If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Diet Linked To Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma
"Ignoramus14879" wrote in message ...
In article , pearl wrote: "J" wrote in message ... pearl wrote: snipped Please stop (all of you) your infernal cross-posting to sci.med.diseases.cancer Sorry, but I'm unwilling to comply with your request, as I believe that cancer sufferers are entitled to information that may well help improve their condition, and help to prevent any future recurrence. How would this information help people who already have cancer. If your bath is overflowing, do you; a. Leave the taps on, and the plug in? b. Turn the taps off, and pull out the plug? Simple really. |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Diet Linked To Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma
"Ignoramus14879" wrote in message ...
In article , pearl wrote: .. How would this information help people who already have cancer. .. cancer is not the same as bath overflowing. In a way, it is. Continuing on a course that causes a problem, is like wading further out to sea when you need to go ashore. Cancer cells are malignant cells that proliferate without control. Changing conditions that could cause cells become malignant is not relevant once malignancy already exists. Yet replacing that which is causing a problem with something that protects against it (while promoting overall health), could slow progression of the condition, far better enable remission, support recovery, and also help prevent any future occurrence. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Diet Linked To Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma
"Ignoramus14879" wrote in message ...
In article , pearl wrote: .. As for being fit, it requires exercise and not diet. Read the above-linked paper. how can you be strong and agile, and develop endurance, without exercise? That's what fitness is. Research suggests that a low-protein diet increases rather substantially voluntary physical activity. Read the paper. http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...sis_paper.html .. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Diet Linked To Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma
"pearl" wrote in message ...
"Ignoramus14879" wrote in message ... .. How would this information help people who already have cancer. .. .. (while promoting overall health), .. ... and .. 'A strong immune system can kill cancer cells.' http://www.cancer-info.com/cancerdeath.htm |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Diet Linked To Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma
****witted Lesley commits the ecological fallacy
pearl wrote: "Bob in CT" wrote in message news From: http://www.lowcarbresearch.org/lcr/r....asp?catid=204 O Putting Meat on Our Bones (Press Release) Added on: 1/30/2004 Hits: 53 From the USDA Agricultural Research Service and the Journal of Nutrition, 2003: A team of researchers compared the effects of several weeks a controlled high and low meat diets on calcium retention and bone mass in 15 healthy postmenopausal women for 8 weeks. They noted that while the high meat intake group had higher renal acid secretion at the onset of the diet, it fell signficantly with time. At the end of the study, the researchers noted that there was no difference in bone mass or calcium retention among the two groups. They concluded that high meat diets do not reduce calcium retention or bone mass. ..' http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicl...eoporosis.html http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...-anat-8e.shtml Let us now briefly examine some of the limitations of the China Study and its results. Quotes from the principal (China Study) authors are used liberally below, so you can learn about the limitations from the study authors themselves. * Level of aggregation of the study data yields, at most, 65 observations (data points) for analysis. The data in the China Study are aggregated at the county level. The result is that for most health/disease/dietary factors to be analysed, there are 65 (or less) observations (data points). This is important for two reasons: o The study is often described as authoritative and reliable--characteristics that are usually associated with "large" data sets. When one learns there are only 65 observations (and hundreds of variables), it suddenly seems far less authoritative. Note that the term "large" is relative; for simple analysis of a very few variables, 65 data points may be adequate, but for sophisticated models involving several variables, hundreds (or even thousands) of data points may be appropriate. o The limit of 65 observations places limits on the number of variables that can be analyzed simultaneously (via multivariate--that is, multiple-variable--techniques). Side note: (statistical, can skip if you wish) Even a simple technique like some of the regression methods based on splines may be seriously limited on a data set of only 65 points. Spline methods are becoming increasingly important, because unlike traditional regression techniques they do not assume the functional form of a relationship between variables. (That is, they do not assume ahead of time what particular mathematical relationship may exist between one variable and another.) Such limits are quite frustrating on a data set that includes hundreds of variables. Campbell [1989] appears to acknowledge this (p. 2): Although uniquely comprehensive... it is not yet clear how satisfactory the analysis of multiple factor effects will be upon disease risk, given the limited number of survey counties (65). More complete evaluations of the virtually unlimited interactions between different disease causes may have to await the addition of still more dietary and lifestyle studies of disease mortality rates. * Limits on the use of geographical correlations, the primary data of the China Study monograph (Junshi et al. [1990]). The China Study monograph [Junshi et al. 1990] provides geographic correlations which are of limited direct use. Although it is possible to develop statistical models in which the dependent variable is a correlation, models constructed using the underlying variables from the relevant correlation may be far more meaningful and useful. Peto, writing in Junshi et al. [1990, pp. 76-77] notes: Although geographic variation in particular disease rates can provide clear evidence that, in areas where those rates are high, that disease is largely avoidable, they may provide frustratingly unclear evidence as to exactly how it can be avoided... An even more striking example of the limitations of geographic correlations is that oesophageal cancer in China has no clear geographic association with smoking, and has a significantly (P 0.01) negative association with daily alcohol intake. Peto and Doll [1981], as cited by Peto in Junshi et al. [1990], also remind us that attempts to separate causality from confounding factors in geographical data via the technique of multiple regression are often unsuccessful (or, my comment--misleading, which is even worse). * The China Study report lists only 6 statistically significant correlations between meat-eating and disease mortality. Further, 4 of the correlations are negative, which indicates that the mortality rate for that disease decreased as meat consumption increased. The two diseases that had positive correlations with meat consumption are schistosomiasis, a parasite, and pneumoconiosis and dust disease. Thus, the direct evidence of the study is hardly the condemnation of meat consumption that veg*n dietary advocates may claim it to be. It should be noted here that correlation is a measure only of linear relationships, and other analytical methods may yield different results. Despite the possibility of the existence of more complicated statistical relationships, it seems quite odd, given the interpretations of the study made by veg*n dietary advocates, that meat intake generally did not correlate with disease mortality. (See table 5033, pp. 634-635 of Junshi et al. [1990].) * Ecological studies (like the China Study) generate hypotheses, they do not prove them. Campbell and Junshi [1994] concisely state this limitation (p. 1155S): First, this study is ecological and includes 6,500 individuals residing in 130 villages. Thus according to widely held assumptions, any inferences concerning cause-and-effect relationships should be considered to be hypothetical only, with validation to be provided only by intervention or prospective analytic studies on individuals. Thus we note that the China Study requires backup clinical studies before making inferences or drawing conclusions. The main hypothesis of the China Study is whether diets that are predominantly plant foods reduce chronic diseases. However, some veg*n advocates go far beyond the main hypothesis of the study, and claim it proves that veg*n diets are "better" than all omnivore diets. Further, such claims may be made without supporting clinical studies, and without regard for the actual range of diets included in the study. (The latter point is discussed later herein.) * The ecological fallacy, and its impact on ecological inference. Freedman [1999, p. 1] provides a brief overview of the ecological fallacy (boldface emphasis below is mine): In 19th century Europe, suicide rates were higher in countries that were more heavily Protestant, the inference being that suicide was promoted by the social conditions of Protestantism (Durkheim 1897). A contemporary example is provided by Carroll (1975): death rates from breast cancer are higher in countries where fat is a larger component of the diet, the idea being that fat intake causes breast cancer. These are "ecological inferences," that is, inferences about individual behavior drawn from data about groups... The ecological fallacy consists in thinking that relationships observed for groups necessarily hold for individuals: if countries with more Protestants have higher suicide rates, then Protestants must be more likely to commit suicide; if countries with more fat in the diet have higher rates of breast cancer, then women who eat fatty foods must be more likely to get breast cancer. These inferences may be correct, but are only weakly supported by the aggregate data. ...However, it is all too easy to draw incorrect conclusions from aggregate data.... For example, recent studies of individual-level data cast serious doubt on the link between breast cancer and fat intake (Holmes et al. 1999). |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
"vegan" Diet Linked To B-12 Deficiency
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:21:14 -0000, "pearl"
posted: "usual suspect" wrote in message ... Jonathan Ball wrote: .. "vegan" diets are linked with B-12 deficiency. And iron deficiency, zinc deficiency, etc. Common in the general population. The Baer report (Rutgers Univ., 1984) "Variations in Mineral Contents of Vegetables" Percentage of | Quantities per 100 Grams | Trace Elements. Parts per million Dry Weight Dry Weight Dry matter Vegetable: Mineral Ash | Calcium Magnesium | Boron Manganese Iron Copper Cobalt Snap Beans Organic 10.45 40.5 60 73 60 227 69 0.26 Non-organic 4.04 15.5 14.8 10 2 10 3 0 Cabbage Organic 10.38 60 43.6 42 13 94 48 0.15 Non-organic 6.12 17.5 13.6 7 2 20 0.4 0 Lettuce Organic 24.48 71 49.3 37 169 516 60 0.19 Non-organic 7.01 16 13.1 6 1 9 3 0 Tomatoes Organic 14.2 23 59.2 36 68 1938 53 0.63 Non-organic 6.07 4.5 4.5 3 1 1 0 0 Spinach Organic 28.56 96 203.9 88 117 1584 32 0.25 Non-organic 12.38 47.5 46.9 12 1 49 0.3 0.2 http://www.organicnutrition.co.uk/wh...whyorganic.htm Look at the amazing numbers, and then look at the URL. Bull****!!! Organic produce MUST contain less minerals than conventional. Organic growing can't replace the harvested minerals, whereas conventional growing analyses and replenishes the mined minerals. |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Diet Linked To Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma
On 27 Mar 2004 13:24:48 GMT, Ignoramus25877
posted: In article , Moosh wrote: On 25 Mar 2004 17:37:09 GMT, Ignoramus20562 posted: In article , Bob in CT wrote: On 25 Mar 2004 17:25:19 GMT, Ignoramus20562 wrote: [cut] fruits are always restricted because they contain a lot of carbs (sans avocado). That said, within one's daily allowance of carbs, fruits are permitted. I feel that vegetables give more bang for the buck than fruits anyway, and eat about one apple per day only as far as fruits are concerned. I personally think that there is a lot of truth in raw foodism, which is saying that raw foods are great foods. The logical fallacy that they make is saying that they want to ONLY eat raw foods, instead of correctly saying that they should eat a lot of raw foods. So, a great majority of what I eat is raw, sans for meat and such. Tried to eat raw meat also, but it is not very practicable due to spoliation/contamination issues. i Veges are way better than fruits in my opinion -- less carbs and higher fiber typically. I do tend toward the berries though, and eat some type of berry almost every day. My typical day includes a large salad, tomatoes, onions, cooked tomatoes (salsa), and berries. Also, I eat nuts almost every day. I could have repeated what you said, word for word. Fruits are basically a lot of sugar with some fiber and vitamins. Vegs are basically a little bit of sugar with fiber and vitamins. Better than fruits. Why exactly? Starch is the same as sugar to the body, and many veges have a deal of this. Where are you getting your energy requirements from? Check out my fitday report at http://igor.chudov.com/weightloss/ Link didn't work for me. for precise information on where I get my energy. I do eat a bit of bread and hot cereal (150 g carbs per day), and also plenty of fat and meat. As for starches, I eat mostly raw vegetables, and those tend to be not too starchy. Raw starch is also not particularly digestible. Yep, I prefer less fat and more fruit. More micronutrients I would guess. |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Diet Linked To Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma
|
#109
|
|||
|
|||
"vegan" Diet Linked To B-12 Deficiency
"Moosh" wrote in message ...
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:21:14 -0000, "pearl" posted: "usual suspect" wrote in message ... Jonathan Ball wrote: .. "vegan" diets are linked with B-12 deficiency. And iron deficiency, zinc deficiency, etc. Common in the general population. The Baer report (Rutgers Univ., 1984) "Variations in Mineral Contents of Vegetables" Percentage of | Quantities per 100 Grams | Trace Elements. Parts per million Dry Weight Dry Weight Dry matter Vegetable: Mineral Ash | Calcium Magnesium | Boron Manganese Iron Copper Cobalt Snap Beans Organic 10.45 40.5 60 73 60 227 69 0.26 Non-organic 4.04 15.5 14.8 10 2 10 3 0 Cabbage Organic 10.38 60 43.6 42 13 94 48 0.15 Non-organic 6.12 17.5 13.6 7 2 20 0.4 0 Lettuce Organic 24.48 71 49.3 37 169 516 60 0.19 Non-organic 7.01 16 13.1 6 1 9 3 0 Tomatoes Organic 14.2 23 59.2 36 68 1938 53 0.63 Non-organic 6.07 4.5 4.5 3 1 1 0 0 Spinach Organic 28.56 96 203.9 88 117 1584 32 0.25 Non-organic 12.38 47.5 46.9 12 1 49 0.3 0.2 http://www.organicnutrition.co.uk/wh...whyorganic.htm Look at the amazing numbers, and then look at the URL. Bull****!!! Ipse dixit. .. Anyway, you have a reference. Organic produce MUST contain less minerals than conventional. Organic growing can't replace the harvested minerals, whereas conventional growing analyses and replenishes the mined minerals. Mineral content: This may be the most important nutritional difference between organic and regular produce since heavy use of fertilizer inhibits absorption of some minerals, which are likely to be at lower levels to begin with in soils that have been abused. This may be caused in part by the lack of beneficial mycorrhizae fungi on the roots since high levels of fertilizer tend to kill them. Standard diets tend to be low in various minerals, resulting in a variety of problems including osteoporosis. http://math.ucsd.edu/~ebender/Health...s/organic.html 'The emphasis of organic agriculture on feeding soils is the primary step in achieving products of high nutritional content. An understanding of nutritional balance, physical and biophysical soil composition underpins a successful organic farming system. ' http://www.rirdc.gov.au/pub/org5yr3.htm Results Against a background of declining mineral levels in fresh produce over the last sixty years (Mayer 1997), and given that many people fail to achieve the recommended daily allowance for a variety of nutrients (MAFF 1996, Clayton 2001), the nutrient contents of organic and non-organic produce are worthy of comparison. .. While similar controlled studies in humans are difficult, clinical experience and recorded observations have suggested similar benefits in human reproductive health (Foresight), recovery from illness (Plaskett 1999) and general health (Daldy 1940) from the consumption of organically produced food. http://www.organic.aber.ac.uk/librar...%20quality.pdf 'More research confirms organic food is better for you RESEARCH PAPER: ARCHIVED The Soil Association Organic Farming, Food Quality and Human Health report showed that the nutritional content of organic was higher than non-organic foods. New US research shows by how much. "While my review looked at the entire picture of nutritional food quality" says Shane Heaton, author of the Soil Association food quality report, "this research, by nutritionist Virginia Worthington, has looked specifically at the comparative vitamin and mineral contents, reviewing a similar collection of scientific studies. "Her research confirms our findings that, on average, organic produce contains significantly higher levels of vitamin C, iron, magnesium and phosphorus, and how seemingly small differences in nutrients can mean the difference between getting the recommended daily allowance - or failing to." All 21 minerals compared were higher in organic produce. ...' http://www.soilassociation.org/sa/sa...s10122001.html Study Denying Nutritional Benefits of Organic Was Bogus ... Zinc levels, one of the more interesting comparisons given it's importance as a trace mineral in human health and because many people are not able to obtain the recommended daily allowance, described as 'negligible', are reported as the same level in all twenty crops, which is often 100 percent higher than the conventional food table figures. Clearly the zinc levels were not properly assessed. http://www.organicconsumers.org/Orga...tudy071902.cfm 'According to the USDA, the calcium content of an apple has declined from 13.5 mg in 1914 to 7 mg in 1992. The iron content has declined from 4.6 mg in 1914 to 0.18 mg in 1992. ... A study published in the Journal of Applied Nutrition, Vol. 45, #1, 1993 compared the nutrient content of supermarket food versus organically grown food from food stores in the Chicago area. The organic produce averaged twice the mineral content of the supermarket food http://www.drlwilson.com/articles/or...griculture.htm 'A study commissioned by the Organic Retailers and Growers Association of Australia (ORGAA) found that conventionally grown fruit and vegetables purchased in supermarkets and other commercial retail outlets had ten times less mineral content than fruit and vegetables grown organically. Source: Organic Retailers and Growers Association of Australia, 2000, as cited in Pesticides and You, Vol. 20, No. 1, Spring 2000, News from Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides. http://www.organicconnection.net/nutritional.html '... chemical isolation combined with nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy revealed that the organically-grown oranges contained 30% more vitamin C than the conventionally-grown fruits - even though they were only about half the size. ' http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0603071017.htm Organic oats have much higher levels of essential nutrients than conventional ... As the chart below shows, preliminary nutritional analysis of oat plants from The Rodale Institute's Farming Systems Trial found that the organic plants had increases of up to 74 percent in nutrient content over conventionally grown plants, suggesting an answer to the perennial question, "Is organic better?" http://www.newfarm.org/columns/jeff_moyer/1003.shtml |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Diet Linked To Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma
"Moosh" wrote in message . ..
Yes, but as I don't know where different participants are reading from, I'm loathe to trim them. Just gotta see it out I'm afraid Yes, I was just clarifying why I'm writing such "basic" stuff on the low-cabr newsgroup. When low-carbers talk about the piles of vegetables they eat, we usually aren't referring to potatoes. Starchy vegetables are avoided on low-carb. I realise this. That's what I'm questioning. Energy requirements are easily fulfilled with protein and fat, carbs are not necessary for calories. Neither are protein and fat. I'm interested in the advantages of restricting one particular energy source for a normal healthy human. There are archeological studies indicating humans were much healthier prior to the development of agriculture... on a much lower-carb diet. Larger skeletons, better tetth, stuff of that sort. Of course, with no soft tissue studies, it's a limited indicator of health. I don't know if the benefits are there for normal human beings. My SIL is on a low-fat diet and exercising and seems to be growing both slimmer and stronger. I think the only major benefit for her might be that fat and protein tend to be more filling than carb, and thus easier to restrict calories. But... many of the posters from the low-carb newsgroup are not "normal healthy humans." I am diabetic myself. Many are not diagnosed diabetics, but their success on low-carb when low-fat was not successful indicates insulin resistance. Protein can be metabolized as glucose, so starch or sugar is not needful even for production of glucose for blood sugar. Well gluconeogenesis is not generally very fast, but of course you can get glucose from part of fat and excess protein. Doesn't explain why you would go for this contortion. Stabilizing blood sugar... fat has the slowest effect, protein the next slowest effect on blood sugar. Thus the "glycemic index" of fat and protein is better than even the best carbs. This provides a longer-term source of energy, thereby reducing hunger for longer periods. There are futher benefits... mostly based on the differences in insulin-mediated biochemistry versus glucagon-mediated biochemistry. Aside from fat-burning benefits of glucagon, and controlling blood sugar, lowered insulin/raised glucagon raised HDL and lwers triglycerides. There's a host of good health benefits to limiting carbs. I recommend the book "Protein Power" for more details and references to the relevant research. But carb gives more "bang for the buck" nutritionally than fat. And what about all the micronutrients from apples that don't occur in cabbage. See, I would eat both, and cut a tiny bit of empty fat calories. Fat is not entirely empty calories, some fat is necessary. There are "good" fats and "bad" fats just as there are "good" carbs versus "bad" carbs. As for me... an apple sends my blood sugar well over 200. That overwhelms any micronutrients in the apple. Are you sure? They often have more fructose, and therefore have lower GI. Overall carbs (excluding fiber) is mostly what we measure. The thing is... to *some* degree, glycemic index is irrelevant. It's not just about how fast blood sugar rises, but also about how much insulin is prodced, and how much effect there is overall. Fructose has a poor glycemic inex, no doubt. But we are talking about fruit - which pretty much comes with fructose. Berries and melon are fairly low-carb as fruits go and are thus more "bang for your buck" than most other fruits. As to whether low-carb is a healthy diet, this depends on how the individual chooses to do it. Some get virtually all their carbs from vegetables and fruit. Others do low-carb by eating "low carb" junk food. Obviously, there's a big difference in how healthy those diets. But my question is what is the advantage of "low carb" in the first place. That refined food should be avoided is a given Primarily reducing insulin, blood sugar and hunger. Since both high and low blood sugar results in *ravenous* levels of hunger, it's pretty pleasant to get off the blood sugar rollercoaster. For more info, see the book recommended above. I am personally sort of intermediate, I eat a lot of vegetables, some fruit, but probably more dairy than I strictly need. My diet would be improved by getting more of my carbs from veggies and fewer from cheese and cream. Cheese and cream have negligible carbs, I would have thought. What is negligible depends on one's goals. My personal eating plan is to stay within the ange of 30-50 grams of carb per day. I use up a good 10 gram of that just on creaming my coffee (I drink a *lot* of coffee). Since I *love* dairy, I use up a lot of carbs on it, which could frankly better be spent with more veggies and even a bit more fruit. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Diet Soda [aspartame] Dangerous? Shari Lieberman, The O'Reilly Factor 3.19.4: Murray 3.23.4 rmforall | Rich Murray | General Discussion | 15 | March 27th, 2004 03:22 AM |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret | Diarmid Logan | General Discussion | 135 | February 14th, 2004 04:56 PM |
Low carb diets | General Discussion | 249 | January 8th, 2004 11:15 PM | |
Atkins diet may reduce seizures in children with epilepsy | Diarmid Logan | General Discussion | 23 | December 14th, 2003 11:39 AM |
Is excess sugar consumption linked to cancer? | Diarmid Logan | General Discussion | 6 | October 8th, 2003 09:01 PM |