Guest guest Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 It is my understanding massive supplimentation of synthetic Vitamin A is really bad for you. WAP recomends only a few brands out of hundreds. -Lana On 1/3/06, downwardog7 <illneverbecool@...> wrote: > " ... I do not advise cod liver oil; if you just have to take it, > don't take more than a teaspoon per day. Get your omega-3s from > molecularly distilled fish body oils (Trader Joe's) or by eating wild > salmon or sardines; get your vitamin D by taking vitamin D or by going > into the sun, or by combining both. " > > Did I miss something? Can someone explain so I understand? Why > doesn't he want us to take CLO? > B. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 > > It is my understanding massive supplimentation of synthetic Vitamin A > is really bad for you. WAP recomends only a few brands out of > hundreds. Lana, So are you saying that he is opposed to standard CLO because it is a likely source of synthetic Vit A but he would approve of the WAPF-approved brands? I didn't read any of that in his paragraph/newsletter. Has this already been discussed? B. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 Most Cod Liver Oil has no natural Vitamins A & D left in it. Synthetic vitamin A is toxic, and Synthetic Vitamin D is very poorly absorbed (it is 100x harder to absorb than Vitamin D from milkfat!, and thats an actual statistic from a study). If natural Vitamin A & D were bad for us, even in large amounts, we would not be here today cause our ancestors would have died from getting too much of those vitamins. - > > " ... I do not advise cod liver oil; if you just have to take it, > don't take more than a teaspoon per day. Get your omega-3s from > molecularly distilled fish body oils (Trader Joe's) or by eating wild > salmon or sardines; get your vitamin D by taking vitamin D or by going > into the sun, or by combining both. " > > Did I miss something? Can someone explain so I understand? Why > doesn't he want us to take CLO? > B. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 Yes , there is about a 15 post thread going on at the WAPF newsgroup On 1/3/06, downwardog7 <illneverbecool@...> wrote: > > > > > > It is my understanding massive supplimentation of synthetic Vitamin A > > is really bad for you. WAP recomends only a few brands out of > > hundreds. > > Lana, > So are you saying that he is opposed to standard CLO because it is a > likely source of synthetic Vit A but he would approve of the > WAPF-approved brands? > > I didn't read any of that in his paragraph/newsletter. > Has this already been discussed? > B. > > > > > > > <HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN " " > http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT > FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " > > <B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B> > <UL> > <LI><B><A HREF= " / " >NATIVE > NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI> > <LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire message > archive with Onibasu</LI> > </UL></FONT> > <PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A HREF= " mailto: > -owner " >LIST OWNER:</A></B> Idol > <B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer > Wanita Sears > </FONT></PRE> > </BODY> > </HTML> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 > > Yes , there is about a 15 post thread going on at the WAPF newsgroup Where is the WAPF newsgroup? or, would anyone involved in that like to post a summary here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 What I am saying is it is far easier to say " No CLO " than to educate people about synthetic vs. natural forms of vitamins. The readyness to proclaim a whole catagory bad is a concept has been the single biggest restriction in nutritional science, IMHO. For example, we all get told fats are bad by the diet dictocrats... Why? Because fast food fats have brought on an unfair reputation to home cooked fats. No one looks at the circumstances anymore, they just say " don't do that. " Why would they want to spend the money on finding the specifics when they can generalize? -Lana > Lana, > So are you saying that he is opposed to standard CLO because it is a > likely source of synthetic Vit A but he would approve of the > WAPF-approved brands? > > I didn't read any of that in his paragraph/newsletter. > Has this already been discussed? > B. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 > > What I am saying is it is far easier to say " No CLO " than to educate > people about synthetic vs. natural forms of vitamins. > > The readyness to proclaim a whole catagory bad is a concept has been > the single biggest restriction in nutritional science, IMHO. For > example, we all get told fats are bad by the diet dictocrats... Why? > Because fast food fats have brought on an unfair reputation to home > cooked fats. No one looks at the circumstances anymore, they just say > " don't do that. " Why would they want to spend the money on finding > the specifics when they can generalize? Lana, This guy was a keynote speaker at the WAPF conf. Who does he think is subscribing to his newsletter? I didn't hear him say " don't take clo " during his presentation. I heard him say, " take your clo *plus* additional vit. D to bring your total of D intake to 4000/day if you won't be out in the sun that day. Otherwise, go out in the sun and get it. " When I got home I ordered Carlson's D capsules. I'm concerned that I missed something important due to lack of focus or misinterpretation. If he thinks people shouldn't take clo because of synthetic vit A, I don't see why he wouldn't take a few words to qualify that as he is writing for a rather specialized audience. He is instead encouraging people to take fish body oils for efa's which is contrary to WAPF recommendations. I am merely confused. B. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 > > Yes , there is about a 15 post thread going on at the WAPF newsgroup , Thank you, I had been perusing that thread but apparently missed the point of it. Okay, so what I understand is that is explaining the ratios of A & D and that it is okay to take (high-vitamin) clo according to him? I also read that in a recent thread here that was initiated by you. (Thank you all for your patience.) Also, IIRC you don't take clo? What is your opinion on all this, please? B. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 This has NOTHING to do with synthetic versus natural. Obviously Cannel would have said that if that's what he meant, no? There's like an 8-billion post going on on the Chapter Leaders list. Aren't you on it ? I think there were like 40 or 50 posts made just yesterday under " Vitamin D Council Recommendation. " Chris -- Dioxins in Animal Foods: A Case For Vegetarianism? Find Out the Truth: http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 Hi : I sent out the initial post on 1 question of Cannells newsletter to NN | WAPF | GFCFNN because it seemed contrary to what I have learned from these newsgroups. I was pretty sure that Vitamin D had been discussed at the WAPF conference and there would be some opinions and/or clarifications. I think that was the only person that replied to my post. Then, someone else sent out the newsletter again and that's when the discussion took off. Honestly, I am having troubling following the responses...perhaps my science background is just not strong enough. That said, my takeaway is that Vitamin A and D taken together are questionable. I myself take quite a lot of Vitamin A and I take cod liver oil, I think I will just take them separately from now on. Regrets that I can't be of more help to you. On 1/3/06, downwardog7 <illneverbecool@...> wrote: > > > > > > Yes , there is about a 15 post thread going on at the WAPF > newsgroup > > , > > Thank you, I had been perusing that thread but apparently missed the > point of it. Okay, so what I understand is that is explaining > the ratios of A & D and that it is okay to take (high-vitamin) clo > according to him? I also read that in a recent thread here that was > initiated by you. > (Thank you all for your patience.) > > Also, IIRC you don't take clo? What is your opinion on all this, please? > B. > > > > > > > > > <HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN " " > http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT > FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " > > <B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B> > <UL> > <LI><B><A HREF= " / " >NATIVE > NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI> > <LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire message > archive with Onibasu</LI> > </UL></FONT> > <PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A HREF= " mailto: > -owner " >LIST OWNER:</A></B> Idol > <B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer > Wanita Sears > </FONT></PRE> > </BODY> > </HTML> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 On 1/3/06, S. Pritchard <vspritchard@...> wrote: > Hi : > I sent out the initial post on 1 question of Cannells newsletter to NN | > WAPF | GFCFNN because it seemed contrary to what I have learned from these > newsgroups. I was pretty sure that Vitamin D had been discussed at the WAPF > conference and there would be some opinions and/or clarifications. I think > that was the only person that replied to my post. Then, someone > else sent out the newsletter again and that's when the discussion took > off. On which list? Did I miss it? > Honestly, I am having troubling following the responses...perhaps my science > background is just not strong enough. That said, my takeaway is that Vitamin > A and D taken together are questionable. I myself take quite a lot of > Vitamin A and I take cod liver oil, I think I will just take them separately > from now on. > Regrets that I can't be of more help to you. This is a waste of your time and worry. Cannel is not saying that A and D interfere with each other's absorption, but that they antagonize each other's function. By this logic, it doesn't matter whether you take them at the same time or not. One of the abstracts he posted, the study of which I have read in full, found that the amounts resulting in the blood do not change if they are administered together or alone, meaning that they do NOT interfere with each other's absorption. The idea that vitamin A can't be taken with vitamin D is ludicrous. Vitamin D and A were initially confused because no one knew about vitamin D, and cod liver oil was being used to cure rickets. So it was thought that A was anti-rachitic. If CLO wasn't valuable as a source of D, it wouldn't have been used to cure rickets! Chris -- Dioxins in Animal Foods: A Case For Vegetarianism? Find Out the Truth: http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 > This is a waste of your time and worry. Cannel is not saying that A > and D interfere with each other's absorption, but that they antagonize > each other's function. By this logic, it doesn't matter whether you > take them at the same time or not. What does it mean that " they antagonize each other's function " ? Thanks, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 > The idea that vitamin A can't be taken with vitamin D is ludicrous. > Vitamin D and A were initially confused because no one knew about > vitamin D, and cod liver oil was being used to cure rickets. So it > was thought that A was anti-rachitic. If CLO wasn't valuable as a > source of D, it wouldn't have been used to cure rickets! > This makes sense. Do you know if Dr. Cannell has a response to this argument? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 ....This is a waste of your time and worry. Cannel is not saying that A > and D interfere with each other's absorption, but that they antagonize > each other's function. By this logic, it doesn't matter whether you > take them at the same time or not. > > One of the abstracts he posted, the study of which I have read in > full, found that the amounts resulting in the blood do not change if > they are administered together or alone, meaning that they do NOT > interfere with each other's absorption. > > The idea that vitamin A can't be taken with vitamin D is ludicrous. > Vitamin D and A were initially confused because no one knew about > vitamin D, and cod liver oil was being used to cure rickets. So it > was thought that A was anti-rachitic. If CLO wasn't valuable as a > source of D, it wouldn't have been used to cure rickets! My question is: Why is Dr. Cannell opposed to taking clo? Wait...okay, I read the linked abstracts and it appears he is warning the reader that *(too much) Vit A is a bad thing* and antagonizes--messes up--the Vit D therapy? huh? So, are you saying his assertions are ludicrous? If so, how did he he get a gig with WAPF if he's opposed to taking preformed retinols? I've emailed him but don't expect a reply anytime soon. I read your responses and I understand you to state that while high doses of vit A can indeed be antagonizing to the Vit D action, this is not so given adequate levels of D. That the cited studies used subjects with low levels of D. And you deduced this from the very studies to which he linked? Did Dr. Cannell miss this? This is kind of a big deal, no? B. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 On 1/3/06, kili94 <lm324@...> wrote: > What does it mean that " they antagonize each other's function " ? , If in vitro (not on a in tact organism), in vivo (in an in tact, living organism) animal and in vivo human evidence is taken together, vitamin D and A interact in synergistic, additive, and antagonistic ways. Synergism would be when a certain effect needs both in order to ocurr. An additive effect would be when they both have the same effect and when they are used together that effect is even greater. Antagonism would be either 1) they have opposing effects or 2) they interfere with each other's function. An example of (1) would be that vitamin A supports bone resporption and inhibits bone growth while vitamin D inhibits bone resorption and encourages bone growth. It would be a mistake to think that by " antagonism " they are canceling each other out in this scenario. Bone resorption and bone growth are part of a complimentary process called bone remodeling. So you might better call this " complimentary " than " antagonistic, " but the latter sense is important in the sense that they have to be balanced in a decent ratio because if bone resorption gets too much of an upper hand then your bones will get eaten away and shrink, and if bone growth gets too much of an upper hand they'll grow faster then they can mineralize and you'll get lots of crappy bone. If you have enough both A and D then it's juuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuust right. The fact that A lowers intestinal absorption of calcium and D raises intestinal absorption of calcium would be (1) or (2) but we really don't know because we don't know *how* it carries out that effect. Another example would be when blood cells develop from stem cells into monocytes or granulocytes, vitamin A causes them to become granulocytes and vitamin D encourages them to become monocytes, which is an example of (1), but vitamin D also binds in a complex with its receptor on the same part of the same gene as vitamin A does and nullifies A's ability to induce transcription of that gene, which is an example of (2). Chris -- Dioxins in Animal Foods: A Case For Vegetarianism? Find Out the Truth: http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 On 1/3/06, kili94 <lm324@...> wrote: > > > The idea that vitamin A can't be taken with vitamin D is ludicrous. > > Vitamin D and A were initially confused because no one knew about > > vitamin D, and cod liver oil was being used to cure rickets. So it > > was thought that A was anti-rachitic. If CLO wasn't valuable as a > > source of D, it wouldn't have been used to cure rickets! > > > > > This makes sense. Do you know if Dr. Cannell has a response to this > argument? No, as I haven't told him yet. I'm writing an article on this subject right now, so I'll probably forward him the article when it's finished rather then ask him about it now. My impression is that Dr. Cannell suddenly was introduced to these studies on A and D interactions -- or else I'd think he'd have mentioned it at the conference, and some of them are pretty new -- and frankly I don't think he's looked into it very deeply. But I don't want to spill all my beans. I want to do that in my article. Chris -- Dioxins in Animal Foods: A Case For Vegetarianism? Find Out the Truth: http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 On 1/3/06, downwardog7 <illneverbecool@...> wrote: > Why is Dr. Cannell opposed to taking clo? > > Wait...okay, I read the linked abstracts and it appears he is warning > the reader that *(too much) Vit A is a bad thing* and > antagonizes--messes up--the Vit D therapy? huh? I don't think he's studied the issue well. Antagonizes does NOT mean messes up. But it seems like he thinks it does. That means that he probably only read those abstracts, or didn't study the figures in the studies closely enough, or didn't see some of the other studies, or hasn't thought through the process of bone remodeling, etc. > So, are you saying his assertions are ludicrous? I think there is a kernel of validity but he's coming to totally wrong conclusions. > If so, how did he he > get a gig with WAPF if he's opposed to taking preformed retinols? He probably wasn't until he came across these studies recently. Besides, Noel s' whole speech was practically about the dangers of preformed retinol. Sally asked me to write an article addressing the points Noel s brought up, which I've been working on all day, which is why I probably know more about this than Dr. Cannel does at the moment. > I've emailed him but don't expect a reply anytime soon. > > I read your responses and I understand you to state that while high > doses of vit A can indeed be antagonizing to the Vit D action, this is > not so given adequate levels of D. That the cited studies used > subjects with low levels of D. And you deduced this from the very > studies to which he linked? Not entirely. The first study he posted *did* essentially find that, and the second study he posted, *did* essentially find that, and I haven't read the third yet, because the UMass library has been closed for five days but I'll get it tomorrow. But I'm also drawing this from a bunch of other studies too. > Did Dr. Cannell miss this? This is kind of a big deal, no? Dr. Cannell doesn't provide any analysis of the three studies he listed, so I have no idea what he missed and didn't miss and don't know how he got from them to " don't take cod liver oil. " Chris -- Dioxins in Animal Foods: A Case For Vegetarianism? Find Out the Truth: http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2006 Report Share Posted January 4, 2006 - > " ... I do not advise cod liver oil; if you just have to take it, >don't take more than a teaspoon per day. Get your omega-3s from >molecularly distilled fish body oils (Trader Joe's) or by eating wild >salmon or sardines; get your vitamin D by taking vitamin D or by going >into the sun, or by combining both. " > >Did I miss something? Can someone explain so I understand? Why >doesn't he want us to take CLO? Where on earth does he say this? Very strange, and a terrible idea. Is it the vitamin A he's nervous about? - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2006 Report Share Posted January 4, 2006 Lana- >What I am saying is it is far easier to say " No CLO " than to educate >people about synthetic vs. natural forms of vitamins. I'm sure that's true, but that doesn't excuse recommending plain fish oils, which will dramatically increase lipid peroxidation in the body. Just say " use CLO, but only these natural brands and no others " . - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2006 Report Share Posted January 4, 2006 Lana- >I wasn't aware fish oils were so dangerous. Years ago I tried them >but never thought they were worth anything. Fish oils are PUFA, and as such highly prone to oxidation. Introducing any PUFA to the body without the right antioxidants in adequate quantities will increase your lipid peroxide levels, which is a very bad thing in the long run. CLO with real A and D, particularly high-vitamin CLO, doesn't increase lipid peroxide levels; fish oil does. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2006 Report Share Posted January 4, 2006 FYI - Here's the " Vitamin D Council " site - where you can subscribe to Cannell's newsletter (and read archived newsletters): http://www.cholecalciferol-council.com/releases.shtml Dan > >Did I miss something? Can someone explain so I understand? Why > >doesn't he want us to take CLO? > > Where on earth does he say this? Very strange, and a terrible > idea. Is it the vitamin A he's nervous about? > > - > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2006 Report Share Posted January 4, 2006 >-----Original Message----- >From: >[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Idol > >Lana- > >>I wasn't aware fish oils were so dangerous. Years ago I tried them >>but never thought they were worth anything. > >Fish oils are PUFA, and as such highly prone to >oxidation. Introducing any PUFA to the body without the right >antioxidants in adequate quantities will increase your lipid peroxide >levels, which is a very bad thing in the long run. CLO with real A >and D, particularly high-vitamin CLO, doesn't increase lipid peroxide >levels; fish oil does. , where did you get the information that CLO doesn't increase lipid peroxide at_all? I thought it just increased it significantly LESS than fish oil? Or is that what you meant? had run across some study that found it either didn't increase it at all or significantly less, but I don't recall which! And I'm sure it wasn't done on high_vitamin CLO, so I guess it would be reasonable to assume that high vit CLO is even LESS peroxidizable due to the higher vitamin A content? Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2006 Report Share Posted January 4, 2006 Suze- >, where did you get the information that CLO doesn't increase lipid >peroxide at_all? I thought it just increased it significantly LESS than fish >oil? Or is that what you meant? had run across some study that found >it either didn't increase it at all or significantly less, but I don't >recall which! posted info indicating CLO (real-vitamin CLO, obviously) doesn't increase peroxidation at all. >And I'm sure it wasn't done on high_vitamin CLO, so I guess it >would be reasonable to assume that high vit CLO is even LESS peroxidizable >due to the higher vitamin A content? Exactly. It may be a threshold condition, in which the extra vitamins won't meaningfully alter the peroxidation of the PUFA in the CLO, but of course there are plenty of other reasons for preferring high-vitamin CLO, including the fact that we only need small amounts of omega 3s and that we need lots of A and D for a wide variety of purposes, not just protection against peroxidation. Not that that helps me any. Oddly enough, I can take an EPA supplement, but not any kind of CLO. But I'm all but unique in that regard, apparently. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2006 Report Share Posted January 4, 2006 On 1/4/06, Idol <Idol@...> wrote: > Suze- > > >, where did you get the information that CLO doesn't increase lipid > >peroxide at_all? I thought it just increased it significantly LESS than fish > >oil? Or is that what you meant? had run across some study that found > >it either didn't increase it at all or significantly less, but I don't > >recall which! > > posted info indicating CLO (real-vitamin CLO, obviously) > doesn't increase peroxidation at all. Actually one of them or two of them found it *decreased* oxidation. Other studies show the opposite but I think they all use vitamin E-deficient diets. Whereas on vitamin E-sufficient diets, all PUFA oils I've seen increase lipid peroxidation anyway and CLO either doesn't or diminishes it. > >And I'm sure it wasn't done on high_vitamin CLO, so I guess it > >would be reasonable to assume that high vit CLO is even LESS peroxidizable > >due to the higher vitamin A content? > > Exactly. It may be a threshold condition, in which the extra > vitamins won't meaningfully alter the peroxidation of the PUFA in the > CLO, but of course there are plenty of other reasons for preferring > high-vitamin CLO, including the fact that we only need small amounts > of omega 3s and that we need lots of A and D for a wide variety of > purposes, not just protection against peroxidation. Addtionally, high-vitamin CLO is for whatever reason a much better source of D proportionally. It has twice the D to A ratio of other CLOs. Chris -- Dioxins in Animal Foods: A Case For Vegetarianism? Find Out the Truth: http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2006 Report Share Posted January 4, 2006 >-----Original Message----- >From: >[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Idol > > >Suze- > >>, where did you get the information that CLO doesn't increase lipid >>peroxide at_all? I thought it just increased it significantly >LESS than fish >>oil? Or is that what you meant? had run across some study that found >>it either didn't increase it at all or significantly less, but I don't >>recall which! > >posted info indicating CLO (real-vitamin CLO, obviously) >doesn't increase peroxidation at all. EXCELLENT! I thought he had posted it to the chapterleaders list so I searched those archives in vain several days ago for his posts, but now that you indicate he posted it to NN, I just checked the archives and sure enough! The study he cited found that CLO **LOWERED** peroxides in fact! http://onibasu.com/archives/nn/75186.html This is ironic because I've been going against the crowd on one of my pet health lists recommending CLO instead of fish body oil which is widely used in the alternative pet health community. Further, one of my dogs has weak kidneys (possibly even early stage kidney failure) and someone posted telling me that fish oil is good for kidney failure and that vits A and D should not be given because these vitamins " ...from CLO can build up to toxic levels in a dog with renal failure " . Which may be true, but perhaps the relatively high doses of high vit CLO are what's actually been protecting her kidneys all along. After all she's 15 and her blood values don't indicate kidney damage at all (which is usually how kidney disease is diagnosed in dogs, along with urine values). As far as I can tell from what I've read about renal failure, the way in which fish oil has been found beneficial is simply that it lowers the inflammation producing ecosanoids by inhibiting AA production. So if the animal *already* has a balanced EFA profile (NOT pro-inflammatory to begin with) I'm not sure that fish oil would have any beneficual effects. Especially, as in the case of my Mokie, when the animal is already receiving EPA and DHA from CLO. >Not that that helps me any. Oddly enough, I can take an EPA >supplement, but not any kind of CLO. But I'm all but unique in that >regard, apparently. Huh. You always have to be different ;-) Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.