This new paper found that a diet rich in alpha-linolenic acid (from flax, walnuts) had a significant protective effect on bone metabolism. They also provide some details as to the adverse effects of saturated fats on bone health (reducing bone mineral density).

It has often been stated that the ideal ratio of omega6mega3 fatty acids is between 2:1 and 4:1. But this paper found most protection for bones at a lower ratio, 1.6:1.

Anecdotally, or as an experiment with one subject, I find my skin looks better when I hold my ratio to below 2:1. It's not easy to do, though, as most concentrated plant fat foods are rich in omega6 fats rather than omega3 fats.

The abstract is here
[www.nutritionj.com]

The full paper is here
[www.nutritionj.com]

Quote

Statistical were first completed with all subject (n=23).... NTx values for one male and one female subject were classified as significant outliers and excluded from the analyses, based on the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test.

Why is it OK to throw out data that doesn't agree with the rest of the data? 2 cases out of 23 is a significant throw-away.

Quote

Study funded by the California Walnut Commission

Oh. Thats why its OK

It's standard to throw out the "bad" data points. Usually the high and the low. Maybe these people were genetic outliers, maybe they weren't really complying, maybe it was a measurement error. The subjects were overweight dyslipidemics.

I don't find their results implausible as they were not *that* different from the high LA group. But they didn't plot the points, they provided only the average so I can see some reason for suspicion. Also they did not provide data for TNF-alpha, they only wrote that it was improved.

Some papers will show all the data points with a different marker for the bad points (like a big X instead of a dot) if n is small. This give you a better idea of how much fudging was involved.

The strangest thing to me was that they tested on men instead of women.

bump

"This new paper found that a diet rich in alpha-linolenic acid (from flax, walnuts) had a significant protective effect on bone metabolism."

Incorrect. See that the abstract says:

"The results indicate that plant sources of dietary n-3 PUFA MAY HAVE a protective effect on bone metabolism via a decrease in bone resorption in the presence of consistent levels of bone formation."

May have not had.


Gosia


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2007 01:21AM by rawgosia.

Sorry, I was exuberant. Yes, most if not all papers are more restrained in their conclusions.

But I do think it is has and not may have, based on the body of lit on the subject, although there are many other factors (adequate mineral intake in the right propotions, adequate f+v intake, adequate weight and weight-bearing exercise, adequate protein intake, sufficiently alkaline state, etc.).

You guys are so smart..

Yes, unfortunately, deleting the words such as maybe/possibly from the articles when reporting them is a commons practice, which significantly changes the meaning of the reported research. As a mathematician, I am also interested in statistical data used. In this case, there were over 20 humans studied. This means that researchers looked at them, observed them and recorded their conclusions. This by no means is a proof of what happens to every single human on the planet. By the way, no standard random test was used here, and the sample was far too small, making the data inadmissable for making any statistical conclusions (which are hypotheses involving probability) about the whole population. The word "maybe" must be used, or the paper would not get published for making unverified claims.

The size of the body of literature on a subject is not a proof of a claim. In statistics, combining the data from various studies is a big unscientific no-no.

Of course, there is always common sense. And, our own experiments with our bodies, which tell us what is really good for us.

Gosia


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

I read somewhere that purslane is rich in omega 3. I love this sour little "weed".



This way is not compatible with Zen practice. This way IS Zen practice. - Dr. Doug Graham

Nothing whatsoever should be attached to. - Buddha

>The size of the body of literature on a subject is not a proof of a claim. In statistics, combining the data from various studies is a big unscientific no-no.

Would you say the same about smoking and lung cancer? I think that many scientists were resistive with putting on a causal label. After all, they are scientists.

But when the evidence is overwhelming, even the most skeptical people tend to capitulate.

Certainly, I would. Note that I am talking about scientific research and how it operates. It may be absurd for non-scientists but these are the rules. There is no such things as a proof based on statistics, whether you like or not.

I advocate using one's own common sense anyway.

Gosia


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2007 09:02AM by rawgosia.

Another problem - for estrogen domimant men and women, FLAX IS AN ABSOLUTE NO.

Blissed be, Annie

I guess that means you aren't aware of these studies. You might be confusing the effects of oxidized ALA in mayonnaise and other vegetable oils in background diets rich in cooked meat with the effects of flax. There are similar studies for breast cancer, but since you wrote men first, I addressed that one.

Urology. 2004 Sep;64(3):510-5.

Effects of a diet rich in phytoestrogens on prostate-specific antigen and sex
hormones in men diagnosed with prostate cancer.

Dalais FS, Meliala A, Wattanapenpaiboon N, Frydenberg M, Suter DA, Thomson WK,
Wahlqvist ML.

International Health and Development Unit, Monash University, Clayton, VIC,
Australia.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of diets rich in soy and linseed compared
with a control diet on biochemical markers of prostate cancer in men diagnosed
with prostate cancer. METHODS: Twenty-nine men diagnosed with prostate cancer
and scheduled to undergo a radical prostatectomy were randomized to one of three
groups: soy (high phytoestrogen), soy and linseed (high phytoestrogen), or wheat
(low phytoestrogen). A bread was specially manufactured to incorporate 50 g of
heat-treated (HT) soy grits or 50 g of HT soy grits and 20 g of linseed as part
of the study participant's daily diet. Baseline and preoperative levels of
prostate-specific antigen (PSA), free PSA, testosterone, sex hormone-binding
globulin, free androgen index, and dihydrotestosterone were measured. RESULTS:
Statistically significant differences were detected between the HT soy grits
group and the control wheat group for the percentage of change in total PSA
(-12.7% versus 40%, P = 0.02) and the percentage of change in free/total PSA
ratio (27.4% versus -15.6%, P = 0.01); and between the HT soy grits group and
the HT soy grits and linseed group for the percentage of change in free androgen
index (16.4% versus -15.5%, P = 0.04) and the percentage of change in free/total
PSA ratio (27.4% versus -10%, P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: The data from this study
indicate that a daily diet containing four slices of a bread rich in HT soy
grits favorably influences the PSA level and the free/total PSA ratio in
patients with prostate cancer. This work provides some evidence to support
epidemiologic studies claiming that male populations who consume high
phytoestrogen diets have a reduced risk of prostate cancer development and
progression.

Publication Types:
Clinical Trial
Comparative Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

PMID: 15351581 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Urology. 2004 May;63(5):900-4.

Pilot study to explore effects of low-fat, flaxseed-supplemented diet on
proliferation of benign prostatic epithelium and prostate-specific antigen.

Demark-Wahnefried W, Robertson CN, Walther PJ, Polascik TJ, Paulson DF, Vollmer
RT.

Division of Urologic Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North
Carolina 27710, USA.

OBJECTIVES: Dietary factors may influence the prostate and have an impact on
prostatic growth and disease. A small number of studies have suggested that
flaxseed-supplemented, fat-restricted diets may thwart prostate cancer growth in
both animals and humans. Unknown, however, is the potential effect of such a
diet on benign prostatic epithelium. METHODS: We undertook a pilot study to
explore whether a flaxseed-supplemented, fat-restricted diet affects the
proliferation rates in benign epithelium. We also explored the effects on
circulating levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA), total testosterone, and
cholesterol. Fifteen men who were scheduled to undergo repeat prostate biopsy
were instructed to follow a low-fat (less than 20% kcal), flaxseed-supplemented
(30 g/day) diet and were provided with a supply of flaxseed to last throughout
the 6-month intervention period. The PSA, total testosterone, and cholesterol
levels were determined at baseline and at 6 months of follow-up. Reports from
the original and repeat biopsies were compared, and proliferation (MIB-1) rates
were quantified in the benign prostatic epithelium. RESULTS: Statistically
significant decreases in PSA (8.47 +/- 3.82 to 5.72 +/- 3.16 ng/mL; P = 0.0002)
and cholesterol (241.1 +/- 30.8 to 213.3 +/- 51.2 mg/dL; P = 0.012) were
observed. No statistically significant change was seen in total testosterone
(434.5 +/- 143.6 to 428.3 +/- 92.5 ng/dL). Although 6-month repeat biopsies were
not performed in 2 cases because of PSA normalization, of the 13 men who
underwent repeat biopsy, the proliferation rates in the benign epithelium
decreased significantly from 0.022 +/- 0.027 at baseline to 0.007 +/- 0.014 at 6
months of follow-up (P = 0.0168). CONCLUSIONS: These pilot data suggest that a
flaxseed-supplemented, fat-restricted diet may affect the biology of the
prostate and associated biomarkers. A randomized controlled trial is needed to
determine whether flaxseed supplementation, a low-fat diet, or a combination of
the two regimens may be of use in controlling overall prostatic growth.

Publication Types:
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.

PMID: 15134976 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Urology. 2002 Nov;60(5):919-24.

Effect of flaxseed supplementation on prostatic carcinoma in transgenic mice.

Lin X, Gingrich JR, Bao W, Li J, Haroon ZA, Demark-Wahnefried W.

Division of Urologic Surgery, Department of Surgery, and Center for Aging and
Human Development, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27710,
USA.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effects of flaxseed supplementation on prostatic
neoplasia in the transgenic adenocarcinoma mouse prostate (TRAMP) model.
METHODS: A total of 135 male TRAMP mice 5 to 6 weeks old were randomized to a
control group (AIN-76A diet) or an experimental group (AIN-76A diet plus 5%
flaxseed by weight). One half of the mice in each group were treated for 20
weeks and the remainder for 30 weeks. At autopsy, urogenital tissues (four
prostatic lobes, seminal vesicles, and emptied bladder), lungs, lymph nodes, and
grossly abnormal tissues were collected for histologic evaluation. RESULTS: Of
the control mice, 100% developed prostate cancer versus 97% of the mice in the
flaxseed group. The tumor/urogenital weight was 3.6 +/- 0.4 g in the controls
versus 1.9 +/- 0.2 g in the flaxseed-treated mice (P = 0.0005). At 20 weeks, no
significant difference in tumor grade was seen between the two groups; however,
at 30 weeks, the flaxseed-treated mice had significantly less aggressive tumors
than did the controls (P = 0.01). The prevalence of lung and lymph node
metastases was 13% and 16%, respectively, in the control mice versus 5% and 12%,
respectively, in the experimental group (difference not significant). After 20
weeks of treatment, cellular proliferation (Ki-67) differed significantly
between the control and experimental groups (38.1 +/- 2.03 versus 26.2 +/- 2.03;
P <0.0001), and the apoptotic index (deoxynucleotidyl transferase-mediated
dUTP-digoxigenin nick end labeling) was 1.45 +/- 0.14 versus 3.3 +/- 0.31 (P
<0.0001). Similar differences were seen after 30 weeks of treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: A diet supplemented with 5% flaxseed inhibits the growth and
development of prostate cancer in the TRAMP model.

Publication Types:
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.

PMID: 12429338 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Urology. 2001 Jul;58(1):47-52.

Pilot study of dietary fat restriction and flaxseed supplementation in men with
prostate cancer before surgery: exploring the effects on hormonal levels,
prostate-specific antigen, and histopathologic features.

Demark-Wahnefried W, Price DT, Polascik TJ, Robertson CN, Anderson EE, Paulson
DF, Walther PJ, Gannon M, Vollmer RT.

Division of Urologic Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North
Carolina, USA.

OBJECTIVES: Dietary fat and fiber affect hormonal levels and may influence
cancer progression. Flaxseed is a rich source of lignan and omega-3 fatty acids
and may thwart prostate cancer. The potential effects of flaxseed may be
enhanced with concomitant fat restriction. We undertook a pilot study to explore
whether a flaxseed-supplemented, fat-restricted diet could affect the biomarkers
of prostatic neoplasia. METHODS: Twenty-five patients with prostate cancer who
were awaiting prostatectomy were instructed on a low-fat (20% of kilocalories or
less), flaxseed-supplemented (30 g/day) diet. The baseline and follow-up levels
of prostate-specific antigen, testosterone, free androgen index, and total serum
cholesterol were determined. The tumors of diet-treated patients were compared
with those of historic cases (matched by age, race, prostate-specific antigen
level at diagnosis, and biopsy Gleason sum) with respect to apoptosis (terminal
deoxynucleotidyl transferase [TdT]-mediated dUTP-biotin nick end-labeling
[TUNEL]) and proliferation (MIB-1). RESULTS: The average duration on the diet
was 34 days (range 21 to 77), during which time significant decreases were
observed in total serum cholesterol (201 +/- 39 mg/dL to 174 +/- 42 mg/dL),
total testosterone (422 +/- 122 ng/dL to 360 +/- 128 ng/dL), and free androgen
index (36.3% +/- 18.9% to 29.3% +/- 16.8%) (all P <0.05). The baseline and
follow-up levels of prostate-specific antigen were 8.1 +/- 5.2 ng/mL and 8.5 +/-
7.7 ng/mL, respectively, for the entire sample (P = 0.58); however, among men
with Gleason sums of 6 or less (n = 19), the PSA values were 7.1 +/- 3.9 ng/mL
and 6.4 +/- 4.1 ng/mL (P = 0.10). The mean proliferation index was 7.4 +/- 7.8
for the historic controls versus 5.0 +/- 4.9 for the diet-treated patients (P =
0.05). The distribution of the apoptotic indexes differed significantly (P =
0.01) between groups, with most historic controls exhibiting TUNEL categorical
scores of 0; diet-treated patients largely exhibited scores of 1. Both the
proliferation rate and apoptosis were significantly associated with the number
of days on the diet (P = 0.049 and P = 0.017, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: These
pilot data suggest that a flaxseed-supplemented, fat-restricted diet may affect
prostate cancer biology and associated biomarkers. Further study is needed to
determine the benefit of this dietary regimen as either a complementary or
preventive therapy.

Publication Types:
Clinical Trial
Controlled Clinical Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.

PMID: 11445478 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Thanks arugula for citing the work as is.

Did anyone take notice of:

"This work provides some evidence to support "

"These pilot data suggest that"

"(38.1 +/- 2.03 versus 26.2 +/- 2.03; P <0.0001)"

The last one provide confidence intervals and confidence level, as should be always in any statistical analysis. That means that a hypothesis is stated and tested, and assessed using probabilistic methods. There is no proof.

Gosia


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

Gosia, you could use such reasoning to deny the body's requirements for certain vitamins, minerals, essential fatty acids, etc. I think that is unwise. Experiments are all we have. There isn't anything better. If you reject every experiment that suggests a certain type of food, compound, or pattern confers benefit or harm due to this line of thinking, you end up with zero.

Even when we observe the changes in our own bodies, that constitutes experimentation of a sort, with a sample size of one.

It's just that with controlled experiments, there are usually rigorous standards, a larger number of test subjects, and place where one can read about the results, and repeatability.

It is very curious to me that you are so profoundly rejecting of anything that meets standards, while you embrace the anecdotes on internet fora, particularly in light of your chosen profession. You are an enigma to me.

I am not surprised at Gosia's approach. What she has learned from her own experience of how the research community works is that there are motivations at play that have nothing to do with arriving at the truth. In this reseach described in the original post, do you think the California Walnut Comission would have paid for the research if the finding came out contrary to the beneficial effects of their product? Why do you think they threw out the 2 data points that didn't agree with their hypothesis. As you said, this is common practice.

In cancer research, where they are trying to understand the efficacy of various cancer treatments, it is a common and standard practice that if a test subject dies during the study, their data points are eliminated from the statistics. Wow.

To me, this isn't science. This is "research for hire", You pay me to do some research, and I'll tell you what you want to hear.

You said yourself there is no proof that organic foods are more nutritious than commercial foods. However, there is no proof to the contrary. There are tons of organizations who would pay big bucks to prove that organic foods are no better than commerically grown foods, as this is in their best interests. Yet there are no such studies. Whis is this? Because every time such a research projects starts, the research invariably shows that there are more nutrients in organic foods than commercial foods. Do you think that researchers will publish such information, even though it is contrary to what their sponsors are paying for? What does searching through PubMed tell you?

I don't see a vast conspiracy. Some studies have shady funding and others don't. I think the more important ones don't.

I see that you occasionally post studies or references. You have recently posted about Fontana's most recent study.

Are you suggesting that every single one has a worth of zero? Or is it only the ones that you perceive to be somehow contradictory to your chosen path?

If I find one that goes against my preconceptions, I try to figure out why: what did they do differently this time?. Is there something that I had overlooked or didn't know about? But I also take note of the funding.

I find though, that even the "bad" untrustworthy ones have something to offer, sometimes the background material (lit search) and the discussions are usually interesting. If they point to a paper that provides more detail for a contrary point of view, I try to read that, too, to learn why others might take that line of thought.

RE: organic v. commercial, it seems reasonable to me that some nutrients would be higher and others lower in one or the other. We don't have rigid standards regarding plant feeding and we can't control the weather so that we might have more uniformity in output.

I don't see a conspiracy either. However, I understand how the system works. Research is funded by money. It often costs millions of dollars. The people who can afford to fund such research are most often large corporations. So the research that gets conducted is directed by the whims of corporate America. This is not a vast conspiracy. Yet there is valuable research not being conducted. Like how to live a healthy life without the influence of pharmaceutical drugs and highly processed foods. How to be free of chronic disease without having to shell out the big bucks each month for the rest of your life.

In the the alternative health world, including the raw world, there is a tendency to not want to talk about solutions that get you out of shelling out the big bucks for this supplement or this therapy for the rest of your life. When I lived in San Francisco, I knew a few people who were spending upwards of $1000 on supplements a month.

There is not a vast conspiracy. However, the society we all live in revolves around money, power, and fame. And as such, these values are reflected in how the people who have the capacity to help people heal practice their business.

Yes, that is true. And I have spoken with some of them, they admit it is difficult to get funded for what they want to show and many are limited by their sources.

One, with whom I have not spoken, has lamented the fact that there is no shortage of government $$ for obesity research, and yet he has great difficulty getting money for investigating the things that interest him much more (making a relatively healhty person even healthier without pharmaceuticals).

I think we all want that here on this board. There is still some good work to which we can refer. Maybe with time there will be more.

I spend about $3/month on my B12 and D2 supplements. They are not expensive. But, I spend a fortune on food.

arugula, I think that you reading the published work and sharing with others is a very good thing. Learning process is wonderful experience.

My intentions are to debunk the myths about scientific research (example - belief that citing a paper constitutes a proof of a claim, demanding such "proofs" from raw foodists presenting their argument) prevalent amongst the raw community. Because I am a hard-core scientist myself, I am immune to those myths and I like to share the light. I believe that understanding how science operates and understanding at least a little bit about statistical analysis can be very enlightening to anyone who blindly trusts anything published, just because it was written by scientists. My motivation is to empower people who may not be scientifically trained, but who may have a natural understanding of nutrition, better than many scientists may have. Health is not something that can be gained by reading published work and applying many fractured lessons from there, rather, it is the result of healthy living, in accordance to the nature's design. I do not believe that scientific community has that understanding. What we can read, is the reflection of what is known, and that reflection is far from what the nature really is. I believe that there is something better that one can apply, than the messages from that poor reflection. For example, many "untrained" (in hard-core science sense) humans have come to high levels of understanding how to live healthily. Intelligence is not a quality restricted to scientists.


Gosia


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

rawgosia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
My motivation is to empower people who
> may not be scientifically trained, but who may
> have a natural understanding of nutrition, better
> than many scientists may have.

Yes, I have met such scientists.

But, the good ones have understanding that far exceeds
ours.

>Health is not
> something that can be gained by reading published
> work and applying many fractured lessons from
> there, rather, it is the result of healthy living,
> in accordance to the nature's design. I do not
> believe that scientific community has that
> understanding. What we can read, is the reflection
> of what is known, and that reflection is far from
> what the nature really is. I believe that there is
> something better that one can apply, than the
> messages from that poor reflection. For example,
> many "untrained" (in hard-core science sense)
> humans have come to high levels of understanding
> how to live healthily.

Here we differ. While I do not doubt that intuition
can generally lead one to a better path, there is also the
matter of fine tuning. Why should anyone turn his or
her back on the toil of those who did perform quality
work? Some of those quality papers are very beautiful.

I recall one of Fontana's presentations in which he
compared raw foodists to CR'd people. Many of the
CR'd people are nearly vegan or completly so, and
many of them are also high raw. But here is where
they differ: the CR group meets or exceeds all RDAs,
deliberately. They do avail of the research and they
apply it to themselves as best they can. The result
is that they have somewhat better biomarkers in the
parameters tested. I am interested in this "pushing
the envelope" and I feel that many others also share
this interest, but they might not be so confident about
reading papers or might not have easy access to them.

>Intelligence is not a
> quality restricted to scientists.

No, but lack of a scientific background can be
limiting. I feel stymied by my lack coursework in
molecular biology and anatomy/physiology in a formal
setting but it is a lack that will soon be rectified.

"But, the good ones have understanding that far exceeds ours."

I have not seen one in any of the papers that you quoted. Can you give an example of one such scientist? A person that fully understands the principles of health and lives according to those principles?

I don't see the point on relying on those who have no understanding or only fractured understanding. I'd rather see the complete picture. "Quality" work that does not translate into understanding of how to live healthily is only fractured thinking. Not much use. This fractured thinking leads, for example, to doctors prescribing pills that never cure, but make a person move from one to another disease.

Thinking that some scientists who think in a fractured way have understanding that far exceeds ours is giving power away to those who do not deserve it.

"No, but lack of a scientific background can be limiting."

Yes, it often leads to treating scientists like gurus, and scientific research as the only valid method of obtaining the truth. Reading abstracts or papers written by scientists with little understanding of how science operates can lead to dangerous misunderstandings and misinterpretations.

Arugula, the animals do not need study in order to find out what their natural diet is. Humans are also capable of that. What's required to achieve that, to start with, is to see beyond one's limited mind. Intellect is only a tool, not a guide.

Gosia


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

Yes, David Jenkins is one. Luigi Fontana, another. Probably Mark Mattson as well. Roy Walford, who died of ALS. Those are just a few off the top of my head.

The comparisons to wild animals are not very useful. Our modern cultivars do not resemble the foods of the wild, they are somewhat "defective" in terms of what is probably better for the human physiology. Katherine Milton has written some nice papers on this. Also I would like to remind that what is best in terms of longevity (which in part seeks to minimize disease risks) is not necessarily what is best for living to the age of reproduction. Evolution seeks for reproductive success and not longevity so too much emphasis on preagricultural conditions for diet might not necessarily be relevant.

Also I find the constant reminder of pharmaceutical studies is of no relevance to this discussion in ny opinion.

I do not believe that merely having a degree and long-term experience in nutrition/medicine equates to a real understanding. To me, understanding the nutrition does not mean the ability to write papers on nutrition. I look at the person not merely at their publications to look for that understanding. For example, check out the recipes from Walford's website. They may sound healthier than eating at McDonalds, but they are hardly warrant the term "healthy". Is their creator really a person with understanding about nutrition "that far exceeds ours"? Also, I do not think that argument about the modern civilization is valid. Humans are animals, and civilization has not made us adapt to the unhealthy modern diet. We still need to eat the way the wild animals do. We can learn far more by connecting with our body than by studying fractured research. Doctors prescribing the pills based on the research that you have so much faith is is totally relevant here. Well anyway, arugula, I am happy to agree to disagree. I am heading obviously in a totally different direction. I have not much interest in applying fractured theories. Curiosity, yes, because I like to see where the science is going, and when I see some sensible work, it's always good to hear. But I am not going to treat it as a holy grail.

Gosia


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

rawgosia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I do not believe that merely having a degree and
> long-term experience in nutrition/medicine equates
> to a real understanding.

It is a necessary but insufficient condition for
just about everyone. Few people have the discipline
to delve deeply in the required subjects of their
own accord in a nonformal setting.

> I look at the person not
> merely at their publications to look for that
> understanding. For example, check out the recipes
> from Walford's website. They may sound healthier
> than eating at McDonalds, but they are hardly
> warrant the term "healthy". Is their creator
> really a person with understanding about nutrition
> "that far exceeds ours"?

You have not read any of his papers or books? You would
dismiss a person completely based on one recipe? This is
not very scientific in my opinion.

>Also, I do not think that
> argument about the modern civilization is valid.
> Humans are animals, and civilization has not made
> us adapt to the unhealthy modern diet. We still
> need to eat the way the wild animals do.

This is only adding more weight to my point. Our
modern cultivars are defective, they do not resemble
the wild fruits that are more nutritious. But you
are claiming that "listening to your body" and
subsiting on a small fraction of these suboptimal cultivars
(the sweet ones) is enough for optimal health.

Had you read more about what makes them different and less
than ideal for human health, you would certainly agree with
me on this point. And you would probably see the need for
incorporating more greens, whether or not your body "tells"
you that they are needed at a particular moment in time.

>We can
> learn far more by connecting with our body than by
> studying fractured research.

How can you be certain that your body's signals are
not fractured? Many people are so enamored of the
idea of raw fruitarianism or some near variant that
they will propel themselves into a state of disaster
rather than realizing that they really do need help
and changing directions. TC Fry, for example, had a
severe B12 deficiency at his time of death.

>Doctors prescribing
> the pills based on the research that you have so
> much faith is is totally relevant here.

No, it isn't. I am not considering pharmaceuticals
in this discussion.

> I have not much interest in applying
> fractured theories.

It could be considered the height of arrogance to
dismiss a state of knowledge as "fractured theories"
while relying only on what tastes good to you from
a limited selection of modern cultivars with inadequate
micronutrient content and a sugar substrate considerably
more challenging to the humany physiology than the ideal
one to guide you towards a state of perfection.

It takes much less effort to dismiss that which you
do not know much about or understand. It takes much
more effort to make yourself informed. With every
new paper or concept I am made more aware of my
limitations. It is very humbling.

I hope for your sake, as well as those of your
children, that you eventually reconsider.

"It is a necessary but insufficient condition for just about everyone."

Absolutely not! People who really understand the nutrition are those who apply their principles in their life. Study of nutrition is certainly not a prerequisite for that. In fact, in most cases, it is a factor that prevents one from that understanding.

"You have not read any of his papers or books? You would dismiss a person completely based on one recipe?"

Yes, I certainly would. May I remind you that I asked you for an example of a scientist that fully understands and applies nutrition in their life. On the basis of the recipe, this person does not satisfy this criterion. Note that claim that someone understands the nutrition when that person lives unhealthily life, is false.

"Had you read more about what makes them different and less than ideal for human health, you would certainly agree with me on this point."

You are not going to convince me that applying fractured intellectual arguments is better than following my natural body instincts.

"It could be considered the height of arrogance to dismiss a state of knowledge as "fractured theories" "

I do not call it arrogance. I call it intelligence. By the way, true, hard-core scientists, like myself, dismiss nutritionism as flawed, and no science at all, due to its inconsistencies, flawed methods, questionable aims etc. The only way nutritionism can move forward, and become a science, is by a total disintegration of the old, flawed ideas.

"I hope for your sake, as well as those of your children, that you eventually reconsider."

And do what? Eat foods that my body does not want me to eat at times when it does not want to be fed? Start popping pills, like you? Worse even, force my children to eat foods that they do not want to eat at times when they don't want to eat them and make them eat pills? No way!



Perhaps you could find a true example of a scientist that really understands and applies nutrition, and share it with us here. This would be something that I would find interesting to read.


Gosia


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

rawgosia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


> You are not going to convince me that applying
> fractured intellectual arguments is better than
> following my natural body instincts.

My natural body instincts tell me to eat sugar and fat, does this mean my body is right? I would be happy eating refined cane sugar, processed food, sugary cereal, white rice, and all the other garbage, if I was not aware of nutrition. Plus that garbage is convenient and available everywhere.

Most of my nutritional beliefs have developed through reading the writings and research of many authors and sources. I agree there is a lot of garbage out there abut nutrition but if people dig through all the garbage, soon or later they will realize what the truth is and what works for them. Most people have to depend on second hand information in order to be healthy because they don't live in the wild or with nature no more. Also most don't have the money or resources to go out and conduct their own research or to know how their bodies work or what they like so they depend on research. We live in a chemicalized and artificial world to trust our so called natural body instincts. Our intellect is more developed than our instincts. Our natural instincts fail us in this modern world.


> And do what? Eat foods that my body does not want
> me to eat at times when it does not want to be
> fed?

The body will eat, whatever is available because survival comes before quality of food.

What foods does your body want you to eat? I am sure if you just listen to what your body wanted you to eat, it would include refined cane sugar, stiumlants or white bread because that garbage does taste good. We all like that stuff before we become aware of nutrition.

People have to read to know what is good for them and what is bad for them.

Did your body guide you to raw food?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2007 01:24AM by greenman.

greenman, yes, my body guided me to raw foods, then to eating lots of fruit, and there are more lessons to learn yet. It is not the sort of guiding that you have in mind. To me, being in tune with my body means being in tune with all its signals, and not only feeling the cravings for the junk foods, associated with past habits. I would be happy to explain my approach to you in detail, but this not the time or place. I will say only that my body tells me that it does not want refined sugar, stimulants or white bread, because if I eat those things, I will feel like run over by a truck. This is plenty for my mind to get the message. These days, I crave mainly fruit and tender greens. To get where I am, took some time and transition. And learning to listen to my body. And intelligence to dismiss the garbage.

Gosia


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

I am in agreement on Gosia about nutrition scientists not having a deep understanding of what health and nutrition is about.

In a recent article on coffee, this was quoted:

Quote

"Scientific evidence now suggests that moderate coffee consumption 3 to 5 cups a day may be associated with reduced risks of certain disease conditions," he says, such as Alzheimer's disease, kidney stones, depression, and others.

My personal experience of coffee is that while it made certain symptoms of my poor health disappear, over time, this effect quits working, and I was in worse shape afterwards because I hadn't made any real healthful changes in my life and the conditions for good health were not being met.

Most of the tests and research being done of "healthy" people are people I wouldn't consider healthy. In general, in our society, if a person is mobile, they will consider themselves healthy. Certainly medical science may disagree with that, because often there are measurable symptoms that can be observed if a person's health is scrutinized. However, a person may be halfway in their process to getting cancer, but if there are no symptoms, there is so scientific way to see that they are halfway there. So people do research on these questionably healthy people, determining things like proper sodium to potassium ratios based on what is being measured in these so-called healthy people, or determining things like proper zinc intake levels based on these people's diet. So if the test data to the research is garbage, there's a good chance the conclusions will also be garbage.

However, this is consider scientific. It is scientific because it can be easily reproduced. However, reproducibility of input test data, based on people who appear healthy but are halfway to getting cancer, in my opinion doesn't mean that much.

In the study about the benefits of coffe, I am pretty sure that other will be able to reproduce the results that were done in that particular study. However, by no means do I think that the conclusions are of any value.