Caloric Restriction Linked to Reduced Inflammation Markers

[GysdeJongh]

Another randomized control trial which found that eating less is good for
your health. We have literally hundreds of those now.

Because this is an other *Randomized* control trial the usual suspects
cannot sing their "causation is no corellation" song. Which is not only nice
for saving their asses but also implies (for them) that they posses a
superior knowledge and an academic degree in statistics from a respectable
university.

There will be also the usual contributions like : "I never saw an obese
postmenopausal woman, where are they ?" And "My MIL was a very big woman who
lived a very happy life. She died at the age of 115 years without ever been
ill"

<http://www.diabetesincontrol.com>

Caloric Restriction Linked to Reduced Inflammation Markers

Implementation of a caloric restriction weight-loss diet, with or without
exercise, is associated with measurable reductions in markers of
inflammation for obese or overweight postmenopausal women, according to a
study.

Ikuyo Imayama examined the effects of a caloric restriction weight-loss diet
and exercise on inflammatory biomarkers in 438 overweight and obese
postmenopausal women. Participants were randomly allocated to one year of a
caloric restriction diet (goal of 10 percent weight loss; 118 women);
aerobic exercise (225 minutes per week of moderate-to-vigorous activity; 117
women); combined diet + exercise (116 women); or control (87 women).
High-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), serum amyloid A (SAA),
interleukin-6 (IL-6), leukocyte, and neutrophil levels were measured at
baseline and one year by blinded investigators.

The researchers found that, compared to the control group, hs-CRP, IL-6, and
neutrophil counts decreased significantly in the diet and diet + exercise
groups. Inflammatory biomarkers hs-CRP, SAA, and IL-6 were reduced for
participants in the diet and diet + exercise groups that lost 5 percent or
more of their weight, compared with controls.

"Our findings indicate that a caloric restriction weight loss diet with or
without exercise reduces biomarkers of inflammation in postmenopausal women,
with potential clinical significance for cancer risk reduction," the authors
write.

Cancer Res. 2012 May 1;72(9):2314-2326.
Effects of a Caloric Restriction Weight Loss Diet and Exercise on
Inflammatory Biomarkers in Overweight/Obese Postmenopausal Women: A
Randomized Controlled Trial.
PMID: 22549948

So,
do your thing and have fun
Gys

[tedrosenberg]

well, correlation does NOT prove causality, no matter HOW randomized

It is a shame that Americans get such a lousy education in Math.

Randomized studies definitely increase the potential validity of the
study, they NEVER prove causality. For a simple example, we know that
there is a correlation between weight and T2 diabetes. There has, so
far, been no way to prove which causes which. The majority believe it
is weight causes diabetes. A STRONG minority believe diabetes causes
weight gain, but neither opinion has PROOF, and a randomized study, no
mater how randomized, will show a correlation only.

One of the reason the "supplement" scammers do so well, is that people
like you didn't flunk Statistics 101, they never were even exposed to it.

[Trawley Trash]

On Sat, 05 May 2012 17:22:50 -0400
tedrosenberg <theodore....@gmail.com> wrote:

> Randomized studies definitely increase the potential validity of the
> study, they NEVER prove causality. For a simple example, we know
> that there is a correlation between weight and T2 diabetes. There
> has, so far, been no way to prove which causes which. The majority
> believe it is weight causes diabetes. A STRONG minority believe
> diabetes causes weight gain, but neither opinion has PROOF, and a
> randomized study, no mater how randomized, will show a correlation
> only.

The other possibility is that some other factor causes both T2 and
obesity. This other factor could be food allergies. When people
go on a low calorie diet, they eat fewer allergens. Their weight
falls, and their diabetes improves. This explains the occasional
skinny type II better than either of your two possibilities.

[tedrosenberg]

yep, and there are OTHER possible answers. We MIGHT be able to design
studies which test some of these specific options, but DESIGN is the
answer, randomization is not the answer, it is a basic requirement.

[Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD]

GysdeJongh wrote:
>
> Another randomized control trial which found that eating less is good for
> your health. We have literally hundreds of those now.

Because the extreme case of eating less, which is not eating at all,
is bad for ones health as evident by resultant death, all should
realize that there must be an optimal right amount, which happens to
be 32 oz of daily food:

http://WDJW.net/Parable

Yes, right amount ( http://WDJW.net/2PD-OMER Approach ) control as
Chris Malcolm, MU, **and** Rod Eastman are doing is much more
sophisticated and smarter:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.diet.low-carb/msg/8d2ef74488074acf?

and

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/522ce5c058224656?

**and**

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/da03131060efa3b5?

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/055f2e7cf3c590ee?

Be hungrier, which really is wonderfully healthier especially for
diabetics and other heart disease patients:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/9642aafa0aad16eb?

... because we mindfully choose to openly care with our heart,

Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
EmoryIMVC.org Cardiologist
and Author of the 2PD-OMER Approach:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/9ad0c19df5ffc2f7?

[Trawley Trash]

On Sat, 05 May 2012 23:07:14 -0400
tedrosenberg <theodore....@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/5/2012 7:10 PM, Trawley Trash wrote:
> > On Sat, 05 May 2012 17:22:50 -0400
> > tedrosenberg<theodore....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Randomized studies definitely increase the potential validity of
> >> the study, they NEVER prove causality. For a simple example, we
> >> know that there is a correlation between weight and T2 diabetes.
> >> There has, so far, been no way to prove which causes which. The
> >> majority believe it is weight causes diabetes. A STRONG minority
> >> believe diabetes causes weight gain, but neither opinion has
> >> PROOF, and a randomized study, no mater how randomized, will show
> >> a correlation only.
> >
> > The other possibility is that some other factor causes both T2
> > and obesity. This other factor could be food allergies. When
> > people go on a low calorie diet, they eat fewer allergens. Their
> > weight falls, and their diabetes improves. This explains the
> > occasional skinny type II better than either of your two
> > possibilities.
> >
> yep, and there are OTHER possible answers.

Enumerate some.

> We MIGHT be able to
> design studies which test some of these specific options, but DESIGN
> is the answer, randomization is not the answer, it is a basic
> requirement.

There is no way to do randomization on a study when the cause
(allergen) can be different for each individual. We need a
different way of solving the problem.

[tedrosenberg]

nO, IF THE CAUSES ARE INDIVIDUAL. wE CAN FIND OUT THINGS z(WITH
DIFICULTY) IF THERE ARE A SMALL NUMBER (GREATER THAN ONE) OF CAUSES

[Chris Malcolm]

Randomisation is one of the techniques used to improve the
investigative power of epidemiological studies. Epidemiological
studies are what you do when you're looking for clues about what might
be going on. They're the start of a scientific investigation, not the
end. Once you have some plausible ideas you can start designing
individual experiments to test them.

--
Chris Malcolm

[Trawley Trash]

On 7 May 2012 10:26:12 GMT

Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> Epidemiological
> studies are what you do when you're looking for clues about what might
> be going on. They're the start of a scientific investigation, not the
> end. Once you have some plausible ideas you can start designing
> individual experiments to test them.

You can't do epidemiological studies on individual biochemical
differences such as allergies. The total population to be
investigated is one. You cannot use statistics.

I had a plausible idea, that my diabetes might be related to
my allergies. That was my own individual experiment. The
success was stunning.

Too bad you consider me to be implausible.

[Trawley Trash]

On Sun, 06 May 2012 21:40:25 -0400

Oh, look at all the cute typos. Did you practice them?

I note that you did not give even one of the "OTHER possible answers."

[Chris Malcolm]

Trawley Trash <tr...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 7 May 2012 10:26:12 GMT
> Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

>> Epidemiological
>> studies are what you do when you're looking for clues about what might
>> be going on. They're the start of a scientific investigation, not the
>> end. Once you have some plausible ideas you can start designing
>> individual experiments to test them.

> You can't do epidemiological studies on individual biochemical
> differences such as allergies. The total population to be
> investigated is one. You cannot use statistics.

Exactly. That's a specific example of the general point I'm making.

> I had a plausible idea, that my diabetes might be related to
> my allergies. That was my own individual experiment. The
> success was stunning.

> Too bad you consider me to be implausible.

Not a view of my opinions which I share. I don't ever consider people
implausible, only ideas. I quite possibly have suggested I found one
or other of your ideas was implausible, I can't remember. I do
remember telling a story or two about an allergy specialist I know
some of whose ideas were rather silly. I hope you didn't think that
was a criticism of your ideas about your own allergies. I also think
some of the ideas of that allergy specialist were controversial,
unorthodox, and absolutely right.

--
Chris Malcolm

[tedrosenberg]

No, why should I?

I am not a researcher, and have no interest in making uninformed
guesses. I also can't be bothered to do your research for you. Get on
Medline and find out.

If you want an answer to that, why ask me? Nothing I said related to
the validity of any particular possibility, just that the condition does
not appear Binary, something others also have pointed out. I didn't even
say that it WASN'T, just that there were multiple opinions.

[tedrosenberg]

On 5/7/2012 12:55 PM, Trawley Trash wrote:
> On 7 May 2012 10:26:12 GMT
> Chris Malcolm<c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> Epidemiological
>> studies are what you do when you're looking for clues about what might
>> be going on. They're the start of a scientific investigation, not the
>> end. Once you have some plausible ideas you can start designing
>> individual experiments to test them.
>
> You can't do epidemiological studies on individual biochemical
> differences such as allergies. The total population to be
> investigated is one. You cannot use statistics.

What EVER gave you that odd idea ?

>
> I had a plausible idea, that my diabetes might be related to
> my allergies. That was my own individual experiment. The
> success was stunning.
>
> Too bad you consider me to be implausible.
>
>

you are not implausible, you are anecdotal, and Anecdotes are not data.
You may or may not have been correct with regard to yourself. That
MIGHT give someone a clue as to a direction to make a REAL study.
Actually, odds are you are 100% wrong. It is a classic case of "fallacy
of the false cause". Among other things you (as too many people) can't
grasp that correlation is not causation. You are the classic sucker for
the snake oil and "alternative" scammers.

[outsider]

On 5/8/2012 9:16 AM, tedrosenberg wrote:

> and Anecdotes are not data.

So how many anecdotes does it take for information to be
considered data? Medical information arrives in drips and
drabs of 1, not in swarms. Somewhere along the line it
does actually become data.

[tedrosenberg]

look twit
ANECDOTES ARE NOT DATA
NEVER
EVER
EVER

the incredible ignorance of some people is still surprising.

[Bob]

On 5/8/2012 8:46 AM, outsider wrote:
> On 5/8/2012 9:16 AM, tedrosenberg wrote:
>
>> and Anecdotes are not data.
>
> So how many anecdotes does it take for information to be
> considered data?

Depends on the definition of "data".
Quite obviously there is no room for anecdotal "evidence" within the
confines of Ted's understanding of "data".

Medical information arrives in drips and
> drabs of 1, not in swarms. Somewhere along the line it
> does actually become data.

Yep:
http://tinyurl.com/cb8fz7

Personally, I prefer this model:
http://tinyurl.com/2dquhp


Don Roberto
-----------------------------------------
Prediction is very difficult, especially of the future.
--Niels Bohr

[Trawley Trash]

On Tue, 08 May 2012 10:10:12 -0400

So you did not actually know any other possible answers, only that
it must be some other answer than the one I gave. So let me enumerate
what we have so far:

1) obesity causes type II diabetes.

2) Type II diabetes causes obesity.

3) Food allergies cause both type II diabetes and obesity.

Any other possibilities? Anyone?

[Chris Malcolm]

Especially when we all have google at our service.

http://www.bmj.com/content/333/7581/1267.short

"Anecdotes that provide definitive evidence"

BMJ 2006; 333 doi: 10.1136/bmj.39036.666389.94 (Published 14 December 2006)

"When a criminal is caught in the act, other evidence is
unnecessary. Should the same be true for adverse drug reactions?

Many adverse drug reactions are first reported anecdotally. Anecdotal
reports, by which we mean either individual cases or small case
series, are generally regarded as providing poor quality
evidence. They therefore usually require formal verification through
robust epidemiological studies or clinical trials, although a minority
are actually verified.1 However, we propose that some adverse drug
reactions are so convincing, even without traditional chronological
causal criteria such as challenge tests, that a well documented
anecdotal report can provide convincing evidence of a causal
association and further verification is not needed."

[snip]

"We have identified four types of spontaneously reported adverse
events for which causal or contributory attribution to the drug is
either irrefutable or demonstrable with a high level of confidence."

--
Chris Malcolm

[Trawley Trash]

On Wed, 09 May 2012 07:54:02 -0400
tedrosenberg <theodore....@gmail.com> wrote:

> the incredible ignorance of some people is still surprising.

True, but ironic.

[Canth]

Badly balanced diet causes poor intestinal flora, which in turn causes
leaky gut, which in turn causes auto-immune responses, which cause T2,
and/or obesity, and/or allergies. Possibly toss in anti-viral
responses as co-causative agents at steps 2 &/or 3. :)

AS! ds++:+++ a++ c+++ p++ t+ f-- S+ p+ e++ h++ r++ n++ i+ P+ m++ M
I've been ignored by better people than you.

[Canth]

Generally speaking, anecdote is used as a short hand for "something
which contradicts my belief system." If the story you tell matches
the belief system, it is "supportive evidence", otherwise it is
anecdotal.

Anecdotes are data, perhaps of poorer quality than rigorous scientific
experiment, but still data. Many a successful research program has
started with nothing better. In reality, those "Oh Oh" or "That's
Odd" moments are nothing more than anecdotes. Research is then used
to confirm or develop the idea expressed in the anecdote.

Auguste Kekule, the great organic chemist, used to say that many of
his structures first came to him in dreams while sitting in front of
the fire, benzene being the most notable. He also said that every
dream had to then be checked against cold reality in the lab, but
dreaming was still an essential part of research.

[outsider]

On 5/9/2012 6:54 AM, tedrosenberg wrote:
> On 5/8/2012 11:46 AM, outsider wrote:
>> On 5/8/2012 9:16 AM, tedrosenberg wrote:
>>
>>> and Anecdotes are not data.
>>
>> So how many anecdotes does it take for information to be
>> considered data? Medical information arrives in drips and
>> drabs of 1, not in swarms. Somewhere along the line it
>> does actually become data.

> look twit

Well you're off to a good start. Are you off some meds again?
Or just have too much testosterone in your system?

Oops, rhetorical question in the form of a purposeful false
dichotomy.

> ANECDOTES ARE NOT DATA
> NEVER
> EVER
> EVER

Willful blindness, I see. When one person says they saw a wolf, it
can be considered an anecdote. When 99 more people in the same
neighborhood say they saw it that day, those 100 anecdotes are
useful data. BTW, this is not a far fetched example. We have grey
wolves where I live, and enough of them that they've been removed
from the endangered species list. When my neighbor telephoned one
day to tell me a black bear was headed in my direction, I didn't
ignore that as though it were merely a worthless anecdote. I grabbed
a camera (have photos) and a couple of pot lids. After I took
pictures through the window I went to the front door, opened it,
and started clanging the pot lids together to drive it away. Black
bears around here always attack bird feeders, so I had time to make
photos, albeit at the expense of a bird feeder.

> the incredible ignorance of some people is still surprising.

And you're providing such a fine example. Your pronouncements
are devoid of value. Screaming that "anecdotes are not data"
is a useless anecdote! With some thousands changing the meaning
of the word, it might become a different reality.

Having chased that bear a few years ago, I had gotten careless
about placing bird feeders. I have video of a deer some time
later placing its mouth over a hole in a bird feeder and sucking
seeds out. Later one bit and broke the roof off a feeder in order
to get at the seed. I now hang them quite high, and out of reach
of bears and deer.

BTW, every anecdote I provided above is useful information, and
thereby is data, whether you like the idea or not. You might want
to speak with your physician and perhaps cut back on the dose
of testosterone you're getting, or get back on some meds you're
obviously lacking. So much lashing out isn't good for you.

[outsider]

On 5/9/2012 7:23 AM, Bob wrote:
> On 5/8/2012 8:46 AM, outsider wrote:
>> On 5/8/2012 9:16 AM, tedrosenberg wrote:
>>
>>> and Anecdotes are not data.
>>
>> So how many anecdotes does it take for information to be
>> considered data?
>
> Depends on the definition of "data".
> Quite obviously there is no room for anecdotal "evidence" within the
> confines of Ted's understanding of "data".
>
> Medical information arrives in drips and
>> drabs of 1, not in swarms. Somewhere along the line it
>> does actually become data.
>
> Yep:
> http://tinyurl.com/cb8fz7
>
> Personally, I prefer this model:
> http://tinyurl.com/2dquhp

Why did you ignore 7 of 9, the most obvious swarmer and,
in real life, one of the forces driving the conditions
that landed Obama in the White House? Now there's another
"anecdote" that's remarkably interesting data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ryan_%28politician%29

and/or

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeri_Ryan

[outsider]

Going against the grain is how language itself grows. The invention
of words like "incidences" (replacing incidents) and the
revalidation of the word "ain't" are good examples that have
taken place in my lifetime.

I don't know of significant progress that was made by agreement with
accepted data. And yes, eureka moments aren't always scientific.

[tedrosenberg]

On 5/9/2012 10:15 AM, Susan wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes

>
> On 5/9/2012 10:09 AM, Chris Malcolm wrote:
>
>> Especially when we all have google at our service.
>>
>> http://www.bmj.com/content/333/7581/1267.short
>>
>> "Anecdotes that provide definitive evidence"
>>
>> BMJ 2006; 333 doi: 10.1136/bmj.39036.666389.94 (Published 14 December
>> 2006)
>>
>> "When a criminal is caught in the act, other evidence is
>> unnecessary. Should the same be true for adverse drug reactions?
>>
>> Many adverse drug reactions are first reported anecdotally. Anecdotal
>> reports, by which we mean either individual cases or small case
>> series, are generally regarded as providing poor quality
>> evidence. They therefore usually require formal verification through
>> robust epidemiological studies or clinical trials, although a minority
>> are actually verified.1 However, we propose that some adverse drug
>> reactions are so convincing, even without traditional chronological
>> causal criteria such as challenge tests, that a well documented
>> anecdotal report can provide convincing evidence of a causal
>> association and further verification is not needed."
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> "We have identified four types of spontaneously reported adverse
>> events for which causal or contributory attribution to the drug is
>> either irrefutable or demonstrable with a high level of confidence."
>>
>

> I guess that's why the CDC and the NIH collect anecdotal reports of
> adverse drug reactions, among other things. The DATA is highly
> informative about areas that need investigation.
>
> Susan
STILL not data - Anecdotes provide possibilities, but NEVER data

[randyf]

Ted Wrote:
> For a simple example, we know that
>there is a correlation between weight and T2 diabetes. There has, so
>far, been no way to prove which causes which. The majority believe it
>is weight causes diabetes. A STRONG minority believe diabetes causes
>weight gain, but neither opinion has PROOF, and a randomized study, no
>mater how randomized, will show a correlation only.

Could you provide some references to the Strong minority that believe
diabetes causes weight gain. As far a folks that publish on the topic
none that I know of believe this and I know of no evidence that
supports this.

As early as 1968 it was shown that insulin resistance of fat cells are
dependent on fat cell size. Feed folks less (on what ever diet) fat
cell size goes down and insulin sensitivity goes up. Feed folk more -
fat cells get larger and insulin resistance goes up. [1]

Weight gain or loss has been shown to be determined by calorie
balance, not hormonal factors [2] [3] [4]

The majority of prospective studies that included non-obese adults
failed to show an association between insulin level at baseline and
future weight gain.

On the other hand, other large cohort studies have shown that insulin
resistance, which is usually associated with high plasma insulin
levels, could be protective against weight gain. [5] [6]
This is opposite to what to the minority view you report.

There are hundreds of studies going back at least 30 decades that show
that low calorie diets result in quick, dramatic reversals in diabetic
metrics. Only low calorie diets and some specifics types of bar
iatric surgery elicit this effect. And - at least half the benefits
happen before any significant weight is lost.

For example, after just one week of very low calorie eating, bg levels
were reduced from 165 to 104, liver insulin resistance improved by
30%, and first phase insulin response increased by 100%. After 8 weeks
the diabetics maxi um insulin secretion was better than the
non-diabetics controls. If there was ever a miracle cure, this is it.
[7]

It's ridiculous to suggest the calorie restriction is not likely the
causative element.

As far

1. The role of adipose cell size and adipose tissue insulin
sensitivity in the carbohydrate intolerance of human obesity

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC297156/

2. Similar weight loss with low- or high-carbohydrate diets.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8561057

3. Effects of an 8-Week High-Protein or High-Carbohydrate Diet in
Adults With Hyperinsulinemia
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?&artinstid=1868379
4. Effect of a high-protein, energy-restricted diet on weight loss and
energy expenditure after weight stabilization in hyperinsulinemic
subjects
http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v27/n5/abs/0802270a.html

5. The entero-insular axis and adipose tissue-related factors in the
prediction of weight gain in humans.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17130851

6.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/09/fat-tissue-insulin-sensitivity-and.html

7. Reversal of type 2 diabetes: normalisation of beta cell
function in association with decreased pancreas
and liver triacylglycerol
http://www.diabetologia-journal.org/Lim.pdf

[randyf]

Trawley wrote:
> The other possibility is that some other factor causes both T2 and
> obesity. This other factor could be food allergies. When people
> go on a low calorie diet, they eat fewer allergens. Their weight
> falls, and their diabetes improves. This explains the occasional
> skinny type II better than either of your two possibilities.

Actually there is good evidence that skinny type 2s can be explained
in a similar manner to obese type 2s - inappropriate fat storage
(ectopic fat storage).

It's not how much fat you have, but where its stored. It turns out
that some skinny folks have a hard time storing fat in "safe places".
These folks are very prone to diabetes because their fat gain goes to
all the wrong places (liver, pancreas, muscle, heart).

Some of the leaness folks on the planet have a genetic
condition,lipodystrophy, such that they can't store fat under the skin
These folks are very prone to diabetes with just a very slight gain in
weight.

Turns out a lot of folks suffer from the inability to store fat
properly and are prone to type 2 issues. There's even a new name for
this condition - Tofi - thin inside, fat outside. [1][2]

1. Increased fat intake, impaired fat oxidation, and failure of fat
cell proliferation result in ectopic fat storage, insulin resistance,
and type 2 diabetes mellitus.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12079864

2. The Missing Risk: MRI and MRS Phenotyping of Abdominal Adiposity
and Ectopic Fat
http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v20/n1/full/oby2011142a.html

[Bob]

Not so fast, Mr. Anonymous:
It may be data to you, but anecdotal "evidence", especially from just
one anonymous source is not data.

You might want
> to speak with your physician and perhaps cut back on the dose
> of testosterone you're getting, or get back on some meds you're
> obviously lacking. So much lashing out isn't good for you.

Good advise.
Especially since it seems to have worked for you.

Don Roberto

[Thelma Lubkin]

tedrosenberg <theodore....@gmail.com> wrote:
: STILL not data - Anecdotes provide possibilities, but NEVER data

Nor are prestigious studies necessarily 'data': my husband
expressed a casual interest in a study being readied at Brigham and
Women's Hospital, affiliated with Harvard. It's called VITAL and will
be testing long term effects of large doses of fish oil and vitamin D
on various health parameters.

He's now received an application that comprises a questionaire on his
medical history, etc. It seems as if they would simply enrol him in the
study and send him the pills [actual or placebo] without any attempt
to see whether there's any truth in the application answers. All
followup is by mail or telephone. This will become the 'data' for a
large study?

--thelma

[outsider]

Speaking of spelling.....

> Especially since it seems to have worked for you.

WTF, Bob! Leave a fellow having a good rant alone already.

Sheesh!

[Maya Zuiderweg]

outsider stelde de volgende uitleg voor :

Data,data,data..
Prof just got sacked some months ago for making up data.
Was often seen on tv.Had published loads of papers. In wellknown
magazines. All based on made-up data.All false..
M.

[Peppermint Patootie]

In article <m9Wdna5xobJvdzbS...@giganews.com>,
Maya Zuiderweg <$no_spam#ma_dot_zuiderweg_@_me_dot_com#maps_on$>
wrote:

> Data,data,data..
> Prof just got sacked some months ago for making up data.
> Was often seen on tv.Had published loads of papers. In wellknown
> magazines. All based on made-up data.All false..
> M.

It's being uncovered scarily frequently these days. All that "common
knowledge" based on lies.

*sigh*

PP
--
"What you fail to understand is that criticising established authority by means
of argument and evidence is a crucial aspect of how science works."
- Chris Malcolm

[Maya Zuiderweg]

Peppermint Patootie gebruikte zijn klavier om te schrijven :

> In article <m9Wdna5xobJvdzbS...@giganews.com>,
> Maya Zuiderweg <$no_spam#ma_dot_zuiderweg_@_me_dot_com#maps_on$>
> wrote:
>
>> Data,data,data..
>> Prof just got sacked some months ago for making up data.
>> Was often seen on tv.Had published loads of papers. In wellknown
>> magazines. All based on made-up data.All false..
>> M.
>
> It's being uncovered scarily frequently these days. All that "common
> knowledge" based on lies.
>
> *sigh*
>
> PP

Ive got a little idea about that. I know of my bro -being prof in the
states- that pressure is idiotly high for producing scientific papers.
Has sth to do with money..jobs..
M.

[outsider]

I know a mathematician and academic who published a paper easily
demonstrated to be wrong. She has kept a very low profile ever since.

[outsider]

The saying among academics in the US is "publish or perish."

[Maya Zuiderweg]

outsider heeft ons zojuist aangekondigd :

Q.E.D.

M.

[Chris Malcolm]

Peppermint Patootie <peppermin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <m9Wdna5xobJvdzbS...@giganews.com>,
> Maya Zuiderweg <$no_spam#ma_dot_zuiderweg_@_me_dot_com#maps_on$>
> wrote:

>> Data,data,data..
>> Prof just got sacked some months ago for making up data.
>> Was often seen on tv.Had published loads of papers. In wellknown
>> magazines. All based on made-up data.All false..
>> M.

> It's being uncovered scarily frequently these days. All that "common
> knowledge" based on lies.

Or mistakes and selective information. There's a whole aluminium
avoidance industry been built up on te basis of that alarming research
report which showed high levels of aluminium in the brains of people
who had died of Alzheimer's. Yet firstly nobody was able to replicate
that study, there were several published failures. Secondly and more
importantly the original researches then published an apology. They'd
forgotten that they'd prepared all their brain specimens for
miscroscopy by using aluminium based dyes. That's what they'd detected
-- the aluminium they'd died them with.

So now you can buy aluminium-free natural deodorant crystals as used
by the ancients. Which are alum crystals. Which is a salt of
aluminium! What's more, a popular acid stomach remedy was an aluminium
salt which people had been consuming in spoonfuls for years without
going mad.

The problem is a lack of critical open-minded scepticism.

--
Chris Malcolm

[mainframetech]

On May 11, 4:50 am, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> Peppermint Patootie <peppermint_patoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article <m9Wdna5xobJvdzbSnZ2dnUVZ8rOdn...@giganews.com>,

================

It all points up that using studies as the gold standard for our
beliefs in scientific findings is no longer to be counted on alone.
The motives of the funding entity may come into play, and human bias
and ego as well. The scientific method is logically lovely, but
sometimes scrapped.

In 2001 it was know to a group concerned with health, that statins
caused memory losses for some people. The information was originally
collected from anecdotal evidence by a physician that had the problem
himself and looked into it. He wrote a book about it warning folks
about the possibility, though the mainstream people that were heavy
into studies laughed him off, as is often the case with discoverers of
new information. He announced his findings and advertised the book on
his 'blog' years ago, and there were those that ignored him because
how can a blog be of value, loaded with opinions and anecdotal
evidence? Very unscientific.

And now more than 10 years later the FDA finally decides to mention
the problem.

Chris (mainframetech)

[Maya Zuiderweg]

Chris Malcolm drukte met precisie uit :

>***** The problem is a lack of critical open-minded scepticism.

***** but isnt that what is learned when studying science (or any other
subject at the university, with some exceptions coming to mind that
is)?

Fresh scientists are (mostly) not biased, methinks its after their
study and eventual postdocs they go out in the "real" world and meet
with jobs and money and the like.

Maya

[mainframetech]

On May 11, 10:19 am, Maya Zuiderweg <

$no_spam#ma_dot_zuiderweg_@_me_dot_com#maps_on$> wrote:
> Chris Malcolm drukte met precisie uit :
>
>
>
>
>

> > Peppermint Patootie <peppermint_patoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> In article <m9Wdna5xobJvdzbSnZ2dnUVZ8rOdn...@giganews.com>,

One hopes when they come out of the 'junior scientist machine', that
they will be idealistic and willing to insist on truth, but I think
they may find a wealth of seniors telling them what the world 'is
really like' and what they must do to succeed, or to even survive. I
don't know how many get past those pressures to become true
scientists.

Chris

[Don Roberto]

On 5/9/2012 10:01 PM, righteous ranting randy wrote:
> Ted Wrote:
>> For a simple example, we know that
>> there is a correlation between weight and T2 diabetes. There has, so
>> far, been no way to prove which causes which. The majority believe it
>> is weight causes diabetes. A STRONG minority believe diabetes causes
>> weight gain, but neither opinion has PROOF, and a randomized study, no
>> mater how randomized, will show a correlation only.
>
> Could you provide some references to the Strong minority that believe
> diabetes causes weight gain. As far a folks that publish on the topic
> none that I know of believe this and I know of no evidence that
> supports this.
>

He doesn't either - that's why he used the word "believe".

[Inapplicable "references and links" snipped]

Don Roberto

[Don Roberto]

On 5/10/2012 7:56 AM, outsider wrote:
> On 5/10/2012 4:00 AM, Bob wrote:
>> On 5/9/2012 8:21 AM, outsider wrote:
>
>> You might want
>>> to speak with your physician and perhaps cut back on the dose
>>> of testosterone you're getting, or get back on some meds you're
>>> obviously lacking. So much lashing out isn't good for you.
>>
>> Good advise.
>
> Speaking of spelling.....
>

Sorry, but it's not my fault: my spell checker is kinda stupid :-(

[Chris Malcolm]

It's usually not specifically taught until you get to postgraduate
level. Most science graduates regard a scientist's job as being able
to identify the scientific authority who is to be trusted, and who
regard it as heretical to question authority. We're a highly social
and cultural animal learning for more from others than by our own
investigations, so we're naturally biassed to find and trust
authorities.

> Fresh scientists are (mostly) not biased, methinks its after their
> study and eventual postdocs they go out in the "real" world and meet
> with jobs and money and the like.

I think it's just time and experience. Generally speaking the more you
come to know the less able you become to question what you know. It's
part of how learning works.

--
Chris Malcolm

[Trawley Trash]

So the list stands like this:

1) Obesity causes type II diabetes.

2) Type II causes obesity.

3) Allergies cause obesity and type II

4) Unbalanced diet causes auto-immune response which causes type II
and diabetes.

I would suggest that auto-immune responses *are* allergies. Rhinitis
is an auto-immune response in the mucous membranes, a skin rash is an
auto-immune response in the skin, type I is an autoimmune response
in the beta cells, and type II is an autoimmune response elsewhere.

So I think what you are saying is that unbalanced diet causes
allergies (indirectly through leaky gut). I tend to lean in
the direction of allergies causing leaky gut, but we can talk
about that in another thread someday.

All of these possibilities will show the required statistical
linkage.

Any others?

[Wes Groleau]

On 05-10-2012 11:57, Trawley Trash wrote:
> I would suggest that auto-immune responses*are* allergies. Rhinitis

> is an auto-immune response in the mucous membranes, a skin rash is an
> auto-immune response in the skin, type I is an autoimmune response
> in the beta cells, and type II is an autoimmune response elsewhere.

Type 2 diabetes is primarily insulin resistance.

--
Wes Groleau

“A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature, and as a
firm and unalterable experience has established these laws,
the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact,
is as entire as could possibly be imagined.”
— David Hume, age 37
“There's no such thing of that, 'cause I never heard of it.”
— Becky Groleau, age 4

[GysdeJongh]

Wes Groleau wrote:
> On 05-10-2012 11:57, Trawley Trash wrote:
>> I would suggest that auto-immune responses*are* allergies.
>> Rhinitis is an auto-immune response in the mucous membranes, a
>> skin rash is an auto-immune response in the skin, type I is an
>> autoimmune response in the beta cells, and type II is an
>> autoimmune response elsewhere.
>
> Type 2 diabetes is primarily insulin resistance.

glad you solved that problem Wes. We had no idea

[Maya Zuiderweg]

Chris Malcolm stelde de volgende uitleg voor :

That sounds logical.
(scratching my head)
So why is my own experience so different..
A scientific mind is (as I know) a mind that is trained to do (even
*some*) research, i.e. one comes upon all different issues,
contradictions..
IMO its _then_ when one has to make ones own judgment..

>
>> Fresh scientists are (mostly) not biased, methinks its after their
>> study and eventual postdocs they go out in the "real" world and meet
>> with jobs and money and the like.
>
> I think it's just time and experience. Generally speaking the more you
> come to know the less able you become to question what you know. It's
> part of how learning works.

That too sounds logical. As a child has in general a more "open mind"
than the adults its raised by.
Logical..
But is it true for those that are curious (inquisitive?) and stay
curious?
Well, you have some points there, but I still think that jobs and money
play a mostly nasty part in the lives of the formerly inquisitive.

M.

[Canth]

On Thu, 10 May 2012 08:57:13 -0700, Trawley Trash

Not so. Auto-immune response diseases are a different but related
class of diseases to allergies. Allergies are a part of the class of
immune response diseases, just as auto-immune diseases are. In an
allergy reaction, the body's immune system is reacting to the presence
of an external substance in an inappropriate way. In an auto-immune
disease, the immune system is reacting to the person themselves. You
can avoid an allergen; you cannot avoid yourself.

> So I think what you are saying is that unbalanced diet causes
> allergies (indirectly through leaky gut). I tend to lean in
> the direction of allergies causing leaky gut, but we can talk
> about that in another thread someday.
>
> All of these possibilities will show the required statistical
> linkage.
>

Statistical linkages by themselves can only show correlation not
causation. For causation, you need the biochemistry.

> Any others?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

AS! ds++:+++ a++ c+++ p++ t+ f-- S+ p+ e++ h++ r++ n++ i+ P+ m++ M
I've been ignored by better people than you.

[Chris Malcolm]

Perfectly true. But there are two kinds of disputes and
contradictions in science. In times of normal science research
concentrates on filling the obvious holes in the jig-saw puzzle of
knowledge, and the disputes are largely about whether the research
claiming to have identified a new piece of the jigsaw has been done
properly and whether it fits the puzzle as well as claimed.

In that kind of scientific puzzle solving the more you know and the
more widely you have read the better fitted you are to solve the
puzzles.

The other kind of dispute arises when the generally accepted
viewpoints, models, and methodologies which have happily been guiding
successful research for decades start being questioned. Kuhn called
this the revolutionary phase of science compared to the normal jig-saw
puzzle solving phase of science. Everything that was previously
considered settled is thrown open to doubt. That kind of problem
requires researchers to think out of the box. Sometimes it takes a
genius to completely revolutionise the field and start a new phase of
normal science based on completely new models.

In this kind of scientific puzzle the more you know and the more
widely you have read the more difficult it is to solve the puzzle --
because part of what you learn is how to recognise nonsense, silly
implausible ideas. The problem is that in this kind of scientific
puzzle the solution often turns out to be something which at first
sight is outrageously silly.

One of my hobby horses in asd has been that this matters to diabetic
research because diabetic research is closely linked to nutritional
research, and nutritional research shows all the signs of entering one
of these revolutionary phases in which the applecart of accepted
nutritional wisdom will be overturned.

>>> Fresh scientists are (mostly) not biased, methinks its after their
>>> study and eventual postdocs they go out in the "real" world and meet
>>> with jobs and money and the like.

>> I think it's just time and experience. Generally speaking the more you
>> come to know the less able you become to question what you know. It's
>> part of how learning works.

> That too sounds logical. As a child has in general a more "open mind"
> than the adults its raised by.
> Logical..
> But is it true for those that are curious (inquisitive?) and stay
> curious?

It's treu that some are naturally much more curious, ingenious,
sceptical, and radical than others. As well as being aspects of
problem solving behaviour these are also aspects of human personality.

> Well, you have some points there, but I still think that jobs and money
> play a mostly nasty part in the lives of the formerly inquisitive.

They certainly do! It's pretty difficult to do well enough in research
to earn enough reliably enough to support a wife, children, and a
mortgage, let alone have enough time to spend with the family. So
there's huge pressures to play it safe and not question the ideas of
those who are handing out the research money.

--
Chris Malcolm

[Trawley Trash]

On Sun, 13 May 2012 10:34:44 +0930
Canth <kwar...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

> Not so. Auto-immune response diseases are a different but related
> class of diseases to allergies.

Allergies are perfectly normal. They are not diseases.
Everyone has them, whether they know it or not.

> Allergies are a part of the class of
> immune response diseases, just as auto-immune diseases are. In an
> allergy reaction, the body's immune system is reacting to the presence
> of an external substance in an inappropriate way. In an auto-immune
> disease, the immune system is reacting to the person themselves. You
> can avoid an allergen; you cannot avoid yourself.

An auto-immune response is when the immune system attacks the body:
not when it is reacting to it. If it really was reacting to the
body itself, it would be quickly fatal. This happens sometimes to
fetuses that do not make it.

Autoimmunity is a reaction to *something* that *also* attacks the
body. The reason this happens is that we were *not* designed. The
immune system does not work very well. It is wrong to even call
it an immune system, because it does other things as well.
The same immune globulins that stick to food can also stick to
our internals and cause autoimmune conditions. When we develop an
immune response to a food, we call it an allergy if it also attacks
the nasal passages. We call it an autoimmune condition (you would say
disease) when it attacks an internal organ.

The medical textbooks have it wrong. That is my point.

[Maya Zuiderweg]

Chris Malcolm formuleerde de vraag :
> Maya Zuiderweg <$no_spam#ma_dot_zuiderweg_@_me_dot_com#maps_on$> wrote:
<snip>

Yes, I DO recognize the "last one".

>
> One of my hobby horses in asd has been that this matters to diabetic
> research because diabetic research is closely linked to nutritional
> research, and nutritional research shows all the signs of entering one
> of these revolutionary phases in which the applecart of accepted
> nutritional wisdom will be overturned.

I already know of one.
For years on end nobody understood my type of diabetes. All kinds of
tests, also going to other hospitals, nothing was recognised. Certainly
not a normal diabetes.
So I pleased the diab.specialist(s) with very good hba1c's for years,
and didnt bother asking any more.

Last year, in January my quite new diab.specialist came up with a
bloodtest for vitamin D3 - this was idiotly low.
So I saw a new opportunity to put the new specialist to a test (that
had failed before with my old one).

Why oh why can D3 levels be so low?

In July of the same year I was on D3 supplements for a half year, and
still my D3 levels were much too low.
Now how could that be??
I put that into the mind of the new specialist and offered a simple
explanation, that I had up my sleeve.
5 years before I had had a catscan from my bowels, on the pictures of
which the gastro-ent accidental came across a pancreas filled with
calciumdeposit. Looked like an extra rib.

Chronic pancreatitis, he said, and referred me to my diab.specialist
for further tests and medication. Nothing more was done about that, as
the diab.specialist was an idiot, who believed in "what generally is
true about diabetes".

So last year I put my new specialist on the trail, that she herself had
started by wanting a vitaminD bloodtest.

Well, to make an already long story a bit shorter: after tests it
became clear that I put 1/3 of my food almost directly in the loo (thru
the 'normal way').

Food, you said? Drink, sir.
The whole "enigmatic" type of diabetes came from an almost
not-present/fawlty working pancreas.

Sooo: beware o'the bottle my friends..
One can get chronic pancreatitis= a calciumridden pancreas from it.

>>>> Fresh scientists are (mostly) not biased, methinks its after their
>>>> study and eventual postdocs they go out in the "real" world and meet
>>>> with jobs and money and the like.
>
>>> I think it's just time and experience. Generally speaking the more you
>>> come to know the less able you become to question what you know. It's
>>> part of how learning works.
>
>> That too sounds logical. As a child has in general a more "open mind"
>> than the adults its raised by.
>> Logical..
>> But is it true for those that are curious (inquisitive?) and stay
>> curious?
>
> It's treu that some are naturally much more curious, ingenious,
> sceptical, and radical than others. As well as being aspects of
> problem solving behaviour these are also aspects of human personality.

Sure.

>
>> Well, you have some points there, but I still think that jobs and money
>> play a mostly nasty part in the lives of the formerly inquisitive.
>
> They certainly do! It's pretty difficult to do well enough in research
> to earn enough reliably enough to support a wife, children, and a
> mortgage, let alone have enough time to spend with the family. So
> there's huge pressures to play it safe and not question the ideas of
> those who are handing out the research money.

Aye, pressure makes mistakes/forced errors/and uglier behaviors more
than possible.

Maya

[Julie Bove]

"Trawley Trash" <tr...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:i3g589-...@jester.gnet...

> On Sun, 13 May 2012 10:34:44 +0930
> Canth <kwar...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>> Not so. Auto-immune response diseases are a different but related
>> class of diseases to allergies.
>
> Allergies are perfectly normal. They are not diseases.
> Everyone has them, whether they know it or not.

I'm not really sure that everyone has them. But I would be willing to bet
there are a whole slew of people out there who do have them and don't know
it.

We had neighbors who used to make fun of our allergies. They didn't believe
in allergies. They also had "colds" all the time. Heh.

The odd thing is that my allergies seem to have gotten a lot better over the
years. And I really don't know why. Unless perhaps I am finally now on the
right combination of supplements. Currently I do have the itchy eyes some
days and a little sneezing. But nothing like I have seen with some other
people.

I also think my food intolerances might come into play there as well.
Perhaps some of those (eggs in particular) were giving me symptoms that I
thought were allergies.

[Trawley Trash]

On Sun, 13 May 2012 19:50:59 -0700
"Julie Bove" <juli...@frontier.com> wrote:

>
> "Trawley Trash" <tr...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:i3g589-...@jester.gnet...
> > On Sun, 13 May 2012 10:34:44 +0930
> > Canth <kwar...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >
> >> Not so. Auto-immune response diseases are a different but related
> >> class of diseases to allergies.
> >
> > Allergies are perfectly normal. They are not diseases.
> > Everyone has them, whether they know it or not.
>
> I'm not really sure that everyone has them. But I would be willing
> to bet there are a whole slew of people out there who do have them
> and don't know it.
>
> We had neighbors who used to make fun of our allergies. They didn't
> believe in allergies. They also had "colds" all the time. Heh.

I used to call it my perpetual cold. Started in November and lasted
until June every year. Finally a neighbor threatened to report my
family to Child Welfare. They took me to an allergy specialist
in Santa Monica. The tests showed nothing, but then the specialist
has a long private consultation with my foster mother. He explained
how to do an elimination diet. Over the course of the next two
years my health improved enormously. She found about ninety percent
of my allergies with the help of a letter from my biological father.

After I changed schools, I lost touch with this neighbor. My
family began telling me I had to eat what I was given and like it.

> The odd thing is that my allergies seem to have gotten a lot better
> over the years. And I really don't know why. Unless perhaps I am
> finally now on the right combination of supplements. Currently I do
> have the itchy eyes some days and a little sneezing. But nothing
> like I have seen with some other people.

I think it is because I have more control over my life. People are
not forcing me to eat things that make me ill.

> I also think my food intolerances might come into play there as well.
> Perhaps some of those (eggs in particular) were giving me symptoms
> that I thought were allergies.

I am not a big fan of the distinction between allergies and
sensitivities. There are many different types of immune globulins,
and it is not clear that we understand all of them. Certainly
there is no test that will prove you do not nave an allergy.

Some people earn their living by "proving" that we do not have
allergies. The give an allergy test that is designed not to
find allergies in the first place, then claim that the problem
is a sensitivity, or an eating disorder. Now they are in a position
to earn referral fees (kickbacks) from psychologists and
psychiatrists. Military leaders are also happy to pay for this
kind of information.

The ELISA blood allergy test I took in December showed more than
a dozen problem foods. The buzz from conventional medicine is that
this test shows "false positives", and I saw no symptoms from any
of these foods. Yet I was already on a tightly controlled diet,
so it was possible to eliminate these extra foods with difficulty.

The most difficult new problem was eggs. It was way off the scale:
even worse than beans. So I cut back from four eggs a day to one
by replacing scrambled eggs with a potato and egg cake. I cut out
legumes and saw a lot of progress in my BG. Then I cut out eggs
completely.

Recently I baked another potato-and-egg cake for a celebration.
I ended up with two slices, or one egg. My BG rose twenty points
for three days, and then it dropped back down to normal.
I have posted about this before. This is new data. The
test is repeatable.

This has to be an allergy, because the elevated immune globulins
to eggs are showing up in the blood test. Most doctors would call
this a "false positive", and I have no symptoms except for one.
Eating eggs raises my BG for days afterwards.

When they go on calorie restriction, people generally have to eat
less. This means they are eating fewer allergens. Also they may
change their diet away from allergenic foods: particularly if
they are things like grains and sweets. OTOH they may switch to
foods that are more allergenic for them. This is why some people
are successful with calorie restriction while others are not. Some
will lose weight, and BG will drop. Others will have their metabolism
shut down, not lose weight, and not lower BG.

That is where I was three years ago. I lost about eighty pounds, and
I was stuck there. I could not eat normally because I was still way
too heavy. Instead of losing weight on calorie restriction, I went
into hibernation. Some have called it a diabetic coma. My FBG was
298 and my a2c 11.1 when I went to see the doctor complaining of
inability to stay awake.

From what I have seen, nearly everyone has those "false positives"
from the ELISA blood test. That is why they can't sell the test to
mainstream doctors or the military. The doctors are telling
us that we just have an epidemic: nearly everyone is getting
diabetes. That is why we need more doctors and more drugs.

[Julie Bove]

"Trawley Trash" <tr...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message

news:rb5889-...@jester.gnet...

I can not have any eggs at all. I hadn't made the connection that eggs were
making me sick because I was eating them all the time. Then when my
daughter was found to be intolerant to eggs, I stopped eating them too.

After a while I got eggs from a salad bar. I got sick something like 16
hours later. Then I was foolish enough to eat the eggs again and got sick 2
hours later. I thought it was food poisoning.

Then I repeated the same idiocy with eggs from our house some time later.
Same thing happened. I've never eaten eggs again.

Eggs are one thing that has shown as a problem every time I have been
tested.