subliminal persuasion of bewildering messages, in this case Romney's perceived advantage on "jobs" and "the economy". The Druidic murmurings of the corporate media were replaced by the gossipy squawk of half the people you know, at least for a few weeks. This helps reinforce party prejudices, which can cut both ways, but most importantly it cuts through clatter with a message people actually understand. This destroys the news cycle.
Paper Covers Rock
The environmental movement based around fear of global warming, and the closely aligned alternative energy and "green jobs" issues, peaked in 2007 before the economic crash but took some time to fade almost completely out of view. The recession pretty much broke the issue's spine, but it swayed and lurched around for another couple of years due to politician's past commitments and the genuine enthusiasm of a small group of intensely passionate activists. It usually takes more than one blow to take an issue down, even if it's a massive body blow like the 07 crash. But cheap gas officially pulled the plug on the climate party, taking a key ace out an already weakened hand: the "we're running out of oil anyways, so windmills will save industrial civilization, save you cash, and shame Arabs" card. Does it matter the gas price went back up? Hell no. Did you listen to the state of the union? Global warming as a general election issue is dead as disco. RIP. And/or expect a big comeback in 7-9 years.
Rock Breaks Scissors
Pulling this off takes some solid strategery. When politics become extremely polarized this leads to entrenchment and stagnation. The advantage of splintering issues in these situations is twofold. On the one hand, temporary fluctuations in voter opinion based on current events can be massaged into persuasion with the rhetorical contortions these limber issues allow. And the confusing nature of these issues means that micro-blocs of voters can be targeted with tailored messages. . .messages most voters won't even understand. "Tax fairness", "religious freedom", and immigration are all issues that could swing the upcoming election. ever. so. slightly.
Dear Ohio, please enjoy picking our next president.
Much love.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)