Re: Nourishing Traditions by Sally Fallon/+Studies in question

[Guest guest]

I posted a link in one of the last few threads to a short excerpt

explaining the calorie thing.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say, but may I ask why you

bother discussing a subject if you don't care at all? The last part of

your post sounds semi-suicidal, I hope I misread that. Please note,

that I'm mainly interested from an intellectual point of view. I'm

looking for someone who can explain these studies to me. Perhaps there

is a logical explanation to this...nobody would be more pleased than I

am. (I see no benefit in simply acknowledging my ignorance without

seeking the truth, as a matter of principle)

-

Here are the studies I've been referring too:

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/news/42903_health_fasting.html

http://www.gene.ch/genet/2003/Jan/msg00100.html

>

>

> > " *****Bingo! (Or, a bit more accurately, if you will, " excessive

> > > calories do. " ) You hit the nail on the head . As far as I

> > > know, the scientific thesis of thermogenics and conservation of

> > > energy has not been repealed. Calories in - calories out.

> > > Period. The rest is just the dream of the ego. :-)) "

>

>

> > Woah, I sure hope you don't think is true when it comes to weight

> > gain and loss, right? A calorie is NOT a calorie. This, I'm afraid,

> > is a document ~fact~....

>

>

> *****OK. Educate me. Go further with this please. I'm listening.

> In what way(s), specifically and with scientific backing please, is a

> calorie NOT a calorie?

>

> [sounds weird to me! A chair is not a chair? A book is not a book?

> Hmmm.... but seriously, I know what you are getting at by that

> statement, and I would just appreciate your explaining the

> physiological process behind the statement so that I have a better

> understanding. Thanks.]

>

>

>

> > If anyone is biased here, it seems to be YOU, ironically enough. It

> > seems you're the one who can't accept to get contradicted.

>

>

> *****If you reread my posts you'll see I *repeatedly* add that I have

> my own position and thus have fully admitted to being " biased "

> although the term I used is " conditioned " or " programmed. " There is

> a pov expressed in my posts, as there is in yours. I don't agree

> with yours. That is all. So f'**king what? Do you think any of

> this *means* anything?

>

> Please understand that regardless of any disagreement here,

> there is not, however, any contentious or belligerent intent behind

> my words. I don't hold any of this " stuff " very seriously. And, as

> such, I haven't the slightest problem being contradicted. The world

> does that to me all the time! <LoL> And I have virtually no

> investment in how this dialogue turns out. Which is why it is fun

> for me. :-)) Ultimately, I know that I am not doing any of it,

> anyway. I'm not doing anything at all.

>

> ~ Andy

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

OK, let's look closely at these articles. First, they are from popular

sources, which means they are not subject to peer review. In all my years

as a performer, I have not even once had an accurate news article on me

(everything gets embellished or mis-stated by someone who doesn't really

understand the context). That aside, I won't dismiss a popular report just

because of it's source, so let's look at what these news reports actually

say:

> http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/news/42903_health_fasting.html

" In the new report, mice that were fed only every other day but could gorge

on the days they did eat saw similar health benefits to ones that had their

diet reduced by 40 percent "

-- Key word here is " similar. " While health benefits were observed in this

*one* study (and I'm not disputing the value of periodic fasting), the

researchers seem to take this as *primarily* meaning " Our study suggests

that skipping meals is not bad for you. "

Most importantly:

" Mattson said an earlier study found that mice that fasted every other day

had extended lifespans and the new experiment found the mice also did better

in factors involved in diabetes and nerve damage in the brain similar to

Alzheimer's disease. "

-- In other words, CR studies that use alternate day feedings have shown

extended lifespans, diabetes protection, brain function protection against

stressors, reduced cancer rates, etc... The *new* study of alternate day

feeding where calorie levels *were not* reduced has shown the factors of

diabetes and brain function protection. The researchers are *not* finding a

life-span extension as with CR, just some of the positive health benefits CR

has, but within a regular life-span.

This point has been made before, and is not surprising. Positive health

benefits seem to appear from fasting, such as stabilization of blood-sugar,

resistance to stressors, etc... Nonetheless, this has nothing to do with a

life-span extension effect that is not CR-related. Again, no malice here,

but you're talking about a totally different issue that CR offers, but that

does not in itself constitute the same thing with the same effects as CR.

> http://www.gene.ch/genet/2003/Jan/msg00100.html

This study creates a CR effect by making a significant portion of the mice's

food consumption unavailable for digestion. In other words, it's dietary

restriction by proxy.

In fact, the reporter makes the claim that " the new research suggests that

the leanness is more important, and can be achieved through insulin

regulation and increased fat metabolism rather than simply reducing food

intake, " but this is directly contradicted by his assertion that " restricted

the mice's ability to store fat by eliminating their insulin fat receptors. "

I'd like to know what happened to that energy and how it was excreted -- as

it stands, I don't see something that is actually different from CR, just an

alternate way of enacting it.

If this effect could be enacted in humans, I'd go for it, but I wouldn't kid

myself by saying it's not dietary restriction in another form. Likewise, I

thought your argument was that we wanted MORE fat to live longer and

healthier, not less...

Cheers,

________________________

Gifford

3-5 Humanities Centre

Department of English

University of Alberta

www.ualberta.ca/~gifford