Nut butter
Ericam2
all the n-3, n-6 controversersy, would these be safe to spread on toas? or to
cook with?
Erica MM
taur...@pacbell.net
it is nice to spread on toast.
Yes, I know that peanuts are legumes, not nuts but.............
Ora
Steve Harris
Sure. Nut butters are good for you, especially the fancy ones (for reasons
long discussed, I'm a bit leary of peanut butter). Nut butters are certainly
better for you than solid margarine or dairy butter. If you replace some of,
or even all of, the meat and the dairy butter in your diet with nut butter,
you can hardly go wrong. Nut butters are high protein, and the fat in them
won't raise your cholesterol or increase your GI cancer risk.
Omega 3 fats are needed in your diet, but quit worrying about ratios. Just
eat plenty of n-3 containing things. If you like fish, eating that 3x a week
will do it. Fish body oil capsules (5 of the 1 gram monster gels per day)
are an alternative. If you really cannot stand fish, a convenient n-3
supplement is 2 teaspoons of flax oil (2/3 tablespoon) per day. Buy it in
the small black bottle and keep it in the refrigerator. One of my patients
hates it, but hates fish (and fish burps from fish oil) even more. Due to
her arthritis and tendonitis she's been forced to change her n-3/n-6 ratio.
So she coats the bottom of a tablespoon in almond or cashew butter, pours it
mostly full of flax oil, and takes it with dinner. The oil goes down the
gullet, and the nut butter chaser kills the taste. That works. She's
beginning to realize that she's probably been n-3 deficient for years.
SBH
--
I welcome email from any being clever enough to fix my address. It's open
book. A prize to the first spambot that passes my Turing test.
Matti Narkia
<20021102153130...@mb-ci.aol.com> eri...@aol.com (Ericam2)
wrote:
>just saw an sign for one of the subject butters in my health food store. Given
>all the n-3, n-6 controversersy, would these be safe to spread on toas? or to
>cook with?
>
IMHO almond butter is a good choice from a cardiovascular-health viewpoint,
almond oil improves serum lipid profile. Peanuts should be avoided, they
contain an atherogenic substance. Almonds contain large amount of calcium
and magnesium in an ideal 1:1 ratio. Almonds are also a good source of
arginine and monounsaturated fatty acids. Mouldy peanuts may sometimes
contain aflatoxin which is liver-toxin and can cause liver cancer. Peanut
allergy can be life-threathening.
Medline references
==================
Almonds
-------
1: Hyson DA, Schneeman BO, Davis PA.
Almonds and almond oil have similar effects on plasma lipids and LDL
oxidation in healthy men and women.
J Nutr. 2002 Apr;132(4):703-7.
PMID: 11925464 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/132/4/703
2: Jenkins DJ, Kendall CW, Marchie A, Parker TL, Connelly PW, Qian W,
Haight JS, Faulkner D, Vidgen E, Lapsley KG, Spiller GA.
Dose response of almonds on coronary heart disease risk factors: blood
lipids, oxidized low-density lipoproteins, lipoprotein(a), homocysteine, and
pulmonary nitric oxide: a randomized, controlled, crossover trial.
Circulation. 2002 Sep 10;106(11):1327-32.
PMID: 12221048 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12221048&dopt=Abstract
3: Spiller GA, Jenkins DA, Bosello O, Gates JE, Cragen LN, Bruce B.
Nuts and plasma lipids: an almond-based diet lowers LDL-C while preserving
HDL-C.
J Am Coll Nutr. 1998 Jun;17(3):285-90.
PMID: 9627917 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/17/3/285
Peanuts
-------
4: Kritchevsky D, Tepper SA, Klurfeld DM.
Lectin may contribute to the atherogenicity of peanut oil.
Lipids. 1998 Aug;33(8):821-3.
PMID: 9727614 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9727614&dopt=Abstract
5: Cordain L.
Atherogenic potential of peanut oil-based monounsaturated fatty acids
diets.
Lipids. 1998 Feb;33(2):229-30. No abstract available.
PMID: 9507246 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9507246&dopt=Abstract
6: Saso Y, Iwasaki H, Yasoshima A, Takashima K, Morita T.
Comparison of atherogenicity of soybean oil and peanut oil, and effect
of clentiazem on diet-induced atherosclerosis in rabbits.
J Vet Med Sci. 1994 Feb;56(1):83-9.
PMID: 8204766 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8204766&dopt=Abstract
7: Kritchevsky D.
Dietary fat and experimental atherosclerosis.
Int J Tissue React. 1991;13(2):59-65. Review.
PMID: 1955294 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1955294&dopt=Abstract
8: Kritchevsky D.
Cholesterol vehicle in experimental atherosclerosis. A brief review with
special reference to peanut oil.
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1988 Oct;112(10):1041-4. Review.
PMID: 3052354 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3052354&dopt=Abstract
9: Alderson LM, Hayes KC, Nicolosi RJ.
Peanut oil reduces diet-induced atherosclerosis in cynomolgus monkeys.
Arteriosclerosis. 1986 Sep-Oct;6(5):465-74.
PMID: 3767691 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3767691&dopt=Abstract
10: Kritchevsky D, Tepper SA, Klurfeld DM, Vesselinovitch D, Wissler RW.
Experimental atherosclerosis in rabbits fed cholesterol-free diets. Part
12. Comparison of peanut and olive oils.
Atherosclerosis. 1984 Mar;50(3):253-9.
PMID: 6324825 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6324825&dopt=Abstract
11: [No authors listed]
Triacylglycerol structure and the atherogenicity of peanut oil.
Nutr Rev. 1983 Oct;41(10):322-3. No abstract available.
PMID: 6646532 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6646532&dopt=Abstract
12: Myher JJ, Marai L, Kuksis A.
Acylglycerol structure of peanut oils of different atherogenic
potential.
Lipids. 1977 Oct;12(10):775-85.
PMID: 916819 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=916819&dopt=Abstract
13: [No authors listed]
Atherogenicity of peanut oil in the rabbit.
Nutr Rev. 1972 Mar;30(3):70-2. Review. No abstract available.
PMID: 4628342 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=4628342&dopt=Abstract
14: Kritchevsky D, Tepper SA, Story JA.
Cholesterol vehicle in experimental atherosclerosis. Part 16. Effect of
peanut oil on pre-established lesions.
Atherosclerosis. 1978 Nov;31(3):365-70.
PMID: 718739 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=718739&dopt=Abstract
15: Kritchevsky D, Tepper SA, Kim HK, Story JA, Vesselinovitch D,
Wissler RW.
Experimental atherosclerosis in rabbits fed cholesterol-free diets. 5.
Comparison of peanut, corn, butter, and coconut oils.
Exp Mol Pathol. 1976 Jun;24(3):375-91. No abstract available.
PMID: 1278335 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1278335&dopt=Abstract
--
Matti Narkia
Sandy
wrote:
>02 Nov 2002 20:31:30 GMT in article
><20021102153130...@mb-ci.aol.com> eri...@aol.com (Ericam2)
>wrote:
>
>>just saw an sign for one of the subject butters in my health food store. Given
>>all the n-3, n-6 controversersy, would these be safe to spread on toas? or to
>>cook with?
>>
>IMHO almond butter is a good choice from a cardiovascular-health viewpoint,
>almond oil improves serum lipid profile.
Doesn't this depend on how much you eat of it? I eat no greasy bread
spreads. Any fats are bad if you continually exceed your calorie
requirements. Wouldn't a bread spread which is two thirds fat
constitute about 0.1% of the average calories of an average person?
> Peanuts should be avoided, they
>contain an atherogenic substance.
In the average quantity that average folks eat? Hardly.
>Almonds contain large amount of calcium
>and magnesium in an ideal 1:1 ratio.
Ideal for what? Don't most whole foods average plenty of calcium and
magnesium in about that average ratio, and if not so what?
>Almonds are also a good source of
>arginine and monounsaturated fatty acids.
Scads of arginine in just about every food.
MUFAs are high in calories and should be avoided in excess.
>Mouldy peanuts may sometimes
>contain aflatoxin which is liver-toxin and can cause liver cancer.
So can other mouldy foods and other foods infections.
Fresh whole foods are preferred.
>Peanut allergy can be life-threathening.
So can bee sting and walnut allergies. So what?
Sandy
Matti Narkia
<rhs9su4n4c0godcqr...@4ax.com> Sandy <nu...@null.null> wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Nov 2002 09:46:06 GMT, Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com>
>wrote:
>>>
>>IMHO almond butter is a good choice from a cardiovascular-health viewpoint,
>>almond oil improves serum lipid profile.
>
>Doesn't this depend on how much you eat of it? I eat no greasy bread
>spreads. Any fats are bad if you continually exceed your calorie
>requirements.
I haven't seen a lamer argument for ages. Naturally anything which makes you
exceed your calorie requirements is surely bad for you. You just shouldn't
overeat regardless of the content of your diet. Period.
>Wouldn't a bread spread which is two thirds fat
>constitute about 0.1% of the average calories of an average person?
>
I don't know, you tel me. What on earth is the significance of this?
>> Peanuts should be avoided, they
>>contain an atherogenic substance.
>
>In the average quantity that average folks eat? Hardly.
>
Define average quantity. The prove that its not harmful for humans.
Remember also that hardly anyone eats "average quantity". Some people eat a
lot less and some a lot more. What about those who eat a lot more (while
still staying within the limits of their calorie requirements ;-))?
>>Almonds contain large amount of calcium
>>and magnesium in an ideal 1:1 ratio.
>
>Ideal for what?
For health and well-being. That couldn't have been too hard to grasp ;-).
What's your agenda?
>Don't most whole foods average plenty of calcium and
>magnesium in about that average ratio, and if not so what?
>
Not necessarily, depends on the food items. Calcium and magnesium are
important nutrients.
>
>>Almonds are also a good source of
>>arginine and monounsaturated fatty acids.
>
>Scads of arginine in just about every food.
That's not exactly true. Moreover, what matters is the arginine/lysine
ratio, which is excellent in almonds.
>MUFAs are high in calories and should be avoided in excess.
>
Anything in excess should be avoided, I thought that would be obvious for
anyone in this newsgroup, but unfortunately it doesn't seem to be so.
There's a fair amount of evidence of health benefits of MUFAs (as well as of
omega-3s).
>>Mouldy peanuts may sometimes
>>contain aflatoxin which is liver-toxin and can cause liver cancer.
>
>So can other mouldy foods and other foods infections.
>Fresh whole foods are preferred.
>
Aflatoxin happens to be a particularly nasty poison which can have long term
effects such as liver cancer. It may not easy to assess from peanut butter
what is the quality of peanuts used as raw material.
>>Peanut allergy can be life-threathening.
>
>So can bee sting and walnut allergies. So what?
>
You should avoid peanuts, bees and walnuts, if you are allergic to them,
that's what. Especially you should avoid even minuscule amounts of peanut
material possibly hidden in some foods, if you happen to have peanut allergy
and want to reach old age, that's what.
--
Matti Narkia
Sandy
wrote:
>Sun, 03 Nov 2002 10:05:18 GMT in article
><rhs9su4n4c0godcqr...@4ax.com> Sandy <nu...@null.null> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Nov 2002 09:46:06 GMT, Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com>
>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>IMHO almond butter is a good choice from a cardiovascular-health viewpoint,
>>>almond oil improves serum lipid profile.
>>
>>Doesn't this depend on how much you eat of it? I eat no greasy bread
>>spreads. Any fats are bad if you continually exceed your calorie
>>requirements.
>
>I haven't seen a lamer argument for ages. Naturally anything which makes you
>exceed your calorie requirements is surely bad for you. You just shouldn't
>overeat regardless of the content of your diet. Period.
But what I'm saying is that if you don't exceed your calories and
maintain a good weight and exercise regularly, and eat a varied diet,
this obsession with this food and that food being good for this toe of
that ventricle can fly out the window.
>>Wouldn't a bread spread which is two thirds fat
>>constitute about 0.1% of the average calories of an average person?
>>
>I don't know, you tel me. What on earth is the significance of this?
The insignificance of worrying about such an insignificant part of the
average diet.
>>> Peanuts should be avoided, they
>>>contain an atherogenic substance.
>>
>>In the average quantity that average folks eat? Hardly.
>>
>Define average quantity.
That which the whole world eats divided by the world's population.
Or three-fifths of five-eighths of buggerall.
>The prove that its not harmful for humans.
Evidence? Have you got evidence that tiny quantities of peanuts in the
human diet cause any significant harm? I can't prove it does no harm.
>Remember also that hardly anyone eats "average quantity".
What an interesting comment.
>Some people eat a
>lot less and some a lot more.
And the bell curve is peaked at the edges and depressed in the middle?
>What about those who eat a lot more (while
>still staying within the limits of their calorie requirements ;-))?
They are eating a potentially unhealthy diet. Same as eating too much
of anything.
>>>Almonds contain large amount of calcium
>>>and magnesium in an ideal 1:1 ratio.
>>
>>Ideal for what?
>
>For health and well-being.
Have you got evidence that a varied, whole-food diet does not contain
these essential nutrients in approximately this ratio, and if there
is, have you got any evidence that it matters one whit?
>That couldn't have been too hard to grasp ;-).
I grasp it, I'm trying to say nicely that it's bullshit, NTPTFAPOI
>What's your agenda?
None, I'm wondering what yours is. Are you selling something? You
sound like a shill for a health food shoppe.
>>Don't most whole foods average plenty of calcium and
>>magnesium in about that average ratio, and if not so what?
>>
>Not necessarily, depends on the food items.
Well just about all plant wholefoods have scads -- especially grains
and pulses.
>Calcium and magnesium are
>important nutrients.
Essential, in fact. A varied diet of whole foods will produce no
deficiencies.
>>>Almonds are also a good source of
>>>arginine and monounsaturated fatty acids.
>>
>>Scads of arginine in just about every food.
>
>That's not exactly true.
But it's damn close. Name a wholefood that contains none.
>Moreover, what matters is the arginine/lysine
>ratio, which is excellent in almonds.
And lysine is plentiful in just about all wholefoods.
>>MUFAs are high in calories and should be avoided in excess.
>>
>Anything in excess should be avoided, I thought that would be obvious for
>anyone in this newsgroup, but unfortunately it doesn't seem to be so.
So what are you advocating all these almonds for?
>There's a fair amount of evidence of health benefits of MUFAs (as well as of
>omega-3s).
And this benefit is demonstrated in diseased or overweight
populations?
>>>Mouldy peanuts may sometimes
>>>contain aflatoxin which is liver-toxin and can cause liver cancer.
>>
>>So can other mouldy foods and other foods infections.
>>Fresh whole foods are preferred.
>>
>Aflatoxin happens to be a particularly nasty poison which can have long term
>effects such as liver cancer. It may not easy to assess from peanut butter
>what is the quality of peanuts used as raw material.
Reputable brand, representative government regulator. They keep out
most nasties -- ptomaines, butulism, salmonella, E coli, and so on.
>>>Peanut allergy can be life-threathening.
>>
>>So can bee sting and walnut allergies. So what?
>>
>You should avoid peanuts, bees and walnuts, if you are allergic to them,
>that's what.
Of course, but how many folks are so afflicted? I got the impression
that you were singleing out peanuts for special attention.
>Especially you should avoid even minuscule amounts of peanut
>material possibly hidden in some foods, if you happen to have peanut allergy
>and want to reach old age, that's what.
And this is not the same for other foodstuffs that you might have a
severe allergic response to?
Sandy
John 'the Man'
rambled on about "Re: Nut butter."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>Define average quantity. The prove that its not harmful for humans.
>Remember also that hardly anyone eats "average quantity". Some people eat a
>lot less and some a lot more. What about those who eat a lot more (while
>still staying within the limits of their calorie requirements ;-))?
I eat ZERO spreads, jelly, butter, toast, and ZERO added SALT. :-)
Didn't Confucius say that you should not be arguing with a FatSo?
--
John Gohde,
Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!
http://NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
The ONLY Frauds in Health are those who couldn't care less about
prevention. Beware of anybody who brags about eating a lousy diet,
eating crispbread, being overweight, or about smoking!
Larry Hoover
"John 'the Man'" <DeMan[91]@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ems9suctr93jeua0d...@4ax.com...
> I eat ZERO spreads, jelly, butter, toast, and ZERO added SALT. :-)
Ahhh! That's it then. Everybody better start eating spreads, jelly, butter,
toast, and adding salt, or you'll end up like John.
John 'the Man'
rambled on about "Re: Nut butter."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>"John 'the Man'" <DeMan[91]@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Thank you for publicly confirming that I won the High-Protein Diet can
be Fatal argument. :-)
Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
Matti Narkia
<2b6asu83r7vmaa2o6...@4ax.com> Sandy <nu...@null.null> wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Nov 2002 10:38:58 GMT, Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com>
>wrote:
>>>
>>I haven't seen a lamer argument for ages. Naturally anything which makes you
>>exceed your calorie requirements is surely bad for you. You just shouldn't
>>overeat regardless of the content of your diet. Period.
>
>But what I'm saying is that if you don't exceed your calories and
>maintain a good weight and exercise regularly, and eat a varied diet,
>this obsession with this food and that food being good for this toe of
>that ventricle can fly out the window.
>
Ah, the famous "varied" diet. Tell us more about it! I think that a large
part of discussions during the history this newsgroup including this thread
have been an attempt to define what could or should belong to this "varied"
diet.
>>>Wouldn't a bread spread which is two thirds fat
>>>constitute about 0.1% of the average calories of an average person?
>>>
>>I don't know, you tel me. What on earth is the significance of this?
>
>The insignificance of worrying about such an insignificant part of the
>average diet.
>
In other words a mosquito's excrement in Sahara.
>>The prove that its not harmful for humans.
>
>Evidence? Have you got evidence that tiny quantities of peanuts in the
>human diet cause any significant harm? I can't prove it does no harm.
>
There's a fair amount of evidence that peanut fat is surprisingly
atherogenic in experimental animals including rats, rabbits, and primates.
Until we have sufficient scientific evidence about its effect on humans I
think prudent caution is called for.
>
>>Some people eat a
>>lot less and some a lot more.
>
>And the bell curve is peaked at the edges and depressed in the middle?
>
So you don't care about the people on the wrong side of the median?
I kind of expected that.
>>What about those who eat a lot more (while
>>still staying within the limits of their calorie requirements ;-))?
>
>They are eating a potentially unhealthy diet. Same as eating too much
>of anything.
>
In other words in your opinion peanut butter is unhealthy? Not exactly the
picture I got at first time around ;-).
>
>Have you got evidence that a varied, whole-food diet does not contain
>these essential nutrients in approximately this ratio, and if there
>is, have you got any evidence that it matters one whit?
>
Varied, whole food diet does mean different things for different people.
Some of these diets can be healthy, some may be outright unhealthy. I'm
afraid that you have to do better than throw around worn-out
generalizations.
>>That couldn't have been too hard to grasp ;-).
>
>I grasp it, I'm trying to say nicely that it's bullshit, NTPTFAPOI
>
I don't think you did, and your second claim is also incorrect ;-).
>>What's your agenda?
>
>None, I'm wondering what yours is. Are you selling something? You
>sound like a shill for a health food shoppe.
>
I'm wondering whether you're just a cheap troll. Prove me wrong, if you can.
>>Moreover, what matters is the arginine/lysine
>>ratio, which is excellent in almonds.
>
>And lysine is plentiful in just about all wholefoods.
>
You didn't get it. I said _ratio_, meaning high arginine content versus low
lysine content give a good ratio. It's _low_ lysine content which is
desirable in this context. Too high lysine content inhibits arginine's
bioavailability.
>
>So what are you advocating all these almonds for?
>
I'm advocating nothing, just providing some facts about nut butters as
requested by the initiator of this thread.
>>There's a fair amount of evidence of health benefits of MUFAs (as well as of
>>omega-3s).
>
>And this benefit is demonstrated in diseased or overweight
>populations?
>
Would you call that a health benefit? Do you always have trouble with
semantics?
>>>
>>Aflatoxin happens to be a particularly nasty poison which can have long term
>>effects such as liver cancer. It may not easy to assess from peanut butter
>>what is the quality of peanuts used as raw material.
>
>Reputable brand, representative government regulator. They keep out
>most nasties -- ptomaines, butulism, salmonella, E coli, and so on.
>
I thought that you "eat no greasy bread spreads", so why this heroic defense
of peanut butter ? :-):-)
--
Matti Narkia
Matti Narkia
<ems9suctr93jeua0d...@4ax.com> John 'the Man'
<DeMan[91]@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Once upon a time, our fellow Matti Narkia
> rambled on about "Re: Nut butter."
>Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>
>>Define average quantity. The prove that its not harmful for humans.
>>Remember also that hardly anyone eats "average quantity". Some people eat a
>>lot less and some a lot more. What about those who eat a lot more (while
>>still staying within the limits of their calorie requirements ;-))?
>
>I eat ZERO spreads, jelly, butter, toast, and ZERO added SALT. :-)
>
Neither do I. That doesn't stop me providing some facts about nut butters
when requested.
--
Matti Narkia
John 'the Man'
rambled on about "Re: Nut butter."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>In other words a mosquito's excrement in Sahara.
Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
So much for your lofty comments. Sometimes common sense is more
practical.
Matti Narkia
<dtqasu8vsrqj2tqlo...@4ax.com> John 'the Man'
<DeMan[91]@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Once upon a time, our fellow Matti Narkia
> rambled on about "Re: Nut butter."
>Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>
>>In other words a mosquito's excrement in Sahara.
>
>Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
>
>So much for your lofty comments. Sometimes common sense is more
>practical.
Indeed :-)
--
Matti Narkia
Sandy
wrote:
>Sun, 03 Nov 2002 12:51:44 GMT in article
><2b6asu83r7vmaa2o6...@4ax.com> Sandy <nu...@null.null> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Nov 2002 10:38:58 GMT, Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com>
>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>I haven't seen a lamer argument for ages. Naturally anything which makes you
>>>exceed your calorie requirements is surely bad for you. You just shouldn't
>>>overeat regardless of the content of your diet. Period.
>>
>>But what I'm saying is that if you don't exceed your calories and
>>maintain a good weight and exercise regularly, and eat a varied diet,
>>this obsession with this food and that food being good for this toe of
>>that ventricle can fly out the window.
>>
>Ah, the famous "varied" diet. Tell us more about it! I think that a large
>part of discussions during the history this newsgroup including this thread
>have been an attempt to define what could or should belong to this "varied"
>diet.
Well it doesn't include anxiety about this food or that food not being
included. It means eating as many different foods as are available to
you in moderation. The bread I make has probably 20 different
constituents. I try to eat as many different fruits each day, and
manage four of five or even more. I demolished a durian a few weks
ago. My wife likes stews in Winter and Thi dishes in Winter, and these
have myriad constituents. She subscribes to the "bung it in" school of
cookery.
>>>>Wouldn't a bread spread which is two thirds fat
>>>>constitute about 0.1% of the average calories of an average person?
>>>>
>>>I don't know, you tel me. What on earth is the significance of this?
>>
>>The insignificance of worrying about such an insignificant part of the
>>average diet.
>>
>In other words a mosquito's excrement in Sahara.
>
>>>The prove that its not harmful for humans.
>>
>>Evidence? Have you got evidence that tiny quantities of peanuts in the
>>human diet cause any significant harm? I can't prove it does no harm.
>>
>There's a fair amount of evidence that peanut fat is surprisingly
>atherogenic in experimental animals including rats, rabbits, and primates.
And what was their diet to induce this problem?
How much peanut would an average human have to eat to see any effect?
>Until we have sufficient scientific evidence about its effect on humans I
>think prudent caution is called for.
Include small amounts in your varied diet? I sometimes have different
nuts in some Thai dishes.
>>>Some people eat a
>>>lot less and some a lot more.
>>
>>And the bell curve is peaked at the edges and depressed in the middle?
>>
>So you don't care about the people on the wrong side of the median?
>I kind of expected that.
Sorry, who mentioned "care"? I thought you were trying to tell me that
few ate the average diet, and most ate too much or too little.
I still don't believe that this is correct.
>>>What about those who eat a lot more (while
>>>still staying within the limits of their calorie requirements ;-))?
>>
>>They are eating a potentially unhealthy diet. Same as eating too much
>>of anything.
>>
>In other words in your opinion peanut butter is unhealthy?
I was referring to your postulate of a person eating a lot more than
average of peanuts
>Not exactly the
>picture I got at first time around ;-).
Didn't we agree that eating a lot of ANYTHING was not a good idea?
You appear to be biting yourself with your own argument
>>Have you got evidence that a varied, whole-food diet does not contain
>>these essential nutrients in approximately this ratio, and if there
>>is, have you got any evidence that it matters one whit?
>>
>Varied, whole food diet does mean different things for different people.
But the bottom line is "not much".
>Some of these diets can be healthy, some may be outright unhealthy.
Could you mention a varied diet that is unhealthy? I can't think of
one.
>I'm
>afraid that you have to do better than throw around worn-out
>generalizations.
Better for what? I am questioning your assertions that one should
avoid this or that specific whole food in a varied diet.
I suggest you are getting bogged down in the minutia of dietary
requirements. I'm trying to suggest that if you vary your diet as much
as you can from what whole foods are cheaply available to you,
exercise regularly, and maintain weight, you will be healthy, unless
you happen to be in that tiny proportion of the population who has a
metabolic disorder.
>>>That couldn't have been too hard to grasp ;-).
>>
>>I grasp it, I'm trying to say nicely that it's bullshit, NTPTFAPOI
>>
>I don't think you did, and your second claim is also incorrect ;-).
Of course you must say this. This is our point of departure.
>>>What's your agenda?
>>
>>None, I'm wondering what yours is. Are you selling something? You
>>sound like a shill for a health food shoppe.
>>
>I'm wondering whether you're just a cheap troll. Prove me wrong, if you can.
Not at all. There is some Devil's advocacy in what I say, but I'm
trying to say that there is a better approach to diet than yours for
99% of the popoulation.
>>>Moreover, what matters is the arginine/lysine
>>>ratio, which is excellent in almonds.
>>
>>And lysine is plentiful in just about all wholefoods.
>>
>You didn't get it. I said _ratio_, meaning high arginine content versus low
>lysine content give a good ratio.
But if lysine and arginine are plentiful in all foods, the ratio in a
varied diet won't matter a fig.
>It's _low_ lysine content which is
>desirable in this context. Too high lysine content inhibits arginine's
>bioavailability.
Bullshit. Animal proteins have stacks of both and I dare you to
demonstrate an arginine deficiency in a normal human being eating a
varied diet.
>>So what are you advocating all these almonds for?
>>
>I'm advocating nothing, just providing some facts about nut butters as
>requested by the initiator of this thread.
So what do you expect to be the result of providing these fact (oids)?
>>>There's a fair amount of evidence of health benefits of MUFAs (as well as of
>>>omega-3s).
>>
>>And this benefit is demonstrated in diseased or overweight
>>populations?
>>
>Would you call that a health benefit?
Not for 99% of the population.
>Do you always have trouble with
>semantics?
No, I generally have to correct others :)
We were talking about diets for normal humans, I thought, not remedial
diets for the unwell.
>>>Aflatoxin happens to be a particularly nasty poison which can have long term
>>>effects such as liver cancer. It may not easy to assess from peanut butter
>>>what is the quality of peanuts used as raw material.
>>
>>Reputable brand, representative government regulator. They keep out
>>most nasties -- ptomaines, butulism, salmonella, E coli, and so on.
>>
>I thought that you "eat no greasy bread spreads", so why this heroic defense
>of peanut butter ? :-):-)
I east no "greasy" (fatty) bread spreads for only one reason.
Calories. I don't miss them, so why eat them? Leaves me room for so
many other less calorie-packed goodies.
I'm ambivalent about peanut butter, but you seem hell bent on damning
it at every turn.
Sandy
Matti Narkia
<qiubsu8bk35kuqbr7...@4ax.com> Sandy <nu...@null.null> wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Nov 2002 22:09:24 GMT, Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com>
>wrote:
>>>
>>Ah, the famous "varied" diet. Tell us more about it! I think that a large
>>part of discussions during the history this newsgroup including this thread
>>have been an attempt to define what could or should belong to this "varied"
>>diet.
>
>Well it doesn't include anxiety about this food or that food not being
>included. It means eating as many different foods as are available to
>you in moderation. The bread I make has probably 20 different
>constituents. I try to eat as many different fruits each day, and
>manage four of five or even more. I demolished a durian a few weks
>ago. My wife likes stews in Winter and Thi dishes in Winter, and these
>have myriad constituents. She subscribes to the "bung it in" school of
>cookery.
>
"bung it in"?. I'm thrilled. And because of all that you want to stop
everyone else from learning a few facts about almond and peanut butter? Your
logic defies me. Look pal, IMHO you seem to be obsessed with your own diet
and your own and your wife's doings. I couldn't care less what you and your
wife eat, it doesn't prove a thing one way or another. This is a sci-group,
sci is for science, did you know that?
>>>
>>There's a fair amount of evidence that peanut fat is surprisingly
>>atherogenic in experimental animals including rats, rabbits, and primates.
>
>And what was their diet to induce this problem?
>How much peanut would an average human have to eat to see any effect?
>
Have a look at the Medline references I provided and at the next sentence.
>>Until we have sufficient scientific evidence about its effect on humans I
>>think prudent caution is called for.
>
>Include small amounts in your varied diet? I sometimes have different
>nuts in some Thai dishes.
>
Good for you, nuts are great for health. But peanuts are not nuts and they
are atherogenic in experimental animals.
>
>But
>>Not exactly the
>>picture I got at first time around ;-).
>
>Didn't we agree that eating a lot of ANYTHING was not a good idea?
>You appear to be biting yourself with your own argument
>
Funny, I got exactly the opposite picture :-) :-)
>>>
>>Varied, whole food diet does mean different things for different people.
>
>But the bottom line is "not much".
>
Bottom line for what? You're incoherent. I was trying to say "varied, whole
food diet is not a standard, unique concept, and you reply "But the bottom
line is "not much"?? Please elaborate for heaven's sake ;-)
>>Some of these diets can be healthy, some may be outright unhealthy.
>
>Could you mention a varied diet that is unhealthy? I can't think of
>one.
>
The word varied has a different meaning for different people. Is that to
difficult to understand? What is a varied diet for one person could look
dangerously one-sided diet for another person. Even the needs may vary from
individual to individual.
>>I'm
>>afraid that you have to do better than throw around worn-out
>>generalizations.
>
>Better for what? I am questioning your assertions that one should
>avoid this or that specific whole food in a varied diet.
And what were those assertions of mine, if I may ask? I was under impression
that I only presented some research based facts about almond and peanuts.
>I suggest you are getting bogged down in the minutia of dietary
>requirements.
You can keep suggesting whatever you like, but that suggestion is flatly
wrong. This newsgroup is for science based discussion about nutritional
matters. It that's too much for you to digest, I suggest you move to another
forum where you can discuss your and your wife's food fads. This newsgroup
is not intended for that.
>>>
>>I'm wondering whether you're just a cheap troll. Prove me wrong, if you can.
>
>Not at all. There is some Devil's advocacy in what I say, but I'm
>trying to say that there is a better approach to diet than yours for
>99% of the popoulation.
>
You don't have a tiniest idea what is my 'approach' to diet. As an anonymous
troll loudmouthing about matters you don't have a faintest idea you really
wouldn't deserve any attention, but without my better judgement I try once
more: We are discussing in this thread the properties of nut butters,
remember? Scientifically, if possible. We are not trying to cover your and
your wife's diet or even my diet or my 'approach' to diet.
>>>
>>You didn't get it. I said _ratio_, meaning high arginine content versus low
>>lysine content give a good ratio.
>
>But if lysine and arginine are plentiful in all foods, the ratio in a
>varied diet won't matter a fig.
>
>>It's _low_ lysine content which is
>>desirable in this context. Too high lysine content inhibits arginine's
>>bioavailability.
>
>Bullshit. Animal proteins have stacks of both and I dare you to
>demonstrate an arginine deficiency in a normal human being eating a
>varied diet.
>
You seem to have a special affection for the b***t word as a replacement for
substance. _Very_ impressive. If I give you the benefit of doubt and assume
for a second that you're not only trolling, perhaps I could try to
understand your use of language as a reaction to your handicap in
discussions in this ng: lack of knowledge. But if you don't change your
attitude and try to learn something, your handicap stays as it is.
We are not (at least I am not) talking about absolute arginine deficiency
here. Besides, arginine is not an essential amino acid, although it can be
conditionally essential. Conditional deficiency of arginine can occur for
example in the presence of excess lysine. Too high plasma lysine
concentration compared with the arginine concentration, will hinder the
utilization of arginine. Lysine and arginine compete from the same active
transport mechanism to get from the blood into the endothelial cells of
blood vessels. It is essentially important that arginine can enter these
cells with the least possible hindrance. If we get considerably more lysine
than arginine from the food, we hardly can utilize at all the arginine
obtained from food.
Food items such as milk products, meat, fish and beans are poor sources of
arginine because of high lysine/arginine ratio. That's where the 'varied'
diet will help, although you don't seem to have clue how: to balance out
poor arginine sources one should include enough food items with good (low)
lysine/argin ratio such as celery, nuts, onions, and rice.
In animal tests too high lysine/arginine ratio has been found increase
cholesterol level.
Arginine is nitric oxide (NO) precursor. Nitric oxide formed from arginine
appears to be present in all cells in the body and is believed essential in
a number of important homeostatic processes. Studies clearly demonstrate the
potential of arginine supplementation to enhance NO-mediated cardiovascular
health.
References:
1: The Role of L-Arginine in Cardiovascular Health
U.S. Pharmacist Continuing Education
ACPE Program No. 430-000-99-015-H01
http://www.uspharmacist.com/NewLook/CE/larginine/lesson.htm
2_ Bogle RG, Baydoun AR, Pearson JD, Mann GE.
Regulation of L-arginine transport and nitric oxide release in superfused
porcine aortic endothelial cells.
J Physiol. 1996 Jan 1;490 ( Pt 1):229-41.
PMID: 8745290 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8745290&dopt=Abstract
3: Avila-Chavez E, Torres-y-Torres N, Tovar-Palacio AR.
[New concepts in anionic and cationic amino acid transport]
Rev Invest Clin. 1997 Sep-Oct;49(5):411-24. Review. Spanish.
PMID: 9527701 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9527701&dopt=Abstract
4: Schott CA, Vetrovsky P, Stoclet JC.
Cationic amino acids inhibit the effects of L-arginine in rat aorta exposed
to lipopolysaccharide.
Eur J Pharmacol. 1993 May 12;236(1):155-7.
PMID: 8319741 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8319741&dopt=Abstract
5: Tews JK, Harper AE.
Induction in rats of lysine imbalance by dietary homoarginine.
J Nutr. 1986 Oct;116(10):1910-21.
PMID: 2430077 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2430077&dopt=Abstract
6: Tews JK, Bradford AM, Harper AE.
Induction of lysine imbalance in rats: relationships between tissue amino
acids and diet.
J Nutr. 1981 Jun;111(6):968-78.
PMID: 6787182 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6787182&dopt=Abstract
7: Smulders RA, Aarsen M, Teerlink T, De Vries PM, Van Kamp GJ, Donker AJ,
Stehouwer CD.
Haemodynamic and biochemical responses to L-arginine and L-lysine
infusions in normal subjects: L-arginine-induced vasodilatation
cannot be explained by non-specific effects of cationic amino acids.
Clin Sci (Colch). 1997 Apr;92(4):367-74.
PMID: 9176035; UI: 97319132.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=9176035&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b
8: Rajamohan T, Kurup PA.
Lysine: arginine ratio of a protein influences cholesterol metabolism. Part
1--Studies on sesame protein having low lysine: arginine ratio.
Indian J Exp Biol. 1997 Nov;35(11):1218-23.
PMID: 9567754 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9567754&dopt=Abstract
9: Sanchez A, Rubano DA, Shavlik GW, Hubbard R, Horning MC.
Cholesterolemic effects of the lysine/arginine ratio in rabbits after
initial early growth.
Arch Latinoam Nutr. 1988 Jun;38(2):229-38. Review.
PMID: 3155291 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3155291&dopt=Abstract
10: Batterham ES, Darnell RE, Herbert LS, Major EJ.
Effect of pressure and temperature on the availability of lysine in meat and
bone meal as determined by slope-ratio assays with growing pigs, rats and
chicks and by chemical techniques.
Br J Nutr. 1986 Mar;55(2):441-53.
PMID: 3118935 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3118935&dopt=Abstract
11: Sugano M, Ishiwaki N, Nakashima K.
Dietary protein-dependent modification of serum cholesterol level in rats.
Significance of the arginine/lysine ratio.
Ann Nutr Metab. 1984;28(3):192-9.
PMID: 6428297 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6428297&dopt=Abstract
12: Kritchevsky D.
Protein and atherosclerosis.
J Nutr Sci Vitaminol (Tokyo). 1990 Oct;36 Suppl 2:S81-6. Review.
PMID: 2130155 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2130155&dopt=Abstract
13: Kritchevsky D, Tepper SA, Czarnecki SK, Klurfeld DM.
Atherogenicity of animal and vegetable protein. Influence of the lysine to
arginine ratio.
Atherosclerosis. 1982 Feb;41(2-3):429-31. No abstract available.
PMID: 6802145 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6802145&dopt=Abstract
14: Wu G, Flynn NE, Flynn SP, Jolly CA, Davis PK.
Dietary protein or arginine deficiency impairs constitutive and
inducible nitric oxide synthesis by young rats.
J Nutr. 1999 Jul;129(7):1347-54.
http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/129/7/1347
15: Boger RH, Bode-Boger SM.
The clinical pharmacology of L-arginine.
Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 2001;41:79-99. Review.
PMID: 11264451 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11264451&dopt=Abstract
16: Wu G, Meininger CJ.
Arginine nutrition and cardiovascular function.
J Nutr. 2000 Nov;130(11):2626-9. Review.
PMID: 11053497 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/130/11/2626
17: Huynh NT, Tayek JA.
Oral arginine reduces systemic blood pressure in type 2 diabetes: its
potential role in nitric oxide generation.
J Am Coll Nutr. 2002 Oct;21(5):422-7.
PMID: 12356784 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12356784&dopt=Abstract
18: Cassone Faldetta M, Laurenti O, Desideri G, Bravi MC, De Luca O,
Marinucci MC, De Mattia G, Ferri C.
l-arginine infusion decreases plasma total homocysteine concentrations
through increased nitric oxide production and decreased oxidative status in
Type II diabetic patients.
Diabetologia. 2002 Aug;45(8):1120-7.
PMID: 12189442 [PubMed - in process]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12189442&dopt=Abstract
19: Marchesi S, Lupattelli G, Siepi D, Roscini AR, Vaudo G, Sinzinger H,
Mannarino E.
Oral L-arginine administration attenuates postprandial endothelial
dysfunction in young healthy males.
J Clin Pharm Ther. 2001 Oct;26(5):343-9.
PMID: 11679024 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11679024&dopt=Abstract
20: Cheng JW, Baldwin SN, Balwin SN.
L-arginine in the management of cardiovascular diseases.
Ann Pharmacother. 2001 Jun;35(6):755-64. Review.
PMID: 11408995 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11408995&dopt=Abstract
21: Lerman A, Burnett JC Jr, Higano ST, McKinley LJ, Holmes DR Jr.
Long-term L-arginine supplementation improves small-vessel coronary
endothelial function in humans.
Circulation. 1998 Jun 2;97(21):2123-8.
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PMID: 9626172
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9626172&dopt=Abstract
22: Maxwell AJ, Cooke JP.
Cardiovascular effects of L-arginine.
Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens. 1998 Jan;7(1):63-70. Review.
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PMID: 9442365
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9442365&dopt=Abstract
23: Adams MR, McCredie R, Jessup W, Robinson J, Sullivan D, Celermajer DS.
Oral L-arginine improves endothelium-dependent dilatation and reduces
monocyte adhesion to endothelial cells in young men with coronary artery
disease.
Atherosclerosis. 1997 Mar 21;129(2):261-9.
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PMID: 9105569
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9105569&dopt=Abstract
24: Adams MR, et al.
Cigarette smoking is associated with increased human monocyte adhesion to
endothelial cells: reversibility with oral L-arginine but not vitamin C.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997 Mar 1;29(3):491-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=9060883&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b
25: Egashira K, Hirooka Y, Kuga T, Mohri M, Takeshita A.
Effects of L-arginine supplementation on endothelium-dependent coronary
vasodilation in patients with angina pectoris and normal coronary
arteriograms.
Circulation. 1996 Jul 15;94(2):130-4.
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PMID: 8674170
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8674170&dopt=Abstract
26: Haulica I, Cosovanu A, Ungureanu G, Zaharia D, Baltatu O, Boisteanu D.
Cardiovascular effects of L-arginine as physiological precursor of nitric
oxide.
Rom J Intern Med. 1994 Jul-Sep;32(3):195-201.
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PMID: 7532511
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7532511&dopt=Abstract
27: Boger RH, Bode-Boger SM, Brandes RP, Phivthong-ngam L, Bohme M, Nafe R,
Mugge A, Frolich JC.
Dietary L-arginine reduces the progression of atherosclerosis in
cholesterol-fed rabbits: comparison with lovastatin.
Circulation. 1997 Aug 19;96(4):1282-90.
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PMID: 9286960
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9286960&dopt=Abstract
28: Drexler H, Zeiher AM, Meinzer K, Just H.
Correction of endothelial dysfunction in coronary microcirculation of
hypercholesterolaemic patients by L-arginine.
Lancet. 1991 Dec 21-28;338(8782-8783):1546-50.
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PMID: 1683971
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1683971&dopt=Abstract
29: Creager MA, Gallagher SJ, Girerd XJ, Coleman SM, Dzau VJ, Cooke JP.
L-arginine improves endothelium-dependent vasodilation in
hypercholesterolemic humans.
J Clin Invest. 1992 Oct;90(4):1248-53.
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PMID: 1401062
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1401062&dopt=Abstract
30: Campisi R, Czernin J, Schoder H, Sayre JW, Schelbert HR.
L-Arginine normalizes coronary vasomotion in long-term smokers.
Circulation. 1999 Feb 2;99(4):491-7.
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PMID: 9927394
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9927394&dopt=Abstract
31: Cooke JP.
Is atherosclerosis an arginine deficiency disease?
J Investig Med. 1998 Oct;46(8):377-80. Review.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=9805422&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b
32: Aji W, et al.
L-arginine prevents xanthoma development and inhibits atherosclerosis in
LDL receptor knockout mice. Circulation. 1997 Jan 21;95(2):430-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=9008461&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b
33: Rector TS, et al.
Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of supplemental oral
L-arginine in patients with heart failure.
Circulation. 1996 Jun 15;93(12):2135-41.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/93/12/2135
34: Wang BY, et al.
Dietary arginine prevents atherogenesis in the coronary artery of the
hypercholesterolemic rabbit. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1994 Feb;23(2):452-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=8294700&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b
--
Matti Narkia
Sandy
wrote:
>Mon, 04 Nov 2002 04:53:52 GMT in article
><qiubsu8bk35kuqbr7...@4ax.com> Sandy <nu...@null.null> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Nov 2002 22:09:24 GMT, Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com>
>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>Ah, the famous "varied" diet. Tell us more about it! I think that a large
>>>part of discussions during the history this newsgroup including this thread
>>>have been an attempt to define what could or should belong to this "varied"
>>>diet.
>>
>>Well it doesn't include anxiety about this food or that food not being
>>included. It means eating as many different foods as are available to
>>you in moderation. The bread I make has probably 20 different
>>constituents. I try to eat as many different fruits each day, and
>>manage four of five or even more. I demolished a durian a few weks
>>ago. My wife likes stews in Winter and Thi dishes in Winter, and these
>>have myriad constituents. She subscribes to the "bung it in" school of
>>cookery.
>>
>"bung it in"?. I'm thrilled.
I'm so pleased that you are so easily thrilled -:)
>And because of all that you want to stop
>everyone else from learning a few facts about almond and peanut butter?
Not at all. Knowledge is power. I'm just trying to put some
perspective into these relatively insignificant facts.
>Your
>logic defies me.
Howso? What's to follow that is so hard?
The factoids you are giving about almonds and peanuts are interesting
in their own right, but virtually irrelevant in an average, varied
diet. I am curious why you seem to single peanuts out for rare
shortcomings that many other foods suffer from.
>Look pal, IMHO you seem to be obsessed with your own diet
>and your own and your wife's doings.
Obsessed? I merely agree with long held views that a varied diet with
plenty of exercise and no excess weight is the way to go.
Your nitpicking about this constituent and that is obsessive nonsense
IMHO. Interesting, but not relevant to the average folks diet.
>I couldn't care less what you and your
>wife eat, it doesn't prove a thing one way or another.
And where have I said it proves anything? I've mentioned it once, I
believe -- my avoidance of unnecessary fat coz of the calories. Are
you sure you are not confusing me with someone else?
>This is a sci-group,
>sci is for science, did you know that?
Yep. That's why I'm trying to give an overview of ideal diet, and
avoid getting bogged down in idiotic consequences of overconsuming
this or that constituent. How does your silly lysine/arginine ratio
have any bearing on an ideal diet for the masses?
>>>There's a fair amount of evidence that peanut fat is surprisingly
>>>atherogenic in experimental animals including rats, rabbits, and primates.
>>
>>And what was their diet to induce this problem?
>>How much peanut would an average human have to eat to see any effect?
>>
>Have a look at the Medline references I provided and at the next sentence.
You haven't got it at your fingertips? You really don't have a handle
on an ideal diet, do you.
>>>Until we have sufficient scientific evidence about its effect on humans I
>>>think prudent caution is called for.
>>
>>Include small amounts in your varied diet? I sometimes have different
>>nuts in some Thai dishes.
>>
>Good for you, nuts are great for health.
What an idiotic statement. Food is "great for health"
Nuts are just another food. Do you believe in magic?
>But peanuts are not nuts and they
>are atherogenic in experimental animals.
Their botanical classification is irrelevant.
All plant foods have toxins of one sort or another. That's why a
varied diet of a little of many types avoids getting too poisoned
>>But
>>>Not exactly the
>>>picture I got at first time around ;-).
>>
>>Didn't we agree that eating a lot of ANYTHING was not a good idea?
>>You appear to be biting yourself with your own argument
>>
>Funny, I got exactly the opposite picture :-) :-)
Well I said too much of anything (peanuts for example) may be
unhealthy, and you gain from that that I now claim peanuts per se are
unhealthy. You are confused and self contradictory.
>>>Varied, whole food diet does mean different things for different people.
>>
>>But the bottom line is "not much".
>>
>Bottom line for what? You're incoherent. I was trying to say "varied, whole
>food diet is not a standard, unique concept, and you reply "But the bottom
>line is "not much"?? Please elaborate for heaven's sake ;-)
Or even for your sake?
"Not much" DIFFERENCE.
>>>Some of these diets can be healthy, some may be outright unhealthy.
>>
>>Could you mention a varied diet that is unhealthy? I can't think of
>>one.
>>
>The word varied has a different meaning for different people.
Well to me it means as many different types of food that are
reasonably available to one. What does it mean to you?
>Is that to
>difficult to understand?
No problem understanding, I just don't believe it. Varied means
varied, doesn't it?
>What is a varied diet for one person could look
>dangerously one-sided diet for another person.
For example?
>Even the needs may vary from
>individual to individual.
A heavy laborer will need more calories than a sedentary office
worker. I imagined that this was obvious. The laborer will eat more.
>>>I'm
>>>afraid that you have to do better than throw around worn-out
>>>generalizations.
>>
>>Better for what? I am questioning your assertions that one should
>>avoid this or that specific whole food in a varied diet.
>
>And what were those assertions of mine, if I may ask? I was under impression
>that I only presented some research based facts about almond and peanuts.
You asserted that almonds were "healthy" and by implication should be
added to the diet. You asserted pretty much the opposite for peanuts.
My contention is that a small amount of each, along with many other
foods, is the healthiest route to take.
>>I suggest you are getting bogged down in the minutia of dietary
>>requirements.
>
>You can keep suggesting whatever you like, but that suggestion is flatly
>wrong.
I won't repeat myself except to say that I believe you are a rational
person and I would be surpried if you didn't think I was wrong.
Thats our disagreement that we are discussing.
I contend that the ideal diet is just a eucaloric very varied one, and
you seem to concentrate on "goodies" (nuts) and "baddies" (peanuts)
for example. You appear to advocate selective foods, i am advocating a
wide variety of wholefoods.
>This newsgroup is for science based discussion about nutritional
>matters.
That doeesn't mean trawling medline for papers that say what you want
them to say. You must interpret these studies in the light of the
whole subject. A job for a senior expert in the field who has been
involved in it for a long time. Trawling medline can show you just
about anything you like. That's not science, sorry.
Science is interpreting the minutiae to the overview.
BTW, why can't discussion of an ideal diet be carried on here?
>It that's too much for you to digest, I suggest you move to another
>forum where you can discuss your and your wife's food fads.
To what do you refer? What "fads" would these be?
I would have thought your views on peanuts and almonds were the
"fads".
>This newsgroup
>is not intended for that.
It's for you to obsess about the latest insignificant finding in a
database of scientific papers? Sorry I intruded.
>>>I'm wondering whether you're just a cheap troll. Prove me wrong, if you can.
>>
>>Not at all. There is some Devil's advocacy in what I say, but I'm
>>trying to say that there is a better approach to diet than yours for
>>99% of the popoulation.
>>
>You don't have a tiniest idea what is my 'approach' to diet.
Apparently not, but from some of the things you have said here about
just two foods, I can only extrapolate.
>As an anonymous
>troll loudmouthing about matters you don't have a faintest idea you really
>wouldn't deserve any attention, but without my better judgement I try once
>more:
Sorry, what are you talking about? Your insults are not very
scientific for a rational scientific discussion, I'm afraid.
>We are discussing in this thread the properties of nut butters,
>remember? Scientifically, if possible. We are not trying to cover your and
>your wife's diet or even my diet or my 'approach' to diet.
And nut butters are fine in the small amounts that average folks
consume them. Why are you carrying on about animals fed this or that?
Interesting factoids, but hardly relevant to whether a chap should
have a little nut butter in his diet.
There is the science trying to unravel and understand the mechanisms,
and then there is the interpretation leading to advice on the ideal
diet. Don't confuse the two.
>>>You didn't get it. I said _ratio_, meaning high arginine content versus low
>>>lysine content give a good ratio.
>>
>>But if lysine and arginine are plentiful in all foods, the ratio in a
>>varied diet won't matter a fig.
>>
>>>It's _low_ lysine content which is
>>>desirable in this context. Too high lysine content inhibits arginine's
>>>bioavailability.
>>
>>Bullshit. Animal proteins have stacks of both and I dare you to
>>demonstrate an arginine deficiency in a normal human being eating a
>>varied diet.
>>
>You seem to have a special affection for the b***t word as a replacement for
>substance.
It's a very common Australian expression. Sorry it offends your
delicate sensibilities. Your asterisks appear to be so twee -:)
If you don't know what it means, then perhaps a search for an Oz idiom
glossary.
>_Very_ impressive. If I give you the benefit of doubt and assume
>for a second that you're not only trolling, perhaps I could try to
>understand your use of language as a reaction to your handicap in
>discussions in this ng: lack of knowledge. But if you don't change your
>attitude and try to learn something, your handicap stays as it is.
What are you trying to teach me? Avoid peanuts in my diet and add more
almonds? Sorry, but your evidence for advocating any such thing is
inadequate.
>We are not (at least I am not) talking about absolute arginine deficiency
>here.
Well what ARE you talking about? You said if the ratio is wrong, you
will suffer some harm, or so I gathered.
>Besides, arginine is not an essential amino acid, although it can be
>conditionally essential. Conditional deficiency of arginine can occur for
>example in the presence of excess lysine. Too high plasma lysine
>concentration compared with the arginine concentration, will hinder the
>utilization of arginine. Lysine and arginine compete from the same active
>transport mechanism to get from the blood into the endothelial cells of
>blood vessels. It is essentially important that arginine can enter these
>cells with the least possible hindrance. If we get considerably more lysine
>than arginine from the food, we hardly can utilize at all the arginine
>obtained from food.
And could you describe the conditions where this would occur?
(In a varied wholefood diet, of course)
>Food items such as milk products, meat, fish and beans are poor sources of
>arginine because of high lysine/arginine ratio. That's where the 'varied'
>diet will help, although you don't seem to have clue how: to balance out
>poor arginine sources one should include enough food items with good (low)
>lysine/argin ratio such as celery, nuts, onions, and rice.
And hens eggs have 5.2% lysine and 6.4% arginine in the protein.
Soy beans have 1.8% lysine and 3.4% arginine in the protein.
Dried peas have 3.2% lysine and 7.3% arginine in the protein.
Wheat has 2.5% lysine and 4.5% arginine in the protein.
Rye has 4.0% lysine and 5.3% arginine in the protein.
What are you referring to?
>In animal tests too high lysine/arginine ratio has been found increase
>cholesterol level.
And how do you get this in a varied diet?
>Arginine is nitric oxide (NO) precursor. Nitric oxide formed from arginine
>appears to be present in all cells in the body and is believed essential in
>a number of important homeostatic processes. Studies clearly demonstrate the
>potential of arginine supplementation to enhance NO-mediated cardiovascular
>health.
Bullshit. Nitric oxide is a very common neurotransmitter and a varied
diet will in no way result in a deficiency. Just because some may come
from the N and O in a particular amino acid does not mean that there
will be an improvement in any bodily function by artificially doping
with it.
Interesting references, thankyou, but they have no bearing on the
ideal diet. They are merely bits of the jigsaw trying to understand
the mechanisms involved
>References:
<snip>
Sandy
Matti Narkia
<h4ncsu02u1amvvpmf...@4ax.com> Sandy <nu...@null.null> wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Nov 2002 09:36:04 GMT, Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Your
>>logic defies me.
>
>Howso? What's to follow that is so hard?
>The factoids you are giving about almonds and peanuts are interesting
>in their own right, but virtually irrelevant in an average, varied
>diet.
Even how varied your diet is you have to make some choices. Choices can be
made according to many criteria. People who are suffering from some illness
or belong to a high risk group are likely to benefit from the results of
nutritional science while making choices.
You simplistic point-of-view is very ego-centric, you don't realize that
other people's need for information could differ from yours.
>I am curious why you seem to single peanuts out for rare
>shortcomings that many other foods suffer from.
>
Single out? Get hold of your senses. When the topic is "nut butters" I don't
divert to my wife's cooking or to ho many ingredients our bread contains. I
just stick to the subject.
>>Look pal, IMHO you seem to be obsessed with your own diet
>>and your own and your wife's doings.
>
>Obsessed? I merely agree with long held views that a varied diet with
>plenty of exercise and no excess weight is the way to go.
Sounds sensible, but what has that to do with nut butters?
>Your nitpicking about this constituent and that is obsessive nonsense
>IMHO. Interesting, but not relevant to the average folks diet.
>
I agree that you seem to be average and that the facts I present may not be
of interest to you, but, please, can you sometimes remember that there are
other people in the world, even in this ng, who probably have use for the
facts. And they were in fact even requested, remember.
>>I couldn't care less what you and your
>>wife eat, it doesn't prove a thing one way or another.
>
>And where have I said it proves anything? I've mentioned it once, I
>believe -- my avoidance of unnecessary fat coz of the calories. Are
>you sure you are not confusing me with someone else?
>
That wouldn't be possible, you're about the only superaverage person
here ;-)
>>This is a sci-group,
>>sci is for science, did you know that?
>
>Yep. That's why I'm trying to give an overview of ideal diet, and
>avoid getting bogged down in idiotic consequences of overconsuming
>this or that constituent.
You're hallucinating. Who has mentioned anything about overconsuming
anything? As far as I remember, no quantities have been recommended or even
mentioned.
>How does your silly lysine/arginine ratio
>have any bearing on an ideal diet for the masses?
>
You have to ask that from the nutritional scientists, who have had a great
interested in lysine/arginine ratio for decades. You could also get familiar
with the references I provided.
>>>
>>Have a look at the Medline references I provided and at the next sentence.
>
>You haven't got it at your fingertips? You really don't have a handle
>on an ideal diet, do you.
>
What has that to do with nut butters? Nothing I guess. But against my better
judgment I allow myself a brief diversion: I don't know if I "have a handle
on an ideal diet". Even if I had it would probably be very difficult if not
impossible to show that it is indeed ideal. Besides ideal diet would depend
of whether you are aiming just for optimal health in general or curing or
preventing some disease. Needs also vary from individual to individual. It's
possible that there is no diet which would be ideal for everyone. Do you
"have a handle on an ideal diet"?
>>Good for you, nuts are great for health.
>
>What an idiotic statement. Food is "great for health"
>Nuts are just another food. Do you believe in magic?
>
Nuts _are_ great for health, especially for cardiovascular health. There is
fair amount of evidence about that, which you can find even in Medline if
you're interested. Instead we cannot generally say that "food is great for
health", because there are a lot of unhealthy food items, as even a
superaverage person like you probably knows.
One has to make choices when putting together a diet. Healthy choices make
more sense that unhealthy ones.
>>But peanuts are not nuts and they
>>are atherogenic in experimental animals.
>
>Their botanical classification is irrelevant.
>All plant foods have toxins of one sort or another. That's why a
>varied diet of a little of many types avoids getting too poisoned
>
What that has to d with nut butters. You start sounding like religious freak
with your sermon about varied diet (without any substance). If I didn't know
that _sensibly_ varied diet is good for health, I would feel tempted reject
the varied diet just because of your fanaticism :-).?
>
>No problem understanding, I just don't believe it. Varied means
>varied, doesn't it?
>
Here you go again :-):-)
>>
>>And what were those assertions of mine, if I may ask? I was under impression
>>that I only presented some research based facts about almond and peanuts.
>
>You asserted that almonds were "healthy" and by implication should be
>added to the diet.
Don't imply too much. There are plenty of healthy foods around, you don't
have to eat them all.
>You asserted pretty much the opposite for peanuts.
Just the facts. Would you have preferred a lie?
>My contention is that a small amount of each, along with many other
>foods, is the healthiest route to take.
>
It's up to you to eat what you want, but I'm sure many people disagree with
you. There are plenty of healthy food items around. IMHO it's better to add
two healthy items to your diet than one healthy and one unhealthy one.
>
>>This newsgroup is for science based discussion about nutritional
>>matters.
>
>That doeesn't mean trawling medline for papers that say what you want
>them to say.
No, and I cannot remember anyone doing that either.
>You must interpret these studies in the light of the
>whole subject. A job for a senior expert in the field who has been
>involved in it for a long time. Trawling medline can show you just
>about anything you like.
That's why people in this newsgroup don't usually "trawl medline".
>That's not science, sorry.
>Science is interpreting the minutiae to the overview.
That's (a very challenging) part of it. But before that science has to
produce the minutiae. In this ng it is often necessary to provide also the
minutiae, for example the references, to back up your claims.
>BTW, why can't discussion of an ideal diet be carried on here?
>
In this ng? Sure, just start a new thread for it. But be prepared to provide
some evidence for your views.
>>It that's too much for you to digest, I suggest you move to another
>>forum where you can discuss your and your wife's food fads.
>
>To what do you refer? What "fads" would these be?
>I would have thought your views on peanuts and almonds were the
>"fads".
>
My views? Fads? Hmmm... Pleas, read my original post again ;-).
>>>
>>You don't have a tiniest idea what is my 'approach' to diet.
>
>Apparently not, but from some of the things you have said here about
>just two foods, I can only extrapolate.
>
Why you feel forced to extrapolate? I guarantee that extrapolation doesn't
work in this case.
>>As an anonymous
>>troll loudmouthing about matters you don't have a faintest idea you really
>>wouldn't deserve any attention, but without my better judgement I try once
>>more:
>
>Sorry, what are you talking about? Your insults are not very
>scientific for a rational scientific discussion, I'm afraid.
>
No, they were not intended as such. Tough, but to have science based
discussion you need two who are willing to do it.
>>Food items such as milk products, meat, fish and beans are poor sources of
>>arginine because of high lysine/arginine ratio. That's where the 'varied'
>>diet will help, although you don't seem to have clue how: to balance out
>>poor arginine sources one should include enough food items with good (low)
>>lysine/argin ratio such as celery, nuts, onions, and rice.
>
>And hens eggs have 5.2% lysine and 6.4% arginine in the protein.
>Soy beans have 1.8% lysine and 3.4% arginine in the protein.
>Dried peas have 3.2% lysine and 7.3% arginine in the protein.
>Wheat has 2.5% lysine and 4.5% arginine in the protein.
>Rye has 4.0% lysine and 5.3% arginine in the protein.
>
Very good. Perhaps you're not quite as dumb as I thought :-).
>
>>Arginine is nitric oxide (NO) precursor. Nitric oxide formed from arginine
>>appears to be present in all cells in the body and is believed essential in
>>a number of important homeostatic processes. Studies clearly demonstrate the
>>potential of arginine supplementation to enhance NO-mediated cardiovascular
>>health.
>
>Bullshit. Nitric oxide is a very common neurotransmitter and a varied
>diet will in no way result in a deficiency. Just because some may come
>from the N and O in a particular amino acid does not mean that there
>will be an improvement in any bodily function by artificially doping
>with it.
>
And how an earth do you know that "a varied diet will in no way result in a
deficiency". Suppose your varied diet has been varied in such a way that it
has large lysine excess compared with arginine. People may and do vary
differently ;-)
--
Matti Narkia
Sandy
wrote:
>Mon, 04 Nov 2002 13:08:21 GMT in article
><h4ncsu02u1amvvpmf...@4ax.com> Sandy <nu...@null.null> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 04 Nov 2002 09:36:04 GMT, Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Your
>>>logic defies me.
>>
>>Howso? What's to follow that is so hard?
>>The factoids you are giving about almonds and peanuts are interesting
>>in their own right, but virtually irrelevant in an average, varied
>>diet.
>
>Even how varied your diet is you have to make some choices. Choices can be
>made according to many criteria. People who are suffering from some illness
>or belong to a high risk group are likely to benefit from the results of
>nutritional science while making choices.
No disagreement here, but not really what I was talking about.
>Your simplistic point-of-view is very ego-centric,
Howso? I'm merely trying to put thousands of often contradictory
little scientific "discoveries" into the context of the big picture
>you don't realize that
>other people's need for information could differ from yours.
The info is no problem so long as it's put into context.
Healthy individuals should not alter their diet on the strength of
some minute factoid discovered in the fury of scientific investigation
of biochemistry. It should be well tempered with common sense.
BTW, are these folk who "NEED" this info perfectly well, or have they
some metabolic disorder?
>>I am curious why you seem to single peanuts out for rare
>>shortcomings that many other foods suffer from.
>>
>Single out? Get hold of your senses. When the topic is "nut butters" I don't
>divert to my wife's cooking or to how many ingredients our bread contains. I
>just stick to the subject.
Well as you said, peanuts are not nuts, but that aside, you stressed
the allergic properties of peanuts whilst apparently ignoring the
allergic properties of other nuts, and similarly the contamination of
other nuts with the stressing of aflatoxins in peanuts alone.
Sorry if I misinterpretted, but you certainly seemed to have it in for
this non-nut product.
In case you missed it, the bread and wife's cooking were merely
exemplifying the simplicity of varying the diet to include many
ingredients in the one dish. A Thai or Chinese meal will likely
contain amongst many other things several types of nuts including
almonds, cashew, and even peanuts and coconut. You surely are not
advocating picking the few peanuts out just coz some obscure paper
finds a tentative connection with a particular ailment?
>>>Look pal, IMHO you seem to be obsessed with your own diet
>>>and your own and your wife's doings.
>>
>>Obsessed? I merely agree with long held views that a varied diet with
>>plenty of exercise and no excess weight is the way to go.
>
>Sounds sensible, but what has that to do with nut butters?
Worrying about adding almonds or subtracting peanuts or other minor
constituents to ones diet on suggestions that change monthly in a
torrent of tentative scientific "discoveries", is made an irrelevance
in the context of a varied wholefood diet, that's all.
Afterall, the OP asked for advice on whether these minor food
constituents were safe to include in his diet. He was after practical
advice, not biochemical minutiae.
>>Your nitpicking about this constituent and that is obsessive nonsense
>>IMHO. Interesting, but not relevant to the average folks diet.
>>
>I agree that you seem to be average and that the facts I present may not be
>of interest to you, but, please, can you sometimes remember that there are
>other people in the world, even in this ng, who probably have use for the
>facts. And they were in fact even requested, remember.
Was there something wrong with the OP that he was querying nut
butters? Perhaps scaremongering by the popular press that gets access
to this torrent of scientific "discoveries"?
>>>I couldn't care less what you and your
>>>wife eat, it doesn't prove a thing one way or another.
>>
>>And where have I said it proves anything? I've mentioned it once, I
>>believe -- my avoidance of unnecessary fat coz of the calories. Are
>>you sure you are not confusing me with someone else?
>>
>That wouldn't be possible, you're about the only superaverage person
>here ;-)
So it seems. Like on many of these "health" groups, the posters often
have every "malfunction" in the text book :)
>>>This is a sci-group,
>>>sci is for science, did you know that?
>>
>>Yep. That's why I'm trying to give an overview of ideal diet, and
>>avoid getting bogged down in idiotic consequences of overconsuming
>>this or that constituent.
>
>You're hallucinating. Who has mentioned anything about overconsuming
>anything?
You did:
"Define average quantity. The prove that its not harmful for humans.
Remember also that hardly anyone eats "average quantity". Some people
eat a lot less and some a lot more. What about those who eat a lot
more (while still staying within the limits of their calorie
requirements ;-))?"
>As far as I remember, no quantities have been recommended or even
>mentioned.
And I'm saying that as far as advice goes to the average punter, these
fads about this ot that foodstuff being "flavour of the month" are a
waste of time in a varied, wholefood diet.
>>How does your silly lysine/arginine ratio
>>have any bearing on an ideal diet for the masses?
>>
>You have to ask that from the nutritional scientists, who have had a great
>interested in lysine/arginine ratio for decades. You could also get familiar
>with the references I provided.
Well you tell me what it has to do with the average healthy diet. I
can't find any relevance.It is fascinating as far as investigating the
biochemistry, but unlesss you have some metabolic disorder, I can't
see much relevance to that average healthy punter.
>>>Have a look at the Medline references I provided and at the next sentence.
>>
>>You haven't got it at your fingertips? You really don't have a handle
>>on an ideal diet, do you.
>>
>What has that to do with nut butters? Nothing I guess. But against my better
>judgment I allow myself a brief diversion: I don't know if I "have a handle
>on an ideal diet". Even if I had it would probably be very difficult if not
>impossible to show that it is indeed ideal. Besides ideal diet would depend
>of whether you are aiming just for optimal health in general or curing or
>preventing some disease. Needs also vary from individual to individual. It's
>possible that there is no diet which would be ideal for everyone. Do you
>"have a handle on an ideal diet"?
Yep. I've stated it many times. The variation ensures that there is
unlikely to be any overdiose of the many nasties in foods and also
ensures that no deficiencies will occur.
Diets for diseased states are a totally nother story.
>>>Good for you, nuts are great for health.
>>
>>What an idiotic statement. Food is "great for health"
>>Nuts are just another food. Do you believe in magic?
>>
>Nuts _are_ great for health, especially for cardiovascular health.
What on earth does this mean?
Are you reverting back to that old paradigm os "tonics"?
An optimal supply of ALL essential nutrients is the only thing that is
essential for good health in the dietary area. Many other things are
essential in other areas
>There is
>fair amount of evidence about that, which you can find even in Medline if
>you're interested. Instead we cannot generally say that "food is great for
>health", because there are a lot of unhealthy food items, as even a
>superaverage person like you probably knows.
Amongst wholefoods in moderation?
What examples would you be referring to?
>One has to make choices when putting together a diet. Healthy choices make
>more sense that unhealthy ones.
When you tell me the unhealthy ones, I will suggest that you include
ALL the foodstuffs available, in small quantities. You can't go wrong
then, even if the paradigm shifts 180 degrees every month.
>>>But peanuts are not nuts and they
>>>are atherogenic in experimental animals.
>>
>>Their botanical classification is irrelevant.
>>All plant foods have toxins of one sort or another. That's why a
>>varied diet of a little of many types avoids getting too poisoned
>>
>What that has to d with nut butters.
The nuts all have malevolent molecules which you can avoid harm from
by having a little of each, and many other foods, instead of avoiding
totallty this one or eating more than a modicum of that one.
>You start sounding like religious freak
>with your sermon about varied diet (without any substance).
No, it's gotten us through a few million years, and if you look at it
with dispassionate eyes, your fad factoids are the religious zealotry.
>If I didn't know
>that _sensibly_ varied diet is good for health, I would feel tempted reject
>the varied diet just because of your fanaticism :-).?
Fanaticism? I've mentioned it often, because you appear to either
reject it or not understand why it is healthy and why it allows people
to get on with their lives and stop worrying about this food or that.
Anyway, I thought you said there was no evidence for this varied diet
that you seem to be so passionately against.
>>No problem understanding, I just don't believe it. Varied means
>>varied, doesn't it?
>>
>Here you go again :-):-)
Well what does the word mean to you? You said everyone had a different
meaning for it.
>>>And what were those assertions of mine, if I may ask? I was under impression
>>>that I only presented some research based facts about almond and peanuts.
>>
>>You asserted that almonds were "healthy" and by implication should be
>>added to the diet.
>
>Don't imply too much. There are plenty of healthy foods around, you don't
>have to eat them all.
Well I'm suggesting that if you strive to eat a little of all of them,
you will be better off and won't have to scour medline to find out
what you can and can't eat this month.
BTW, processed and refined foods should be avoided where possible.
This goes without saying. That's what I mean by "wholefoods".
>>You asserted pretty much the opposite for peanuts.
>
>Just the facts. Would you have preferred a lie?
No, but what about the allergies from proteins in other nuts?
Afterall, you went to pains to point out that peanuts weren't nuts,
and then went to town on their shortcomings. What about aflatoxins and
other fungal problems with all nuts stored improperly?
>>My contention is that a small amount of each, along with many other
>>foods, is the healthiest route to take.
>>
>It's up to you to eat what you want, but I'm sure many people disagree with
>you.
Curious to know what they would advocate in its stead..
>There are plenty of healthy food items around. IMHO it's better to add
>two healthy items to your diet than one healthy and one unhealthy one.
They are all healthy or unhealthy depending on who you believe in
which month. Best to eat a little of 50 different ones to avoid any
harm from too much of one or to avoid a deficiency that might occur in
another. You've heard the suggestion that if someone invented the
apple tomorrow, and submitted it to the FDA for approval, it would be
rejected out of hand?
>>>This newsgroup is for science based discussion about nutritional
>>>matters.
>>
>>That doeesn't mean trawling medline for papers that say what you want
>>them to say.
>
>No, and I cannot remember anyone doing that either.
Really? I've seen it often. The press do this often. Remember the
sensationalist nonsense about Premarin recently? They are always going
off half-cocked at the instigation of this or that recent "finding"
that likely gets turned on its head next month.
>>You must interpret these studies in the light of the
>>whole subject. A job for a senior expert in the field who has been
>>involved in it for a long time. Trawling medline can show you just
>>about anything you like.
>
>That's why people in this newsgroup don't usually "trawl medline".
Well you seem to quote from it often enough.
People in this newsgroup would be better advised to quote reviews of
areas of interest written by senior scientists who have worked in the
area for decades.
>>That's not science, sorry.
>>Science is interpreting the minutiae to the overview.
>
>That's (a very challenging) part of it. But before that, science has to
>produce the minutiae.
But folks reading this minutiae should realise what it is -- it is
just a snapshot of discoveries of pieces of the jigsaw and until the
jigsaw is substantially put together and unamiguously showing a clear
picture, no weight should be placed on this green piece or that blue
piece. We haven't got a picture of this finished puzzle on the front
of the box to even guess that the green bits might be grass and the
blue bits, sky.
>In this ng it is often necessary to provide also the
>minutiae, for example the references, to back up your claims.
These claims so referenced are so often founded on quicksand.
>>BTW, why can't discussion of an ideal diet be carried on here?
>>
>In this ng? Sure, just start a new thread for it. But be prepared to provide
>some evidence for your views.
What's wrong with referring to it in this thread started by someone
asking for advice whether to include nut butters in their menu?
>>>It that's too much for you to digest, I suggest you move to another
>>>forum where you can discuss your and your wife's food fads.
>>
>>To what do you refer? What "fads" would these be?
>>I would have thought your views on peanuts and almonds were the
>>"fads".
>>
>My views? Fads? Hmmm... Pleas, read my original post again ;-).
It is:
_________________________________________
IMHO almond butter is a good choice from a cardiovascular-health
viewpoint, almond oil improves serum lipid profile. Peanuts should be
avoided, they contain an atherogenic substance. Almonds contain large
amount of calcium and magnesium in an ideal 1:1 ratio. Almonds are
also a good source of arginine and monounsaturated fatty acids. Mouldy
peanuts may sometimes contain aflatoxin which is liver-toxin and can
cause liver cancer. Peanut allergy can be life-threathening.
__________________________________________
The first sentence is nonsense. What foodstuff is "healthy" for one
part of the body, but "unhealthy" for another?
Almond oil is a refined food that should really be avoided. How big a
proportion of the average diet do almonds constitute?
The second sentence picks on peanuts for a reputed harmful substance,
neglecting the harmful substances in all other nuts.
The third sentence is some nonsense about the proportion of Ca and Mg
in almonds as if almonds are the only thing consumed. I have pointed
out that virtually all plant foods have scads of both elements.
The next sentence talks about arginine, a deficiency wrt lysine that
is virtually impossible to suffer with a varied, mixed diet.
Then peanuts get picked on for aflatoxins while ignoring problems with
all other nuts when improperly stored.
The final bit about peanut allergy ignored allergies from other nuts
giving the impression that peanuts are unique in this respect.
All this to a guy who asked if nut butters were OK to spread on his
toast.
>>>You don't have a tiniest idea what is my 'approach' to diet.
>>
>>Apparently not, but from some of the things you have said here about
>>just two foods, I can only extrapolate.
>>
>Why you feel forced to extrapolate? I guarantee that extrapolation doesn't
>work in this case.
OK, so this silly advice to a person wanting a toast spread is out of
character. I'll take your word for it.
>>>As an anonymous
>>>troll loudmouthing about matters you don't have a faintest idea you really
>>>wouldn't deserve any attention, but without my better judgement I try once
>>>more:
>>
>>Sorry, what are you talking about? Your insults are not very
>>scientific for a rational scientific discussion, I'm afraid.
>>
>No, they were not intended as such. Tough, but to have science based
>discussion you need two who are willing to do it.
Quoting masses and masses of "jigsaw puzzle pieces" is not a
scientific discussion, except between two workers in that field. But
then they are generally aware of EVERY paper written in the area.
>>>Food items such as milk products, meat, fish and beans are poor sources of
>>>arginine because of high lysine/arginine ratio. That's where the 'varied'
>>>diet will help, although you don't seem to have clue how: to balance out
>>>poor arginine sources one should include enough food items with good (low)
>>>lysine/argin ratio such as celery, nuts, onions, and rice.
>>
>>And hens eggs have 5.2% lysine and 6.4% arginine in the protein.
>>Soy beans have 1.8% lysine and 3.4% arginine in the protein.
>>Dried peas have 3.2% lysine and 7.3% arginine in the protein.
>>Wheat has 2.5% lysine and 4.5% arginine in the protein.
>>Rye has 4.0% lysine and 5.3% arginine in the protein.
>>
>Very good. Perhaps you're not quite as dumb as I thought :-).
Thankyou, I think.
>>>Arginine is nitric oxide (NO) precursor. Nitric oxide formed from arginine
>>>appears to be present in all cells in the body and is believed essential in
>>>a number of important homeostatic processes. Studies clearly demonstrate the
>>>potential of arginine supplementation to enhance NO-mediated cardiovascular
>>>health.
>>
>>Bullshit. Nitric oxide is a very common neurotransmitter and a varied
>>diet will in no way result in a deficiency. Just because some may come
>>from the N and O in a particular amino acid does not mean that there
>>will be an improvement in any bodily function by artificially doping
>>with it.
>>
>And how an earth do you know that "a varied diet will in no way result in a
>deficiency".
Coz that's how we've survived/evolved til now, I guess.
>Suppose your varied diet has been varied in such a way that it
>has large lysine excess compared with arginine. People may and do vary
>differently ;-)
Sorry, by varied, I mean lots and lots of little amounts of many
different foods. Like typical SE Asian cuisine.
If you are going to avoid soy, peas, grains, eggs and many other
foods, then I really wouldn't call this a varied diet. The whole point
of varied is to make sure that you don't get these odd skewings of
some constituents. Either deficiencies, or toxin overload.
Sandy
Steve Harris
>In case you missed it, the bread and wife's cooking were merely
>exemplifying the simplicity of varying the diet to include many
>ingredients in the one dish. A Thai or Chinese meal will likely
>contain amongst many other things several types of nuts including
>almonds, cashew, and even peanuts and coconut. You surely are not
>advocating picking the few peanuts out just coz some obscure paper
>finds a tentative connection with a particular ailment?
No, you simply order the dish without peanuts. I've ordered many a fine Thai
meal in many fine Thai restaurant in cities across the country, and have yet
to encounter one which couldn't or wouldn't leave the peanuts and/or peanut
sauce out a dish, on request. They cook these things individually on the
spot, don't you know. You can get it your way, because a Thai restaurant is
not McDonald's. (There are a few dishes where the peanut sauce is the core
of the dish-- but I assume that nobody would want to order one of those
without the peanuts, any more than you'd want to order Peking Duck without
the duck. But your average Pad Thai or Pad Wan-sen is easy to get without
peanuts).
Of course, that's not safe to do if you're peanut allergic, but it does fine
for the purposes of which we are speaking here. No, I don't think the amount
of peanuts I'd otherwise be getting in Thai food is significant. However, on
the other hand, I don't like their taste that much, and it's not that
difficult to have them removed.
Matti Narkia
>On Tue, 05 Nov 2002 10:11:43 GMT, Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Your simplistic point-of-view is very ego-centric,
>
>Howso? I'm merely trying to put thousands of often contradictory
>little scientific "discoveries" into the context of the big picture
>
No you're not. You're just babbling about the benefits varied diet (which
I'm not contesting in general provided the choices make sense).
>
>Healthy individuals should not alter their diet on the strength of
>some minute factoid discovered in the fury of scientific investigation
>of biochemistry. It should be well tempered with common sense.
>
And it is. Most participants in this ng have considerable experience and
maturity and are unlikely to act in any other way on any _single_ comment
except to do their own research and perhaps present a follow-up comment
based on _facts_.
This is a _discussion_ group, not an advice forum. But even knowledgeable
people benefit from the input from others. And the act of writing itself
forces (or at least should force) one to do some literature search and
thinking, which may help to clarify a few things.
What you are doing is not exactly discussion, but more like preaching or
trolling, pick your choice.
>>>
>>Single out? Get hold of your senses. When the topic is "nut butters" I don't
>>divert to my wife's cooking or to how many ingredients our bread contains. I
>>just stick to the subject.
>
>Well as you said, peanuts are not nuts, but that aside, you stressed
>the allergic properties of peanuts whilst apparently ignoring the
>allergic properties of other nuts, and similarly the contamination of
>other nuts with the stressing of aflatoxins in peanuts alone.
>Sorry if I misinterpretted, but you certainly seemed to have it in for
>this non-nut product.
>
Peanut allergy has become an epidemic problem in the USA, and peanut allergy
is the most common cause of food-related anaphylaxis. That's a good enough
reason to mention it, IMHO. As for aflatoxin, according to information
available to me it's found more often in peanuts than in other food items .
FYI:
Guidelines, Recommendations on Peanut Allergy
American Family Physician, September 1, 2002
http://www.aafp.org/afp/20020901/tips/12.html
"... For unexplained reasons, the incidence of peanut allergy
has risen over the past few decades in developed countries,
paralleling an increase in asthma and atopic disease. Among
children in Great Britain, rates of peanut allergy manifested
by clinical symptoms increased from 1.3 percent to 3.2 percent
between 1989 and 1995. Between 1988 and 1994, up to 6 percent
of Americans exhibited asymptomatic serologic evidence of
sensitivity in the form of IgE antibodies to peanut proteins.
Most cases of anaphylaxis due to peanuts occur in persons who
also have a history of asthma or atopic dermatitis. About 25
to 35 percent of persons with peanut allergy also have
sensitivity to tree nuts (e.g., walnuts, cashews,
pistachios)...."
Senti G, Ballmer-Weber BK, Wuthrich B.
[Nuts, seeds and grains from an allergist's point of view]
Schweiz Med Wochenschr. 2000 Nov 25;130(47):1795-804. Review. German.
PMID: 11130145 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11130145&dopt=Abstract
" Peanut allergy has become an epidemic problem in the United States."
Sampson HA.
Clinical practice. Peanut allergy.
N Engl J Med. 2002 Apr 25;346(17):1294-9.
http://cme.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/nejm;346/17/1294
"...The cause of the rising prevalence of peanut allergy and
the reasons this increase appears to be confined to
westernized countries remain uncertain. In addition to
theories regarding the general increase in the prevalence of
allergic disease worldwide over the past several decades,26 a
number of factors have been suggested to account for the
apparent increase in prevalence. The growing demand for highly
nutritional, "quick-energy" foods has made the peanut a staple
of the American diet. Breast-feeding is increasingly common,
and peanut products have increasingly been promoted as
excellent nutritional sources for pregnant and lactating
women. In one registry of patients with peanut allergy, about
85 percent had been breast-fed and more than 70 percent had
had their first allergic reaction after their first apparent
contact with peanuts. Since reactions require previous
exposure for sensitization and since IgE antibodies do not
cross the placenta, these findings suggest that peanut protein
was encountered in utero or through breast milk.24,27 In a
French study of 54 infants who were less than 11 days of age
and 71 who were 17 days to 4 months of age, 8 percent had a
positive skin-prick test for peanuts.10 Another study found
that mothers of children with peanut allergy ate more peanuts
during pregnancy, but not during lactation, than mothers of
children with an allergy to milk or eggs.28
Given the immaturity of the immune system at birth, food
allergies are more likely to develop during the first few
years of life.1 The majority of American children are exposed
to peanuts (e.g., peanut butter) in the first year of life,
and virtually all have been exposed by their second
birthday.29 In countries where peanut butter is rarely eaten,
such as Denmark and Norway, peanut allergy is much less
common...
...
... Both the American Academy of Asthma, Allergy and
Immunology and the American Academy of Pediatrics have
published guidelines on the management of food-induced
anaphylaxis.33,34 Patients, as well as the parents and
caregivers of children with peanut allergy, must be educated
to avoid accidentally ingesting peanuts, learn to recognize
early signs of an allergic reaction, and learn to medicate
themselves as soon as symptoms develop. All patients with
peanut allergy should be given a written emergency plan and
adequate doses of liquid diphenhydramine and self-injectable
epinephrine for use in case they accidentally ingest peanuts.
School and day-care personnel must also be educated to provide
a safe environment for children with peanut allergy35 and to
recognize and treat food-induced reactions. In the event of an
allergic reaction to peanuts, especially if epinephrine is
used, patients should be taken to the nearest emergency room
where they can be treated further and observed for at least
four hours..."
Caldas ED, Silva SC, Oliveira JN.
[Aflatoxins and ochratoxin A in food and the risks to human health]
Rev Saude Publica. 2002 Jun;36(3):319-23. Portuguese.
PMID: 12131971 [PubMed - in process]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12131971&dopt=Abstract
"... CONCLUSION: It was found that contamination levels mainly
seen in peanuts and its products exceed Brazilian regulated
standards, and they can be a potential risk to regular
consumers of these products. Food producers' awareness allied
to monitoring programs is essential to reduce human exposure
to these compounds and prevent ensuing chronic diseases."
I can only present information which I have available. If you have related
information about other food items in this topic you should present it.
That a normal way in discussion. Everyone contributes what he/she can.
>>>
>Yep. I've stated it many times. The variation ensures that there is
>unlikely to be any overdiose of the many nasties in foods and also
>ensures that no deficiencies will occur.
I'm not contesting the benefits of _educated_ variation or even _uneducated_
sensible variation against insufficient variation, but _uneducated_
variation on its own does not ensure that no deficiencies will occur just
because you say so.
>Diets for diseased states are a totally nother story.
>
And they are some of the major interests in this newsgroup.
>>>
>>Nuts _are_ great for health, especially for cardiovascular health.
>
>What on earth does this mean?
Just that regular inclusion of small amount of nuts into diet is associated
with reduced risk of coronary heart disease.
FYI:
Feldman EB.
The scientific evidence for a beneficial health relationship between walnuts
and coronary heart disease.
J Nutr. 2002 May;132(5):1062S-1101S. Review.
PMID: 11983840 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11983840&dopt=Abstract
"... Compared to most other nuts, which contain
monounsaturated fatty acids, walnuts are unique because they
are rich in n-6 (linoleate) and n-3 (linolenate)
polyunsaturated fatty acids. Walnuts contain multiple health-
beneficial components, such as having a low lysine:arginine
ratio and high levels of arginine, folate, fiber, tannins, and
polyphenols. Though walnuts are energy rich, clinical dietary
intervention studies show that walnut consumption does not
cause a net gain in body weight when eaten as a replacement
food. Five controlled, peer-reviewed, human clinical walnut
intervention trials, involving approximately 200 subjects
representative of the 51% of the adult population in the
United States at risk of coronary heart disease were reviewed.
The intervention trials consistently demonstrated walnuts as
part of a heart-healthy diet, lower blood cholesterol
concentrations..."
Kris-Etherton PM, Zhao G, Binkoski AE, Coval SM, Etherton TD.
The effects of nuts on coronary heart disease risk.
Nutr Rev. 2001 Apr;59(4):103-11. Review.
PMID: 11368503 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11368503&dopt=Abstract
"Epidemiologic studies have consistently demonstrated
beneficial effects of nut consumption on coronary heart
disease (CHD) morbidity and mortality in different population
groups. Clinical studies have reported total and low-density
lipoprotein cholesterol-lowering effects of heart-healthy
diets that contain various nuts or legume peanuts. It is
evident that the favorable fatty acid profile of nuts (high in
unsaturated fatty acids and low in saturated fatty acids)
contributes to cholesterol lowering and, hence, CHD risk
reduction. Dietary fiber and other bioactive constituents in
nuts may confer additional cardioprotective effects."
Hu FB, Stampfer MJ.
Nut consumption and risk of coronary heart disease: a review of
epidemiologic evidence.
Curr Atheroscler Rep. 1999 Nov;1(3):204-9.
PMID: 11122711 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11122711&dopt=Abstract
"... Based on the data from the Nurses' Health Study, we
estimated that substitution of the fat from 1 ounce of nuts
for equivalent energy from carbohydrate in an average diet was
associated with a 30% reduction in CHD risk and the
substitution of nut fat for saturated fat was associated with
45% reduction in risk. Given the strong scientific evidence
for the beneficial effects of nuts, it seems justifiable to
move nuts to a more prominent place in the United States
Department of Agriculture Food Guide Pyramid. Regular nut
consumption can be recommended in the context of a healthy and
balanced diet."
Hu FB, Stampfer MJ, Manson JE, Rimm EB, Colditz GA, Rosner BA, Speizer FE,
Hennekens CH, Willett WC.
Frequent nut consumption and risk of coronary heart disease in women:
prospective cohort study.
BMJ. 1998 Nov 14;317(7169):1341-5.
PMID: 9812929 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/317/7169/1341
"... Conclusions: Frequent nut consumption was associated with a reduced
risk of both fatal coronary heart disease and non-fatal myocardial
infarction. These data, and those from other epidemiological and
clinical studies, support a role for nuts in reducing the risk of
coronary heart disease."
>>>
>>What that has to d with nut butters.
>
>The nuts all have malevolent molecules which you can avoid harm from
>by having a little of each, and many other foods, instead of avoiding
>totallty this one or eating more than a modicum of that one.
>
Malevolent molecules?
>>
>>Just the facts. Would you have preferred a lie?
>
>No, but what about the allergies from proteins in other nuts?
>Afterall, you went to pains to point out that peanuts weren't nuts,
>and then went to town on their shortcomings. What about aflatoxins and
>other fungal problems with all nuts stored improperly?
>
If you know about them, please do your contribution.
> You've heard the suggestion that if someone invented the
>apple tomorrow, and submitted it to the FDA for approval, it would be
>rejected out of hand?
>
No, I have not. Did you believe in it?
>>>
>>My views? Fads? Hmmm... Pleas, read my original post again ;-).
>
>It is:
>_________________________________________
>IMHO almond butter is a good choice from a cardiovascular-health
>viewpoint, almond oil improves serum lipid profile. Peanuts should be
>avoided, they contain an atherogenic substance. Almonds contain large
>amount of calcium and magnesium in an ideal 1:1 ratio. Almonds are
>also a good source of arginine and monounsaturated fatty acids. Mouldy
>peanuts may sometimes contain aflatoxin which is liver-toxin and can
>cause liver cancer. Peanut allergy can be life-threathening.
>__________________________________________
>
>The first sentence is nonsense. What foodstuff is "healthy" for one
>part of the body, but "unhealthy" for another?
Did someone suggest that almonds are unhealthy for some part of body?
>Almond oil is a refined food that should really be avoided.
Almond oil in almonds is not refined at all, and you can also buy cold
pressed unrefined almond oil from a regular food shop. In fact it's a good
alternative for extra virgin olive oil, because it tolerates heat better
(has higher smoke point than olive oil) and doesn't leave as much taste in
the food as olive oil. It also has beneficial effect on serum's lipid
profile.
>The second sentence picks on peanuts for a reputed harmful substance,
>neglecting the harmful substances in all other nuts.
I'm eagerly waiting for your contribution about that. Don't leave all the
work to others.
>The third sentence is some nonsense about the proportion of Ca and Mg
>in almonds as if almonds are the only thing consumed.
I cannot avoid thinking that you're either a troll or an idiot. Any food
item with good Ca and Mg content in a desirable ratio will help to improve
the Ca and Mg status of the whole diet.
>The next sentence talks about arginine, a deficiency wrt lysine that
>is virtually impossible to suffer with a varied, mixed diet.
We don't live in a virtual world.
>Then peanuts get picked on for aflatoxins while ignoring problems with
>all other nuts when improperly stored.
Peanuts are know have a risk of aflatoxin contamination, which according to
my information is higher that in other food stuffs. Time for your
contribution about the other nuts.
>The final bit about peanut allergy ignored allergies from other nuts
>giving the impression that peanuts are unique in this respect.
Not unique, but peanut allergy is increasing and has reached epidemic
proportion in USA. It is also the most common cause of food-related
anaphylaxis. See my earlier comments and related references in this msg.
Time for your contribution about the other nuts.
>>And how an earth do you know that "a varied diet will in no way result in a
>>deficiency".
>
>Coz that's how we've survived/evolved til now, I guess.
>
And how long is that? Do you think that a sample of one is enough for any
kind of evidence?
>
--
Matti Narkia
Matti Narkia
<fmthsu0irfc2k71iv...@4ax.com> Sandy <nu...@null.null> wrote:
>On Tue, 05 Nov 2002 10:11:43 GMT, Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Mon, 04 Nov 2002 13:08:21 GMT in article
>><h4ncsu02u1amvvpmf...@4ax.com> Sandy <nu...@null.null> wrote:
>>
>>>BTW, why can't discussion of an ideal diet be carried on here?
>>>
>>In this ng? Sure, just start a new thread for it. But be prepared to provide
>>some evidence for your views.
>
>What's wrong with referring to it in this thread started by someone
>asking for advice whether to include nut butters in their menu?
>
You don't know how to start a new thread? Ok, I'll do it for you. Put your
money where your mouth is and start typing under the dotted line
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Matti Narkia
Sandy
<sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:
>Sandy wrote in message ...
>
>>In case you missed it, the bread and wife's cooking were merely
>>exemplifying the simplicity of varying the diet to include many
>>ingredients in the one dish. A Thai or Chinese meal will likely
>>contain amongst many other things several types of nuts including
>>almonds, cashew, and even peanuts and coconut. You surely are not
>>advocating picking the few peanuts out just coz some obscure paper
>>finds a tentative connection with a particular ailment?
>
>
>No, you simply order the dish without peanuts.
Why would you do this, unless you are one of the very rare individuals
who has an allergy to this particular food. If I had a severe allergy
to any food, I would avoid restaurants altogether.
>I've ordered many a fine Thai
>meal in many fine Thai restaurant in cities across the country, and have yet
>to encounter one which couldn't or wouldn't leave the peanuts and/or peanut
>sauce out a dish, on request.
So? They are used to strange "farangs" -:)
>They cook these things individually on the
>spot, don't you know. You can get it your way, because a Thai restaurant is
>not McDonald's. (There are a few dishes where the peanut sauce is the core
>of the dish-- but I assume that nobody would want to order one of those
>without the peanuts, any more than you'd want to order Peking Duck without
>the duck. But your average Pad Thai or Pad Wan-sen is easy to get without
>peanuts).
Again, So?
>Of course, that's not safe to do if you're peanut allergic,
Why on earth would you do this if you weren't allergic to peanuts?
I would be staggered if anyone went to a SE Asian restaurant hating
peanuts enough to avoid them.
>but it does fine
>for the purposes of which we are speaking here.
Sorry I don't know what purposes these are
>No, I don't think the amount
>of peanuts I'd otherwise be getting in Thai food is significant.
Me neither. My point I think.
>However, on
>the other hand, I don't like their taste that much, and it's not that
>difficult to have them removed.
I suppose it takes all types, I just never imaginesd anyone asking for
this strange exclusion in such a restaurant. If you don't like the
food, stay away, but to.... oh well. -:)
Sandy
Sandy
wrote:
>On Wed, 06 Nov 2002 12:29:28 GMT, Sandy <nu...@null.null> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 05 Nov 2002 10:11:43 GMT, Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Your simplistic point-of-view is very ego-centric,
>>
>>Howso? I'm merely trying to put thousands of often contradictory
>>little scientific "discoveries" into the context of the big picture
>>
>No you're not. You're just babbling about the benefits varied diet (which
>I'm not contesting in general provided the choices make sense).
And you can't see that the variation avoids the need to worry about
all the silly little babblings you go on about with "this food does
that to this toe and that food does this to that blood vessel."
>>Healthy individuals should not alter their diet on the strength of
>>some minute factoid discovered in the fury of scientific investigation
>>of biochemistry. It should be well tempered with common sense.
>>
>And it is.
So what's all this bullshit about peanuts and almonds when your advice
should have been that in small amounts, any food is fine in a varied
diet. You have no evidence to the contrary.
>Most participants in this ng have considerable experience and
>maturity and are unlikely to act in any other way on any _single_ comment
>except to do their own research and perhaps present a follow-up comment
>based on _facts_.
The guy (OP) asked if nut butters were OK to spread on his toast
Sheesh!
>This is a _discussion_ group, not an advice forum.
Crap, it's Usenst, get over it! The guy asked for advice, and we gave
it to him. I now disagree with your advice, and am trying to do so as
civilly as possible. Not easy when you stoop to so much insult and
belittlement.
>But even knowledgeable
>people benefit from the input from others. And the act of writing itself
>forces (or at least should force) one to do some literature search and
>thinking, which may help to clarify a few things.
As long as one searches accepted literature, and not the "raw
material" of scientific consensus. Look at the whole jigsaw puzzle,
not the individual pieces to ascertain what the picture actually is.
>What you are doing is not exactly discussion, but more like preaching or
>trolling, pick your choice.
I'm questioning your advice, and your trollish behaviour in response
is coz you don't like the truth to be told, methinks.
>>>Single out? Get hold of your senses. When the topic is "nut butters" I don't
>>>divert to my wife's cooking or to how many ingredients our bread contains. I
>>>just stick to the subject.
>>
>>Well as you said, peanuts are not nuts, but that aside, you stressed
>>the allergic properties of peanuts whilst apparently ignoring the
>>allergic properties of other nuts, and similarly the contamination of
>>other nuts with the stressing of aflatoxins in peanuts alone.
>>Sorry if I misinterpretted, but you certainly seemed to have it in for
>>this non-nut product.
>>
>Peanut allergy has become an epidemic problem in the USA,
Yeah, like fibromyalgia and obesity -:)
>and peanut allergy
>is the most common cause of food-related anaphylaxis.
Which in itself is as rare as hensteeth.
>That's a good enough
>reason to mention it, IMHO.
Not IMHO, if you neglect to mention say walnut allergy -- the bete
noire of the anti GM brigade.
>As for aflatoxin, according to information
>available to me it's found more often in peanuts than in other food items .
By how much? How common is damage from it in peanuts?
All foods can be damaged by spoilage and cause problems, that's why we
have thorough food inspection and recall when a problem occasionally
occurs. Salmonella is probably the most common problem.
>
>FYI:
>
>Guidelines, Recommendations on Peanut Allergy
>American Family Physician, September 1, 2002
>http://www.aafp.org/afp/20020901/tips/12.html
>
> "... For unexplained reasons, the incidence of peanut allergy
> has risen over the past few decades in developed countries,
> paralleling an increase in asthma and atopic disease. Among
> children in Great Britain, rates of peanut allergy manifested
> by clinical symptoms increased from 1.3 percent to 3.2 percent
> between 1989 and 1995. Between 1988 and 1994, up to 6 percent
> of Americans exhibited asymptomatic serologic evidence of
> sensitivity in the form of IgE antibodies to peanut proteins.
> Most cases of anaphylaxis due to peanuts occur in persons who
> also have a history of asthma or atopic dermatitis. About 25
> to 35 percent of persons with peanut allergy also have
> sensitivity to tree nuts (e.g., walnuts, cashews,
> pistachios)...."
So why did you single out peanuts and neglect walnuts, cashews,
pistachios?
>Senti G, Ballmer-Weber BK, Wuthrich B.
>[Nuts, seeds and grains from an allergist's point of view]
>Schweiz Med Wochenschr. 2000 Nov 25;130(47):1795-804. Review. German.
>PMID: 11130145 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11130145&dopt=Abstract
>
> " Peanut allergy has become an epidemic problem in the United States."
Like fibromyalgia. Isn't most of it subclinical or minor?
That's why the varied diet is of benefit.
>Sampson HA.
>Clinical practice. Peanut allergy.
>N Engl J Med. 2002 Apr 25;346(17):1294-9.
>http://cme.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/nejm;346/17/1294
>
> "...The cause of the rising prevalence of peanut allergy and
> the reasons this increase appears to be confined to
> westernized countries remain uncertain.
Coz they look for it?
> In addition to
> theories regarding the general increase in the prevalence of
> allergic disease worldwide over the past several decades,26 a
> number of factors have been suggested to account for the
> apparent increase in prevalence. The growing demand for highly
> nutritional, "quick-energy" foods has made the peanut a staple
> of the American diet.
Moderation and variety in all things, remember?
Moderation and variety, again.
> Food producers' awareness allied
> to monitoring programs is essential to reduce human exposure
> to these compounds and prevent ensuing chronic diseases."
>
>
>I can only present information which I have available. If you have related
>information about other food items in this topic you should present it.
>That a normal way in discussion. Everyone contributes what he/she can.
I rely on monitoring and recalling of products found defective by my
elected representatives agents, as is the advice presented by you
above. My only comment was why you singled out peanuts and gave other
nuts a tick when someone asked if nut butters were OK to spread on
their toast.
>>Yep. I've stated it many times. The variation ensures that there is
>>unlikely to be any overdiose of the many nasties in foods and also
>>ensures that no deficiencies will occur.
>
>I'm not contesting the benefits of _educated_ variation or even _uneducated_
>sensible variation against insufficient variation, but _uneducated_
>variation on its own does not ensure that no deficiencies will occur just
>because you say so.
Well could you give me a scenario in USA or Australia where a very
varied diet would result in any deficiency?
>>Diets for diseased states are a totally nother story.
>>
>And they are some of the major interests in this newsgroup.
But the guy who had the query of spreading nut butter on his toast did
not mention any disease. Thus your comments were rather irrelevant
IMHO. In another thread, fine.
>>>Nuts _are_ great for health, especially for cardiovascular health.
>>
>>What on earth does this mean?
>
>Just that regular inclusion of small amount of nuts into diet is associated
>with reduced risk of coronary heart disease.
Really? Where does this factoid come from?
You mean compared with exactly the same individuals eating a very
varied diet that includes NO nuts? Or is this an epidemiological study
that added considerable nut oil to the test subjects and not to
others?
Unless chewed well, much nut calories pass right through the system.
BTW, didn't studies claim that small additions of peanuts to the diet
helped with "hearthealth"?
>FYI:
>
>Feldman EB.
>The scientific evidence for a beneficial health relationship between walnuts
>and coronary heart disease.
>J Nutr. 2002 May;132(5):1062S-1101S. Review.
>PMID: 11983840 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11983840&dopt=Abstract
>
> "... Compared to most other nuts, which contain
> monounsaturated fatty acids, walnuts are unique because they
> are rich in n-6 (linoleate) and n-3 (linolenate)
> polyunsaturated fatty acids. Walnuts contain multiple health-
> beneficial components, such as having a low lysine:arginine
> ratio and high levels of arginine, folate, fiber, tannins, and
> polyphenols. Though walnuts are energy rich, clinical dietary
> intervention studies show that walnut consumption does not
> cause a net gain in body weight when eaten as a replacement
> food. Five controlled, peer-reviewed, human clinical walnut
> intervention trials, involving approximately 200 subjects
> representative of the 51% of the adult population in the
> United States at risk of coronary heart disease were reviewed.
> The intervention trials consistently demonstrated walnuts as
> part of a heart-healthy diet, lower blood cholesterol
> concentrations..."
"Replacement food"?
"Population at risk"?
Says nothinhg of their diet and other health risk activities.
>Kris-Etherton PM, Zhao G, Binkoski AE, Coval SM, Etherton TD.
>The effects of nuts on coronary heart disease risk.
>Nutr Rev. 2001 Apr;59(4):103-11. Review.
>PMID: 11368503 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11368503&dopt=Abstract
>
> "Epidemiologic studies have consistently demonstrated
> beneficial effects of nut consumption on coronary heart
> disease (CHD) morbidity and mortality in different population
> groups. Clinical studies have reported total and low-density
> lipoprotein cholesterol-lowering effects of heart-healthy
> diets that contain various nuts or legume peanuts. It is
> evident that the favorable fatty acid profile of nuts (high in
> unsaturated fatty acids and low in saturated fatty acids)
> contributes to cholesterol lowering and, hence, CHD risk
> reduction. Dietary fiber and other bioactive constituents in
> nuts may confer additional cardioprotective effects."
Peanuts? Thought so.
>Hu FB, Stampfer MJ.
>Nut consumption and risk of coronary heart disease: a review of
>epidemiologic evidence.
>Curr Atheroscler Rep. 1999 Nov;1(3):204-9.
>PMID: 11122711 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11122711&dopt=Abstract
>
> "... Based on the data from the Nurses' Health Study, we
> estimated that substitution of the fat from 1 ounce of nuts
> for equivalent energy from carbohydrate in an average diet was
> associated with a 30% reduction in CHD risk and the
> substitution of nut fat for saturated fat was associated with
> 45% reduction in risk. Given the strong scientific evidence
> for the beneficial effects of nuts, it seems justifiable to
> move nuts to a more prominent place in the United States
> Department of Agriculture Food Guide Pyramid. Regular nut
> consumption can be recommended in the context of a healthy and
> balanced diet."
Variety!!! Should be nuts there already.
Plenty of other things with similar effects.
>Hu FB, Stampfer MJ, Manson JE, Rimm EB, Colditz GA, Rosner BA, Speizer FE,
>Hennekens CH, Willett WC.
>Frequent nut consumption and risk of coronary heart disease in women:
>prospective cohort study.
>BMJ. 1998 Nov 14;317(7169):1341-5.
>PMID: 9812929 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
>http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/317/7169/1341
>
> "... Conclusions: Frequent nut consumption was associated with a reduced
> risk of both fatal coronary heart disease and non-fatal myocardial
> infarction. These data, and those from other epidemiological and
> clinical studies, support a role for nuts in reducing the risk of
> coronary heart disease."
In fat, sedentary individuals who don't normally eat nuts?
>>>>
>>>What that has to d with nut butters.
>>
>>The nuts all have malevolent molecules which you can avoid harm from
>>by having a little of each, and many other foods, instead of avoiding
>>totallty this one or eating more than a modicum of that one.
>>
>Malevolent molecules?
Look up the individual words and have a guess. The alliteration comes
at no additional charge -:)
>>>Just the facts. Would you have preferred a lie?
>>
>>No, but what about the allergies from proteins in other nuts?
>>Afterall, you went to pains to point out that peanuts weren't nuts,
>>and then went to town on their shortcomings. What about aflatoxins and
>>other fungal problems with all nuts stored improperly?
>>
>If you know about them, please do your contribution.
Do you only know of potential improper storage spoilage for peanuts?
Where have you been? One of your articles above mentioned allergies
for tree nuts that went along with those for peanuts. No mention of
this from you in your tirade against peanuts.
One of your studies even recommended peanut consumption for those at
risk of CHD.
>> You've heard the suggestion that if someone invented the
>>apple tomorrow, and submitted it to the FDA for approval, it would be
>>rejected out of hand?
>>
>No, I have not. Did you believe in it?
Absolutely. I've seen a list of the many molecular species found in an
apple, and many are carcinogens, mutagens or toxins of one kind or
another. No new product could get that past the regulators today.
>>>My views? Fads? Hmmm... Pleas, read my original post again ;-).
>>
>>It is:
>>_________________________________________
>>IMHO almond butter is a good choice from a cardiovascular-health
>>viewpoint, almond oil improves serum lipid profile. Peanuts should be
>>avoided, they contain an atherogenic substance. Almonds contain large
>>amount of calcium and magnesium in an ideal 1:1 ratio. Almonds are
>>also a good source of arginine and monounsaturated fatty acids. Mouldy
>>peanuts may sometimes contain aflatoxin which is liver-toxin and can
>>cause liver cancer. Peanut allergy can be life-threathening.
>>__________________________________________
>>
>>The first sentence is nonsense. What foodstuff is "healthy" for one
>>part of the body, but "unhealthy" for another?
>
>Did someone suggest that almonds are unhealthy for some part of body?
>
>>Almond oil is a refined food that should really be avoided.
>
>Almond oil in almonds is not refined at all,
Olive oil in olives isn't either, but this is often not how it is
consumed.
>and you can also buy cold
>pressed unrefined almond oil from a regular food shop.
"Refined" means that it is extracted from the whole food and thus
concentrated. Like sucrose from sugar cane, or white flour from wheat.
ALL refined (concentrated) foods should be avoided as much as
possible.
>In fact it's a good
>alternative for extra virgin olive oil, because it tolerates heat better
>(has higher smoke point than olive oil) and doesn't leave as much taste in
>the food as olive oil. It also has beneficial effect on serum's lipid
>profile.
But healthier to avoid it altogether, except in the original whole
food in which it occurs.
>>The second sentence picks on peanuts for a reputed harmful substance,
>>neglecting the harmful substances in all other nuts.
>
>I'm eagerly waiting for your contribution about that. Don't leave all the
>work to others.
I wouldn't know where to start. There are thousands if not millions of
toxins in plant foods. Do a search on say solanine, atropine, delta9
tetrahydrocannabinol, and many others that I could think of if I took
the time to thinks about it. Are you saying that you haven't heard of
plant toxins? Celery would be a good place to start, especially
"organic" celery that the caterpillars have had a bit of a chew on.
>>The third sentence is some nonsense about the proportion of Ca and Mg
>>in almonds as if almonds are the only thing consumed.
>
>I cannot avoid thinking that you're either a troll or an idiot. Any food
>item with good Ca and Mg content in a desirable ratio will help to improve
>the Ca and Mg status of the whole diet.
But as virtually every plant whole food has scads of them, what is the
point of commenting of a similar status of them in one particular
food. Sounds like clutching at straws to me. In the opposite sense
it's like the adverts for vegetable foods being "cholesterol free".
>>The next sentence talks about arginine, a deficiency wrt lysine that
>>is virtually impossible to suffer with a varied, mixed diet.
>
>We don't live in a virtual world.
Is this akin to dumb insolence?
>>Then peanuts get picked on for aflatoxins while ignoring problems with
>>all other nuts when improperly stored.
>
>Peanuts are know have a risk of aflatoxin contamination,
Amongst many other foods that you didn't mention, giving the
impression that peanuts should be avoided by folks at all cost. You
have no basis for such an assertion.
>which according to
>my information is higher that in other food stuffs.
Maybe, but not in nuts and legumes that have been improperly stored.
>Time for your
>contribution about the other nuts.
Grains, legumes and many other foodstuffs stored for any length of
time in bulk in a dry condition, will suffer damage if moisture is
accidentally introduced. Common knowledge.
>>The final bit about peanut allergy ignored allergies from other nuts
>>giving the impression that peanuts are unique in this respect.
>
>Not unique, but peanut allergy is increasing and has reached epidemic
>proportion in USA.
Along with allergy to other nuts and just about everything else. It's
an immune system epidenic, not a peanut epidemic.
>It is also the most common cause of food-related
>anaphylaxis. See my earlier comments and related references in this msg.
Your comments, not mentioned in your refs, I believe.
>Time for your contribution about the other nuts.
Did you not read your ref about tree nuts along with peanut allergy?
>>>And how an earth do you know that "a varied diet will in no way result in a
>>>deficiency".
>>
>>Coz that's how we've survived/evolved til now, I guess.
>>
>And how long is that? Do you think that a sample of one is enough for any
>kind of evidence?
One species?
Seems OK for me, but what would you need to convince you?
Sandy
Sandy
wrote:
>Wed, 06 Nov 2002 12:29:28 GMT in article
><fmthsu0irfc2k71iv...@4ax.com> Sandy <nu...@null.null> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 05 Nov 2002 10:11:43 GMT, Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Mon, 04 Nov 2002 13:08:21 GMT in article
>>><h4ncsu02u1amvvpmf...@4ax.com> Sandy <nu...@null.null> wrote:
>>>
>>>>BTW, why can't discussion of an ideal diet be carried on here?
>>>>
>>>In this ng? Sure, just start a new thread for it. But be prepared to provide
>>>some evidence for your views.
>>
>>What's wrong with referring to it in this thread started by someone
>>asking for advice whether to include nut butters in their menu?
>>
>You don't know how to start a new thread? Ok, I'll do it for you. Put your
>money where your mouth is and start typing under the dotted line
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you trying to be thick, or just can't help it?
The "nut butter" thread was started by someone wanting to know if nut
butters on his toast was OK.
If you want to start a thread about nitpicking trivia mostly about a
non nut, then start a new thread. Nut butters are fine in a healthy
varied diet. Sheesh!
Your subject header here shows that you are a petulant little child
incapable of an adult discussion. If this were a game of checkers, you
would have upset the board and stomed off in a huff, just because we
are not in awe of your copious quoting of irrelevant studies that you
think is science.
Sandy
Matti Narkia
>On Wed, 06 Nov 2002 23:20:41 GMT, Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com>
>wrote:
´
>>You don't know how to start a new thread? Ok, I'll do it for you. Put your
>>money where your mouth is and start typing under the dotted line
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>Your subject header here shows that you are a petulant little child
>incapable of an adult discussion.
Hmm.., you don't seem to appreciate my little attempt to combine some humor
with giving you a free forum to tell us what all these big words about ideal
diet _really_ mean ;-) .
>If this were a game of checkers, you
>would have upset the board and stomed off in a huff, just because we
>are not in awe of your copious quoting of irrelevant studies that you
>think is science.
>
Look pal, I've been involved in net discussions since 1994 on almost daily
basis, and I've never lost my temper. There is absolutely _no_ chance it could
happen with you. You, on the other hand, seem to be a little ill at ease :-).
Just because no one seems accept only your word as a evidence? Tough, but you'd
better get used to it if you hang around this ng :-)
Matti Narkia
>On Wed, 06 Nov 2002 23:13:30 GMT, Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com>
>wrote:
>>>
>>And it is.
>
>So what's all this bullshit about peanuts and almonds when your advice
>should have been that in small amounts, any food is fine in a varied
>diet.
No, that's should've been _your_ advice, if you are convided about it.
Why didn't you give it?
>
>You have no evidence to the contrary.
>
The burden of proof is on the person, who presents a claim. In this case on
you. Prove that "in small amounts, any food is fine in a varied diet".
> I now disagree with your advice, and am trying to do so as
>civilly as possible. Not easy when you stoop to so much insult and
>belittlement.
>
Tough, but have it occurred to you that a dogmatic and insolent anonymous
poster with falsified email address and no knowledege about nutrition does not
deserve any better?
>>What you are doing is not exactly discussion, but more like preaching or
>>trolling, pick your choice.
>
>I'm questioning your advice, and your trollish behaviour in response
>is coz you don't like the truth to be told, methinks.
>
And truth is whatever you say? :-):-):-). Sorry pal, you are out of your league
in this group ;-).
>>That's a good enough
>>reason to mention it, IMHO.
>
>Not IMHO, if you neglect to mention say walnut allergy -- the bete
>noire of the anti GM brigade.
>
Ok, now it's mentioned. Happy now? ;-). Still, peanut allergy has higher
indidence.
>
>So why did you single out peanuts and neglect walnuts, cashews,
>pistachios?
>
Problems are more common and more often dangerous with peanuts.
> My only comment was why you singled out peanuts and gave other
>nuts a tick when someone asked if nut butters were OK to spread on
>their toast.
>
Funny, I cannot recall "giving other nuts a tick".
>>
>>Just that regular inclusion of small amount of nuts into diet is associated
>>with reduced risk of coronary heart disease.
>
>Really? Where does this factoid come from?
>You mean compared with exactly the same individuals eating a very
>varied diet that includes NO nuts? Or is this an epidemiological study
>that added considerable nut oil to the test subjects and not to
>others?
>
There are both epidemiological studies and clinical trials. Clinical trials
have so far solely (or ta least mostly) concentrated on risk factors instead of
morbidity and mortality.
>
>>Kris-Etherton PM, Zhao G, Binkoski AE, Coval SM, Etherton TD.
>>The effects of nuts on coronary heart disease risk.
>>Nutr Rev. 2001 Apr;59(4):103-11. Review.
>>PMID: 11368503 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
>>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11368503&dopt=Abstract
>>
>> "Epidemiologic studies have consistently demonstrated
>> beneficial effects of nut consumption on coronary heart
>> disease (CHD) morbidity and mortality in different population
>> groups. Clinical studies have reported total and low-density
>> lipoprotein cholesterol-lowering effects of heart-healthy
>> diets that contain various nuts or legume peanuts. It is
>> evident that the favorable fatty acid profile of nuts (high in
>> unsaturated fatty acids and low in saturated fatty acids)
>> contributes to cholesterol lowering and, hence, CHD risk
>> reduction. Dietary fiber and other bioactive constituents in
>> nuts may confer additional cardioprotective effects."
>
>Peanuts? Thought so.
>
Yes, this review mentions them, although I've been unable find the actual
study. Notice that only the peanuts effect on one risk factor, lipid profile
is mentioned. Morbidity (atherogenity) and mortality is not mentioned.
Regardless of it's cholesterol lowering effect, peanut oil is atherogenic in
experimental animals, parhaps largely due its lectin content.
>
>>>The nuts all have malevolent molecules which you can avoid harm from
>>>by having a little of each, and many other foods, instead of avoiding
>>>totallty this one or eating more than a modicum of that one.
>>>
>>Malevolent molecules?
>
>Look up the individual words and have a guess. The alliteration comes
>at no additional charge -:)
>
This reguires a _long_ explanation. What on earth are "malevolent molecules" in
nuts?
>
>One of your studies even recommended peanut consumption for those at
>risk of CHD.
>
It did no such thing. It just nentioned that peanuts may help to lower
cholesterol. Regadless of this peanut oil is atherogenic in experimental
animals, parhaps largely due its lectin content.
>
>>> You've heard the suggestion that if someone invented the
>>>apple tomorrow, and submitted it to the FDA for approval, it would be
>>>rejected out of hand?
>>>
>>No, I have not. Did you believe in it?
>
>Absolutely. I've seen a list of the many molecular species found in an
>apple, and many are carcinogens, mutagens or toxins of one kind or
>another. No new product could get that past the regulators today.
>
I wouldn't call apples exactly as product which someone has "invented".
According to some fairly recent studies apples may be one of the nutritional
"weapons" against some chronic diseases, perhaps partly because of their high
quercetin content.
>
>"Refined" means that it is extracted from the whole food and thus
>concentrated.
Only in your dictionary. Look up from someone else's dictioary what a "refined
oil" means.
>
>>>The second sentence picks on peanuts for a reputed harmful substance,
>>>neglecting the harmful substances in all other nuts.
>>
>>I'm eagerly waiting for your contribution about that. Don't leave all the
>>work to others.
>
>I wouldn't know where to start.
>
How come I'm not surprised.
>
>>It is also the most common cause of food-related
>>anaphylaxis. See my earlier comments and related references in this msg.
>
>Your comments, not mentioned in your refs, I believe.
>
FYI:
Peanut Allergy
http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/Profs/PUarticles/peanut.htm
"... Peanut allergy is the most common cause of food-related
anaphylaxis..."
Food-Allergy Related Deaths
http://allergies.about.com/library/weekly/aa012201a.htm
"...The circumstances surrounding the food-related deaths of
32 individuals were closely evaluated, according to a Food
Allergy & Anaphylaxis Network (FAAN) news release. The ages
of these individuals ranged from 2 - 33. Of those evaluated,
only five fatalities occurred in the home environment. All
but one had a history of severe reactions to certain foods
and suffered from asthma.
Gender was not an issue. The majority of the food culprits
were peanuts (63 percent) and tree nuts (31 percent). Milk
and fish were the remaining culprits..."
Peanut Allergy Dangers
Peanut Allergy Can Be Deadly
http://allergies.about.com/library/weekly/aa122898.htm
"... The peanut is a member of the legume family, and is not
considered to be a true nut. A peanut allergy is one of the
most common food allergies because the peanut proteins can
act as powerful allergens, even in tiny amounts.
Peanut allergy is probably the most common cause of death by
food anaphylaxis in the United States.
People can have severe reactions just by inhaling the odor or
fragrance of peanuts. Allergists agree people with peanut
allergy can die after ingesting or inhaling minute amounts of
peanuts or peanut products..."
>>>Coz that's how we've survived/evolved til now, I guess.
>>>
>>And how long is that? Do you think that a sample of one is enough for any
>>kind of evidence?
>
>One species?
>
One human being, you.
John 'the Man'
rambled on about "Re: Nut butter."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>The burden of proof is on the person, who presents a claim.
That is because the members of the A-Hole of the Month club are
nothing but Trolls, who expect YOU *not* THEM to do all the work.
These people are often too lazy or stupid to clearly articulate their
own positions. Consequently they usually argue over language rather
than substance.
That is why they are *all* a bunch of Twits! :(
Sandy
wrote:
>On Fri, 08 Nov 2002 13:41:23 GMT, Sandy <nu...@null.null> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 06 Nov 2002 23:13:30 GMT, Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com>
>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>And it is.
>>
>>So what's all this bullshit about peanuts and almonds when your advice
>>should have been that in small amounts, any food is fine in a varied
>>diet.
>
>No, that's should've been _your_ advice, if you are convided about it.
>Why didn't you give it?
I thought I did, or someone else did.
>>You have no evidence to the contrary.
>>
>The burden of proof is on the person, who presents a claim. In this case on
>you. Prove that "in small amounts, any food is fine in a varied diet".
Fine grip on the scientific method, there.
That's the null hypothesis.
You claim damage in these circumstances, but have no evidence for it.
It's impossible to prove that no problem ever occurs.
>> I now disagree with your advice, and am trying to do so as
>>civilly as possible. Not easy when you stoop to so much insult and
>>belittlement.
>>
>Tough, but have it occurred to you that a dogmatic and insolent anonymous
>poster with falsified email address and no knowledege about nutrition does not
>deserve any better?
Any better what? You are as anonymous to me as I am to you. Are you
new to Usenet? You are the one who dragged the conversation down to
personal insult, remember? Not that it bothers me other than my
disappointment in its stifling of the discussion.
>>>What you are doing is not exactly discussion, but more like preaching or
>>>trolling, pick your choice.
>>
>>I'm questioning your advice, and your trollish behaviour in response
>>is coz you don't like the truth to be told, methinks.
>>
>And truth is whatever you say? :-):-):-).
Well if I say that the Sun is extremely likely to rise tomorrow, then
yes. There is the bleedin' obvious, and then there are the myriad
"jigsaw puzzle" publishers.
>Sorry pal, you are out of your league
>in this group ;-).
Really? There's you who trawls the abstract databases, and there are
others who I won't mention, who are moronic and really don't deserve a
response and then there are a group of folks who discuss nutrition in
a sane and rational fashion. I am trying to do the latter, what are
you trying to do with your childish insults?
>>>That's a good enough
>>>reason to mention it, IMHO.
>>
>>Not IMHO, if you neglect to mention say walnut allergy -- the bete
>>noire of the anti GM brigade.
>>
>Ok, now it's mentioned. Happy now? ;-).
It will do as it wasn't mentioned originally.
>Still, peanut allergy has higher
>indidence.
And it's not a nut butter, as you so pedantically pointed out.
>>So why did you single out peanuts and neglect walnuts, cashews,
>>pistachios?
>>
>Problems are more common and more often dangerous with peanuts.
But you made this non-nut-butter seem unique.
>> My only comment was why you singled out peanuts and gave other
>>nuts a tick when someone asked if nut butters were OK to spread on
>>their toast.
>>
>Funny, I cannot recall "giving other nuts a tick".
By omission. I thought we'd been there.
>>>Just that regular inclusion of small amount of nuts into diet is associated
>>>with reduced risk of coronary heart disease.
>>
>>Really? Where does this factoid come from?
>>You mean compared with exactly the same individuals eating a very
>>varied diet that includes NO nuts? Or is this an epidemiological study
>>that added considerable nut oil to the test subjects and not to
>>others?
>>
>There are both epidemiological studies and clinical trials. Clinical trials
>have so far solely (or ta least mostly) concentrated on risk factors instead of
>morbidity and mortality.
And they show no danger from small amounts of all wholefoodstuffs
eaten in moderation in a varied diet.
Sorry to regurgitate it, but I feel you are constantly losing touch
with it.
>>>Kris-Etherton PM, Zhao G, Binkoski AE, Coval SM, Etherton TD.
>>>The effects of nuts on coronary heart disease risk.
>>>Nutr Rev. 2001 Apr;59(4):103-11. Review.
>>>PMID: 11368503 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
>>>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11368503&dopt=Abstract
>>>
>>> "Epidemiologic studies have consistently demonstrated
>>> beneficial effects of nut consumption on coronary heart
>>> disease (CHD) morbidity and mortality in different population
>>> groups. Clinical studies have reported total and low-density
>>> lipoprotein cholesterol-lowering effects of heart-healthy
>>> diets that contain various nuts or legume peanuts. It is
>>> evident that the favorable fatty acid profile of nuts (high in
>>> unsaturated fatty acids and low in saturated fatty acids)
>>> contributes to cholesterol lowering and, hence, CHD risk
>>> reduction. Dietary fiber and other bioactive constituents in
>>> nuts may confer additional cardioprotective effects."
>>
>>Peanuts? Thought so.
>>
>Yes, this review mentions them, although I've been unable find the actual
>study. Notice that only the peanuts effect on one risk factor, lipid profile
>is mentioned. Morbidity (atherogenity) and mortality is not mentioned.
>Regardless of it's cholesterol lowering effect, peanut oil is atherogenic in
>experimental animals, parhaps largely due its lectin content.
Well peanut oil is not a wholefood and should be avoided as much as
possible. Even shelled peanuts should be avoided coz I've seen studies
that suggest that folks are likely to eat more of these as opposed to
those that must be shelled before eating.
>>>>The nuts all have malevolent molecules which you can avoid harm from
>>>>by having a little of each, and many other foods, instead of avoiding
>>>>totallty this one or eating more than a modicum of that one.
>>>>
>>>Malevolent molecules?
>>
>>Look up the individual words and have a guess. The alliteration comes
>>at no additional charge -:)
>>
>This reguires a _long_ explanation. What on earth are "malevolent molecules" in
>nuts?
An example that just pops into my head might be cyanide in almonds.
Then there is "juglone?" in walnuts.
>>One of your studies even recommended peanut consumption for those at
>>risk of CHD.
>>
>It did no such thing.
Well you did by using it here in the context of someone asking if nut
butters are OK for their breakfast toast.
>It just nentioned that peanuts may help to lower
>cholesterol.
A major cause of atheroma?
>Regadless of this peanut oil is atherogenic in experimental
>animals, parhaps largely due its lectin content.
Experimental animals? Peanut oil? Perhaps? Largely?
Don't all legumes contain lectins?
>>>> You've heard the suggestion that if someone invented the
>>>>apple tomorrow, and submitted it to the FDA for approval, it would be
>>>>rejected out of hand?
>>>>
>>>No, I have not. Did you believe in it?
>>
>>Absolutely. I've seen a list of the many molecular species found in an
>>apple, and many are carcinogens, mutagens or toxins of one kind or
>>another. No new product could get that past the regulators today.
>>
>I wouldn't call apples exactly as product which someone has "invented".
Expand your imaginative capabilities.
I said "IF"
Did you really think that apples were about to be banned?
Sorry for frightening you, I'll be much more careful in future -:)
>According to some fairly recent studies apples may be one of the nutritional
>"weapons" against some chronic diseases, perhaps partly because of their high
>quercetin content.
Yep, apples have been the source of many fads over the decades. From
anthocyanins to malic acid. "An apple a day keeps the doctor away."
They do have that worrying simple sugar, fructose, though -:)
>>"Refined" means that it is extracted from the whole food and thus
>>concentrated.
>
>Only in your dictionary. Look up from someone else's dictioary what a "refined
>oil" means.
Well as the oil itself is a refined food, a refined oil is a further
refined food. A refined fatty acid obtained from this would be an even
further refined food. You really are resorting to picking at nits.
>>>>The second sentence picks on peanuts for a reputed harmful substance,
>>>>neglecting the harmful substances in all other nuts.
>>>
>>>I'm eagerly waiting for your contribution about that. Don't leave all the
>>>work to others.
>>
>>I wouldn't know where to start.
>>
>How come I'm not surprised.
I didn't think you realised the existence of harmful substances in all
plant foods, let alone the vast extent of the phenomenon, but if you
say you are aware of it, you will not need me to hold your hand
finding out about it.
>>>It is also the most common cause of food-related
>>>anaphylaxis. See my earlier comments and related references in this msg.
>>
>>Your comments, not mentioned in your refs, I believe.
>>
>FYI:
Not from your post I was referring to, I believe.
From below"
_________________________________________
Peanut allergy is probably the most common cause of death by
food anaphylaxis in the United States."
__________________________________________
Looks like a close race in your country?
>Peanut Allergy
>http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/Profs/PUarticles/peanut.htm
>
> "... Peanut allergy is the most common cause of food-related
> anaphylaxis..."
>
>Food-Allergy Related Deaths
>http://allergies.about.com/library/weekly/aa012201a.htm
>
> "...The circumstances surrounding the food-related deaths of
> 32 individuals were closely evaluated, according to a Food
> Allergy & Anaphylaxis Network (FAAN) news release. The ages
> of these individuals ranged from 2 - 33. Of those evaluated,
> only five fatalities occurred in the home environment. All
> but one had a history of severe reactions to certain foods
> and suffered from asthma.
The immune response epidemic I was referring to.
> Gender was not an issue. The majority of the food culprits
> were peanuts (63 percent) and tree nuts (31 percent). Milk
> and fish were the remaining culprits..."
Other nuts were half as dangerous in this tiny number of victims.
I wonder how many died from asthma, beesting or food poisoning?
300,000,000 people are likely to have a lot of these in an unspecified
period of time.
>Peanut Allergy Dangers
>Peanut Allergy Can Be Deadly
> http://allergies.about.com/library/weekly/aa122898.htm
>
> "... The peanut is a member of the legume family, and is not
> considered to be a true nut. A peanut allergy is one of the
> most common food allergies because the peanut proteins can
> act as powerful allergens, even in tiny amounts.
>
> Peanut allergy is probably the most common cause of death by
> food anaphylaxis in the United States.
>
> People can have severe reactions just by inhaling the odor or
> fragrance of peanuts. Allergists agree people with peanut
> allergy can die after ingesting or inhaling minute amounts of
> peanuts or peanut products..."
>
>>>>Coz that's how we've survived/evolved til now, I guess.
>>>>
>>>And how long is that? Do you think that a sample of one is enough for any
>>>kind of evidence?
>>
>>One species?
>>
>One human being, you.
Sorry, it was my reference, so it's species. Capice?
Sandy
Sandy
wrote:
>On Fri, 08 Nov 2002 13:42:32 GMT, Sandy <nu...@null.null> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 06 Nov 2002 23:20:41 GMT, Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com>
>>wrote:
>´
>>>You don't know how to start a new thread? Ok, I'll do it for you. Put your
>>>money where your mouth is and start typing under the dotted line
>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>Your subject header here shows that you are a petulant little child
>>incapable of an adult discussion.
>
>Hmm.., you don't seem to appreciate my little attempt to combine some humor
>with giving you a free forum to tell us what all these big words about ideal
>diet _really_ mean ;-) .
Give up the backpedalling, it won't wash.
>>If this were a game of checkers, you
>>would have upset the board and stomed off in a huff, just because we
>>are not in awe of your copious quoting of irrelevant studies that you
>>think is science.
>>
>Look pal, I've been involved in net discussions since 1994 on almost daily
>basis, and I've never lost my temper.
You mean I'm the first? Your silly insults are the symptom of loss of
temper IME
>There is absolutely _no_ chance it could
>happen with you.
Must be an impostor with the purile insults.
>You, on the other hand, seem to be a little ill at ease :-).
Sorry to give you the wrong impresssion. I'm actually having fun --
being rational, I wouldn't do it if I wasn't.
>Just because no one seems accept only your word as a evidence?
Evidence for what?
The decades old advice for diet -- variety, wholefoods, moderation?
Geez, what more could you want?
>Tough, but you'd
>better get used to it if you hang around this ng :-)
I've really only had any contact with one trawler-of-the-scientific
abstracts school of nutritional research -- you. Are there others?
Sandy
Matti Narkia
<hqupsu0384kgngenk...@4ax.com> Sandy <nu...@null.null> wrote:
>On Fri, 08 Nov 2002 16:59:34 +0200, Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com>
>wrote:
>>
>>You, on the other hand, seem to be a little ill at ease :-).
>
>Sorry to give you the wrong impresssion. I'm actually having fun --
>being rational, I wouldn't do it if I wasn't.
>
What makes you think that you're being rational?
>>Just because no one seems accept only your word as a evidence?
>
>Evidence for what?
>The decades old advice for diet -- variety, wholefoods, moderation?
Advice is just that. Without evidence it's good for nothing. Do you assess the
validity of advice using its age as the only measure of quality? If so, why to
stop to decades, when one could gain more validity by going back centuries or
millennia?
>Geez, what more could you want?
>
If you don't understand that by now, you never will.
--
Matti Narkia
Matti Narkia
<2ctpsuke8ctnvasi8...@4ax.com> Sandy <nu...@null.null> wrote:
>On Fri, 08 Nov 2002 19:04:08 +0200, Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com>
>wrote:
>>>
>>The burden of proof is on the person, who presents a claim. In this case on
>>you. Prove that "in small amounts, any food is fine in a varied diet".
>
>Fine grip on the scientific method, there.
>That's the null hypothesis.
Null hypothesis (H0) is concept used in statistical testing. Usually null
hypothesis is that there is no real underlying difference between tested
objects, but the apparent differences are due to chance. The hypothesis which
really is tested - the theory - is the alternative hypothesis (H1). When test
results are positive for the tested theory the null hypothesis is rejected and
the alternative hypothesis accepted. Your use of the concept "null hypothesis"
here is rather unusual.
But if you just intended to say the your dogma is a mere hypothesis and all
your statements are only hypothetical I couldn't agree with you more. Only
problem is that so far you have implied that your dogma has a validity of a
proven fact. I'm glad you finally put that straight.
>disappointment in its stifling of the discussion.
>>>
>>This reguires a _long_ explanation. What on earth are "malevolent molecules" in
>>nuts?
>
>An example that just pops into my head might be cyanide in almonds.
>
The chemical involved is amygdalin, a cyanogenic glycoside that can be broken
down by enzymes or stomach acid to give hydrogen cyanide and benzaldehyde.
Almonds can be "bitter", which have amygdalin, or "sweet" which have no (or
only traces of) amygdalin, hence no cyanide produced. Commonly cultivated and
consumed almonds are sweet almonds.
There are many cyanogenic food items, including flaxseeds, black cherry,
sorghum, manioc, lima beans, apricot pits, apple seeds and water chestnut. Each
of these have their own particular compound that breaks down with enzymes or
acid to give cyanide and another product. The amount of released cyanide is in
most cases so small that is poses no danger to health.
But why are you worried about cyanogenic glycosides? I thought your "varied
diet" would eliminate whatever toxicity an individual food item may contain?
Has your dogma changed overnight?
>
>Then there is "juglone?" in walnuts.
Juglone is present mainly in black walnut tree, but smaller concentrations have
been found also in other trees. According to my information it's present in all
parts of black walnut tree, but its concentration in the nuts may be lower than
in other parts of the plant? It's toxic mostly to other plants, preventing
their growth in the surrounding area. My sources mentioned nothing about its
potential toxicity to humans, which may or may not indicate something.
>
>>According to some fairly recent studies apples may be one of the nutritional
>>"weapons" against some chronic diseases, perhaps partly because of their high
>>quercetin content.
>
>Yep, apples have been the source of many fads over the decades. From
>anthocyanins to malic acid. "An apple a day keeps the doctor away."
Recent studies suggest that this old saying has a lot of truth in it.
>They do have that worrying simple sugar, fructose, though -:)
>
Refined fructose used in large quantity as a sweetener may raise serum
triglyceride levels, but fructose is present in fruits and plants in
vanishingly small amounts and is bound up with complex plant fiber and other
nutrients that offer many health benefits. Apple a day gives one no reason
whatever to worry about apple's fructose content.
Besides, wasn't it your belief that your "varied diet" would eliminate whatever
potential harm an individual food item may contain? Why worry if you're
following an "ideal diet" ;-)?
--
Matti Narkia
Sandy
wrote:
>Sat, 09 Nov 2002 12:14:40 GMT in article
><hqupsu0384kgngenk...@4ax.com> Sandy <nu...@null.null> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 08 Nov 2002 16:59:34 +0200, Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com>
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>You, on the other hand, seem to be a little ill at ease :-).
>>
>>Sorry to give you the wrong impresssion. I'm actually having fun --
>>being rational, I wouldn't do it if I wasn't.
>>
>What makes you think that you're being rational?
I said "being rational" not "am being rational"
But I must let others judge your and my performance in the rational
stakes on this group.
>>>Just because no one seems accept only your word as a evidence?
>>
>>Evidence for what?
>>The decades old advice for diet -- variety, wholefoods, moderation?
>
>Advice is just that. Without evidence it's good for nothing.
It is based on long experience and observation and study of many
different scenarios. Epidemiological evidence, mostly.
>Do you assess the
>validity of advice using its age as the only measure of quality?
No, but it is often a good guide to its veracity. Do you do the same
with its novelty?
>If so, why to
>stop to decades, when one could gain more validity by going back centuries or
>millennia?
It wasn't studied with any scientific knowledge then. I thought you
would have known that.
>>Geez, what more could you want?
>>
>If you don't understand that by now, you never will.
Selective snippage, again? You are getting desperate.
Sandy
Sandy
wrote:
>Sat, 09 Nov 2002 12:09:59 GMT in article
><2ctpsuke8ctnvasi8...@4ax.com> Sandy <nu...@null.null> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 08 Nov 2002 19:04:08 +0200, Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com>
>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>The burden of proof is on the person, who presents a claim. In this case on
>>>you. Prove that "in small amounts, any food is fine in a varied diet".
>>
>>Fine grip on the scientific method, there.
>>That's the null hypothesis.
>
>Null hypothesis (H0) is concept used in statistical testing. Usually null
>hypothesis is that there is no real underlying difference between tested
>objects, but the apparent differences are due to chance. The hypothesis which
>really is tested - the theory - is the alternative hypothesis (H1). When test
>results are positive for the tested theory the null hypothesis is rejected and
>the alternative hypothesis accepted. Your use of the concept "null hypothesis"
>here is rather unusual.
>
>But if you just intended to say the your dogma is a mere hypothesis and all
>your statements are only hypothetical I couldn't agree with you more. Only
>problem is that so far you have implied that your dogma has a validity of a
>proven fact. I'm glad you finally put that straight.
Negative hypothesis, as I explained elsewhere. You were asking me to
prove that peanuts in a varied, eucaloric, wholefood diet were
harmful. A patently stupid thing to ask. If you have the evidence of
harm, produce it, and I'll concede.
The negative hypothesis is valid so far, I believe (how many
decades?), until you produce this evidence, of course.
>>disappointment in its stifling of the discussion.
>>>>
>>>This reguires a _long_ explanation. What on earth are "malevolent molecules" in
>>>nuts?
>>
>>An example that just pops into my head might be cyanide in almonds.
>>
>The chemical involved is amygdalin, a cyanogenic glycoside that can be broken
>down by enzymes or stomach acid to give hydrogen cyanide and benzaldehyde.
>Almonds can be "bitter", which have amygdalin, or "sweet" which have no (or
>only traces of) amygdalin, hence no cyanide produced. Commonly cultivated and
>consumed almonds are sweet almonds.
But you avoided the main point: Why is it there?
>There are many cyanogenic food items, including flaxseeds, black cherry,
>sorghum, manioc, lima beans, apricot pits, apple seeds and water chestnut. Each
>of these have their own particular compound that breaks down with enzymes or
>acid to give cyanide and another product. The amount of released cyanide is in
>most cases so small that is poses no danger to health.
But why is it there? You are driibbling on without addresssing the
point.
>But why are you worried about cyanogenic glycosides? I thought your "varied
>diet" would eliminate whatever toxicity an individual food item may contain?
>Has your dogma changed overnight?
First, where have I said I was worried? You don't seem to understand
or even know about toxins in plants. I was mentioning one off the top
of my head for you edification. Yes a varied diet is one of the
reasons that these plant toxins are minimised below very harmful
levels
>>Then there is "juglone?" in walnuts.
>
>Juglone is present mainly in black walnut tree, but smaller concentrations have
>been found also in other trees. According to my information it's present in all
>parts of black walnut tree, but its concentration in the nuts may be lower than
>in other parts of the plant? It's toxic mostly to other plants, preventing
>their growth in the surrounding area. My sources mentioned nothing about its
>potential toxicity to humans, which may or may not indicate something.
It's an example of a plant toxin, the reason for its presence.
you still appear to not understand
>>>According to some fairly recent studies apples may be one of the nutritional
>>>"weapons" against some chronic diseases, perhaps partly because of their high
>>>quercetin content.
>>
>>Yep, apples have been the source of many fads over the decades. From
>>anthocyanins to malic acid. "An apple a day keeps the doctor away."
>
>Recent studies suggest that this old saying has a lot of truth in it.
Maybe a little? Great food in a varied, eucaloric, wholefood diet.
>>They do have that worrying simple sugar, fructose, though -:)
>>
>Refined fructose used in large quantity as a sweetener may raise serum
>triglyceride levels, but fructose is present in fruits and plants in
>vanishingly small amounts
Your research is slipping.
>and is bound up with complex plant fiber and other
>nutrients that offer many health benefits. Apple a day gives one no reason
>whatever to worry about apple's fructose content.
High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is roughly 50% fructose.
I believe apples have a higher percentage in their juice.
Honey has roughly 50% fructose.
I understand orange juice has about the same.
>Besides, wasn't it your belief that your "varied diet" would eliminate whatever
>potential harm an individual food item may contain? Why worry if you're
>following an "ideal diet" ;-)?
I'm not worried in the least. I believe that fructose is very slowly
absorbed from the gut, and is therefore not as stressful to the system
as some other sugars. Did you miss the smiley after my comment about
fructose?
Sandy
Matti Narkia
<4lrssukcb6l1dcd6j...@4ax.com> Sandy <nu...@null.null> wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 10:41:43 GMT, Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com>
>wrote:
>
>The negative hypothesis is valid so far, I believe (how many
>decades?), until you produce this evidence, of course.
>
Hypotheses are not valid unless they have been validated (or invalidated) after
which they are no longer hypotheses.
>>>
>>>An example that just pops into my head might be cyanide in almonds.
>>>
>>The chemical involved is amygdalin, a cyanogenic glycoside that can be broken
>>down by enzymes or stomach acid to give hydrogen cyanide and benzaldehyde.
>>Almonds can be "bitter", which have amygdalin, or "sweet" which have no (or
>>only traces of) amygdalin, hence no cyanide produced. Commonly cultivated and
>>consumed almonds are sweet almonds.
>
>But you avoided the main point: Why is it there?
>
Main point from the nutritional point of view? Hardly. Speculations about why
it's there could have some limited interest in some frameworks, but they remain
just speculations.
>
>>>They do have that worrying simple sugar, fructose, though -:)
>>>
>>Refined fructose used in large quantity as a sweetener may raise serum
>>triglyceride levels, but fructose is present in fruits and plants in
>>vanishingly small amounts
>
>Your research is slipping.
>
Is it? Here are the fructose contents of some common fruit and vegetables:
Fruit/Vegetables Fructose content (g/100g)
Carrots (raw) 0.8
Peas (raw) 0
Apples 6.0
Pear 6.6
Apricots 0.9
Bananas 3.8
Cherries 5.4
Sweet Cherry 7.0
Grapes 6.8
Oranges 2.2
Strawberry 2.2
Raspberry 2.0
Blackberry 3.4
Peach 1.1
Pineapple 1.4
>>and is bound up with complex plant fiber and other
>>nutrients that offer many health benefits. Apple a day gives one no reason
>>whatever to worry about apple's fructose content.
>
>High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is roughly 50% fructose.
So what? Pure fructose has 100% fructose content. Neither HFCS or pure fructose
are plants.
>I believe apples have a higher percentage in their juice.
You belief is wrong, 4.12-6.76% is a range found in apple juice (which is not a
plant) in a real life analysis
(http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/research/archives/researchfund/agfooddocs/ag2067.htm).
>Honey has roughly 50% fructose.
IMHO 38% is not roughly 50%
(http://mafgroup.securedata.net/news_dn/dn_022502.shtml).
Still, honey is not a plant, so why to bring it up here?
>I understand orange juice has about the same.
>
Wrong again. By weight, the sugar content of orange juice (which is not a
plant) is 11%, which includes glucose, fructose and sucrose. Fructose content
is about 26% of the total sugar content, which brings the fructose content of
orange juice to about 2.9%. A bit lower than 50% you suggested ;-).
Can you see my problem? I cannot take anything you write seriously, because
most of the time when I check it, your data proves to absolute garbage.
--
Matti Narkia
John 'the Man'
rambled on about "Re: Nut butter."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>Hypotheses are not valid unless they have been validated (or invalidated) after
>which they are no longer hypotheses.
The problem with the science people on these ngs is that they are
totally incapable of moving past hypotheses. As long as the Science
Geeks can talk about hypotheses they can maintain a measure of
self-diginity and project an aura of being all knowing.
Truth is that this shows precisely how inept these people really are
at actually producing measurable meaningufl results on demand.
In the real world, these kind of people die. In the hallowed halls of
academia they can find refuge. Hallowed be thou grounds!
Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
Just thought that you might want to know. :)
--
John Gohde,
Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!
Health-with-Attitude is a support group for people
trying to follow a Healthy Lifestyle.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Health-with-Attitude/
Sandy
wrote:
>Sun, 10 Nov 2002 14:55:27 GMT in article
><4lrssukcb6l1dcd6j...@4ax.com> Sandy <nu...@null.null> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 10:41:43 GMT, Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>The negative hypothesis is valid so far, I believe (how many
>>decades?), until you produce this evidence, of course.
>>
>Hypotheses are not valid unless they have been validated (or invalidated) after
>which they are no longer hypotheses.
And this one is valid after a consdierable period of trying to
invalidate continues in failure. So it is not a hypothesis? That's
what I said, I think. You seem to want it to be a hypothesis still,
yet you won't show this evidence of yours.
>>>>An example that just pops into my head might be cyanide in almonds.
>>>>
>>>The chemical involved is amygdalin, a cyanogenic glycoside that can be broken
>>>down by enzymes or stomach acid to give hydrogen cyanide and benzaldehyde.
>>>Almonds can be "bitter", which have amygdalin, or "sweet" which have no (or
>>>only traces of) amygdalin, hence no cyanide produced. Commonly cultivated and
>>>consumed almonds are sweet almonds.
>>
>>But you avoided the main point: Why is it there?
>>
>Main point from the nutritional point of view? Hardly. Speculations about why
>it's there could have some limited interest in some frameworks, but they remain
>just speculations.
Pretty common and well held speculations. Isn't it obvious to you that
plants would evolve in ways that thwarted their enemies and
competition? Why do you think flowers have nectar, and fruits have
sugars? You really do need to investigate the big picture.
>>>>They do have that worrying simple sugar, fructose, though -:)
>>>>
>>>Refined fructose used in large quantity as a sweetener may raise serum
>>>triglyceride levels, but fructose is present in fruits and plants in
>>>vanishingly small amounts
>>
>>Your research is slipping.
>>
>Is it? Here are the fructose contents of some common fruit and vegetables:
>
>Fruit/Vegetables Fructose content (g/100g)
>Carrots (raw) 0.8
>Peas (raw) 0
>Apples 6.0
>Pear 6.6
>Apricots 0.9
>Bananas 3.8
>Cherries 5.4
>Sweet Cherry 7.0
>Grapes 6.8
>Oranges 2.2
>Strawberry 2.2
>Raspberry 2.0
>Blackberry 3.4
>Peach 1.1
>Pineapple 1.4
Vanishingly small amounts? The ~50% is 50% of the total sugars.
I thought this would be obvious, sorry. Sucrose breaks down to ~50%
fructose sucrose when in contact with the enzyme invertase.
If you were honest enough to give the total sugars, you would see that
they are about half fructose half sucrose. Give or take 20 or 30%.
Not "vanishingly small amounts."
Apples for instance have about 1.5% of total fruit as glucose, and 3%
sucrose (50:50 fructose sucrose) along with its 6 % fructose. This
makes its fructose proportion of its sugars as ~57% of its sugars as
fructose.
>>>and is bound up with complex plant fiber and other
>>>nutrients that offer many health benefits. Apple a day gives one no reason
>>>whatever to worry about apple's fructose content.
>>
>>High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is roughly 50% fructose.
>
>So what? Pure fructose has 100% fructose content. Neither HFCS or pure fructose
>are plants.
Well HFCS is the refined fructose used in large quantity as a
sweetener that you mentioned. When added to a drink to sweeten it, it
will be ~5% of the total drink. It ends up about the same as sucrose
used as a sweetener.
Same quantity as in most sweet fruits.
>>I believe apples have a higher percentage in their juice.
>
>You belief is wrong, 4.12-6.76% is a range found in apple juice (which is not a
>plant) in a real life analysis
That is huge as a percentage of the total sugars present.
Hardly vanishingly small quantities. It is well above 50% of the
sugars present.
>(http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/research/archives/researchfund/agfooddocs/ag2067.htm).
>
>>Honey has roughly 50% fructose.
>
>IMHO 38% is not roughly 50%
>(http://mafgroup.securedata.net/news_dn/dn_022502.shtml).
Compared to 31% glucose from that site, is ~55% of the sugars.
What exactly are you trying to say, if it isn't just trying to pick
any nit?
>Still, honey is not a plant, so why to bring it up here?
Your silly comment above:
" Refined fructose used in large quantity as a sweetener may raise
serum triglyceride levels, but fructose is present in fruits and
plants in vanishingly small amounts "
>>I understand orange juice has about the same.
>>
>Wrong again. By weight, the sugar content of orange juice (which is not a
>plant) is 11%, which includes glucose, fructose and sucrose. Fructose content
>is about 26% of the total sugar content, which brings the fructose content of
>orange juice to about 2.9%. A bit lower than 50% you suggested ;-).
>Can you see my problem? I cannot take anything you write seriously, because
>most of the time when I check it, your data proves to absolute garbage.
http://www.geocities.com/perfectapple/sugar_carbohydrates_acid.html
The first site I looked at shows 2.5% glucose, 2.2% fructose and 3.7%
sucrose. As the sucrose is ~50% fructose, and ~50% glucose, this makes
oranges (or juice as we don't normally eat the skin and pips) to have
~50% of its sugars as fructose.
Have you got a degree in nit picking and twisting?
I won't ask if you can see my problem, as you can't even see what is
an optimal diet for a human being.
You appear to be ultra sensitive to what I say and try to discredit me
at every turn. I wonder why. If I truly am a troll as you infer, why
doesn't such a superior individual such as yourself just ignore me
instead of constantly rebutting me with childish insult.
Sandy
Matti Narkia
<v5d1tuct6v3ccdqb1...@4ax.com> Sandy <nu...@null.null> wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 17:12:06 GMT, Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com>
>wrote:
>>>
>>Hypotheses are not valid unless they have been validated (or invalidated) after
>>which they are no longer hypotheses.
>
>And this one is valid after a consdierable period of trying to
>invalidate continues in failure.
I wasn't aware that anyone had tried to invalidate your pet hypothesis.
References?
>>>
>>Main point from the nutritional point of view? Hardly. Speculations about why
>>it's there could have some limited interest in some frameworks, but they remain
>>just speculations.
>
>Pretty common and well held speculations. Isn't it obvious to you that
>plants would evolve in ways that thwarted their enemies and
>competition? Why do you think flowers have nectar, and fruits have
>sugars? You really do need to investigate the big picture.
>
These speculations have no interest in the context of this ng, IMHO.
>
>Vanishingly small amounts? The ~50% is 50% of the total sugars.
>I thought this would be obvious, sorry. Sucrose breaks down to ~50%
>fructose sucrose when in contact with the enzyme invertase.
>
Nice try, but no cigar. Your claim was unequivocal, you wrote:
"High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is roughly 50% fructose.
I believe apples have a higher percentage in their juice.
Honey has roughly 50% fructose.
I understand orange juice has about the same."
Which clearly is garbage. There is nothing there about "50% of the total
sugars"
>
>You appear to be ultra sensitive to what I say and try to discredit me
>at every turn. I wonder why. If I truly am a troll as you infer, why
>doesn't such a superior individual such as yourself just ignore me
>instead of constantly rebutting me with childish insult.
>
Correcting your errors is an insult? Not very mature point of view, IMHO.
I'm glad even you realize that replying to your posts is futile. As someone
else already pointed out, you rarely add any new value (information) to the
discussion, you just play word games with the messages you're replying and
spice them with ad hominem attacks. You've already deserved far more attention
than you deserve.
--
Matti Narkia
Sandy
wrote:
>Tue, 12 Nov 2002 08:06:33 GMT in article
><v5d1tuct6v3ccdqb1...@4ax.com> Sandy <nu...@null.null> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 17:12:06 GMT, Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com>
>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>Hypotheses are not valid unless they have been validated (or invalidated) after
>>>which they are no longer hypotheses.
>>
>>And this one is valid after a consdierable period of trying to
>>invalidate continues in failure.
>
>I wasn't aware that anyone had tried to invalidate your pet hypothesis.
What pet hypothesis?
You claim that a varied, eucaloric, wholefood diet is somehow harmful,
so show us why.
>References?
For what? Common knowledge?
>>>Main point from the nutritional point of view? Hardly. Speculations about why
>>>it's there could have some limited interest in some frameworks, but they remain
>>>just speculations.
>>
>>Pretty common and well held speculations. Isn't it obvious to you that
>>plants would evolve in ways that thwarted their enemies and
>>competition? Why do you think flowers have nectar, and fruits have
>>sugars? You really do need to investigate the big picture.
>>
>These speculations have no interest in the context of this ng, IMHO.
Oh, sorry, I didn't know I'd trespassed onto your private newsgroup.
If you are not interested in some discussion, I wonder why you persist
in joining in with often irrelevant and contentless contributions.
Strange behaviour.
>>Vanishingly small amounts? The ~50% is 50% of the total sugars.
>>I thought this would be obvious, sorry. Sucrose breaks down to ~50%
>>fructose sucrose when in contact with the enzyme invertase.
>>
>Nice try, but no cigar. Your claim was unequivocal, you wrote:
>
> "High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is roughly 50% fructose.
> I believe apples have a higher percentage in their juice.
> Honey has roughly 50% fructose.
> I understand orange juice has about the same."
The percentage of total sugar. Or are you not aware that most fruit
juices are around ten percent total sugars? (~90% water)
Your misunderstanding is that of a non-thinking automaton. No wonder
you have no idea for an ideal diet for humans.
>Which clearly is garbage. There is nothing there about "50% of the total
>sugars"
Well when fruit juice sugars are around 10% of the total fruit, what
else would you think I meant. ~90% water... Sheesh.
You said that the quantities of fructose were "vanishingly small"
I replied that the 50% of the sugar in the juice was fructose. Just
like in honey and HFCS. You were dead wrong and then deliberately
misunderstood my sloppy language. What are you trying to do? You are
looking very silly.
>>You appear to be ultra sensitive to what I say and try to discredit me
>>at every turn. I wonder why. If I truly am a troll as you infer, why
>>doesn't such a superior individual such as yourself just ignore me
>>instead of constantly rebutting me with childish insult.
>>
>Correcting your errors is an insult?
Now you forget what you write. Do you really want me to cut and paste
a few dozen childish insults? What errors have you corrected other
than your childish nit picking?
>Not very mature point of view, IMHO.
Childish insults are mature? How about some content?
>I'm glad even you realize that replying to your posts is futile. As someone
>else already pointed out, you rarely add any new value (information) to the
>discussion, you just play word games with the messages you're replying and
>spice them with ad hominem attacks.
Ad hominum attacks? Could you give me a few examples which were not
provoked by ad hominem attacks from you??
>You've already deserved far more attention
>than you deserve.
Puzzling.
Hey, look, the bottom line is some guy asked if nut butters were OK
for the breakfast toast. You responded with all this unsubstantiated
scare-mongering about a non-nut-butter, when the proper advice should
have been that they are fine in moderation in the context of a good
diet. I realise this would have been difficult for you, having
admitted that you have no idea of what a good diet is for humans, but
I was merely countering your strange response with some proper
substantiated advice.
Sandy
Matti Narkia
<0rd3tukeb5pok8p7p...@4ax.com> Sandy <nu...@null.null> wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 11:44:34 GMT, Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com>
>wrote:
>
>>I'm glad even you realize that replying to your posts is futile. As someone
>>else already pointed out, you rarely add any new value (information) to the
>>discussion, you just play word games with the messages you're replying and
>>spice them with ad hominem attacks.
[snip]
>>You've already deserved far more attention
>>than you deserve.
>
>Puzzling.
>
Underlines my point. Goodbye Sandy. Have a pleasant life.
--
Matti Narkia