Re: Eating Red Meat May Increase The Risk Of Rheumatoid Arthritis

[Guest guest]

Aequalsz: how long has your " one person " experiment been going on now? How

long has the remission been? And were there any remissions previous to

this " experiment " ? If so, how long were those?

> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/12/041203092152.htm

>

> Note the following, " Studies have suggested the protective benefits of

> eating fish " ....

>

> Wife's arthritis is in complete " remission " (if that's the right

> word). Been eating at least some salmon or sardines every day. Says

> one of her fellow workers is really suffering due to the current rainy

> weather but she is having absolutely no problems whatsoever.

>

> Aequalsz

[Guest guest]

> Aequalsz: how long has your " one person " experiment been going on

now? How

> long has the remission been? And were there any remissions

previous to

> this " experiment " ? If so, how long were those?

>

>

Hello,

First of all, she had this condition for years and years (don't know

how many) and noticed " lately " that it seemed to be getting worse.

There were no previous remissions before the recent diet change. As

far as how long for the diet change, maybe a few months. Haven't

bothered to carefully record the " data " so take this " one person

experiment " for what it's worth.

Aequalsz

PS Wife has a Master's degree in chemistry however, so I consider her

a pretty credible source. :-)

[Guest guest]

--- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@e...>

wrote:

> So is it due to NOT eating " red meat " or eating fish? Could she have

eaten soy, eg?

>

Hello,

Well she has never eaten much red meat or soy, so I don't think that's

the explanation. Would have to guess that it's due to the recent

addition of fish (sardines and salmon) to her diet that's proving

beneficial. However as Francesca and others have alluded to, this

type of observation is by no means very rigorous or scientific. And

in all honesty I should mention that just yesterday she noted that she

had a small arthritis discomfort from another storm system, so is not

completely cured. But absolutely much improved. I(her and)MHO.

Aequals

[Guest guest]

>

>

> Hello,

>

> Well she has never eaten much red meat or soy, so I don't think that's

> the explanation. Would have to guess that it's due to the recent

> addition of fish (sardines and salmon) to her diet that's proving

> beneficial. However as Francesca and others have alluded to, this

> type of observation is by no means very rigorous or scientific. And

> in all honesty I should mention that just yesterday she noted that she

> had a small arthritis discomfort from another storm system, so is not

> completely cured. But absolutely much improved. I(her and)MHO.

>

> Aequals

" However as Francesca and others have alluded to, this

type of observation is by no means very rigorous or scientific. "

Hello,

Actually I trust this observation more than I do some of the

scientific studies where the researchers use questionnaires to get

their data and then use some kind of multivariate back solution to

determine what caused what. Anyone ever tried to do this type of

analysis? Small changes in the data can have large affects on the

outcome or result. Kind of like trying to unscramble a scrambled egg

and determine what the original form was. Probably why they keep

changing their opinions every few years on what is healthy and what is

not. Plus sometimes I suspect, a lot of these studies are just

sophisticated con jobs to sell the public whatever. Just my jaded but

honest point of view.

Aequalsz

[Guest guest]

Hi Aequalsz:

It seems to me that these types of anecdotal evidence can he very

helpful ****WHEN****:

1) They are known for certain to come from an honest unbiased source

(I am quite sure you did not join this board to wait for six months

before laying a con-job on us!!! ............ but I would not say

that about everyone who has ever posted here, LOL.)

2) The person making the recommendation does not gain financially

from the promotion of the 'cure'.

3) The 'cure' is easy to find and very inexpensive to try.

4) There are no imaginable 'risks' associated with trying the 'cure'.

Then, if it works, WONDERFUL. But if, as one should expect, it

doesn't (everyone is different, and no doubt there are many

different variants of many diseases, with different causes/fixes),

then nothing is lost.

It is a bit like 's allergy. If yer want to find the

cause/fix, then yer have to experiment. But not on the advice of

someone who gives all the appearances of being a snake oil salesman.

jmo, fwiw.

Rodney.

--- In , " aequalsz " <aequalsz@y...>

wrote:

>

>

> >

> >

> > Hello,

> >

> > Well she has never eaten much red meat or soy, so I don't think

that's

> > the explanation. Would have to guess that it's due to the recent

> > addition of fish (sardines and salmon) to her diet that's proving

> > beneficial. However as Francesca and others have alluded to, this

> > type of observation is by no means very rigorous or scientific.

And

> > in all honesty I should mention that just yesterday she noted

that she

> > had a small arthritis discomfort from another storm system, so is

not

> > completely cured. But absolutely much improved. I(her and)MHO.

> >

> > Aequals

>

> " However as Francesca and others have alluded to, this

> type of observation is by no means very rigorous or scientific. "

>

> Hello,

>

> Actually I trust this observation more than I do some of the

> scientific studies where the researchers use questionnaires to get

> their data and then use some kind of multivariate back solution to

> determine what caused what. Anyone ever tried to do this type of

> analysis? Small changes in the data can have large affects on the

> outcome or result. Kind of like trying to unscramble a scrambled

egg

> and determine what the original form was. Probably why they keep

> changing their opinions every few years on what is healthy and what

is

> not. Plus sometimes I suspect, a lot of these studies are just

> sophisticated con jobs to sell the public whatever. Just my jaded

but

> honest point of view.

>

> Aequalsz

[Guest guest]

Hi all,

Well, than, how about:

" Rheumatol Int. 2003 Jan;23(1):27-36. Epub 2002 Sep 06.

Anti-inflammatory effects of a low arachidonic acid diet and fish

oil in

patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Adam O, Beringer C, Kless T, Lemmen C, Adam A, Wiseman M, Adam P,

Klimmek R,

Forth W.

BACKGROUND: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) improve on a

vegetarian diet

or supplementation with fish oil. We investigated the effects of both

dietary

measures, alone and in combination, on inflammation, fatty acid

composition of

erythrocyte lipids, eicosanoids, and cytokine biosynthesis in

patients with RA.

METHODS: Sixty-eight patients with definitive RA were matched into

two groups of

34 subjects each. One group was observed for 8 months on a normal

western diet

(WD) and the other on an anti-inflammatory diet (AID) providing an

arachidonic

acid intake of less than 90 mg/day. Patients in both groups were

allocated to

receive placebo or fish oil capsules (30 mg/kg body weight) for 3

months in a

double-blind crossover study with a 2-month washout period between

treatments.

Clinical examination and routine laboratory findings were evaluated

every month,

and erythrocyte fatty acids, eicosanoids, and cytokines were

evaluated before

and after each 3-month experimental period. RESULTS: Sixty patients

completed

the study. In AID patients, but not in WD patients, the numbers of

tender and

swollen joints decreased by 14% during placebo treatment. In AID

patients, as

compared to WD patients, fish oil led to a significant reduction in

the numbers

of tender (28% vs 11%) and swollen (34% vs 22%) joints (P<0.01).

Compared to

baseline levels, higher enrichment of eicosapentaenoic acid in

erythrocyte

lipids (244% vs 217%) and lower formation of leukotriene B(4) (34% vs

8%,

P>0.01), 11-dehydro-thromboxane B(2) (15% vs 10%, P<0.05), and

prostaglandin

metabolites (21% vs 16%, P<0.003) were found in AID patients,

especially when

fish oil was given during months 6-8 of the experiment. CONCLUSION: A

diet low

in arachidonic acid ameliorates clinical signs of inflammation in

patients with

RA and augments the beneficial effect of fish oil supplementation.

PMID: 12548439 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] "

--- In , " aequalsz " <aequalsz@y...>

wrote:

>

>

> >

> >

> > Hello,

> >

> > Well she has never eaten much red meat or soy, so I don't think

that's

> > the explanation. Would have to guess that it's due to the recent

> > addition of fish (sardines and salmon) to her diet that's proving

> > beneficial. However as Francesca and others have alluded to, this

> > type of observation is by no means very rigorous or scientific.

And

> > in all honesty I should mention that just yesterday she noted

that she

> > had a small arthritis discomfort from another storm system, so is

not

> > completely cured. But absolutely much improved. I(her and)MHO.

> >

> > Aequals

>

> " However as Francesca and others have alluded to, this

> type of observation is by no means very rigorous or scientific. "

>

> Hello,

>

> Actually I trust this observation more than I do some of the

> scientific studies where the researchers use questionnaires to get

> their data and then use some kind of multivariate back solution to

> determine what caused what. Anyone ever tried to do this type of

> analysis? Small changes in the data can have large affects on the

> outcome or result. Kind of like trying to unscramble a scrambled

egg

> and determine what the original form was. Probably why they keep

> changing their opinions every few years on what is healthy and what

is

> not. Plus sometimes I suspect, a lot of these studies are just

> sophisticated con jobs to sell the public whatever. Just my jaded

but

> honest point of view.

>

> Aequalsz

[Guest guest]

Hi Francesca:

I see your point. But for me that would depend on the circumstances.

Let me suggest a circumstance: suppose I were to be told that I was

suffering some health ailment, either serious (potentially terminal)

or seriously inconvenient (arthritis would likely qualify). And

suppose I had gotten all the advice and the treatments that were

advocated by the medical profession and none of them were effective.

Would I just give up and let things take their course? Not me, lol.

That would make sense if medicine was a department of science which

was now fully understood, and everyone agreed there was no more to be

learned. But of course it isn't. So if I were ill I would try a

number of different approaches to solving the problem.

One of those approaches would be to listen to others I have reason to

trust who believe they may have relieved/improved/cured an illness

that showed similar symptoms to mine. And if the 'cure' satisfied

the criteria I listed, then even if there was no known evidence that

it ought to work (if there was evidence that it worked, presumably a

medical professional would already have prescribed it to me), I would

still try it, expecting it to have no effect.

The issue seems to me to be to avoid being conned by someone offering

advice who has no evidence and stands to gain significantly

(especially financially) by my taking his advice.

Among the other things I would do if I was in Aequalsz's wife's

situation would be to try to pin down the ingredient responsible for

the apparent success. After finding remission of symptoms from

eating fish I would stop eating fish long enough to see the symptoms

coming back and then take fish oil capsules to see if they worked

equally well. If they do then that would appear to be the answer.

If not then I would stop taking the fish oil and start taking vitamin

D (which fish contains a lot of) and see if that was the key

ingredient. If not then I might try different parts of the fish

(skin for example, bones in the case of canned salmon or

sardines ....... ) and see if any of them worked.

After doing all this I would take my conclusions to my physician,

tell him the story, and ask who at the arthritis foundation I should

contact with this information about the treatment that " appears to

work for the condition I have " . (You will likely get a better

introduction with your family physician's recommendation).

There are probably thousands of such 'cures' that are sitting around

waiting to be discovered. Some of them are probably in use by a few

people today who tripped over them by accident, found they worked and

use them, but didn't think to tell anyone. The 'vitamin D for

diabetes prevention' revelation recently, if confirmed, indicates

that there is a huge amount more to be discovered about simple

solutions for preventing/curing difficult diseases. The revelations

in the past ten years about the multiple benefits of aspirin is

another example. Antibiotics for stomach ulcers is another.

Indeed, most of us here would agree, I think, that many of the older

among us are alive today because of the foods we have been eating (or

refrained from eating) for years in the belief they will benefit our

health. For example, I eat fish almost every day. Perhaps if I

didn't eat fish I would have the type of arthritis that Aequalsz's

wife has. The only reason I don't, perhaps, is because I eat fish.

Unless Aequalz's wife is unique on the planet, among all those who do

eat fish worldwide, presumably there are large numbers (millions?)

who do not have arthritis only because of the fish they eat, AND

DON'T EVEN KNOW IT!!!

So, for me at least, if I became seriously sick, I would pursue the

issue with great enthusiasm, in the effort to find a good solution.

But I realize I may not succeed. I would have to be lucky to trip

over the answer. And most certainly the least likely place to find

such an answer would be from someone promoting an expensive magic

cure unsupported by any scientific evidence where he stood to benefit

financially from my participation.

Just my take. (Yes, I know, copyright JW ; ^ ))))

Rodney.