RE: Re: Br J Cancer 2005 May 9;92(9)

[Guest guest]

I wouldn't jump to conclusions. There's too much we don't know about

nutrients and why/how they work.

on 5/6/2005 8:58 PM, Rodney at perspect1111@... wrote:

> Hi Al:

>

> Interesting studies. Thank you. And presumably the benefit of the

> whole grains against colon cancer is not derived from the endosperm

> (something probably everyone here can agree with!).

>

> So it is either the bran or the germ.

>

> Most probably the bran. Including oat bran, rice bran,

> psyllium, ...........etc..

[Guest guest]

--- oc9 <crsg@...> wrote:

>

> If increased consumption of whole grains results in decreased

> consumption of animal protein, this is consistent. Lower cholesterol

> would also be consistent with lower consumption of animal protein.

>

Hi All,

I disagree.

The original post said:

" ^a Multivariate RRs were adjusted for age, body mass index (quartiles),

education

(less than high school, high school, or university), total energy intake

(continuous), and quartiles of intakes of saturated fat, calcium, red meat,

fruits,

and vegetables. "

> " The China Study " is critical of the results reported from the

> (Framingham?) Nurses Study for similar reasons - because they are

> typically consuming even more animal protein than the US average.

> Since they (Nurses study and the Japanese one mentioned) are

> epidemiological studies, you take whatever the data gives you, but it

> does not necessarily cover the whole range of possible overall diet

> choices.

It was a well-done 14+ year prospective study. This is good, I believe. A

randomized control experiment can not be done.

The nurses were highly health-conscious.

Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@...

Discover

Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out!

http://discover./online.html

[Guest guest]

>>The nurses were highly health-conscious.

They must have been " rare " nurses.

I dont see the nursing population as particularly health conscious. My

personal experience is the opposite. They tend to be overweight or obese, eat

lots of convenience junk and are inactive. Several analysis of the 'nurses

study " has shown that on average their diet is not high in fiber, and low in

fruits and vegetables and whole grains.

Do you have different data? or what do you base your conclusion on?

Thanks

jeff

[Guest guest]

Here is our file: THE BENEFITS OF GRAINS:

/message/13831

/message/13791

/message/9160

/message/7110

/message/5883

This paper posted by Al Pater discusses the reduced risk of chronic disease

when eating whole grains:

/message/5017

This includes some (not all) past posts on the benefits of grains.

on 5/7/2005 6:50 PM, Rodney at perspect1111@... wrote:

> Hi Al:

>

> It is also interesting that the relative risks for colon cancer seem

> to drop off sharply only, really, at the highest intake level. The

> relative risk was reported to be a lot lower at the highest 5.0

> servings a day than it was at a, fairly large, 3.7 servings. A much

> bigger drop than the drop from zero servings to 3.7 servings.

>

> I see that table 2 says that whole grains still appear to be

> significant after adjusting for the other beneficial factors. Which

> suggests my post questioning whether the whole grains truly were

> responsible, may not be valid.

>

> Rodney.

>

[Guest guest]

--- Jeff Novick <jnovick@...> wrote:

> >>The nurses were highly health-conscious.

>

> They must have been " rare " nurses.

>

> I dont see the nursing population as particularly health conscious. My

personal

> experience is the opposite. They tend to be overweight or obese, eat lots of

> convenience junk and are inactive. Several analysis of the 'nurses study "

has

> shown that on average their diet is not high in fiber, and low in fruits and

> vegetables and whole grains.

>

> Do you have different data? or what do you base your conclusion on?

Hi All,

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstra\

ct & list_uids=15645490

Table I. Age-Standardized Prevalence of Potential Endometrial Cancer Risk

Factors by

Smoking Status Among Women in the Nurses' Health Study, 1988

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Never smokers Past smokers Current smokers

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Age (years)1 54 54 54

Age first smoked (years)1 19 19

Pack-years1 16 36

Smoking duration (years)1 18 34

Smoked > 25 cigarettes/day2 17% 26%

Time since quit (years)1 15

Body mass index (kg/m2)1 25.7 25.8 24.6

Body mass index > 30 16% 16% 10%

Age at menarche (years)1 12.6 12.6 12.5

Nulliparous 7% 7% 7%

Parity (among parous)1 3.1 3.1 3.1

Ever used oral contraceptives 46% 50% 50%

Postmenopausal 56% 58% 63%

Age at menopause (years) 49.7 49.4 48.4

Past PMH use3 12% 14% 13%

Current PMH use3 27% 29% 21%

Estrogen only use4 20% 17% 26%

Estrogen/progesterone or progesterone only use4 62% 63% 57%

Hypertension 25% 26% 24%

Diabetes 4% 4% 4%

-----------------------------------------------

Directly standardized to the age distribution of the study population in 1988.

1 Mean values.

2 Last amount before quitting for past smokers.

3 Among postmenopausal women only.

4 Among current PMH users only.

Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@...

__________________________________

Mobile

Take with you! Check email on your mobile phone.

http://mobile./learn/mail

[Guest guest]

Fiber intake, as reported several times in their data, as well as fruit and

vegetable intake, is low amongst these nurses. The highest quintile doesnt meet

the bare minimum recommendations of 25 grams, or even come close to the 35-50

that some health organizations recommend. Fruit and vegetable intake was also

low, (i dont have the reference handy, but will post if you want) and the

difference between the lowest and highest quintile was so small there was hardly

any variance and both were about half of the recommendations at the time, which

have about doubled since than. Off hand I beleive it was around 1-2 serving of

fruit and 1-2 serving of veggies a day.

Nurses' Health Study. Fuchs et al. (1999) Energy-adjusted total DF intake- 9.8 g

DF/d (lowest quintile), 24.9 g DF/d (highest quintile).

So, either they have figured out how to achieve high health on a low fiber, and

low fruit and vegetable intake, or somethings amiss. And, considering the data

is all self reported, my guess is the actual numbers are lower than reported, in

regard to fiber, fruit and vegetable, which has been pointed out in several

critiques of their data.

Regards

Jeff