Beastt said:
I don't think I pointed that out! I really have little idea at all about this particular area...
What kind of diet do you follow?
- Thread starter Beastt
- Start date
I don't think I pointed that out! I really have little idea at all about this particular area...
carcajou said:
I take it that you have never actually read the studies on this subject, because if you had then you wouldn't have made this ridiculous statement.
carcajou said:
Wrong
carcajou said:
Osteoporosis isn't just about calcium. There are many other factors like IGF-1. Protein has a positive effect on bone density due to its ability to increase IGF-1.
Though a high protein diet with inadequate calcium intake can lead to calcium loss. So protein has both positive and negative effects on bone density depending on if there is adequate calcium intake. If a person isn't getting enough calcium then a high protein diet can lead to bone loss. If a person is getting adequate calcium then a high protein diet will increase bone density better then a low protein diet due to proteins ability to increase IGF-1, and the positive effects IGF-1 has on bone density. A high protein, high calcium diet is best for increasing bone density and preventing osteoporosis.
Animal proteins increase IGF-1 better than plant proteins.
carcajou said:
Dairy is one of the highest quality proteins. Both casein and whey protein found in dairy products have a high biological value. Whey protein has the highest biological protein of any protein meaning the body will use more whey protein ingested than any other protein. Dairy is also high in bioavailable calcium and dairy proteins increase IGF-1 better than most proteins. Making dairy an all around great food choice for preventing osteoporosis.
carcajou said:
The one thing you got right.
Never before in all of your posts, BiochemGuy, could I or would I have said this and I realize that with your substantial knowledge regarding diet I may be on a precarious balance here but I have to disagree with your assessment.
Study - Calcium Intake - Change in Calcium Balance - Change in Calcium Balance
---------(milligrams) --- with a low Protein Diet --- With a high Protein Diet
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 1 ....... 500 ................. +31 ....................... -120
No. 2 ....... 500 ................. +24 ....................... -116
No. 3 ....... 800 ................. +12 ....................... -85
No. 4 ...... 1400 ................. +10 ....................... -85
No. 5 ...... 1400 ................. +20 ....................... -65
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Average ... 920 ................. +19 ....................... -94
(Study No. 1) - Anad, C., "Effect of Protein on Calcium Balance of Young Men Given 500mg Calcium Daily," Journal of Nutrition, 104:595, 1974
(Study No. 2) - Hegsted, M., "Urinary Calcium and Calcium Balance in Young Men as Affected by Level of Protein and Phosphorus Intake," Journal of Nutrition, 111:53, 1981
(Study No. 3) - Walker, R., "Calcium Retention In the Adult Human Male As Affected by Protein Intake," Journal of Nutrition, 102:1297, 1972
(Study No. 4) - Johnson, N., "Effect of Level of Protein Intake on Urinary and Fecal Calcium and Calcium Retention of Young Adult Males," Journal of Nutrition, 100:1425, 1970
(Study No. 5) - Linkswiler, H., "Calcium Retention of Young Adult Males as Affected by Level of Protein and Calcium Intake," Trans New York Academy of Science, 36:333, 1974
If you look at the extremes concerning protein intake, calcium intake and rates for osteoporosis, you find an indication that the common assessment that calcium intake can offset the affects of animal proteins, showing signs of error.
For example, African Bantu women average about 350mg of calcium per day -- far below the 1200mg recommendation of the National Dairy Council. These women average nine children each and breast feed each child for an average of two years. Osteoporosis is all but unknown to the Bantus who consume a low protein diet. Bantus who live in America and pursue the average American diet show rates of osteoporosis comparable to American women.
-Walker, A., "Osteoporosis and Calcium Deficiency," American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 16:327 1965
-Smith, R., "Epidemiologic Studies of Osteoporosis in the Women of Puerto Rico and Southeastern Michigan," Clin Ortho, 45:32, 1966
The Eskimos consume 250 - 400 grams of protein per day, mostly from fish, walrus and whale. They consume an average of 2000mg of calcium per day, (from fish bones) yet they display one of the highest rates of osteoporosis in the world.
-Mazees, R., "Bone Mineral Content of North America Eskimos," Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 27:916, 1974
Granted these are simply two cultures diverse in many, many respects and therefore the strong possibility exists that a large number of factors not mentioned or studied may be coming into play. However, it does seem to suggest that there is more to offsetting the intake of animal proteins and the resulting change in blood pH than simply ingesting more calcium. This would seem to fall in line with the idea that the human body is limited in its ability to assimilate calcium. Consuming more doesn't necessarily mean you absorb more.
In regard to the aforementioned, IGF-1, this hormone may well affect bone growth but it also seems to have some other less desireable affects when consumed in proportions beyond that which nature would appear to have intended.
Milk doesn't just increase production of IGF-1, it actually contains bovine IGF-1 which is molecularly indistinguishable from human IGF-1.
(Awaiting the pending flame.)
P.S.
Sorry to have misinterpreted your statement, Roadie_Scum. It was not my intention to misrepresent your comments.
Study - Calcium Intake - Change in Calcium Balance - Change in Calcium Balance
---------(milligrams) --- with a low Protein Diet --- With a high Protein Diet
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 1 ....... 500 ................. +31 ....................... -120
No. 2 ....... 500 ................. +24 ....................... -116
No. 3 ....... 800 ................. +12 ....................... -85
No. 4 ...... 1400 ................. +10 ....................... -85
No. 5 ...... 1400 ................. +20 ....................... -65
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Average ... 920 ................. +19 ....................... -94
(Study No. 1) - Anad, C., "Effect of Protein on Calcium Balance of Young Men Given 500mg Calcium Daily," Journal of Nutrition, 104:595, 1974
(Study No. 2) - Hegsted, M., "Urinary Calcium and Calcium Balance in Young Men as Affected by Level of Protein and Phosphorus Intake," Journal of Nutrition, 111:53, 1981
(Study No. 3) - Walker, R., "Calcium Retention In the Adult Human Male As Affected by Protein Intake," Journal of Nutrition, 102:1297, 1972
(Study No. 4) - Johnson, N., "Effect of Level of Protein Intake on Urinary and Fecal Calcium and Calcium Retention of Young Adult Males," Journal of Nutrition, 100:1425, 1970
(Study No. 5) - Linkswiler, H., "Calcium Retention of Young Adult Males as Affected by Level of Protein and Calcium Intake," Trans New York Academy of Science, 36:333, 1974
If you look at the extremes concerning protein intake, calcium intake and rates for osteoporosis, you find an indication that the common assessment that calcium intake can offset the affects of animal proteins, showing signs of error.
For example, African Bantu women average about 350mg of calcium per day -- far below the 1200mg recommendation of the National Dairy Council. These women average nine children each and breast feed each child for an average of two years. Osteoporosis is all but unknown to the Bantus who consume a low protein diet. Bantus who live in America and pursue the average American diet show rates of osteoporosis comparable to American women.
-Walker, A., "Osteoporosis and Calcium Deficiency," American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 16:327 1965
-Smith, R., "Epidemiologic Studies of Osteoporosis in the Women of Puerto Rico and Southeastern Michigan," Clin Ortho, 45:32, 1966
The Eskimos consume 250 - 400 grams of protein per day, mostly from fish, walrus and whale. They consume an average of 2000mg of calcium per day, (from fish bones) yet they display one of the highest rates of osteoporosis in the world.
-Mazees, R., "Bone Mineral Content of North America Eskimos," Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 27:916, 1974
Granted these are simply two cultures diverse in many, many respects and therefore the strong possibility exists that a large number of factors not mentioned or studied may be coming into play. However, it does seem to suggest that there is more to offsetting the intake of animal proteins and the resulting change in blood pH than simply ingesting more calcium. This would seem to fall in line with the idea that the human body is limited in its ability to assimilate calcium. Consuming more doesn't necessarily mean you absorb more.
In regard to the aforementioned, IGF-1, this hormone may well affect bone growth but it also seems to have some other less desireable affects when consumed in proportions beyond that which nature would appear to have intended.
"Insulin-like growth factors (IGFs), in particular IGF-I and IGF-II, strongly stimulate the proliferation of a variety of cancer cells, including those from lung cancer. High plasma levels of IGF-I were associated with an increased risk of lung cancer. Plasma levels of IGF-I are higher...in patients with lung cancer than in control subjects." -- Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol. 91, no. 2. January 20, 1999.
"Insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) is expressed in many tumor cell lines and has a role in both normal cell proliferation and in the growth of cancers. -- Cancer Gene Ther, 2000 Mar, 7:3
"The insulin-like growth factor (IGF) system is widely involved in human carcinogenesis. A significant association between high circulating IGF-I concentrations and an increased risk of lung, colon, prostate and pre-menopausal breast cancer has recently been reported. Lowering plasma IGF-I may thus represent an attractive strategy to be pursued..." -- Int J Cancer, 2000 Aug, 87:4, 601-5
Milk doesn't just increase production of IGF-1, it actually contains bovine IGF-1 which is molecularly indistinguishable from human IGF-1.
(Awaiting the pending flame.)
P.S.
Sorry to have misinterpreted your statement, Roadie_Scum. It was not my intention to misrepresent your comments.
I have read many and I have not made any ridiculous statement. Seems to me like you are just one of those people who are too stubborn to accept reality. Just because it is correct doesn't mean YOU have to live by it. Do your own thing but don't deny facts. You'd be one of those 'the world is flat people' a few centuries ago.BiochemGuy said:
...no, it is right.BiochemGuy said:
I know that...it's about bone density.BiochemGuy said:
IGF-1 is identical in humans as it is in bovines...as Beastt said. IGF-1 is a growth factor which affects EVERYTHING...including cancer. It is not something that humans should be striving to increase in their systems.BiochemGuy said:
I hate to quote myself but..."IGF-1 is a growth factor which affects EVERYTHING...including cancer. It is not something that humans should be striving to increase in their systems."BiochemGuy said:
Casein acts like glue in the body...it works well for holding labels on glass bottles too. Once again..."IGF-1 is a growth factor which affects EVERYTHING...including cancer. It is not something that humans should be striving to increase in their systems." The rate of calcium absorbtion from milk is about 32%...while in broccoli it is 52.6%. ( these figures are from the American Journal Of Clinical Nutrition ) Furthermore, dairy is NOT 'an all around great food choice for preventing osteoporosis' as you claim.BiochemGuy said:
The National Dairy Council funded a study in which postmenopausal women drank 3 additional 8 oz glasses of skim milk daily ( 1500 mg of calcium ). When they compared those women to the control group at the end of the study, they found that the women who drank the extra milk lost MORE calcium from their bones than the women who did not drink it. The Dairy Council wasn't pleased when the results were published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.*The Effect Of Milk Supplements on Calcium Metabolism, Bone Metabolism, and Calcium Balance," American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 41 (1985 ):254*
Most of the time they just use their $$ to bury results that don't favour their marketing or publish only the 'bits' which look like they may help.
So...biochem students don't take math? Furthermore, have YOU been doing YOUR reading?BiochemGuy said:
A wise man once said that truth goes through 3 stages...during the first stage, the issue goes unnoticed and is ignored. The second stage is characterised by a period of vehement denial. The third stage witnesses the the truth about the issue being recognised as self evident. It certainly applies to the TRUTH about the 'milk trade'. Only the wisest of people have reached stage 3 with dairy products as yet...the bulk of society is at stage one until they hear a few facts-then they vault immediately to stage 2.
I had lost 60lbs on this diet - eating every 2 1/2 - 3 hours (300-500 cals each time) constiting of white protein, whole grains, fresh fruit, fresh veggies and lots of water. I avoid high gylcemic index foods (corn, potatoes, white sugar, white flour), processed anything, and alcohol.
I've been vegetarian for 23 years. My preferred method of dieting for BF loss is a vegetarian CKD.Beastt said:
ohh i failed to mention, the exercise enduce osteo, was during a period where i was running over 100miles per week, and training 3 times a day, ohh and i was on an high carbo diet..closesupport said:Nope i'm in the UK, I do more, hence i need more. I lead a very active life, well maybe not as active as i used to be, but i understand i need to ease up as i get older
lots of veg / pasta's, rice, white-meat, fish and fruit (no red meat/caffeine or choclate)
now, i eat a mixed veriety of foods that i enjoy. but cut out the running.
Beastt said:
These old studies are flawed due to their use of purified
proteins and poor testing methods. Studies using meat as a protein source show no calcium loss; except for a few subjects who had a small temporary initial loss in calcium, but their calcium balance quickly returned to
normal once they adapted to the higher protein intake.
Beastt said:
Exactly, there are to many factors to confirm a cause
and effect relationship. I really don't see the point
of looking at thirty year old poorly controlled studies
when we have newer and better research on the subject.
Beastt said:
The food that we eat has an effect on our blood pH.
Acidic foods put an Acid-load on our blood. Alkaline
foods put an alkali-load on our blood. Our body has
has many ways to handle an Acidic-load or an Alkali-load
to keep blood pH normal.
Protein has an acidic effect due to certain amino acids
in protein being converted into acids. This puts an
acid-load on the blood. The body has two main ways that
it handles this acid-load to keep pH within normal range.
1) The acid is buffered in the blood by an alkali.
2) The acid is transfered from the blood to the kidneys
where it can be excreted in the urine.
Now lets take a look at calcium. Then we will look at how
an acidic-load from protein can cause calcium loss.
Bones always have calcium going in and out of them. Bones
have cells that put calcium into bone and cells that take
calcium out of bone. The calcium that is taken from bone
along with blood calcium travels to the kidneys. Once the calcium makes its way to the kidneys it is either
excreted in the urine or reabsorbed and put back into
the blood. If blood calcium levels are high, then the
kidneys will excrete more calcium into the urine. If
blood calcium levels are low, then the kidneys will
reabsorb more calcium and put that calcium back into
the blood. Though the kidneys are limited to how much
they can reabsorb and put back in the blood, so their
is always some calcium loss, hence the need for calcium
in the diet.
Now lets take a look at how an acid-load from protein
can cause calcium loss.
As I wrote above, The body handles an acid-load from
protein by using an alkali from blood to buffer the acid
and by transfering the acid-load from the blood to the
kidneys. If there is an insufficient source of alkali
in the blood to buffer the acid then the kidneys have
to do most of the work in controlling the acid load. Once
the acid is transfered from the blood to the kidneys
the kidneys can't just excrete the acid into the urine.
The acid in the kidneys still has to be buffered by an
alkali to keep urine pH normal. The kidneys make their
own source of alkali.
Our kidneys make a large amount of alkali to buffer
acid. Though a very large acid-load can exceed the
amount of alkali the kidneys make. If this happens
then the kidneys will need another source of alkali
to buffer the acid.
As I wrote above, calcium makes its way to the kidneys
where it is either excreted in the urine or reabsorbed
back into the blood. Calcium is a source of alkali.
If the acid-load is greater than the amount of alkali
the kidneys have to buffer it, then the kidneys will
use the calcium in the kidneys to buffer the acid.
The calcium that is used to buffer the acid in the
kidneys is lost in the urine.
So, much of the calcium that would have normally been
reabsorbed and put back into blood was used to buffer
acid and excreted in the urine. This is how acid from
protein can cause calcium loss. As long as there is
sufficient calcium from the diet to replace the calcium
not being reabsorbed back into the blood. There won't
be a loss in calcium balance. This whole effect of
the kidneys using calcium as a a source of alki usually
dosn't last very long. The kidneys quicky start making
more of there own source of alkali and stop using
calcium as an alkali source. As I wrote above, the kidneys make a large amount of alkali. Though it takes
time for the kidneys to upregulate how much alkali they
make. So the kidneys will use calcium as an alkali
until the kidneys can adapt and start making more of
their own source of alkali. Once this adaption takes
place then calcium balance returns to normal.
As long as their is sufficient alkali from the diet the
acid-load will never be shifted to only the kidneys as
most of the buffering of the acid will take place in the
blood.
To sum it up.
For protein to cause calcium loss these things have to happen.
1)There has to be insufficient alkali in the blood that comes from diet resulting in the acid-load being transfered and handled mostly by the kidneys.
2) The acid-load has to be greater than the than
the Alkali produced by the kidneys, resulting in the kidneys using calcium as an alkali source resulting in
less calcium being reabsorbed back into the blood.
`
3) The loss of calcium that isn't reabsorbed has to be
greater than the calcium absorbed from the diet.
So for protein to cause calcium/bone loss a person would
have to be on a super high protein diet with low calcium
and insufficient alkali foods in the diet.
As long as a person is eating a balanced diet with
enough alkali-rich food like veggies and fruit then
there is little risk of protein causing calcium loss
since the alkali from the diet will buffer the
acid-load from protein in the blood. Leaving the
kidneys with little acid to buffer. If the kidneys
have only a small amount of acid to buffer then the
kidneys own alkali will be enough and the kidneys
won't have to go to calcium as a source of alkali.
Other things effect calcium loss as well. Phosphorus
causes calcium retention. This brings up the flaw of
most of those early studies that you posted. Those
old studies used purified protein as a protein source.
These proteins were purified and had all the phosphorus
and and sources of alkali taken out of them.
This produced an artifical result because real food
proteins contain phosphorus and sources of alkali
which help calcium retention. This is also why
studies that used meat as a protein source show
no calcium loss except for a temporary rise in
calcium loss that returned to normal in a short
period of time. The effect of phosphorus on calcium
retention can be seen in the study by Hegsted M. that
you posted above. Hegsted compared a high purified
protein intake with a high purified protein intake
plus a phosphorus suppplement. The subjects who
used the phosphorus suppplement lost far less
calcium than the subjects that used purified protein
alone. Though the subjects that used the phosphorus
supplement still lost calcium. This is due to the use
of a poor source of phosphous as a supplement.
Though this showed the researchers that phosphorus
has a great impact on calcium balance and that
the use of purified proteins are a poor choice
as a protein supplement because they don't mimic
the effect of food proteins that contain phosphorus.
Most of the later research used meat or milk as a
protein source. These studies showed no calcium loss
from a high protein intake.
Beastt said:
Yes HIGH IGF-1 levels are associated with cancer. Usually
these people wih high IGF-1 have very high IGF-1 levels do to their genetics. IGF-1, like all anabolic hormones increases the rate of growth in most cells, including
cancer cells. This dosn't mean that normal IGF-1 levels
cause cancer. IGF-1 levels decline with age. Most women
at the risk of osteoporosis have very low IGF-1 levels.
Women with severe osteoporosis usually have lower IGF-1
than other women their age. Any effort to increase IGF-1
in these women is to try to get back just a fraction of
what they lost with age. A High protein diet and
weight-bearing exercise have both been shown to increase
IGF-1. Through a high protein diet and weight-bearing
exercise a 65 year old women might be able to gain some
of the IGF-1 back that she lost with age; she might be
able to increase IGF-1 to levels she had when she was
55 years old. Her IGF-1 levels are still low compared
to young people and what she had when she was younger.
Remember, high IGF-1 is associated with cancer, not normal IGF-1. IGF-1 or any other anabolic hormone could
increase the rate of cancer growth in someone who already
has cancer. Lowering the levels of these anabolic hormones may be a good thing in someone who already has
cancer. This dosn't mean that we should try to decrease
these hormones or not try to gain back a small percentage
of these hormones that we lost with age.
For instance, testosterone increases the rate of prostate
cancer growth. Exercise increases testosterone levels in
men. Does this mean that normal healthy men shouldn't
exercise? ofcourse not.
Insulin is also related to many of the cancers that
Insulin-like growth factor is. Does this mean that we
shouldn't eat carbs and that a low carb atkins type
diet prevents cancer? ofcourse not.
It's all about balance. If there is either to much or
to little of a hormone it tends to cause problems.
Beastt said:
Protein is ofcourse made of amino acids. When protein is
ingested it has to be broken down into smaller fractions
of amino acids(peptides) before it can be absorbed. Our intestines can only transport single amino acids,
Di-peptides( 2 aminos), and tri-peptides(3 aminos) into
our system. There isn't a transport for anything larger
than a Tri-peptide.
If ingested IGF-1 will be treated just like a protein.
IGF-1 is a large peptide hormone made of 70 amino acids.
So there is no way that IGF-1 could be trasported into
the system. The largest peptide that can be transported
into the system is a Tri-peptide. If ingested, IGF-1 will
be destroyed and broken down into Mono, Di and Tri-peptides.
The same goes for insulin. Insulin is also a peptide
hormone like IGF-1. If Insulin is ingested it is
destroyed and broken down into Mono, Di and
Tri-peptides. This is why insulin has to be injected
to get into the system.
Wow...you may have the biggest case of denial I've ever witnessed. You seem to have/make up an excuse for everything that goes against the animal products. You are exactly the kind of sheep that the milk/meat/egg industry loves.
...allow me to say something that you might understand a little better...
BAA-AA-AA-AAAAA!!
...allow me to say something that you might understand a little better...
BAA-AA-AA-AAAAA!!
carcajou said:
If IGF-1 is not something something humans
should be striving to increase in their system
then why did YOU recommend weight-bearing exercise?
Weight-bearing exercise has been shown to increase
IGF-1 levels by 70%!
carcajou said:
Wow, this just proves to me that you DON'T read
studies. In this study the milk group lost
40% LESS bone density than the control group.
The milk group also improved their calcium
balance. I've read the full study and have
had this study in my file for the past
seven years. I suggest that YOU actually
read the study and see what the results
really were. The abstract of this study
is available on pubmed. My father worked
in the same building as Dr Heaney who
was the researcher who conducted this
study along with Dr Recker. I've met
Heaney twice and I am very familliar
with Heaney's research. It's really
pathetic of you to misrepresent
Heaney and Recker's research like
this. Since you misrepresented and
LIED about the results of Heaney's
study, I'm through responding to
you.
Testosterone isn't something that I recommend people strive to increase in their system BY DIRECT DIETARY INTAKE (or syringe for that matter) either but certainly if their activity and training causes that physiological response then all the better.BiochemGuy said:
Well, you got me on that one...I actually cited this particular study from a secondary source and quoted that secondary source...yes, I'll be careful not to do that again...my error indeedBiochemGuy said:
Yeah...BUT the abstract CONVENIENTLY leaves out the information regarding the low dairy group...I wonder why...it seems that cultures in the rest of the world which have very low calcium intake and little to no dairy intake have no problem with bone density or bone fractures...BiochemGuy said:
...well...holy smokes...I wouldn't be so judgemental and condemning at this point mr. BiochemGuy...like I said-I cited a secondary source and quoted that source.BiochemGuy said:
Now THAT must be some sort of blessing.BiochemGuy said:
I would like to thank you for leading me toward those abstracts though...I found the following extremely revealing statement at the bottom of this 'conclusion' page of another of his 'studies' or 'comments'...
http://www.jbmr-online.com/fulltext/01806/11170/JBMR0180611170.html
Dr Heaney serves as a consultant for both the Dairy Industry and GlaxoSmithKline.
Where is that 'judgemental and condemning' BiochemGuy now?
I'll let everyone derive their own conclusions as it relates to being a consultant for the Dairy Industry & a large pharmaceutical company and studies that relate directly to their products...but normally...CONSULTANTS GET PAID
Maybe one final word from Biochem Guy...
"BAA" indeed BiochemGuy..."BAA" indeed...BiochemGuy said:
carcajou said:
I was well aware that you were quoting from another
source. I knew that your source was the PETA/PCRM
since your post was almost exactly word for word
what they have on their websites.
PETA[People for Ethical Treatment of Animals] is an
animal rights groups that is opposed to any human
interference with animals. They are against people
using any animal products at all, and against animals
being used in any research even if using animals
in research helps to develop medical advancements
to save peoples lives. They are even against people
having animals for pets. PETA has made up all kinds
of lies about meat and dairy to scare people and
try to turn them into vegetarians in an effort to
"save the animals". Though PETA wasn't very sucessful
as most people know that an animal-rights group like
PETA is going to be biased about animal products.
But what if the info was coming from a medical group
of 'physicians' and not PETA? People might believe it
then! So the PETA medical advisor Neal Barnard along
with other PETA advisory board members such as
John Mcdougall and Jerry Vlasak started the
PCRM(Physicians Committee For Responsible Medicine).
The PCRM is just a front for PETA. They are just
a group of animal-rights activists disguised as
a medical group of physicians. Now in an effort
to "save the animals" PETA/PCRM can lie and tell
people that animal products cause all kinds of
health problems and people will think this info
is coming from a medical groups of physicians
and not an animal rights group like PETA.
The PCRM has made up many lies such as:
Meat and dairy cause, osteoporosis, diabetes,
anemia, heart disease, and that animal products
cause almost all health problems.
The PCRM, like PETA, is against the use of animals
in medical research. Even in research to find
cures for life threating diseases. PCRM president
Neal Barnard was interviewed in a magazine and
asked the following:
"would you still be against animal research if
that research found a cure to save the lives of
millions of children with a life-threating
disease?"
Neal Barnard responded with " Yes I would still be
against it; A Rat is a boy is a pig, life is life.
who is to say that a lab rats life is less important
than a boys life. Why should a rat have to die to
save a boy?"
This clearly shows what a radical animal rights
activist Neal Barnard is. Recently Neal Barnard
and PCRM board member Jerry Vlasak spoke at a
PETA rally. Jerry Vlasak took the mic and said
the following to the crowd.
" These doctors are killing millions of animals in
their research. We should be killing them! If we
just killed ten doctors this would probably scare
the rest of them from doing further animal research.
If killing ten dosn't work then we should kill
a hundred of them. Killing a hundred doctors could
save the lives of millions of animals!"
PCRM's Jerry Vlasak is obviously a radical animal
rights activist. He has a long arrest record for
terrorism against doctors and research facilities
that conduct research on animals. Jerry Valasak
was also banned from entering the UK do to him
preaching that doctors that use animals in their
research should be murdered.
Do you think that a radical animal rights group
like PCRM is going to be unbiased about animal
products?
The PCRM spoke infront of the U.S Congress and
the FDA to try to push their own vegetarian
based food pyramid to replace the current
food pyramid. During their time infront of
Congress, the PCRM made the claims that dairy
products should't be consumed as they cause
osteoporosis. The FDA then asked the PCRM
questions about this, it went as follows.
FDA:" You claim that dairy products cause
osteoporosis. Do you have any evidence to back
up this claim?"
PCRM:"The PCRM believes this to be true."
FDA:" Do you have any evidence to present that
supports your belief?"
PCRM: "No, though this is the belief of our medical
experts."
FDA:"So you want us to change our recommendations
on dairy do to your belief without any evidence to
support your belief?"
PCRM:"Well we have research showing this to be
the case"
FDA:"Do you have this research to present to
us today?"
PCRM: "no we do not. We had a study conducted at
georgtown University, though it wasn't concluded."
FDA:" If this study wasn't concluded, then how
do you know the results of the study?"
PCRM:" Most of the subjects in the study dropped out.
Though we did see a trend in the subjects that was
consistant with our claims."
The FDA and others checked on this study performed
at georgtown university. The University has no
records of any such study being performed at
their University. The PCRM made the whole thing
up and they lied to the FDA infront of congress.
The American medical association(AMA) has spoken out
against the PCRM and the AMA has even issued a
censure on the PCRM for making false claims.
The following is part of an open letter from the AMA
to PCRM president Neal Barnard and a censure to the
PCRM from the AMA.
"The AMA continues to marvel at how effectively a fringe organization of questionable repute continues to hoodwink the media with a series of questionable research that fails to enhance public health. Instead, it serves only to advance the agenda of activist groups interested in perverting medical science. The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine is an animal 'rights' organization, and, despite its title, represents less than .5 percent of the total U.S. physician population. Its founder, Dr. Neal Barnard, is also the scientific advisor to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), an organization that supports and speaks for the terrorist organization knows as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF)."
-- from a September, 1992 censure of PCRM issued by the American Medical Association
"The general approach used by PCRM takes selective data and quotations, often out of context … In response to a Resolution passed unanimously at the recent AMA House of Delegates meeting, the American Medical Association calls upon the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine to immediately terminate the inappropriate and unethical tactics your organization uses to manipulate public opinion."
-- Letter to PCRM's Neal Barnard, from James Todd, executive vice president of the American Medical Association, July 26, 1990
As you see the PCRM and PETA are both just a group
of radical animal rights activists that do anything
they can to "save the animals". They claim that
meat and dairy causes many health problems in an effort
to get people to stop consuming them and switch to a
vegetarian diet. The PCRM and PETA have many websites
that they use to spread lies about animal products.
PCRM/PETA members like Neal Barnard and John Mcdougall
have also written books to spread these lies.
They often have "studies" to back up their claims.
Though most of those studies either don't exist or
the the studies don't show what PCRM/PETA claims.
They know that most people will never actually
read the studies.
carcajou, I hate to see you or anyone else
fall for the lies of the PCRM and PETA.
PS.The format of my posts has been messed up
lately. Anyone have an idea why?
carcajou said:
You'll note that you found this information at the bottom of a page written by Dr Heaney. It is called disclosure. Scientists have to work. When they conduct research, it is reviewed by their peers and, when acting properly, any potential conflict is disclosed and may be considered. So, congratulations. You've discovered: Dr Heaney (i) has a job and (ii) is upfront and ethical in disclosing his relationships with potentially conflicted parties. You'll also note that the paper you've linked to is a very well written article on ethics.
The irony.
I have never taken any information from a PETA site and I was completely unaware of PCRM until your post. I quoted a bibliography reference in a book byJohn Robbins-the former heir to the Baskin Robbins fortune.BiochemGuy said:
I don't follow PETA (and obviously not the other group) except if they show up in mainstream news broadcasts like trying to get in the way of whaling boats or something...HOWEVER, I do respect what they have done to impact the veal industry in the past. I realize that they take things too far but WHAT IS WRONG WITH TREATING ANIMALS ETHICALLY?BiochemGuy said:
Here is the 'newest thing' to come down the wires...
The November issue of the journal Dairy Science (Volume 87
(11):3770-7) contains a study in which slaughtered cows were
tested for paratuberculosis, a bacterium that is not killed
by pasteurization. Mycobacterium paratuberculosis is often
passed directly from cow to human in milk and dairy products,
causing irritable bowel syndrome, ulcerative colitis, and
Crohn's Disease.
Dr. Shawn McKenna and associates randomly sampled lymph
nodes and intestines from 984 cows that had ended their
lives in slaughterhouses. During the month of June, 2004,
an amazing event transpired. Forty-two percent of those
cows tested positive, infested with dangerous mycobacterium
paratuberculosis.
In February of 1998, the British Medical Journal reported:
"Mycobacterium Paratuberculosis crosses the species
barrier to infect and cause disease in humans."
The following month, the Journal of Applied and
Environmental Microbiology revealed:
"Mycobacterium paratuberculosis is capable of surviving
commercial pasteurization..."
Combine today's news with a publication in the September,
1996 issue of the Proceedings for the National Academy of
Sciences:
"Mycobacterium paratuberculosis RNA was found in 100% of
Crohn's disease patients, compared with 0% of controls."
Step #1...lift the wool up that's blocking your eyes...disclosure would be if it was at the bottom of all of ther pages. Furthermore, if I "found this information at the bottom of a page written by Dr Heaney" then it would be a statement in the first person...like " I am a consultant..."Roadie_scum said:
Yes, they do have to work and in many cases the industries fund the studies with the sole purpose of having evidence at the end of the study which they can use to advertise their product and increase revenue.Roadie_scum said:
It is NOT ALWAYS peer reviewed...in fact the majority of it is not.
Yeah...MAY be considered...unless it looks bad for 'said industry which funded the study' and then it is buried.Roadie_scum said:
Actually, I think I have discovered that:Roadie_scum said:
(i) Dr. Heaney is paid to say what he says although his Hippocrates quote is a good one...look at NON DAIRY cultures and see how they have way less bone fractures and way less osteoporosis.
(ii) you are quite condescending when making assumptions that can't be substantiated and are probably a Bush supporter(given that you believe what big rich companies have to say specifically when it has to do with their revenue streams).
Pushing COW's MILK on humans is NOT ethical...particularly when getting paid to do so.Roadie_scum said:
The horror.Roadie_scum said:
carcajou said:
I agree that this (suppression of results) can be a huge problem. Published studies tend to be peer reviewed - like the ones you quoted inaccurately. Obviously unpublished results aren't. The intellectual property consisting of the results of the study needs to stay with the researchers and there needs to be legislative compulsion to publish negative results. Normally when this (suppression) occurs it is more the fault of the company involved than the individual researchers - often the researchers agitate to have results published despite their paycheck coming from the company that desires otherwise.
Again with the formatting... there is no need to impeach the reputation of a researcher who seems to have performed his work capably and ethically. Being paid is not in breach of the hippocratic oath or any tenet of science. If you want to agitate for ethical allocation of resources to research (and treatment!) and compulsory publication of results, I'm right behind you. Too much money is spent on cholesterol, impotence and depression drugs which have few if any material clinical advantages, but push up company profits.
As far as non-dairy cultures and the incidence of bone fractures... not my area of expertise. I'd be interested if you could furnish us with a sound source that makes this point. Is the lower incidence because of a lower life expectancy?
Speaking of assumptions: I am a rationalist libertarian centrist. That puts me a hell of a long way from Bush - not that that has anything to do with anything. I agree that the role of private funding in science is problematic - that doesn't mean the researchers are compromised as individuals, and I'd want to make fairly sure I had concrete evidence that they were if I was going to denigrate them. My experience with the research community is that they tend towards having a solid respect for scientific method and are deeply frustrated that benefactors and governments can't fund them properly, leaving them dependent on private companies, researching areas that are less helpful to humanity than others, and don't necessarily interest them. None of this compromises them ethically. It does suggest that a shift in public policy is needed on funding and regulation of research.
Well, we can talk about this. If you think the consumption of cow's milk is unethical that's fine. Advance that premise as best you can - back it with evidence. Don't tarnish the reputation of people you don't know with little evidence. And don't try to slyly push for non-consumption of milk in amongst 'health' information. I'm happy to talk science and I'm happy to talk ethics. Both are informed by each other - but they are different issues. If you want to argue a scientific point, the methodology is very different to arguing an ethical point.
Please explain to me how scientists should conduct themselves - refuse private funding, be unable to do any good for anyone, starve in the gutter? For your beliefs...
My statement regarding " Pushing COW's MILK on humans is NOT ethical..." is in reference to
#1 HUMANS don't NEED it.
#2 It has a negative affect on HUMAN HEALTH.
I would suggest that if one is REALLY INTERESTED in finding out the truth about milk and its benefits or lack thereof then it shouldn't be too difficult to come to a conclusion.
For me LOGIC dictates that I don't consume it. It is from another species. All OTHER biological organisms STOP drinking milk after weaning and NONE of them except humans consume cross species glandular extract.
Tarahumara Indians, Russian Kurgi, various African societies, Asian cultures AND many studies all point to animal products being bad for humans. Trace amounts are all that the human digestive tract really can handle well.
The bottom line is that there are MANY connections between animal products and disease and there are NO major problems associated with abstaining from them provided that variety is constant...further, the abstainers achieve optimal health.
The information is all out there. I'm not going to argue about it anymore.
You have chosen your path. If you choose to never change it then that is ok...it wasn't my intent in the first place.
#1 HUMANS don't NEED it.
#2 It has a negative affect on HUMAN HEALTH.
I would suggest that if one is REALLY INTERESTED in finding out the truth about milk and its benefits or lack thereof then it shouldn't be too difficult to come to a conclusion.
For me LOGIC dictates that I don't consume it. It is from another species. All OTHER biological organisms STOP drinking milk after weaning and NONE of them except humans consume cross species glandular extract.
Tarahumara Indians, Russian Kurgi, various African societies, Asian cultures AND many studies all point to animal products being bad for humans. Trace amounts are all that the human digestive tract really can handle well.
The bottom line is that there are MANY connections between animal products and disease and there are NO major problems associated with abstaining from them provided that variety is constant...further, the abstainers achieve optimal health.
The information is all out there. I'm not going to argue about it anymore.
You have chosen your path. If you choose to never change it then that is ok...it wasn't my intent in the first place.
Similar threads
