Re: the claims of Weston Price

[Guest guest]

: It would be helpful if you would cite the scientific studies that

back up your claims. Our group believes in hard science such as Walford's

experiments, which have been replicated by other scientists and published in

reputable journals. Your only reference is to Weston Price and his

associates (who I understand is a dentist and who does not seem to have any

standing whatsoever in the scientific community). Please refrain from

stating things as fact unless you have actual references to back them up,

such as links to scientific studies. Telling us to " read a book " written

by someone we never heard of and whose pocket we don't care to enrich just

doesn't cut it. It strikes many of us as quackery.

on 6/12/2003 1:34 AM, Anton at bwp@... wrote:

>> What is it that YOU don't like about cholesterol drugs? Do they not

> work? Are they harmful? Do they decrease MI's? Do they decrease

> stokes?

>

>

> my understanding is:

>

> side effects + zero benefits + unethical marketing =

>

> bad medicine + rich pharmaceutical corporations

>

>

> i think the bottom line with cholesterol is that is has no causal

> relationship to coronary heart disease, and so lowering it (just LDL

> or both) has no benefit at all. it's a convenient scapegoat for the

> poorly understood actual causes of arterial damage. (oxidized fats?

> homocysteine? oxidized cholesterol? something else?) anyone who

> takes cholesterol-lowering medicine is a victim of what strikes me as

> the biggest public information scandal of the 20th century. what's

> more, cholesterol is actually a valuable substance for

> humans and there's a risk in having too little!

> here's a somewhat humorous but also chillingly serious little article

> called " cholesterol theory wipes out human race " :

> http://westonaprice.org/press/press_040902.html

> rhetorical effect aside, there's plenty of hard science to back this

> up. the ravnskov book is highly recommended.

>

> Mike

>

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, Francesca Skelton wrote:

> : It would be helpful if you would cite the scientific studies that

> back up your claims. Our group believes in hard science such as Walford's

> experiments, which have been replicated by other scientists and published in

> reputable journals. Your only reference is to Weston Price and his

> associates (who I understand is a dentist and who does not seem to have any

> standing whatsoever in the scientific community). Please refrain from

> stating things as fact unless you have actual references to back them up,

> such as links to scientific studies. Telling us to " read a book " written

> by someone we never heard of and whose pocket we don't care to enrich just

> doesn't cut it. It strikes many of us as quackery.

you'll note that the WAPF site has hundreds of references to scientific

studies. i've made virtually no reference to WAP, but rather articles

written by other people citing scientific studies that happen to be on a

website that carries the WAP name. " WAP " is just a name, and WAP is just

a guy who inspired people who synthesize their own viewpoints using his

extensive ethnographic data among other sources; judge the content

for yourself. WAP was a nutritional anthropologist; i think you'll

find he's held in great esteem in that scientific community.

(by the way, i don't think there is such a thing as " the scientific

community " . there are hundreds of scientific communities, but no single,

unified, overarching, monolithic scientific community. the content and

quality of any discourse, scientific or otherwise, has to be evaluated on

a case-by-case basis. any comfort in labelling something according to

general methodology is illusory.) for what it's worth (probably not

much), i'm a scientist myself by vocation, and need little introduction to

issues of methodology.

you're welcome to read Ravnskov's journal articles or other

journal articles he cites instead of his book, or you're welcome to use

interlibrary loan instead of buying it, or you're welcome to ignore it

entirely and place your faith in low-fat gurus and government agencies

without evaluating the evidence for yourself. if you're interested in a

topic, i'm not sure if not having heard of someone before is a very

compelling reason to not to read a book on that topic filled with

extensive scientific documentation.

someone else's claims are nothing more than an opportunity for you to

question or verify your own. the more claims you are exposed to, the

more chances you have to obtain more data about the source and quality of the

claims, which strengthens the plausibility of your own conclusions.

i would kindly suggest a recalibration of your quackery detector.

mike parker

[Guest guest]

I like to use plain logic, as in, I don't have to read any quackery if it's plain logic that I don't have to eat something my body makes - like cholesterol. Keep the scientific difference between ingested stuff and serum stuff - they're not the same. The :"scientific studies" and library books don't do it for me - too much chaff. Too much rhetoric, too much philosophy and not enough smarts.

Regards

----- Original Message -----

From: Anton

Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 8:54 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] the claims of Weston Price

you're welcome to read Ravnskov's journal articles or otherjournal articles he cites instead of his book, or you're welcome to useinterlibrary loan instead of buying it, or you're welcome to ignore itentirely and place your faith in low-fat gurus and government agencieswithout evaluating the evidence for yourself. if you're interested in atopic, i'm not sure if not having heard of someone before is a verycompelling reason to not to read a book on that topic filled withextensive scientific documentation.someone else's claims are nothing more than an opportunity for you toquestion or verify your own. the more claims you are exposed to, themore chances you have to obtain more data about the source and quality of theclaims, which strengthens the plausibility of your own conclusions.i would kindly suggest a recalibration of your quackery detector.mike parker

[Guest guest]

" I don't have to read any quackery if it's plain logic that I don't

have to eat something my body makes "

Then all you really need are EFAs and protein. The question is not

whether cholesterol is essential for life (as acquired by food) but

whether consuming it is healthy/unhealthy and if so, to what extent.

-

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, paultheo2000 wrote:

> " I don't have to read any quackery if it's plain logic that I don't

> have to eat something my body makes "

>

> Then all you really need are EFAs and protein.

and a few dozen other micronutrients...

> The question is not

> whether cholesterol is essential for life (as acquired by food) but

> whether consuming it is healthy/unhealthy and if so, to what extent.

that is precisely the question indeed! thanks for pointing this out,

paul.

mike parker

[Guest guest]

And just to try to complete the picture since you brought up EFA's, Modern Nutrition, 9th edition, 1999, pg 82 points out that the EFA's can be made from 16:2 and 16:3 in greens. Those aren't even listed in the USDA db. Could be we get them from other stuff too maybe even cows that eat greens. Ref is Cunnane, SC, Lipids, 1995;30:781-3. EFA deficiency is, of course, a clinical thing.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Anton

Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 10:48 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: the claims of Weston Price

On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, paultheo2000 wrote:> " I don't have to read any quackery if it's plain logic that I don't> have to eat something my body makes">> Then all you really need are EFAs and protein.and a few dozen other micronutrients...> The question is not> whether cholesterol is essential for life (as acquired by food) but> whether consuming it is healthy/unhealthy and if so, to what extent.that is precisely the question indeed! thanks for pointing this out,paul.mike parker

[Guest guest]

Getting EFAs from dark leafy vegetables would require enormous

quantities, would it not? Would you happen to know the assimilation

rates of these EFA's and how well the body converts them into EPA and DHA?

-

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

No, I don't, and I don't know where to get them either. Would be interesting.

Most scientists assume that we absorb everything we eat and of course that's not

true.

Healthy people require no dietary EPA or DHA, but there is always the assumption

that we don't know what our bodies are doing. I don't sample my fat to see if it

has a lot of AA, but I can tell you I no longer turn red with niacin, maybe a

little warm after a fatty meal. EPA limits the production of AA. BUT AA is

absorbed 20x faster from ingested meats, than it's made, - I conclude I should

rule out meats rather than eat EPA, eg. In any case it doesn't tale a lot of

EPA, so why not take a gram of fish oil, WTH?

It only takes 1 tbls of soy oil to get 2 gms of the EFA 18:3.

BTW, looking into niacin metabolism I discovered the AA is converted to PGD2

then dehydrated to PGJ2 which has anticancer properties:

Chapter 233 PROSTAGLANDINS AND RELATED COMPOUNDS* *

Goldman: Cecil Textbook of Medicine, 21st ed., Copyright © 2000 W. B. Saunders

Company,

THE CYCLOOXYGENASE PATHWAY

" The initial oxygenation of arachidonic acid that ultimately leads to the

formation of thromboxane A2 (TxA2 ), prostacyclin (PGI2 ), prostaglandin E2

(PGE2 ), PGF2alpha , and PGD2 is catalyzed by the enzyme fatty acid

cyclooxygenase (Fig. 233-2). "

pg 1190

" PROSTAGLANDIN J2 .

PGJ2 is a non-enzymatically formed dehydration product of PGD2 . Delta 12-PGJ2

has been found to inhibit tumor cell growth via induction of apoptosis and

suppression of the c- myc gene and to modulate macrophage function. It appears

that these effects result from stimulation of the peroxisome

proliferator-activated receptor gamma, but the significance of these

pharmacologic effects is uncertain. "

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: paultheo2000

Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 5:28 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: the claims of Weston Price

Getting EFAs from dark leafy vegetables would require enormous

quantities, would it not? Would you happen to know the assimilation

rates of these EFA's and how well the body converts them into EPA and DHA?

-