Re: Thoughts on macronutrients by Fallon and Enig

[Guest guest]

: we've already gone into Weston Price in previous posts. Isn't he the

dentist turned self-proclaimed nutritionist-scientist? I have concerns

about anyone who dismisses Ornish, a brilliant man who has led the way in

reversing heart disease in humans and who is highly espected by mainstream

science. Some of the references Price uses are his own previous writings.

As we've mentioned to you before, these are fringe people, advocating

radical ideas which have so far been unproven and unaccepted by mainstream

scientists. Let's stick to reputable journals and proven science.

on 8/18/2003 8:11 AM, paultheo2000 at paultheo2000@... wrote:

> I stumbled over this article on another message board and I've found

> it extraordinarily interesting. I would love to hear the thoughts of

> the people on this group. It's unfortunate that some sections are

> slightly offensive but there was some really shocking information in

> there that I'd love to hear comments on.

>

> http://www.westonaprice.org/nutrition_guidelines/macronutrientland.html

>

> Note: If you don't want to read the whole thing, she talks about CRON

> and CR further down.

>

> Cheers,

>

> -

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi,

Weston Price is not the person writing these articles. He was a

dentist and he did invaluable research on primitive populations.

Walford is probably vastly criticized by mainstream science which is

unfortunate but why are you so quick to lay judgment on Fallon, Enig

and Price? It seems like you're applying the same bias/predjudice.

For example, if it's true that these CR mice are being fed less corn

oil and sucrose...it would make perfect sense that they live longer.

That seems to have no applicability to humans!

I'm saddened that you won't even consider these articles, and if the

opposite point of view is not appreciated here, I'll desist from

posting them. I did think this was a place to share (sometimes

opposing) viewpoints, but apparantly it only serves to strengthen

whatever bias we've already imprinted ourselves with.

-

>

> > I stumbled over this article on another message board and I've found

> > it extraordinarily interesting. I would love to hear the thoughts of

> > the people on this group. It's unfortunate that some sections are

> > slightly offensive but there was some really shocking information in

> > there that I'd love to hear comments on.

> >

> >

http://www.westonaprice.org/nutrition_guidelines/macronutrientland.html

> >

> > Note: If you don't want to read the whole thing, she talks about CRON

> > and CR further down.

> >

> > Cheers,

> >

> > -

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Hi Suz,

Thanks for your reply. I don't believe she advocates a specific

macronutrient ratio. I believe her point was that as long as we take

proper care of our food, get it from good sources the ratios don't

really matter. Of course she stresses that we need plenty of fat.

Carbohydrates are fine but if you find yourself being overweight it

might be a good idea to cut down.

What I found shocking was learning that these tested mice were fed

corn oil, sucrose, etc. If this is true...I don't know what kind of

faith we can place in these results. It seems the take home message

would be: eat less vegetable oil, refined flour and sugar to live

longer, not necessarily cutting all calories.

Cheers,

-

> Hi ,

>

> This article is interesting. I think this is why this list

maintains a " moderate " stance in CR. I chuckled when I read her

description of the " CRONies, " because yes, some (not all) of the

extreme practitioners display just the characteristics that she

describes. (I thought it might be that personality type was attracted

to CRON--but more likely Fallon/Enig have it right.) Of course some

of these CRONies, which the article describes, see our group as being

a " watered down " version of CR, and yet our mindset is exactly what

Dr. Walford urges us to acquire. (He told me so himself...in person!)

CR should be a natural part of our daily routine, not an extreme

obcession that ruins our lives emotionally, as well as physically.

>

> So I will say again, keep your mind open, watch your calories

(you're young) and continue to do the best you know how with regard to

" ON, " bearing in mind that " ON " is a work in progress.

>

> Keep it simple. There's a huge sign I love in the gym where I

train. Says, " Moderation is the key to CONTINUED success. "

>

> Suz

> What macro-nutrient ratios do Fallon/Enig recommend? I read the

whole of the article too quickly to find that info. Thanks.

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: paultheo2000

>

> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 5:11 AM

> Subject: [ ] Thoughts on macronutrients by Fallon and

Enig

>

>

> I stumbled over this article on another message board and I've found

> it extraordinarily interesting. I would love to hear the thoughts of

> the people on this group. It's unfortunate that some sections are

> slightly offensive but there was some really shocking information in

> there that I'd love to hear comments on.

>

>

http://www.westonaprice.org/nutrition_guidelines/macronutrientland.html

>

> Note: If you don't want to read the whole thing, she talks about CRON

> and CR further down.

>

> Cheers,

>

> -

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

This article is interesting. I think this is why this list maintains a "moderate" stance in CR. I chuckled when I read her description of the "CRONies," because yes, some (not all) of the extreme practitioners display just the characteristics that she describes. (I thought it might be that personality type was attracted to CRON--but more likely Fallon/Enig have it right.) Of course some of these CRONies, which the article describes, see our group as being a "watered down" version of CR, and yet our mindset is exactly what Dr. Walford urges us to acquire. (He told me so himself...in person!) CR should be a natural part of our daily routine, not an extreme obcession that ruins our lives emotionally, as well as physically.

So I will say again, keep your mind open, watch your calories (you're young) and continue to do the best you know how with regard to "ON," bearing in mind that "ON" is a work in progress.

Keep it simple. There's a huge sign I love in the gym where I train. Says, "Moderation is the key to CONTINUED success."

Suz

What macro-nutrient ratios do Fallon/Enig recommend? I read the whole of the article too quickly to find that info. Thanks.

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

From: paultheo2000

Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 5:11 AM

Subject: [ ] Thoughts on macronutrients by Fallon and Enig

I stumbled over this article on another message board and I've foundit extraordinarily interesting. I would love to hear the thoughts ofthe people on this group. It's unfortunate that some sections areslightly offensive but there was some really shocking information inthere that I'd love to hear comments on. http://www.westonaprice.org/nutrition_guidelines/macronutrientland.htmlNote: If you don't want to read the whole thing, she talks about CRONand CR further down.Cheers, -

[Guest guest]

: This is all under the auspices of the Weston Price Foundation and the

same old people that have caused previous controversy on this list. Ornish

is being called an " extremist " and this is ridiculous nonsense. He did

advocate an extremely low fat diet but only to reverse coronary artery

disease already present in very sick patients. He revolutionized the diet

industry much as Walford did. Today he has a moderate stance on fats (for

normal disease free patients). So this article doesn't have much

credibility with me.

Why do you keep persisting in trying to post from these self-proclamed

" gurus' again and again? Are you affiliated with them in some way?

I suggest we move on. If you have any verifications of these ideas by

REPUTABLE scientists with the kind of credentials that are accepted in the

scientific community and peer reviewed, then by all means, post THOSE, When

we have greats like Walford, Ornish, Weil and others who have researched and

established breakthroughs accepted by their peers and the scientific

community, why should we listen to those who have not proven themselves

(except through self-promotion)?

on 8/18/2003 10:04 AM, paultheo2000 at paultheo2000@... wrote:

> Hi,

>

> Weston Price is not the person writing these articles. He was a

> dentist and he did invaluable research on primitive populations.

> Walford is probably vastly criticized by mainstream science which is

> unfortunate but why are you so quick to lay judgment on Fallon, Enig

> and Price? It seems like you're applying the same bias/predjudice.

>

> For example, if it's true that these CR mice are being fed less corn

> oil and sucrose...it would make perfect sense that they live longer.

> That seems to have no applicability to humans!

>

> I'm saddened that you won't even consider these articles, and if the

> opposite point of view is not appreciated here, I'll desist from

> posting them. I did think this was a place to share (sometimes

> opposing) viewpoints, but apparantly it only serves to strengthen

> whatever bias we've already imprinted ourselves with.

>

> -

>

>

>>

>>> I stumbled over this article on another message board and I've found

>>> it extraordinarily interesting. I would love to hear the thoughts of

>>> the people on this group. It's unfortunate that some sections are

>>> slightly offensive but there was some really shocking information in

>>> there that I'd love to hear comments on.

>>>

>>>

> http://www.westonaprice.org/nutrition_guidelines/macronutrientland.html

>>>

>>> Note: If you don't want to read the whole thing, she talks about CRON

>>> and CR further down.

>>>

>>> Cheers,

>>>

>>> -

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>

[Guest guest]

> : we've already gone into Weston Price in previous posts.

> Isn't he the dentist turned self-proclaimed nutritionist-

> scientist? I have concerns about anyone who dismisses Ornish, a

> brilliant man who has led the way in reversing heart disease in

> humans and who is highly espected by mainstream science. Some of

> the references Price uses are his own previous writings.

*****Me too. As I've mention before, the big thing that I found

troubling about the Weston Price site and the articles written by

their " core " researchers, Fallon and Enig, is the *tone* of their

writings. They " sound " - to this ear - bellicose, hostile, angry -

and that is something that I find distrustful. I've always felt that

the tone of such writings will be calm, placid, and " scientific, "

with little or no emotive content. That is not what I hear in their

writings. Am I reading into them?

> As we've mentioned to you before, these are fringe people,

> advocating radical ideas which have so far been unproven and

> unaccepted by mainstream scientists.

*****This is one thing that has bothered me about this site and many

of the writings that appear there. The papers/articles that

are " published " there *SEEM* very well researched, documented with

great thoroughness. Most of their contentions are footnoted with

extreme detail. Are they bogus? Or is it possible that the

footnotes are to their own writings or colleagues (so that their

arguments, while appearing valid, are, in fact, circular)? Or are

the footnotes to out-of-date articles? Or are the journals

referenced in the footnotes of a highly questionable quality (vis-a-

vis " established " research journals)?

On the surface, many of their articles APPEAR quite valid

and " internally consistent. " They are VERY persuasive!

Can anyone explain why the radical positions they posit are actually

inaccurate? I don't trust them, on a gut level, but would love to

have some concrete data, specifics, that refute some of the

statements they make.

Thanks!

~ andy

[Guest guest]

Has it occured to you that some may think exactly the same way about

Weil, Walford and Ornish? You claim these people are more credible and

leave it at that. Now imagine if everyone did this. There would be no

debates, no exchange of knowledge, no shifts in paradigm. The idea of

CR obviously has appeal with you and you have a vested interest in it

being correct, but is it impossible to consider that the idea is not

as true as we once presumed? How about keeping an open mind? You ask

me whether I'm affiliated with them (which is an obvious no) but a

more pertinent question would be if you're affiliated with Walford and

co. Should we take the world of Linus ing because he won a noble

prize? What about Atkins since he's more popular? How about looking

at the evidence and trying to make an honest evaluation? I'm reading

both sides and trying to make an honest evaluation. But when one side

simply calls the other quacks without addressing their statements it

makes me question the advice they dole out.

In all respect,

-

----

" He who knows only his side of the case, knows little of that " (J.S Mill)

> >>

> >>> I stumbled over this article on another message board and I've found

> >>> it extraordinarily interesting. I would love to hear the thoughts of

> >>> the people on this group. It's unfortunate that some sections are

> >>> slightly offensive but there was some really shocking information in

> >>> there that I'd love to hear comments on.

> >>>

> >>>

> >

http://www.westonaprice.org/nutrition_guidelines/macronutrientland.html

> >>>

> >>> Note: If you don't want to read the whole thing, she talks about

CRON

> >>> and CR further down.

> >>>

> >>> Cheers,

> >>>

> >>> -

> >>>

> >>>

> >>>

> >>>

> >

[Guest guest]

Andy,

Yes exactly! How about some ~specifics~ which refute them? BTW, I was

once accused of listening to whoever was more eloquent but are you not

applying a similar bias by dismissing them because they ~sound~

'unscientific' to you?

Another person we can add to the Enig and Fallon list is Ravnskov. I

highly recommend his book called 'The Cholesterol Myths'. He has

hundreds upon hundreds of studies to back him up all of which he

encourages others to read. I have no doubt though, that he will be

dismissed as a quack (which Francesca has already done in a previous

post without knowing who he was).

Perhaps they do sound angry but if you look at it from their point of

view it makes more sense. Suppose you knew that millions upon millions

of dollars and corporate greed were invested in promoting toxic oils

which are killing people...would you not be outraged and reach out to

the public?

-

>

> > : we've already gone into Weston Price in previous posts.

> > Isn't he the dentist turned self-proclaimed nutritionist-

> > scientist? I have concerns about anyone who dismisses Ornish, a

> > brilliant man who has led the way in reversing heart disease in

> > humans and who is highly espected by mainstream science. Some of

> > the references Price uses are his own previous writings.

>

>

> *****Me too. As I've mention before, the big thing that I found

> troubling about the Weston Price site and the articles written by

> their " core " researchers, Fallon and Enig, is the *tone* of their

> writings. They " sound " - to this ear - bellicose, hostile, angry -

> and that is something that I find distrustful. I've always felt that

> the tone of such writings will be calm, placid, and " scientific, "

> with little or no emotive content. That is not what I hear in their

> writings. Am I reading into them?

>

>

>

> > As we've mentioned to you before, these are fringe people,

> > advocating radical ideas which have so far been unproven and

> > unaccepted by mainstream scientists.

>

>

> *****This is one thing that has bothered me about this site and many

> of the writings that appear there. The papers/articles that

> are " published " there *SEEM* very well researched, documented with

> great thoroughness. Most of their contentions are footnoted with

> extreme detail. Are they bogus? Or is it possible that the

> footnotes are to their own writings or colleagues (so that their

> arguments, while appearing valid, are, in fact, circular)? Or are

> the footnotes to out-of-date articles? Or are the journals

> referenced in the footnotes of a highly questionable quality (vis-a-

> vis " established " research journals)?

>

> On the surface, many of their articles APPEAR quite valid

> and " internally consistent. " They are VERY persuasive!

>

> Can anyone explain why the radical positions they posit are actually

> inaccurate? I don't trust them, on a gut level, but would love to

> have some concrete data, specifics, that refute some of the

> statements they make.

>

> Thanks!

>

> ~ andy

[Guest guest]

: in the last few days there have been more postings about the Weston

Price people than probably any other subject. Previous to you we had been

introduced to them by a couple of other members and thoroughly hashed it out

then as well. So your " introducing " them to us is not new. They have been

read, considered and hashed out here. Now please either back the studies by

others who are completely unaffiliated with the Weston Price foundation and

who have the kinds of credentials we can trust - or go on to something

else. I can't allow you to hijack the list unless there's something new to

post.

on 8/18/2003 10:37 AM, paultheo2000 at paultheo2000@... wrote:

> Has it occured to you that some may think exactly the same way about

> Weil, Walford and Ornish? You claim these people are more credible and

> leave it at that. Now imagine if everyone did this

[Guest guest]

Hi all,

> Most of their contentions are footnoted with

> extreme detail. Are they bogus? Or is it

> possible that the footnotes are to their own

> writings or colleagues ...

>

> Can anyone explain why the radical positions

> they posit are actually inaccurate? I don't

> trust them, on a gut level, but would love to

> have some concrete data, specifics, that

> refute some of the statements they make.

I haven't the time right now to look through the articles in detail, so my

apologies for giving a suggestion for method rather than any digging of my

own. These may or may not apply to the Weston Price site, so pick & choose

what you like...

I teach undergraduate English students every year how to sort through

research materials and understand an individual piece from the context of a

discipline, rather than in the context of the one work. For instance, was

Sherwood 's _Winesburg, Ohio_ really that 'new' if we see the same

things in Hemingway's _In Our Time_? Comparing the dates (and consulting

Hemingway's correspondence) shows that the Hemingway work (while brilliant)

is a little derivative and that was certainly an influence. blah

blah blah...

To the critical literature, this doesn't mean that even a peer-reviewed

journal won't publish an article on Hemingway where the author claims the

interconnected structure of the short stories of _In Our Time_ is new and

that the nostalgic return to the American countryside/small town marks a

definitive shift in sensibilities from the rural to the urban, which the

literature picks up on (and is emotive because of). Sounds reasonable, and

even good scholars would not necessarily challenge it, but we all know (from

my previous paragraph) that it's not the whole story...

Likewise, a science article could claim that alternate day feedings have a

CR-like effect without net caloric reduction, and someone elsewhere could

quote that exact statement. It's true, but what is unsaid is that in the

context of the original statement it means that similar health benefits or

insulin level, or trauma response are observed... In fact, without direct

recourse to the earlier article, it's a relatively meaningless statement --

WHICH effects are similar? Therefore, one must read both the new study to

see if it's contentions shift previous thought or unify otherwise disparate

understandings, but one must also know the context of the broader critical

and primary literature it comes from, otherwise it cannot be judged

critically.

Add onto that mix the fact that new information arises periodically, causing

a 'paradigm shift' or more mildly, a subtle revision of previous thought.

For instance, Dylan ' short story " Prologue to an Adventure " is

anthologised and collected in the standard edition of his works. Until just

this year (70 years after the fact), we didn't know that had revised

it and published it in Paris in an edition that has traditionally been

considered 'plagiarized' or published without permission -- suddenly we have

new fact that revises all previous work on the subject, but that doesn't

stop someone from going to their library and pulling out a study done ten

years ago, or even just last year. IOW, one must balance the individual

work and its broader context with the need for an awareness of current

thought.

As I said, all of these kinds of errors (and many more) can appear in

peer-reviewed publications in both the sciences and arts, and neither is

exempt from political or careerist actions -- the nature of the journal

itself, its publishing history, and its review board are also important

(though that doesn't mean that non-peer reviewed texts are necessarily

incorrect either!). I'd give more credence to Walford than Fallon and Enig

because Walford has published major works (not just smaller ones) in

virtually ever major journal in his field, and he has done so with

replicable results in hundreds of studies over an extended period of time

(it wasn't just hip in the '70s, etc.). I don't see the same breadth with

Enig and Fallon, though I admittedly haven't looked too hard. This also

doesn't preclude them from being right, but it would in and of itself make

me suspicious enough to not only judge their results and arguments myself,

but to go back to those other three steps: how does this cite previous work

(get the specific contexts), how does it contextually fit within the

disciplinary field (the broad context), and has there been any recent work

that might revise either their own claims or those they rely on via

citation? Walford seems pretty sturdy in those regards, and I did do the

checking to find out, but I believe it would be more difficult to find all

three levels of substantiation for Enig and Fallon in a wide range of

critical literature from outside their circle of researchers.

Some of this was snipped from a standard overview I give to students, so

please forgive anything that seems contextually odd...

Cheers,

(opera singing English teacher on mild CR since 1997)

________________________

Gifford

3-5 Humanities Centre

Department of English

University of Alberta

www.ualberta.ca/~gifford

[Guest guest]

> Perhaps they do sound angry but if you look at it

> from their point of view it makes more sense.

> Suppose you knew that millions upon millions of

> dollars and corporate greed were invested in

> promoting toxic oils which are killing people...

> would you not be outraged and reach out to the

> public?

A very valid point. Nonetheless, the context of academic publishing

precludes that kind of a tone (boring, dry, stuffy, even for literary

journals, where you'd at least hope to find authors with a few puns...) -- I

believe that when the language of the author leaves that of that standard

for academic publication, the reader may want to check on the nature of the

publication.

In a similar vein, Chomsky makes similar arguments about corporate greed and

the manipulation of 'truth,' but his academic publications are vigilant in

their use of language, structure, and argument. Likewise, while Walford's

popularised books are verbally playful and witty (well, _Beyond the 120 Year

Diet_ is), but when he turns to the critical literature, it's all business

and the language reflects the coolness of academic debate.

Cheers,

________________________

Gifford

3-5 Humanities Centre

Department of English

University of Alberta

www.ualberta.ca/~gifford

[Guest guest]

It's never been addressed.

I expected a simple explanation on your part and am dissapointed to

get nothing but ad hominem attacks on Fallon, Enig and Price. Of

course, I don't moderate this board and haven't been here long enough

to know what is taboo or not. Like I said, I'll desist after this.

But if I don't find an answer to this I'm definitely going to put CR

on hold and trust those people who will actively discuss the issue and

address the facts. I will also stop mentioning/encouraging CR to

others as I'm no longer certain of its validity. I refuse to believe

things blindly.

-

>

> > Has it occured to you that some may think exactly the same way about

> > Weil, Walford and Ornish? You claim these people are more credible and

> > leave it at that. Now imagine if everyone did this

[Guest guest]

I agree with you but if I'm to practice CR I'd like to know where

they're wrong. If I see a piece of evidence which contradicts

something I believe in I don't feel right brushing it off with

" they're quacks anyway " .

People here started throwing away their tofu after a small perhaps

flawed study on small correlatoin with dementia but when we find out

that the studies on mice have been done with corn oil and sucrose

nobody cares?

-

--- In , " Gifford " <gifford@u...>

wrote:

> > Perhaps they do sound angry but if you look at it

> > from their point of view it makes more sense.

> > Suppose you knew that millions upon millions of

> > dollars and corporate greed were invested in

> > promoting toxic oils which are killing people...

> > would you not be outraged and reach out to the

> > public?

>

> A very valid point. Nonetheless, the context of academic publishing

> precludes that kind of a tone (boring, dry, stuffy, even for literary

> journals, where you'd at least hope to find authors with a few

puns...) -- I

> believe that when the language of the author leaves that of that

standard

> for academic publication, the reader may want to check on the nature

of the

> publication.

>

> In a similar vein, Chomsky makes similar arguments about corporate

greed and

> the manipulation of 'truth,' but his academic publications are

vigilant in

> their use of language, structure, and argument. Likewise, while

Walford's

> popularised books are verbally playful and witty (well, _Beyond the

120 Year

> Diet_ is), but when he turns to the critical literature, it's all

business

> and the language reflects the coolness of academic debate.

>

> Cheers,

>

> ________________________

> Gifford

> 3-5 Humanities Centre

> Department of English

> University of Alberta

> www.ualberta.ca/~gifford

[Guest guest]

All good ideas. You should definitley have all the facts before starting.

How about reading BT120YD for starters? A MUST before starting CRON. And

heeding our warnings that you are only 17 and shouldn't be on CR yet anyway?

Please do continue to contribute as you are very bright and your posts are

usually of great interest.

on 8/18/2003 11:10 AM, paultheo2000 at paultheo2000@... wrote:

> But if I don't find an answer to this I'm definitely going to put CR

> on hold and trust those people who will actively discuss the issue and

> address the facts. I will also stop mentioning/encouraging CR to

> others as I'm no longer certain of its validity. I refuse to believe

> things blindly.

>

> -

[Guest guest]

I agree with you, . Dismissing the arguments of Weston Price and his

proponents merely because of their " tone " or because you don't find them

reputable, is not a sufficient reason to dismiss their arguments. I also

find their ideas and findings interesting and stimulating. I don't claim

they are correct in their theories of nutrition, but I'm certainly not sure

there is not some truth in some of what they say.

>From: " paultheo2000 " <paultheo2000@...>

>Reply-

>

>Subject: [ ] Re: Thoughts on macronutrients by Fallon and Enig

>Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 14:04:43 -0000

>

>Hi,

>

>Weston Price is not the person writing these articles. He was a

>dentist and he did invaluable research on primitive populations.

>Walford is probably vastly criticized by mainstream science which is

>unfortunate but why are you so quick to lay judgment on Fallon, Enig

>and Price? It seems like you're applying the same bias/predjudice.

>

>For example, if it's true that these CR mice are being fed less corn

>oil and sucrose...it would make perfect sense that they live longer.

>That seems to have no applicability to humans!

>

>I'm saddened that you won't even consider these articles, and if the

>opposite point of view is not appreciated here, I'll desist from

>posting them. I did think this was a place to share (sometimes

>opposing) viewpoints, but apparantly it only serves to strengthen

>whatever bias we've already imprinted ourselves with.

>

>-

>

>

> >

> > > I stumbled over this article on another message board and I've found

> > > it extraordinarily interesting. I would love to hear the thoughts of

> > > the people on this group. It's unfortunate that some sections are

> > > slightly offensive but there was some really shocking information in

> > > there that I'd love to hear comments on.

> > >

> > >

>http://www.westonaprice.org/nutrition_guidelines/macronutrientland.html

> > >

> > > Note: If you don't want to read the whole thing, she talks about CRON

> > > and CR further down.

> > >

> > > Cheers,

> > >

> > > -

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

>

_________________________________________________________________

MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.

http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

[Guest guest]

You have a flawed view of what " people " have done with their tofu. Many of

us, myself included, continue to enjoy moderate tofu consumption until that

study is replicated and proven. Others indeed do not eat tofu; so we're all

individualists. As with Weston Price, unless we hear anything new, we've

heard it already.

on 8/18/2003 11:13 AM, paultheo2000 at paultheo2000@... wrote:

> People here started throwing away their tofu after a small perhaps

> flawed study on small correlatoin with dementia but when we find out

> that the studies on mice have been done with corn oil and sucrose

> nobody cares?

>

> -

[Guest guest]

I will read BT120YD when I can get a hold of it. It's unfortunate that

school is starting so soon. In the meantime I would like to know if

anyone know's anything about how the mice are fed. I'm not looking to

willingly contradict or prove anyone wrong. I'd just like to know the

facts which I will never get if we don't discuss the issue. I

apologize for bringing up Price so many times, but this issue seemed

of the utmose importance to me.

I'm not really on CRON, and now it's definitely on hold. Previously I

was on ON while watching cals (ie: not overconsuming nuts, fruit, milk)

-

>

> > But if I don't find an answer to this I'm definitely going to put CR

> > on hold and trust those people who will actively discuss the issue and

> > address the facts. I will also stop mentioning/encouraging CR to

> > others as I'm no longer certain of its validity. I refuse to believe

> > things blindly.

> >

> > -

[Guest guest]

IIRC you threw out your soy milk before someone suggested the study

might be flawed and pulled it out of the garbage. But the point is,

whether the Price stuff is new or not--- how has it been addressed??

To take a specific issue: can you explain the corn oil and sucrose

thing to me or do you believe it to be outright lying? If it were

true, what would your thoughts be?

-

>

> > People here started throwing away their tofu after a small perhaps

> > flawed study on small correlatoin with dementia but when we find out

> > that the studies on mice have been done with corn oil and sucrose

> > nobody cares?

> >

> > -

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

If you don't like CR, no one is going to cry... Let's get that out of the

way now -- this is a list meant to 'support' those who are practicing CR or

CRON in some form or another, and we welcome debate, but much of this debate

has been going on since the early 1990s, either on the other older list or

on this newer one, so most of what you're arguing really isn't new here.

> I refuse to believe things blindly.

Good. Then spend some time giving a careful review of the critical

literature in its *broadest* sense. Go back to Enig and the CR lit, then

make your own decisions. Not many people on this list are going to argue

strongly against having good fat content (ie: fish oil, olive oil, coconut

oil, etc...), though much of this is still not definite yet, and I don't

think you'll find anyone who thinks the actually studies advocate replacing

CRON with only an ON diet based on fat content. We just don't see enough

hard evidence in replicated studies among a variety of groups to pursue the

discussion further than this, and especially since we've spent more time on

the nuts 'n bolts details earlier.

Good luck with whatever path you choose to pursue. Before you give CR the

heave ho, perhaps take a look at some of the 'hard' literature on the topic,

since I suspect it will give you many of the answers you've been looking

for. You'll also find the issue of fat content and macronutrient profiles

discussed in extremely minute detail on the other CR list's archives, which

tend to be more *hard-science* oriented. When I say extreme detail, I mean

discussion with 20-50 messages per day over a period of years -- this really

has been discussed very thoroughly and that resource is sitting there

waiting for you if you want it.

Cheers,

________________________

Gifford

3-5 Humanities Centre

Department of English

University of Alberta

www.ualberta.ca/~gifford

[Guest guest]

--- In , " Gifford " <gifford@u...>

wrote:

Thank you, , for your suggestions. Being in Academia also, I

was aware of most of the " techniques " for checking, double-checking,

etc. As I mentioned in a previous post, I learned several additional

research " tricks " by reading Kolata's book, " ULTIMATE FITNESS:

The Quest for Truth About Exercise and Health. "

But I also know, having done some of the " legwork " myself, that it is

a very laborious and time-consuming activity. AND in the science

realm, one often needs to have a decent amount of organic chem and

bio under their belts to interpret the prior articles which are

footnoted and quantified.

Not having that, I was asking whether anyone on the list has done any

of that with the Enig & Fallon writings. On the surface they are so

very persuasive...I can see why is taken with them.

Several years ago, I, too, found their writings to be extremely

persuasive. I had come across their alarmist " soy alerts " and was

considering eliminating ALL soy products (including tofu) from my

diet. I was fortunate, at that time, to be able to contact a PhD in

the field (one that Fallon/Enig referred to negatively on their

site), a Mark Messina (http://www.olympus.net/messina/markbio.html).

He was able to show me some of the " spins " they were enacting on the

data, but, at the same time, he was very circumspect in his

criticisms of them. So, since that time, I have been very suspicious

of the extreme comments that appear on their site.

And yet, and yet...some of their " philosophy " I heartily agree with:

we need to make MAJOR reductions in refined foods of all types and

reduce our refined sugar consumption dramatically. Neither of these

are very healthful except when eaten with great moderation (read:

infrequently).

So...I'm still in a " grey area " and was wondering if any of

the " science types " out there had some hard, concrete data that

showed where the Fallon/Enig assertions were either distortions or

just plain wrong.

Thanks!

~ andy

[Guest guest]

> If I see a piece of evidence which contradicts

> something I believe in I don't feel right

> brushing it off with " they're quacks anyway " .

Good. Pursue both sides of the evidence further, but if there are good

reasons to be suspicious of what you already believe in, don't let yourself

hold an opinion just because you already have it. The valuable properties

of coconut oil, salmon, and other fatty foods is, while not entirely

certain, fairly reasonable. That doesn't mean it refutes or replaces CR

studies. I haven't seen that point backed up yet.

> People here started throwing away their tofu

> after a small perhaps flawed study on small

> correlatoin with dementia

I haven't, but tofu is also a non-necessary food item. It has proven

benefits for women, and I think the debate over tofu is still going on here,

in want of further evidence. When a food is shown to potentially have a

significant negative side-effect (even though I'm not really convinced) and

is somewhat known to have other potential problems for men in particular

(phytoestrogens), taking a moderate approach to one's consumption would see

wise, especially if it's a food you don't really need.

> when we find out that the studies on mice have

> been done with corn oil and sucrose nobody cares?

I would care, except that it's not all the studies that have demonstrated

the CR effect that use that food. Most use standard lab chow, and others

have experimented widely with macronutrient profiles. In other words, some

of the studies have done this, but not all by any means.

Cheers,

________________________

Gifford

3-5 Humanities Centre

Department of English

University of Alberta

www.ualberta.ca/~gifford

[Guest guest]

Do you have anything to say concerning the way the mice were fed

(sucrose and corn oil)? That's really the only pertinent matter at

stake here.

-

--- In , " Gifford " <gifford@u...>

wrote:

> Hi ,

>

> If you don't like CR, no one is going to cry... Let's get that out

of the

> way now -- this is a list meant to 'support' those who are

practicing CR or

> CRON in some form or another, and we welcome debate, but much of

this debate

> has been going on since the early 1990s, either on the other older

list or

> on this newer one, so most of what you're arguing really isn't new here.

>

> > I refuse to believe things blindly.

>

> Good. Then spend some time giving a careful review of the critical

> literature in its *broadest* sense. Go back to Enig and the CR lit,

then

> make your own decisions. Not many people on this list are going to

argue

> strongly against having good fat content (ie: fish oil, olive oil,

coconut

> oil, etc...), though much of this is still not definite yet, and I don't

> think you'll find anyone who thinks the actually studies advocate

replacing

> CRON with only an ON diet based on fat content. We just don't see

enough

> hard evidence in replicated studies among a variety of groups to

pursue the

> discussion further than this, and especially since we've spent more

time on

> the nuts 'n bolts details earlier.

>

> Good luck with whatever path you choose to pursue. Before you give

CR the

> heave ho, perhaps take a look at some of the 'hard' literature on

the topic,

> since I suspect it will give you many of the answers you've been looking

> for. You'll also find the issue of fat content and macronutrient

profiles

> discussed in extremely minute detail on the other CR list's

archives, which

> tend to be more *hard-science* oriented. When I say extreme detail,

I mean

> discussion with 20-50 messages per day over a period of years --

this really

> has been discussed very thoroughly and that resource is sitting there

> waiting for you if you want it.

>

> Cheers,

>

> ________________________

> Gifford

> 3-5 Humanities Centre

> Department of English

> University of Alberta

> www.ualberta.ca/~gifford

[Guest guest]

Could it be possible that the food given to these mice is in itself

unhealthy and therefore reducing it leads to increased longevity? That

seems like a plausible scenario, no?

-

--- In , " Gifford " <gifford@u...>

I would care, except that it's not all the studies that have demonstrated

the CR effect that use that food. Most use standard lab chow, and others

have experimented widely with macronutrient profiles. In other words, some

of the studies have done this, but not all by any means.

[Guest guest]

> I would like to know if anyone know's anything

> about how the mice are fed. I'm not looking to

> willingly contradict or prove anyone wrong.

Anyone with more details than me? Most of the CR studies I used to look at

were scrupulous in describing the nature of the diet, so I should think that

a quick pubmed search would pull up what you want. Maybe try comparing the

rodent and ongoing primate studies...

AFAIK, they have been fed a variety of diets over the decades. There really

have been hundreds of studies... Likewise, I don't know if I would fall

back entirely on macronutrient profiles for rodent work, since they're

different critters than us. We know that a high fat diet is associated with

certain diseases, but we also know that some fats are beneficial for those

same problems, and also that sugar plays as much of a role in cholesterol as

does dietary intake (which varies greatly based on bioavailability in some

foods and their states).

The life-extension and health benefits in rodent and other critter studies

seems, to a high degree of probability, to be an independent factor from the

nature of the diet in its various manipulations, so long as it has adequate

nutritional content for the calorie load. In other words, no nutrition

study has ever shown an extension of maximal lifespan, whereas hundreds of

CR studies have, which seems to point to life-extension as being a unique

property to CR, even though the two may replicate each other in a number of

ways (even synergistically) in terms of overall individual health and point

of departure from the extended or normal survival curve.

Cheers,

________________________

Gifford

3-5 Humanities Centre

Department of English

University of Alberta

www.ualberta.ca/~gifford

[Guest guest]

> But I also know, having done some of the " legwork "

> myself, that it is a very laborious and time-consuming

> activity. AND in the science realm, one often needs

> to have a decent amount of organic chem and bio under

> their belts to interpret the prior articles which are

> footnoted and quantified.

VERY true for those of use who haven't studied either subject since our

undergraduate days... My birth mother and her husband are both medical

professionals (RN with an MA and specialist in internal medicine), so I just

went to them when I was doing my early research & had questions. Both said

CR was extremely well supported in the critical literature and seemed to

fall in line with other fields of research -- however, they both pointed out

that nutritional studies on humans should trump any done on animals, for

obvious reasons (rats don't need dietary vit C like we do, vit D is

different, etc., etc...). In other words, I'd watch anything on macro and

micronutrient profiles in human studies and wouldn't really pay too much

attention to those in lab animals; however, that's bearing in mind that the

variations in such profiles in lab animals does seem to suggest that it's

not terribly significant in the CR context (how high fat [read 'bad' fats]

can a 1600 kcal/day diet be, within reason? It will still probably have

less 'bad' fat than a normal, reasonable diet).

I personally suspect that with mild CR, a relatively nutritious diet with

few processed foods, lotsa veggies, lean meats, and a good fat profile, is

probably good enough... That doesn't mean I don't justify hot cocao due to

its antioxidant benefits and high protein (though I don't add any sugar!).

Cheers,

________________________

Gifford

3-5 Humanities Centre

Department of English

University of Alberta

www.ualberta.ca/~gifford