Re: Re: Experts urge less focus on antioxidants

[Guest guest]

I didn't read the piece in question but I agree with your posted

summary. We can be at more risk from what we think we know that what we

know we don't. I won't waste bandwidth list past beliefs later disproved.

Nutrition and food interactions are extremely complex. Trying to parse

out simple harm or benefit for isolated foods and then expecting them to

not interact with other foods is perhaps wishful thinking.

I don't discount such research, only advise caution in raised

expectations from benefit available purely from dietary choice. Our well

being is the product of diet (quantity and quality with both extremely

important aspects), behavior (exercise= good, smoking= bad), and

genetics (it helps to have long lived parents).

Do what you can " but don't get hung up on the particulars " . Pursue

adjustments to your dietary patterns based on what you believe to be

true and amount of time/energy you have available to throw at this. I

hope everybody is successful in their personal pursuits but with all the

conflicting advice that doesn't seem likely.

Be well and have a Merry Christmas.

JR

Rodney wrote:

> Hi A=Z:

>

> Thanks for that piece. But does anyone here think it makes much

> sense?

>

> It summarizes by saying: " Bottom line - eat a balanced diet and

> don't get hung up on the particulars " . It sounds to me as if it

> could be interpreted to mean eat fat carbs and protein and it really

> doesn't much matter which foods you eat to get them.

>

> We all remember the balanced diet advice of the 1950s. Meat and

> potatoes mostly.

>

> How can anyone believe it makes sense to eat simply a variety of

> foods without paying attention to their individual merits, as best we

> currently understand them? While we can all agree there is a thread

> of truth in some aspects of the 'individual nutrients' issue, do we

> not all here know there is far better advice to follow than that

> offered up in that piece? RESTRICTING CALORIC INTAKE for a start.

> Eating foods (we here know which they are) that contain appreciable

> amounts of the micronutrients which: A) we know for certain we need

> and are in short supply in most foods.

>

> And how about eating foods that have been shown to help protect

> against various diseases? And of course avoiding the foods shown to

> be harmful.

>

> Certainly a huge amount remains to be discovered about nutrition.

> And much of what is already known to science, or strongly suggested

> by it, is completely unknown to the general public - most of whom do

> not care to find out about it either. Might it have been a better

> use of those column inches to communicate some of these things to the

> audience of that newspaper?

>

> It almost amounts to advising the abdication from personal

> responsibility to try to eat the foods that current evidence suggests

> are likely to preserve health. Of course most seem already to be

> following that advice, which is a major reason for the present

> incidence of chronic diseases.

>

> [Rant over]

>

> Rodney.

>

> PS: I calibrated my bathroom scale over the weekend. I weigh 1.5

> pounds less than I had been thinking I weighed ; ^ )))

>

>

>>

> http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/living/health/13384316.htm

>> A

>>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I didn't read the piece in question but I agree with your posted

summary. We can be at more risk from what we think we know that what we

know we don't. I won't waste bandwidth list past beliefs later disproved.

Nutrition and food interactions are extremely complex. Trying to parse

out simple harm or benefit for isolated foods and then expecting them to

not interact with other foods is perhaps wishful thinking.

I don't discount such research, only advise caution in raised

expectations from benefit available purely from dietary choice. Our well

being is the product of diet (quantity and quality with both extremely

important aspects), behavior (exercise= good, smoking= bad), and

genetics (it helps to have long lived parents).

Do what you can " but don't get hung up on the particulars " . Pursue

adjustments to your dietary patterns based on what you believe to be

true and amount of time/energy you have available to throw at this. I

hope everybody is successful in their personal pursuits but with all the

conflicting advice that doesn't seem likely.

Be well and have a Merry Christmas.

JR

Rodney wrote:

> Hi A=Z:

>

> Thanks for that piece. But does anyone here think it makes much

> sense?

>

> It summarizes by saying: " Bottom line - eat a balanced diet and

> don't get hung up on the particulars " . It sounds to me as if it

> could be interpreted to mean eat fat carbs and protein and it really

> doesn't much matter which foods you eat to get them.

>

> We all remember the balanced diet advice of the 1950s. Meat and

> potatoes mostly.

>

> How can anyone believe it makes sense to eat simply a variety of

> foods without paying attention to their individual merits, as best we

> currently understand them? While we can all agree there is a thread

> of truth in some aspects of the 'individual nutrients' issue, do we

> not all here know there is far better advice to follow than that

> offered up in that piece? RESTRICTING CALORIC INTAKE for a start.

> Eating foods (we here know which they are) that contain appreciable

> amounts of the micronutrients which: A) we know for certain we need

> and are in short supply in most foods.

>

> And how about eating foods that have been shown to help protect

> against various diseases? And of course avoiding the foods shown to

> be harmful.

>

> Certainly a huge amount remains to be discovered about nutrition.

> And much of what is already known to science, or strongly suggested

> by it, is completely unknown to the general public - most of whom do

> not care to find out about it either. Might it have been a better

> use of those column inches to communicate some of these things to the

> audience of that newspaper?

>

> It almost amounts to advising the abdication from personal

> responsibility to try to eat the foods that current evidence suggests

> are likely to preserve health. Of course most seem already to be

> following that advice, which is a major reason for the present

> incidence of chronic diseases.

>

> [Rant over]

>

> Rodney.

>

> PS: I calibrated my bathroom scale over the weekend. I weigh 1.5

> pounds less than I had been thinking I weighed ; ^ )))

>

>

>>

> http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/living/health/13384316.htm

>> A

>>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Not to be argumentative... but maybe just a little contrary.

Just because the source has self interest, doesn't mean it should

automatically be discounted. That is holding all beings in pretty low

regard. I agree that motivations can be a flag to double check results,

but it's probably a good idea to double check results provided by Mother

too. In many cases advocacy groups will tout real health benefits

that are no less real because they're trying to sell whatever.

Regarding foods and cancer, be careful of the dose... One could

speculate very dose dependent effects, i.e. a little could help while a

lot could hurt. This is contrary to the common human assumption that if

something is good, more is better...

Good advice but I would add;

G) Verify from multiple sources/experiments as any single source can be

confused and single experiments flawed.

H) Have a Merry Christmas

JR

Rodney wrote:

> Hi folks:

>

> Just to add a little and clarify my point on this .............

>

> While nutrition science has advanced a very long way since the stone

> age, it still has a very long way to go before we can feel that we

> know substantially all there is to know about it. Therefore much is

> uncertain. But science with each additional study, is slowly edging

> closer to the truth as time goes by.

>

> So, while many of the recommendations that seem to follow from new

> studies may in the end be proven to have been inaccurate, the

> following approach makes sense to me:

>

> If a course of action suggested by some source or other:

>

> A) Is plausible,

> Does not come from a source with an obvious self interest,

> C) Suggests a possible significant health benefit,

> D) Is very inexpensive,

> E) In not hugely inconvenient, and

> F) Cannot, if followed, be imagined to be harmful, then:

>

> DO IT!

>

> Anyway that has been my approach to things for many years and it

> seems that my choices made on the basis of such principles have been

> lucky so far. I have my fingers crossed as regards future uncertain

> health information.

>

> Therefore, for example, if I read that cloves, cinnamon and oregano

> may possibly protect against cancer I will certainly make a point of

> consuming some of them on a regular basis, while realizing that ten

> years down the road the evidence may prove the claims to be

> unfounded. The alternative - waiting for fifty years before it is

> proven beyond any shadow of doubt - doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

>

> fwiw

>

> Rodney.

>

>

>>>

> http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/living/health/13384316.htm

>>> A

>>>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Not to be argumentative... but maybe just a little contrary.

Just because the source has self interest, doesn't mean it should

automatically be discounted. That is holding all beings in pretty low

regard. I agree that motivations can be a flag to double check results,

but it's probably a good idea to double check results provided by Mother

too. In many cases advocacy groups will tout real health benefits

that are no less real because they're trying to sell whatever.

Regarding foods and cancer, be careful of the dose... One could

speculate very dose dependent effects, i.e. a little could help while a

lot could hurt. This is contrary to the common human assumption that if

something is good, more is better...

Good advice but I would add;

G) Verify from multiple sources/experiments as any single source can be

confused and single experiments flawed.

H) Have a Merry Christmas

JR

Rodney wrote:

> Hi folks:

>

> Just to add a little and clarify my point on this .............

>

> While nutrition science has advanced a very long way since the stone

> age, it still has a very long way to go before we can feel that we

> know substantially all there is to know about it. Therefore much is

> uncertain. But science with each additional study, is slowly edging

> closer to the truth as time goes by.

>

> So, while many of the recommendations that seem to follow from new

> studies may in the end be proven to have been inaccurate, the

> following approach makes sense to me:

>

> If a course of action suggested by some source or other:

>

> A) Is plausible,

> Does not come from a source with an obvious self interest,

> C) Suggests a possible significant health benefit,

> D) Is very inexpensive,

> E) In not hugely inconvenient, and

> F) Cannot, if followed, be imagined to be harmful, then:

>

> DO IT!

>

> Anyway that has been my approach to things for many years and it

> seems that my choices made on the basis of such principles have been

> lucky so far. I have my fingers crossed as regards future uncertain

> health information.

>

> Therefore, for example, if I read that cloves, cinnamon and oregano

> may possibly protect against cancer I will certainly make a point of

> consuming some of them on a regular basis, while realizing that ten

> years down the road the evidence may prove the claims to be

> unfounded. The alternative - waiting for fifty years before it is

> proven beyond any shadow of doubt - doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

>

> fwiw

>

> Rodney.

>

>

>>>

> http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/living/health/13384316.htm

>>> A

>>>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I don't think it has a lot of meat.

I'll keep eating carrots not because of betacarotene, rather the fact I looked up the stuff in carrots. And they're a cheap tasty snack.

Things that contain a lot of antioxidants, like spices, clove oil, we can't eat all that much so they're not a factor probably.

But tomatoes, broccoli, carrots, greens, green beans, are probably superfoods and not recognized (just an example). All the article says is to doubt the "superfoods" being touted.

I doubt seriously that any food or component will prevent cancer of itself, and I doubt the antioxidant theory anyway because it conflicts with the idea that ROS kills viruses and bacteria. If you look in Duke's you will find literally thousands of chemicals in plants that "fight" cancer and yet people get it.

I think that we just don't know what causes cancer, heart disease, or obesity for that matter.

Regards.

[ ] Re: Experts urge less focus on antioxidants

Hi A=Z:Thanks for that piece. But does anyone here think it makes much sense? It summarizes by saying: "Bottom line - eat a balanced diet and don't get hung up on the particulars". It sounds to me as if it could be interpreted to mean eat fat carbs and protein and it really doesn't much matter which foods you eat to get them.We all remember the balanced diet advice of the 1950s. Meat and potatoes mostly. How can anyone believe it makes sense to eat simply a variety of foods without paying attention to their individual merits, as best we currently understand them? While we can all agree there is a thread of truth in some aspects of the 'individual nutrients' issue, do we not all here know there is far better advice to follow than that offered up in that piece? RESTRICTING CALORIC INTAKE for a start. Eating foods (we here know which they are) that contain appreciable amounts of the micronutrients which: A) we know for certain we need and are in short supply in most foods. And how about eating foods that have been shown to help protect against various diseases? And of course avoiding the foods shown to be harmful.Certainly a huge amount remains to be discovered about nutrition. And much of what is already known to science, or strongly suggested by it, is completely unknown to the general public - most of whom do not care to find out about it either. Might it have been a better use of those column inches to communicate some of these things to the audience of that newspaper?It almost amounts to advising the abdication from personal responsibility to try to eat the foods that current evidence suggests are likely to preserve health. Of course most seem already to be following that advice, which is a major reason for the present incidence of chronic diseases.[Rant over]Rodney.PS: I calibrated my bathroom scale over the weekend. I weigh 1.5 pounds less than I had been thinking I weighed ; ^ )))>> http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/living/health/13384316.htm> > A>

[Guest guest]

I don't think it has a lot of meat.

I'll keep eating carrots not because of betacarotene, rather the fact I looked up the stuff in carrots. And they're a cheap tasty snack.

Things that contain a lot of antioxidants, like spices, clove oil, we can't eat all that much so they're not a factor probably.

But tomatoes, broccoli, carrots, greens, green beans, are probably superfoods and not recognized (just an example). All the article says is to doubt the "superfoods" being touted.

I doubt seriously that any food or component will prevent cancer of itself, and I doubt the antioxidant theory anyway because it conflicts with the idea that ROS kills viruses and bacteria. If you look in Duke's you will find literally thousands of chemicals in plants that "fight" cancer and yet people get it.

I think that we just don't know what causes cancer, heart disease, or obesity for that matter.

Regards.

[ ] Re: Experts urge less focus on antioxidants

Hi A=Z:Thanks for that piece. But does anyone here think it makes much sense? It summarizes by saying: "Bottom line - eat a balanced diet and don't get hung up on the particulars". It sounds to me as if it could be interpreted to mean eat fat carbs and protein and it really doesn't much matter which foods you eat to get them.We all remember the balanced diet advice of the 1950s. Meat and potatoes mostly. How can anyone believe it makes sense to eat simply a variety of foods without paying attention to their individual merits, as best we currently understand them? While we can all agree there is a thread of truth in some aspects of the 'individual nutrients' issue, do we not all here know there is far better advice to follow than that offered up in that piece? RESTRICTING CALORIC INTAKE for a start. Eating foods (we here know which they are) that contain appreciable amounts of the micronutrients which: A) we know for certain we need and are in short supply in most foods. And how about eating foods that have been shown to help protect against various diseases? And of course avoiding the foods shown to be harmful.Certainly a huge amount remains to be discovered about nutrition. And much of what is already known to science, or strongly suggested by it, is completely unknown to the general public - most of whom do not care to find out about it either. Might it have been a better use of those column inches to communicate some of these things to the audience of that newspaper?It almost amounts to advising the abdication from personal responsibility to try to eat the foods that current evidence suggests are likely to preserve health. Of course most seem already to be following that advice, which is a major reason for the present incidence of chronic diseases.[Rant over]Rodney.PS: I calibrated my bathroom scale over the weekend. I weigh 1.5 pounds less than I had been thinking I weighed ; ^ )))>> http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/living/health/13384316.htm> > A>