Re: Experts urge less focus on antioxidants

[Guest guest]

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 ; ^ )))

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

wrote:

>

>

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

>

> A

>

[Guest guest]

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 ; ^ )))

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

wrote:

>

>

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

>

> A

>

[Guest guest]

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]

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]

Hi JR:

And as you will likely have noticed, I did not say: " if the source

has self interest you must ignore it " . I said if, among other

things, it does not have self interest, then do it. Which is not the

same thing in all circumstances.

Also, I would not personally apply your multiple sources requirement,

so long as my other criteria are satisfied. But, naturally, multiple

sources would be better. Nor would I require a Merry Christmas.

However, I will happily wish one to anyone who would like one. And

if that applies to you, reader, consider yourself so wished ; ^ )))

Rodney.

> >>>

> >

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

> >>> A

> >>>

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Hi JR:

And as you will likely have noticed, I did not say: " if the source

has self interest you must ignore it " . I said if, among other

things, it does not have self interest, then do it. Which is not the

same thing in all circumstances.

Also, I would not personally apply your multiple sources requirement,

so long as my other criteria are satisfied. But, naturally, multiple

sources would be better. Nor would I require a Merry Christmas.

However, I will happily wish one to anyone who would like one. And

if that applies to you, reader, consider yourself so wished ; ^ )))

Rodney.

> >>>

> >

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

> >>> A

> >>>

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >