Re: The Politics of Vitamin Research

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 11:19:52 GMT, "George Conklin"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The political position of the Medical Establishment seems to indicate
that those who take vitamin supplements are basically creating
expensive urine.

This was actively taught in nursing and med schools, but it does not make
it true.

Correct, but it assumed that this was in a person eating a good,
balanced diet. The poor average Western diet today would benefit from
some supplementation. The facts underlying the whole business, is that
supplementation is NOT needed for healthy individuals eating a varied
wholefood diet.

Mooshie peas <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 11:19:52 GMT, "George Conklin"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The political position of the Medical Establishment seems to indicate
that those who take vitamin supplements are basically creating
expensive urine.

This was actively taught in nursing and med schools, but it does not

make

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it true.

Correct, but it assumed that this was in a person eating a good,
balanced diet. The poor average Western diet today would benefit from
some supplementation. The facts underlying the whole business, is that
supplementation is NOT needed for healthy individuals eating a varied
wholefood diet

The minimium does were set to avoid obvious diseases like scurvy. As
for higher doses, there was no research done and still isn't.

The food pyramid was set by politics, not research. Milk was not a basic
food until the 1930s, and of course is not a basic food beyond age 2. On
white people can digest milk easily as an adult--the recommendation is
basically racist. The current food pyramid will be done away with in the
next few years and is thought to be one main cause of an increase in
diabetes.

Herman Rubin <[email hidden]> wrote:

: I have seen the following antioxidant recommendation from
: a reputable medical center:

: 1 tablespoon of turmeric daily

: 1 teaspoon of ginger daily

: 1 large glass of green tea daily

: 1 large chocolate bar with nuts daily

Medical centres recommending that people eat chocolate?!?

No wonder the world has diet problems ;-)
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [email hidden]

Tim Tyler <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Herman Rubin <[email hidden]> wrote:

: I have seen the following antioxidant recommendation from
: a reputable medical center:

: 1 tablespoon of turmeric daily

: 1 teaspoon of ginger daily

: 1 large glass of green tea daily

: 1 large chocolate bar with nuts daily

Medical centres recommending that people eat chocolate?!?

No wonder the world has diet problems ;-)

If one had a solid diet otherwise, as well as the other listed
recommended items, one chocolate bar would be fine. It's that so many
eat nothing but the nutritional equivalents of chocolate bars all day
long that causes the problems.

Moosh Brain once upon a time babbled on thusly ...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The first poster is completely correct in his comment that the
standard answer still given is that vitamins more than the minimum accepted
dose just produces expensive urine.

Quoted message said:

It does, in general.

Not if you use inexpensive vitamins.

Just thought that you might want to know. 🙂
--
John Gohde,
Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

Get started on improving your personal health and fitness, today.
http://www.Tutorials.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
Offering 14 easy to understand lessons that will change your life.

Herman Rubin wrote

Quoted message said:

I have seen the following antioxidant recommendation from
a reputable medical center:

1 tablespoon of turmeric daily

1 teaspoon of ginger daily

1 large glass of green tea daily

1 large chocolate bar with nuts daily

Actually, that is pretty good advice. Cooking your food with spice is
a great way to add natural antioxidants to your diet. Part of the
secrete to the Cretan Mediterranean Diet can be found in the way they
cook their food with herbs and spices

Just thought that you might want to know. 🙂

Hark! My private health newsgroup beckons!
--
John Gohde,
Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is the foundation of the
biomedical model of natural health. Weighing in at 17 webpages,
Nutrition (http://www.Food.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/) is now
with more documentation and sharper terminology than ever before.

In article said:

Herman Rubin <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

: I have seen the following antioxidant recommendation from
: a reputable medical center:

Quoted message said:

: 1 tablespoon of turmeric daily

Quoted message said:

: 1 teaspoon of ginger daily

Quoted message said:

: 1 large glass of green tea daily

Quoted message said:

: 1 large chocolate bar with nuts daily

Quoted message said:

Medical centres recommending that people eat chocolate?!?

Quoted message said:

No wonder the world has diet problems ;-)

Why not? It contains antioxidants.

Also, there is NO evidence at this time that low fat
diets are more healthful.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
[email hidden] Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

Herman Rubin <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article said:

Herman Rubin <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

: I have seen the following antioxidant recommendation from
: a reputable medical center:

Quoted message said:

: 1 tablespoon of turmeric daily

Quoted message said:

: 1 teaspoon of ginger daily

Quoted message said:

: 1 large glass of green tea daily

Quoted message said:

: 1 large chocolate bar with nuts daily

Quoted message said:

Medical centres recommending that people eat chocolate?!?

Quoted message said:

No wonder the world has diet problems ;-)

Why not? It contains antioxidants.

Also, there is NO evidence at this time that low fat
diets are more healthful.

And there is gathering evidence that the food pyramid is a disaster.
Milk? Recommended only for white people. It is a racist recommendation.

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 12:12:55 GMT, <[email hidden]>
posted:

Quoted message said:

Mooshie peas <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 11:19:52 GMT, "George Conklin"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

> The political position of the Medical Establishment seems to indicate
> that those who take vitamin supplements are basically creating
> expensive urine.

This was actively taught in nursing and med schools, but it does not

make

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it true.

Correct, but it assumed that this was in a person eating a good,
balanced diet. The poor average Western diet today would benefit from
some supplementation. The facts underlying the whole business, is that
supplementation is NOT needed for healthy individuals eating a varied
wholefood diet

The minimium does were set to avoid obvious diseases like scurvy. As
for higher doses, there was no research done and still isn't.

Plenty of research, just nothing found.

Quoted message said:

The food pyramid was set by politics, not research.

Rubbish.

Quoted message said:

Milk was not a basic
food until the 1930s, and of course is not a basic food beyond age 2.

Why not? It is a perfectly good food. A staple of many groups of
humans for thousands of years.

Quoted message said:

On
white people can digest milk easily as an adult--the recommendation is
basically racist.

What ARE you talking about?

Quoted message said:

The current food pyramid will be done away with in the
next few years and is thought to be one main cause of an increase in
diabetes.

No, that's caused by eating too much and sitting on your ass. Both
things advised against by the food pyramid.

Mooshie peas <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 12:12:55 GMT, <[email hidden]>
posted:

Quoted message said:

On
white people can digest milk easily as an adult--the recommendation is
basically racist.

What ARE you talking about?

It's a standard anti-milk argument which completely ignores the fact that
the majority of Westerners (particularly Americans) with African or Asian
ancestry are in fact of quite mixed ancestry and therefore have a much
higher rate of lactase persistence than indigenous Africans and Asians.
Most "non-white" Americans have no problems with the amount of milk
recommended in the food pyramid. The argument appeals to what I call
"aristocratic liberals" who make a great show of how much they care for
oppressed or marginalized populations, but don't really know a whole lot
about those populations or what their members desire. The vast majority of
Americans who think that the promotion of milk is racist are well-off
whites.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The current food pyramid will be done away with in the
next few years and is thought to be one main cause of an increase in
diabetes.

No, that's caused by eating too much and sitting on your ass. Both
things advised against by the food pyramid.

I like the "is thought"? Is thought *by whom*? Religious low-carbies,
that's who. They always change the subject when asked how the food pyramid
can be causing diabetes, making people fat, etc. when there's no evidence
that a significant number of Americans follow it. Such a belief is,
though, quite consistent with libertarian ideology; it's a recommendation
*by* the government *for* an aspect of people's personal lives, and
a certain brand of libertarianism says the government *always* screws up
when doing such.

(There's an amusing thought experiment to determine which functions of
government a caricatured libertarian thinks government can be successful
at: imagine kids playing at doing it. If the activity would attract mostly
boys (army, cops and robbers, etc.) it's legitimate; if it would attract
mostly girls (playing house, cooking, etc.) it's best left to the private
sector. It seems they're not so much against paternal government as
maternal government.)

It also strikes me that low-carb doctrine usually calls for the replacement
of foods with culturally feminine associations (e.g. grains) with foods
with culturally masculine associations (e.g. meat). In fact, the "the food
pyramid is making America fat" story strikes me as a thinly disguised
version of the Garden of Eden story; there's a strong theme there of the
world going downhill as a result of the feminization of the culture. Of
course, some arguments for veganism are nothing more than the other side of
the coin, based on some rather loopy feminist doctrines and tying in with
the old superstition that eating an animal gives you the strength and
aggressiveness of the animal (a variation of the "doctrine of signatures"😉,
where "aggressiveness" is interpreted as "rape" (which doesn't fit in well
with the fact that most of the meat in the American diet comes from
castrated animals, but since when does logic affect such matters?).

So I do think that some aspects of the Battle of the Sexes have leaked into
the nutrition debate, as well as aspects of political and economic
ideology.

On 20 Aug 2003 10:46:58 -0500, [email hidden] (Herman
Rubin) posted:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Mooshie peas said:

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 11:19:52 GMT, "George Conklin"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> The political position of the Medical Establishment seems to indicate
> that those who take vitamin supplements are basically creating
> expensive urine.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This was actively taught in nursing and med schools, but it does not make
it true.

Quoted message said:

Correct, but it assumed that this was in a person eating a good,
balanced diet. The poor average Western diet today would benefit from
some supplementation. The facts underlying the whole business, is that
supplementation is NOT needed for healthy individuals eating a varied
wholefood diet.

Why should it be assumed that a "good balanced diet" would
be optimal nutrition for our times?

Why not? It's done us proud for millions of years. What's different
now except easy access to concentrated calories in excess? Supplements
are probably essential when this diet is indulged in.

Quoted message said:

The "survival diet"
would lead to good health through reproduction and long
enough afterward to raise the children, but not that much
longer.

Living longer is genetic. Food supply has little influence. Calorie
restricition might make it seem longer 🙂

Quoted message said:

Even with advancing civilization, natural selection
would not favor too long lifetimes.

Natural selection has little to do with diet. When you got a little
slow, the sabre tooth got you, end of story.

Quoted message said:

The major diseases we worry about now are diseases of older
people. Heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, many of
the types of cancer, are such that their eradication would
not have made much of an effect until very recently, so why
would a "good balanced diet" be the optimal diet for us at
this time?

Well you tell me why it wouldn't. You are advocating a change, show
any benefit. The diseases you mention above are from too much food,
not too little as you seem to be saying.

Quoted message said:

I have seen the following antioxidant recommendation from
a reputable medical center:

1 tablespoon of turmeric daily

1 teaspoon of ginger daily

1 large glass of green tea daily

1 large chocolate bar with nuts daily

None of these would be part of a "natural" balanced diet.

And none of them are of any advantage on the diet I see as optimal.
Your "reputable" medical centre is reputable with whom?
Sounds quite crackpot to me.
The search for a magic bullet goes on.

On 20 Aug 2003 15:36:09 -0700, [email hidden] (tintinet) posted:

Quoted message said:

Tim Tyler <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Herman Rubin <[email hidden]> wrote:

: I have seen the following antioxidant recommendation from
: a reputable medical center:

: 1 tablespoon of turmeric daily

: 1 teaspoon of ginger daily

: 1 large glass of green tea daily

: 1 large chocolate bar with nuts daily

Medical centres recommending that people eat chocolate?!?

No wonder the world has diet problems ;-)

If one had a solid diet otherwise, as well as the other listed
recommended items, one chocolate bar would be fine. It's that so many
eat nothing but the nutritional equivalents of chocolate bars all day
long that causes the problems.

That's about 500 calories per day. What a waste of calorie allocation.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Mooshie peas said:

On 20 Aug 2003 10:46:58 -0500, [email hidden] (Herman
Rubin) posted:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Mooshie peas said:

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 11:19:52 GMT, "George Conklin"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> The political position of the Medical Establishment seems to indicate
>> that those who take vitamin supplements are basically creating
>> expensive urine.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> This was actively taught in nursing and med schools, but it does not make
>it true.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Correct, but it assumed that this was in a person eating a good,
balanced diet. The poor average Western diet today would benefit from
some supplementation. The facts underlying the whole business, is that
supplementation is NOT needed for healthy individuals eating a varied
wholefood diet.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why should it be assumed that a "good balanced diet" would
be optimal nutrition for our times?

Quoted message said:

Why not? It's done us proud for millions of years. What's different
now except easy access to concentrated calories in excess? Supplements
are probably essential when this diet is indulged in.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The "survival diet"
would lead to good health through reproduction and long
enough afterward to raise the children, but not that much
longer.

Quoted message said:

Living longer is genetic. Food supply has little influence. Calorie
restricition might make it seem longer 🙂

It sure does. How long and how well post-menopausal women
lived has no effect on species survival, but it is of concern
now, and it should be.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Even with advancing civilization, natural selection
would not favor too long lifetimes.

Quoted message said:

Natural selection has little to do with diet. When you got a little
slow, the sabre tooth got you, end of story.

And now we are protected from the sabre tooth, and to
some extent from other large and small predators.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The major diseases we worry about now are diseases of older
people. Heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, many of
the types of cancer, are such that their eradication would
not have made much of an effect until very recently, so why
would a "good balanced diet" be the optimal diet for us at
this time?

Quoted message said:

Well you tell me why it wouldn't. You are advocating a change, show
any benefit. The diseases you mention above are from too much food,
not too little as you seem to be saying.

The current theory is that a very large proportion of
the population has the genetics of type 2 diabetes, which
has a real survival advantage with poor food supply. Also,
type 1 diabetes is related to a very strong immune system,
a survival advantage before sanitation and other advances.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I have seen the following antioxidant recommendation from
a reputable medical center:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

1 tablespoon of turmeric daily

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

1 teaspoon of ginger daily

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

1 large glass of green tea daily

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

1 large chocolate bar with nuts daily

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

None of these would be part of a "natural" balanced diet.

Quoted message said:

And none of them are of any advantage on the diet I see as optimal.
Your "reputable" medical centre is reputable with whom?
Sounds quite crackpot to me.
The search for a magic bullet goes on.

It is a major respected cardiology department.

--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
[email hidden] Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

Tim Tyler <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Herman Rubin <[email hidden]> wrote:

: How long and how well post-menopausal women lived has no effect on
: species survival, but it is of concern now, and it should be.

According to the "grandmother effect", this is not the case -
post-menopausal women can - and did - contribute: by providing
parental care.

Yes. This is due to the fact that humans take an extremely long time to
reach reproductive maturity, and are helpless for a lot of that time. In
order for an individual to "propagate his genes" it's necessary not only
for him to reproduce, but for his kids to survive long enough to be able to
reproduce themselves, which for most of human history was *at least* 14 or
15 years. Therefore, there's selective pressure to survive not just long
enough to reproduce, but long enough for one's kids to grow up. That
pressure doesn't exist in species with shorter generation times.

On 21 Aug 2003 14:52:57 -0500, [email hidden] (Herman
Rubin) posted:

Quoted message said:

In article said:

Herman Rubin <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

: I have seen the following antioxidant recommendation from
: a reputable medical center:

Quoted message said:

: 1 tablespoon of turmeric daily

Quoted message said:

: 1 teaspoon of ginger daily

Quoted message said:

: 1 large glass of green tea daily

Quoted message said:

: 1 large chocolate bar with nuts daily

Quoted message said:

Medical centres recommending that people eat chocolate?!?

Quoted message said:

No wonder the world has diet problems ;-)

Why not? It contains antioxidants.

So does just about ALL foods. You can get more anti-oxidants (if
that's what turns you on) for far less calories in many other foods.
More of many other essential nutrients as well

Quoted message said:

Also, there is NO evidence at this time that low fat
diets are more healthful.

Less calories in an overfed population?
Come now!
In a varied wholefood diet it is virtually impossible to get too
little fat, if that's what worries you.

A high %age of asians/blacks cannot digest significant amounts of lactose.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12018807&dopt=Abstract
Anth

"Mooshie peas" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Milk? Recommended only for white people. It is a racist recommendation.

Huh? What's this all about?

On 23 Aug 2003 19:05:11 GMT, Eric Bohlman <[email hidden]>
posted:

Quoted message said:

Mooshie peas <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 12:12:55 GMT, <[email hidden]>
posted:

Quoted message said:

On
white people can digest milk easily as an adult--the recommendation is
basically racist.

What ARE you talking about?

It's a standard anti-milk argument which completely ignores the fact that
the majority of Westerners (particularly Americans) with African or Asian
ancestry are in fact of quite mixed ancestry and therefore have a much
higher rate of lactase persistence than indigenous Africans and Asians.
Most "non-white" Americans have no problems with the amount of milk
recommended in the food pyramid. The argument appeals to what I call
"aristocratic liberals" who make a great show of how much they care for
oppressed or marginalized populations, but don't really know a whole lot
about those populations or what their members desire. The vast majority of
Americans who think that the promotion of milk is racist are well-off
whites.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The current food pyramid will be done away with in the
next few years and is thought to be one main cause of an increase in
diabetes.

No, that's caused by eating too much and sitting on your ass. Both
things advised against by the food pyramid.

I like the "is thought"? Is thought *by whom*? Religious low-carbies,
that's who. They always change the subject when asked how the food pyramid
can be causing diabetes, making people fat, etc. when there's no evidence
that a significant number of Americans follow it. Such a belief is,
though, quite consistent with libertarian ideology; it's a recommendation
*by* the government *for* an aspect of people's personal lives, and
a certain brand of libertarianism says the government *always* screws up
when doing such.

(There's an amusing thought experiment to determine which functions of
government a caricatured libertarian thinks government can be successful
at: imagine kids playing at doing it. If the activity would attract mostly
boys (army, cops and robbers, etc.) it's legitimate; if it would attract
mostly girls (playing house, cooking, etc.) it's best left to the private
sector. It seems they're not so much against paternal government as
maternal government.)

It also strikes me that low-carb doctrine usually calls for the replacement
of foods with culturally feminine associations (e.g. grains) with foods
with culturally masculine associations (e.g. meat). In fact, the "the food
pyramid is making America fat" story strikes me as a thinly disguised
version of the Garden of Eden story; there's a strong theme there of the
world going downhill as a result of the feminization of the culture. Of
course, some arguments for veganism are nothing more than the other side of
the coin, based on some rather loopy feminist doctrines and tying in with
the old superstition that eating an animal gives you the strength and
aggressiveness of the animal (a variation of the "doctrine of signatures"😉,
where "aggressiveness" is interpreted as "rape" (which doesn't fit in well
with the fact that most of the meat in the American diet comes from
castrated animals, but since when does logic affect such matters?).

So I do think that some aspects of the Battle of the Sexes have leaked into
the nutrition debate, as well as aspects of political and economic
ideology.

Thanks Eric, fascinating stuff. I will reread it again 🙂

On 24 Aug 2003 09:36:25 -0500, [email hidden] (Herman
Rubin) posted:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Mooshie peas said:

On 20 Aug 2003 10:46:58 -0500, [email hidden] (Herman
Rubin) posted:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Mooshie peas <[email hidden]> wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 11:19:52 GMT, "George Conklin"
><[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> The political position of the Medical Establishment seems to indicate
>>> that those who take vitamin supplements are basically creating
>>> expensive urine.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> This was actively taught in nursing and med schools, but it does not make
>>it true.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Correct, but it assumed that this was in a person eating a good,
>balanced diet. The poor average Western diet today would benefit from
>some supplementation. The facts underlying the whole business, is that
>supplementation is NOT needed for healthy individuals eating a varied
>wholefood diet.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why should it be assumed that a "good balanced diet" would
be optimal nutrition for our times?

Quoted message said:

Why not? It's done us proud for millions of years. What's different
now except easy access to concentrated calories in excess? Supplements
are probably essential when this diet is indulged in.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The "survival diet"
would lead to good health through reproduction and long
enough afterward to raise the children, but not that much
longer.

Quoted message said:

Living longer is genetic. Food supply has little influence. Calorie
restricition might make it seem longer 🙂

It sure does. How long and how well post-menopausal women
lived has no effect on species survival, but it is of concern
now, and it should be.

I think it has a considerable effect on the survival of the species.
And it has always been a concern, hasn't it?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Even with advancing civilization, natural selection
would not favor too long lifetimes.

Quoted message said:

Natural selection has little to do with diet. When you got a little
slow, the sabre tooth got you, end of story.

And now we are protected from the sabre tooth, and to
some extent from other large and small predators.

And we are living longer and healthier than ever.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The major diseases we worry about now are diseases of older
people. Heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, many of
the types of cancer, are such that their eradication would
not have made much of an effect until very recently, so why
would a "good balanced diet" be the optimal diet for us at
this time?

Quoted message said:

Well you tell me why it wouldn't. You are advocating a change, show
any benefit. The diseases you mention above are from too much food,
not too little as you seem to be saying.

The current theory is that a very large proportion of
the population has the genetics of type 2 diabetes, which
has a real survival advantage with poor food supply. Also,
type 1 diabetes is related to a very strong immune system,
a survival advantage before sanitation and other advances.

Yep, interesting theories that I have some sympathy with.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I have seen the following antioxidant recommendation from
a reputable medical center:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

1 tablespoon of turmeric daily

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

1 teaspoon of ginger daily

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

1 large glass of green tea daily

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

1 large chocolate bar with nuts daily

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

None of these would be part of a "natural" balanced diet.

Quoted message said:

And none of them are of any advantage on the diet I see as optimal.
Your "reputable" medical centre is reputable with whom?
Sounds quite crackpot to me.
The search for a magic bullet goes on.

It is a major respected cardiology department.

Name? Where did you see this? URL?

"Mooshie peas" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 24 Aug 2003 09:36:25 -0500, [email hidden] (Herman
Rubin) posted:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Living longer is genetic. Food supply has little influence. Calorie
restricition might make it seem longer 🙂

And we are living longer and healthier than ever.

Living longer - there has been a change in mortality?
There's no change in the verified upper limits of how long we can live.

I can also remind you that we are not living more healthy either.
Approx 33% chance of getting cancer, approx 1/2 heart disease.
If we died earlier then these diseases proably wouldn't manifest themselves
as much.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>The major diseases we worry about now are diseases of older
>people. Heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, many of
>the types of cancer, are such that their eradication would
>not have made much of an effect until very recently, so why
>would a "good balanced diet" be the optimal diet for us at
>this time?

I don't worry about them, some people do, because I'm pretty much convinced
they can be treated or prevented.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well you tell me why it wouldn't. You are advocating a change, show
any benefit. The diseases you mention above are from too much food,
not too little as you seem to be saying.

The current theory is that a very large proportion of
the population has the genetics of type 2 diabetes, which
has a real survival advantage with poor food supply. Also,
type 1 diabetes is related to a very strong immune system,
a survival advantage before sanitation and other advances.

Some would argue evolution has halted in man or changed form.

Quoted message said:

Yep, interesting theories that I have some sympathy with.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>I have seen the following antioxidant recommendation from
>a reputable medical center:

Quoted message said:

> 1 tablespoon of turmeric daily

Quoted message said:

> 1 teaspoon of ginger daily

Quoted message said:

> 1 large glass of green tea daily

Quoted message said:

> 1 large chocolate bar with nuts daily

Quoted message said:

>None of these would be part of a "natural" balanced diet.

What is a 'balanced diet', and why do they keep changing the RDA's?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And none of them are of any advantage on the diet I see as optimal.
Your "reputable" medical centre is reputable with whom?
Sounds quite crackpot to me.
The search for a magic bullet goes on.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It is a major respected cardiology department.

Then it _must_ be wrong because they are failing miserably!

Quoted message said:

Name? Where did you see this? URL?