Re: Another diet: the chicken comes first

[Guest guest]

Dear Rodney:

I apologize to you and everyone else for seeming so vehemently

dismissive in the post you refer to and to cause you to go at such

lengths to make me realize that my attitude within the established

frame of this long running forum bordered on disrespect, to say

nothing of arrogance. While I hold a deep respect for science and the

curiosity, originality and intelligence of many outstanding scientific

researchers, it is not to be denied that their findings are often put

to the crass business of generating support for a medical and

nutritional paradigm which appears to many (not excluding to some in

the scientific community) as increasingly outdated, in need of serious

revision.

Let's face it, while we get hints now and the of promising

consequences to groundbreaking research, in its present state

conventional nutrition and medicine fail the grade miserably: gr.ex:

there are more cancer cases then ever before, it is even reported

(exaggeratingly?) to be the number one killer in the US! How did

things get so out of hand, that medical science can hardly even hope

to keep up? Let's think in terms of this big gloomy picture, lets hold

it as a kind of mirror against the accumulating minute data which

come of our labs and research clinics to see how well it reflects on

this true surface, in other words let's become good empiricists,

willing to consider any evidence that falls of the strictly scientific

pale, any clue that shapes intuition, and we might realize that it is

our trusting attitudes that conspire to keep us sufficiently

disengaged from the strictly ponderable to even consider that there

are chances we may be misled.

In the wakeful eye of modern science an egg is just that: an egg. Any

chicken egg will do for the purposes of cholesterol research. In

clinical research, the questionnaires just ask how many eggs did you

consume in the last 7 days? Not what kind of egg, where did you buy

it, was it an organic or a regular supermarket egg, perhaps it was a

product of bio dynamic farming, it makes no difference. It hardly

cares that these eggs might have very different amino and fatty acids

profiles

from one another, that one egg may concentrate far more healthy

substances as the end result of the whole careful process needed to

produce it than another, that its impact on human health may be

entirely different than that of the more conventional factory egg,

which may well have a noxious effect on human health. People have

eaten eggs for thousands of years and probably thrived while eating a

rather more nutrient dense version of what is commonly available today

when you have to be more careful as to what you eat.

Consider all the other so-called nominally culprit foods the same way

and you realize that science protocols have some serious blind spots

when they lead to studies that end up proving that bad food is bad for

human health. We should rather take care to improve the food itself

and not do away with it and see what a great food can do to seriously

improve human health.

Kind regards,

> > >

> > > >> However, none of you or indeed no one who has visited with some

> > regularity the more reputable nutrition sites will deny that the

> > > cholesterol hypothesis has come under much questioning in the

> last 3

> > or 4 years, most notably in the JAMA last year about that study done

> > > with post menopausal women and the effects of saturated fats on

> CHD

> > incidence in that group.

> > >

> > >

> > > Low cholesterol, mortality, and quality of life in old age during

> a

> > 39-year follow-up.

> > > Strandberg TE, Strandberg A, Rantanen K, Salomaa VV, Pitkala K,

> > Miettinen TA.

> > > Department of Medicine, Geriatric Clinic, University of Helsinki,

> > Finland. timo.strandberg@h...

> > >

> > > J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004 Sep 1;44(5):1002-8.

> > >

> > > OBJECTIVES: We assessed the impact of serum cholesterol level in

> > early midlife on total mortality during up to 39 years of follow-up

> > and on the quality of life (QoL) in old age.

> > >

> > > BACKGROUND: Total effects of low serum cholesterol on health have

> > been in dispute, especially in elderly persons, and there are few

> data

> > on the long-term effects of low cholesterol on QoL.

> > >

> > > METHODS: The cohort consisted of 3,277 healthy businessmen age 30

> to

> > 45 years at baseline (1960s). In addition to baseline, serum

> > cholesterol values were available for part of the cohort in 1974,

> > 1986, and 2000. The QoL was assessed in 80.9% of survivors (n =

> 1,820,

> > mean age 73 years) with a RAND-36 (SF-36) QoL questionnaire in 2000.

> > Mortality up to 2002 (n = 1,173) was retrieved from national

> registers.

> > >

> > > RESULTS: Cholesterol was clearly reduced in survivors during

> > follow-up, except in the lowest baseline serum cholesterol group.

> > Baseline cholesterol predicted 39-year total mortality in a graded

> > manner (p < 0.0001), and a value < or =5.0 mmol/l was associated

> with

> > a 25% reduction in total mortality. In old age, the physical

> component

> > summary score of RAND-36 was significantly (p = 0.02) higher

> (better)

> > in the lowest baseline cholesterol group; no difference was found in

> > the mental component summary score (p = 0.51).

> > >

> > > CONCLUSIONS: Low serum cholesterol level in midlife predicted not

> > only better survival but also better physical function and QoL in

> old

> > age, without adversely affecting mental QoL.

> > >

> > > PMID: 15337210 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Rodney:

I apologize to you and everyone else for seeming so vehemently

dismissive in the post you refer to and to cause you to go at such

lengths to make me realize that my attitude within the established

frame of this long running forum bordered on disrespect, to say

nothing of arrogance. While I hold a deep respect for science and the

curiosity, originality and intelligence of many outstanding scientific

researchers, it is not to be denied that their findings are often put

to the crass business of generating support for a medical and

nutritional paradigm which appears to many (not excluding to some in

the scientific community) as increasingly outdated, in need of serious

revision.

Let's face it, while we get hints now and the of promising

consequences to groundbreaking research, in its present state

conventional nutrition and medicine fail the grade miserably: gr.ex:

there are more cancer cases then ever before, it is even reported

(exaggeratingly?) to be the number one killer in the US! How did

things get so out of hand, that medical science can hardly even hope

to keep up? Let's think in terms of this big gloomy picture, lets hold

it as a kind of mirror against the accumulating minute data which

come of our labs and research clinics to see how well it reflects on

this true surface, in other words let's become good empiricists,

willing to consider any evidence that falls of the strictly scientific

pale, any clue that shapes intuition, and we might realize that it is

our trusting attitudes that conspire to keep us sufficiently

disengaged from the strictly ponderable to even consider that there

are chances we may be misled.

In the wakeful eye of modern science an egg is just that: an egg. Any

chicken egg will do for the purposes of cholesterol research. In

clinical research, the questionnaires just ask how many eggs did you

consume in the last 7 days? Not what kind of egg, where did you buy

it, was it an organic or a regular supermarket egg, perhaps it was a

product of bio dynamic farming, it makes no difference. It hardly

cares that these eggs might have very different amino and fatty acids

profiles

from one another, that one egg may concentrate far more healthy

substances as the end result of the whole careful process needed to

produce it than another, that its impact on human health may be

entirely different than that of the more conventional factory egg,

which may well have a noxious effect on human health. People have

eaten eggs for thousands of years and probably thrived while eating a

rather more nutrient dense version of what is commonly available today

when you have to be more careful as to what you eat.

Consider all the other so-called nominally culprit foods the same way

and you realize that science protocols have some serious blind spots

when they lead to studies that end up proving that bad food is bad for

human health. We should rather take care to improve the food itself

and not do away with it and see what a great food can do to seriously

improve human health.

Kind regards,

> > >

> > > >> However, none of you or indeed no one who has visited with some

> > regularity the more reputable nutrition sites will deny that the

> > > cholesterol hypothesis has come under much questioning in the

> last 3

> > or 4 years, most notably in the JAMA last year about that study done

> > > with post menopausal women and the effects of saturated fats on

> CHD

> > incidence in that group.

> > >

> > >

> > > Low cholesterol, mortality, and quality of life in old age during

> a

> > 39-year follow-up.

> > > Strandberg TE, Strandberg A, Rantanen K, Salomaa VV, Pitkala K,

> > Miettinen TA.

> > > Department of Medicine, Geriatric Clinic, University of Helsinki,

> > Finland. timo.strandberg@h...

> > >

> > > J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004 Sep 1;44(5):1002-8.

> > >

> > > OBJECTIVES: We assessed the impact of serum cholesterol level in

> > early midlife on total mortality during up to 39 years of follow-up

> > and on the quality of life (QoL) in old age.

> > >

> > > BACKGROUND: Total effects of low serum cholesterol on health have

> > been in dispute, especially in elderly persons, and there are few

> data

> > on the long-term effects of low cholesterol on QoL.

> > >

> > > METHODS: The cohort consisted of 3,277 healthy businessmen age 30

> to

> > 45 years at baseline (1960s). In addition to baseline, serum

> > cholesterol values were available for part of the cohort in 1974,

> > 1986, and 2000. The QoL was assessed in 80.9% of survivors (n =

> 1,820,

> > mean age 73 years) with a RAND-36 (SF-36) QoL questionnaire in 2000.

> > Mortality up to 2002 (n = 1,173) was retrieved from national

> registers.

> > >

> > > RESULTS: Cholesterol was clearly reduced in survivors during

> > follow-up, except in the lowest baseline serum cholesterol group.

> > Baseline cholesterol predicted 39-year total mortality in a graded

> > manner (p < 0.0001), and a value < or =5.0 mmol/l was associated

> with

> > a 25% reduction in total mortality. In old age, the physical

> component

> > summary score of RAND-36 was significantly (p = 0.02) higher

> (better)

> > in the lowest baseline cholesterol group; no difference was found in

> > the mental component summary score (p = 0.51).

> > >

> > > CONCLUSIONS: Low serum cholesterol level in midlife predicted not

> > only better survival but also better physical function and QoL in

> old

> > age, without adversely affecting mental QoL.

> > >

> > > PMID: 15337210 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

> > >

> >

>