Vitamin A Supplements May Hurt Bones
Lars
Vitamin A Supplements May Hurt Bones
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Taking vitamin A supplements can weaken the bones and increase the
risk of fractures up to seven times, according to a large Swedish
study.
The research, conducted on men, confirms three earlier studies in
women showing that high intake of vitamin A raises the risk of broken
hips and weak bones. The latest study is the first to measure levels
of the vitamin in blood, rather than just asking about diet and
supplement use.
The three-decade study and other evidence suggest that daily vitamin A
consumption of more than 1.5 milligrams can be dangerous, and that
most people should not take vitamin A supplements.
Current dietary recommendations call for only 0.7 mg of vitamin A for
women and 0.9 mg for men a day. That is easily supplied by a healthy
diet. But many popular multivitamins contain 0.75 mg to 1.5 mg of
vitamin A, generally listed on labels as 2,500 international units and
5,000 IUs, respectively.
``Vitamin A is potentially harmful,'' said Dr. Donald Louria, chairman
emeritus of preventive medicine at the University of Medicine and
Dentistry of New Jersey in Newark, N.J. ``Unless there is a known
medical reason like certain diseases of the eye, people should not be
taking vitamin A supplements.''
The study by doctors at University Hospital in Uppsala was reported in
Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine. It involved 2,322 men.
Vitamin A is known as an antioxidant. Antioxidants are believed to
reduce the risk of cancer and heart disease. Government studies show
one-third to one-half of Americans take vitamin A or multivitamins
containing it.
Vitamin A can interfere with cells that produce new bone, stimulate
cells that break down old bone and interfere with vitamin D, which
helps the body maintain normal calcium levels.
In the study, about one-fifth, or roughly 465 of the men, were found
to be at risk because they had the highest levels of vitamin A. The
men were about 2 1/2 times more likely to break a hip and 65 percent
more likely to suffer any fracture than those with lower levels of the
vitamin in their blood.
Those in the 99th percentile were about seven times more likely to
break a bone.
Louria said that people should not take fish oil supplements or eat
liver more than once a week, but that multivitamins containing 0.1 mg
or less of vitamin A are fine for people eating a healthy diet.
Large amounts of vitamin A are found in beef liver and fish liver
oils; smaller amounts are in egg yolks, butter and cream. Milk and
some cereals are fortified with vitamin A and, per serving, provide
about 10 percent of daily needs. And substances in dark green, leafy
vegetables and yellow vegetables and fruits are converted to vitamin A
in the body.
Annette Dickinson, acting president of the trade group for supplement
makers, the Council for Responsible Nutrition, said the Swedish men
had an unusually high intake of vitamin A, even though very few were
taking supplements.
``I don't think there's a reason now from the studies we have before
us to say that multivitamins containing ordinary amounts of vitamin A
are harmful,'' Dickinson said. She said that in many multivitamins,
much of the vitamin A is in the form of beta-carotene, which studies
have shown does not weaken bones.
The study had some shortcomings: Blood levels of vitamin A were
measured only once, and the participants' reports of diet and
supplement use 20 years later did not match well with their earlier
vitamin A blood levels.
^------
On the Net:
National Osteoporosis Foundation: http://www.nof.org
Trade group for supplement makers: http://www.crnusa.org
American Dietetic Association: http://www.eatright.org
Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D.
TO: Lars
FROM: Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D.
SUBJECT: "Vitamin A Supplements May Hurt Bones."
NG: sci.med.nutrition
==========
>January 22, 2003
>Vitamin A Supplements May Hurt Bones
>By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>Taking vitamin A supplements can weaken the bones and increase the
>risk of fractures up to seven times, according to a large Swedish
>study.
>The research, conducted on men, confirms three earlier studies in
>women showing that high intake of vitamin A raises the risk of broken
>hips and weak bones. The latest study is the first to measure levels
>of the vitamin in blood, rather than just asking about diet and
>supplement use.
>The three-decade study and other evidence suggest that daily vitamin A
>consumption of more than 1.5 milligrams can be dangerous, and that
>most people should not take vitamin A supplements.
Ah! Now were that I put my bottle of 5,000 IU's of Vitamin A?
Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
I am thumbing my nose at you, Sir!
--
Another we know next to nothing about nutrition
moment brought to you by Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D.
Science is all about knowing less and less
about more and more.
John M. Williams
>DATE: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 03:19:58 GMT
>TO: Lars
>FROM: Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D.
>SUBJECT: "Vitamin A Supplements May Hurt Bones."
>NG: sci.med.nutrition
>==========
>
>>January 22, 2003
>>Vitamin A Supplements May Hurt Bones
>>By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>
>>Taking vitamin A supplements can weaken the bones and increase the
>>risk of fractures up to seven times, according to a large Swedish
>>study.
>
>>The research, conducted on men, confirms three earlier studies in
>>women showing that high intake of vitamin A raises the risk of broken
>>hips and weak bones. The latest study is the first to measure levels
>>of the vitamin in blood, rather than just asking about diet and
>>supplement use.
>
>>The three-decade study and other evidence suggest that daily vitamin A
>>consumption of more than 1.5 milligrams can be dangerous, and that
>>most people should not take vitamin A supplements.
>
>Ah! Now were that I put my bottle of 5,000 IU's of Vitamin A?
>
>Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
>
>I am thumbing my nose at you, Sir!
Do you take vitamin A with your Haldol, Gohde?
RStevrock
>Taking vitamin A supplements can weaken the bones and increase the
>risk of fractures up to seven times, according to a large Swedish
>study.
I hope this is not true. I have been taking Ocuvite for my eyes and Centrum
Silver which both have Vitamin "A". What's the deal about the Beta Carotene A
not being the type that can hurt you? How long did we try to avoid soft drinks
and coffee hearing that they "leached" calcium from the bones, only to find out
that they really did not hurt us, they just kept us from drinking milk. And
then again maybe milk is not good for us. (I'm allergic to it, so I know it
isn't good for me.)
These studies make me feel like I am a victim caught up in a professional
world of "publish or perish". Last summer it was the Prempro, now Vitamin "A".
We cannot forget that maybe Atkins has been right all along.
The more I try to trust in the wisdom of the professionals, the more
discouraged I get. I am interested in hearing the results of someone taking
that survey apart. I wonder how many are smokers, drinkers, diabetics, or who
are obese, or may have bad habits that would inhibit the absorption of Vitamin
A. They were examining the blood. A doctor once told me that you cannot tell
about the needed amount of calcium from examining the blood, because the blood
will take the calcium from the bones and what I was interested was the bones
(pregnancy years and years ago). Oh well.
Thanks for publishing the your thread about the survey.
Sammy
Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D.
TO: John M. Williams
FROM: Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D.
NG: sci.med.nutrition
==========
>>I am thumbing my nose at you, Sir!
>Do you take vitamin A with your Haldol,...?
Excuse me, but ...
The "S" stands for Science. That is Science Geek, ... you Geek!
Joe Watts (JW)
"Lars" <em...@69.se> wrote in message news:3e2f5f37...@news.io.com...
That's not at all what the JuiceMan told me.
<looking around for some juicible item in the fridge>
-JW
Steve Harris
in it. All A is beta carotene.
SBH
Joe Watts (JW) wrote in message ...
Eyal Yaari
week, does it have a high vitamin A content? If so, how much?
Eyal Yaari
"Lars" <em...@69.se> wrote in message news:3e2f5f37...@news.io.com...
Cylise
wrote:
>Why did they recommend not to take fish oil supplements more than once per
>week, does it have a high vitamin A content? If so, how much?
>
Depends on the fish and what it eats. My salmon oils that I have
here at work only list how much fat and which kind of fat. They make
no claims for any kind of vitamin at all.
But one reason some fish oils aren't good for you is that they're high
on the food chain if they're big enough to go after commercially
(sardines to the contrary) and that means they've eaten a lot of other
fish or vegetation. Which means accumulations of heavy metals and
other toxic crud
William Stacy
> But one reason some fish oils aren't good for you is that they're high
> on the food chain if they're big enough to go after commercially
> (sardines to the contrary) and that means they've eaten a lot of other
> fish or vegetation. Which means accumulations of heavy metals and
> other toxic crud
Why are sardines special? Aren't they like most animals, which have to consume
more per gram of body weight than larger ones on a percentage basis? Or since
they are cold blooded, at least as much as their larger fellows? Why wouldn't
they accumulate, per gram of fish oil or whatever, just as much? Has anyone
actually calculated the heavy metals in sardines compared to tuna or others?
bill
Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D.
TO: William Stacy
FROM: Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D.
NG: sci.med.nutrition
==========
>Why are sardines special? Aren't they like most animals, ...
Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
Sorry Charlie! Sunkist don't want sardines with good taste. They
want sardines that taste good.
Just thought that you might want to know. :)
Cylise
wrote:
Because sardines are one of the few varities of fish that are small
that are caught commercially, is all. I knew that if I said that only
large fish are caught commercially, someone would jump on me with
sardines, so I thought I'd get that out of the way. I have no
knowledge whatsoever as to the toxicity or lack of it in canned
sardines.
Roman
> Vitamin A Supplements May Hurt Bones
> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>
> The study had some shortcomings: Blood levels of vitamin A were
> measured only once, and the participants' reports of diet and
> supplement use 20 years later did not match well with their earlier
> vitamin A blood levels.
These are important shortcomings! But interestingly, majority of people
doesn't pay attention to these details. A study may be completely dumb, but
what most people will remember is some speculation of a researcher or
reporter.
Roman
Beverly Erlebacher
Note that these effects are well documented in farm animals.
RStevrock
what is required for their job -- publish or perish. The same goes for many
reporters. The universities like to have data reported. They can site so
many references and specifics with their data, but I wonder where they write
about who funded it? Who could profit off of having people stop taking Vitamin
A? Probably nobody. I just find these studies discouraging. I still wonder
if the control group and test group were equal as far as smokers, drinkers,
obese people, those with other risk groups. I wonder how equal the age groups
were. It is a wide range and the risk does increase as we age.
Sammy
Roman
news:2003Jan24.1...@jarvis.cs.toronto.edu...
That's nice to know, but not everything that is true in animals is true in
humans. There are certain differences in our metabolisms and requirements.
Dr. Weston Price who observed healthy indigenous natives noted that they
tended to consume about 10 times more Vitamins A and D compared to civilized
people. And these natives had virtually no degenerative diseases. Maybe
supplementing just Vitamin A while eating inadequate diet is harmful to
bones, but just saying that Vitamin A should be limited to minimum is
probably wrong, IMO.
Roman
Ghost of Lyle
>
> "Beverly Erlebacher" <b...@cs.toronto.edu> wrote in message
> news:2003Jan24.1...@jarvis.cs.toronto.edu...
> > In article <b0shj1$el2$1...@news.chatlink.com>, Roman <r_...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > >"Lars" <em...@69.se> wrote in message
> news:3e2f5f37...@news.io.com...
> > >> January 22, 2003
> > >> Vitamin A Supplements May Hurt Bones
> > >> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
> > >>
> > >...
> > >> The study had some shortcomings: Blood levels of vitamin A were
> > >> measured only once, and the participants' reports of diet and
> > >> supplement use 20 years later did not match well with their earlier
> > >> vitamin A blood levels.
> > >
> > >These are important shortcomings! But interestingly, majority of people
> > >doesn't pay attention to these details. A study may be completely dumb,
> but
> > >what most people will remember is some speculation of a researcher or
> > >reporter.
> >
> > Note that these effects are well documented in farm animals.
>
> That's nice to know, but not everything that is true in animals is true in
> humans. There are certain differences in our metabolisms and requirements.
Farm animals having radically different metabolisms from humans for the
most part.
> Dr. Weston Price who observed healthy indigenous natives noted that they
> tended to consume about 10 times more Vitamins A and D compared to civilized
> people. And these natives had virtually no degenerative diseases. Maybe
> supplementing just Vitamin A while eating inadequate diet is harmful to
> bones, but just saying that Vitamin A should be limited to minimum is
> probably wrong, IMO.
Most of what gets written in sci.med.nutrition is generally wrong.
Lyle's ghost
Steve Harris
Roman wrote in message ...
>"Beverly Erlebacher" <b...@cs.toronto.edu> wrote in message
>news:2003Jan24.1...@jarvis.cs.toronto.edu...
>> In article <b0shj1$el2$1...@news.chatlink.com>, Roman <r_...@yahoo.com>
>Dr. Weston Price who observed healthy indigenous natives noted that they
>tended to consume about 10 times more Vitamins A and D compared to
civilized
>people. And these natives had virtually no degenerative diseases.
And he knew that, because he looked for Eskimo nursing homes out on the ice,
and couldn't find any. Among these migratory arctic neolithic people,
everybody he could see could walk and get around pretty well Miraculous!
Moron.
Maleki
(Beverly Erlebacher) wrote in
<2003Jan24.1...@jarvis.cs.toronto.edu> that:
I have a book on vitamins that came out in 1988 and it
already lists bone and joint issues among the side
effects of taking vitamin A. Title of the book is
"Complete guide to vitamins, minerals & supplements"
and it is by H. Winter Griffith. Another side effect it
mentions is premature closure of the end parts of bones
where growth occurs from birth to adolescence.
-------------------------
sharmemAn bAd ze pashmineye Aludeye khish
gar bedin fazlo honar nAme karAmAt barim
fetne mibArad azin saghfe mogharnas barkhiz
tA be meykhAne panAh az hame AfAt barim
ghadre vaght ar nashenAsad delo kAri nakonad
bass khejAlat ke azin hAsele owghAt barim
dar biyAbAne fanA gomshodan Akhar tA key?
rah beporsim magar pey be mohemmAt barim
"Hafez"
Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D.
TO: Steve Harris
FROM: Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D.
NG: sci.med.nutrition
==========
>And he knew that, because he looked for Eskimo nursing homes out on the ice,
>and couldn't find any. Among these migratory arctic neolithic people,
>everybody he could see could walk and get around pretty well Miraculous!
>Moron.
ditto!
Roman is a Moron.
And, Dr. Price is a lot smarter than Roman. Of course, that is not
saying much.
Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
B-Ob1
in bloody hell is the stupid Bastardo on this list bothering serious people with
his INANE Bull shit??? B-0b1
B-Ob1
Maleki wrote:
The SCIENCE of VITAMINS. Minerals, and other necessary
supplements is an EXACTING Science, Anyone who is interested
in his or her health, should make an effort to ecome thoroughly
acquainted with his critical subject matter. Yout health and life
span may depend on it! B-0b1
Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D.
TO: B-Ob1
FROM: Dr. S. Geek, Ph.D.
SUBJECT: "Re: Vitamin A Supplements May Hurt Bones."
NG: sci.med.nutrition
==========
>why
>in bloody hell is the stupid Bastardo on this list bothering serious people ....
Serious people?
Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
Yeah, ... Sure, Right!
Just my opinion. But, I am *right* as usual!
rick++
The conventional wisdom is to not supplement much more that youd expect
from a well balanced diet.
David Cohen
"rick++" <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote
Would that be from the Annual Convention of Fools and Idiots?
David
Lee Michaels
"David Cohen" <sammi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1acZ9.6247$U27.5...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Ghost of Lyle
Ok, bad joke/pun alert: read on at your own discretion.
years ago I was working at a hospital wellness center as a trainer.
We had an RD who, like most RD's was dumb as a rock (she didn't like me
and the feeling was mutual).
Anyhow, she had a rather large food display showing that wonderful
example of USDA propaganda, the US Food Pyramid. I mean it was the
honking big plastic thing with plastic food examples.
So I'm sitting with my supervisor watching this chick try to load it
onto a dolly for transportation.
It flipped over and fell off.
I look at him and said "Gee, guess her diet wasn't balanced."
That still cracks me up.
Lyle's ghost
easily amused
RStevrock
>from a well balanced diet.
>
Would you please tell me your source? This is not what I am reading and I
would like to think that I have read enough to know what the standard is, which
is what I should think conventional wisdom is.
Sammy
Keano
"Ghost of Lyle" <lyl...@onr.com> wrote in message news:3E357CBE...@onr.com...
> Lee Michaels wrote:
> >
> > "David Cohen" <sammi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:1acZ9.6247$U27.5...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > "rick++" <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > > > Everything has side-effects, including vitamins.
> > > > The conventional wisdom is to not supplement much more that youd
> > > expect
> > > > from a well balanced diet.
> > >
> > > Would that be from the Annual Convention of Fools and Idiots?
> > >
> > Yep, they put food on a balance scale to get a "well balanced diet".
>
> Ok, bad joke/pun alert: read on at your own discretion.
>
> years ago I was working at a hospital wellness center as a trainer.
> We had an RD who, like most RD's was dumb as a rock (she didn't like me
> and the feeling was mutual).
What's an RD?
David Cohen
"Keano" <em...@email.com> wrote
> What's an RD?
A person who was spoon fed 1950's era science and believes, as gospel,
without any critical thinking skills, everything their ignorant
dogmatic professors taught them. They are primarily responsible for
designing diets for sick hospitalized patients. They are incapable of
doing so.
The "R.D." stands for Registered Dietician. There are many more
appropriate meanings for those letters.
David
Gym Bob
it will end soon.
"B-Ob1" <S...@grandecom.net> wrote in message
news:3E34CAE0...@grandecom.net...
Roman
news:f7422d8e.03012...@posting.google.com...
> Everything has side-effects, including vitamins.
> The conventional wisdom is to not supplement much more that youd expect
> from a well balanced diet.
Whose "wisdom" exactly are you talking about? And what is a "well balanced
diet" in your opinion? As you may know, this varies from a person to person,
from a group to group.
Roman
Sandy
Varied wholefoods.
Sandy
Sandy
Worldwide? Or "only in America"?
Sandy
Sandy
Are you advocating the 2# diet?
Balanced actually means varied, and containing a "balance" (equality)
of the macronutrients, and all essential micronutrients.
You could try a dictionary if you are confused in the future.
Sandy
Sandy
What he said is spot on.
It must be you from the ACFI.
Sandy
Wayne S. Hill
> Balanced actually means varied, and containing a "balance"
> (equality) of the macronutrients, and all essential
> micronutrients. You could try a dictionary if you are
> confused in the future.
Interesting: so you advocate a diet comprising one-third each
of protein, carbs, and fats. Is that as measured by caloric
content? That would provide a roughly appropriate protein
content, at least. Although this has benefits that are well
recognized in research, it is not recommended by the USDA (yet).
If you meant, instead, that the macronutrients are measured by
mass, then you're not providing enough protein and recommending
a high-fat diet. So, using either basis, the USDA-recommended
diet (as spouted by many RD's who don't know any better) is not
balanced (according to your definition).
-Wayne
Roman
news:k3mm3vg11m905ksc9...@4ax.com...
> Balanced actually means varied, and containing a "balance" (equality)
> of the macronutrients, and all essential micronutrients.
> You could try a dictionary if you are confused in the future.
So, all vitamins, minerals, including trace minerals, various fatty acids,
etc. should be consumed in equal amounts, in your opinion? What is the basis
for your assertion? Is that an Australian understanding of what a healthy
diet is? In your mind, is a balanced diet the same thing as a healthy diet?
Roman
Sandy
>"Sandy" <S@S.S> wrote in message
>news:k3mm3vg11m905ksc9...@4ax.com...
>
>> Balanced actually means varied, and containing a "balance" (equality)
>> of the macronutrients, and all essential micronutrients.
>> You could try a dictionary if you are confused in the future.
>
>So, all vitamins, minerals, including trace minerals, various fatty acids,
>etc. should be consumed in equal amounts, in your opinion?
I thought I said "macronutrients".
>What is the basis
>for your assertion? Is that an Australian understanding of what a healthy
>diet is? In your mind, is a balanced diet the same thing as a healthy diet?
Roughly "balanced" macronutrients consisting of varied wholefoods is
generally healthy. Yes. Do you have a contrary view?
Sandy
Sandy
>Sandy wrote:
>
>> Balanced actually means varied, and containing a "balance"
>> (equality) of the macronutrients, and all essential
>> micronutrients. You could try a dictionary if you are
>> confused in the future.
>
>Interesting: so you advocate a diet comprising one-third each
>of protein, carbs, and fats.
Roughly. That's an excellent ratio.
>Is that as measured by caloric
>content?
Yes.
>That would provide a roughly appropriate protein
>content, at least. Although this has benefits that are well
>recognized in research, it is not recommended by the USDA (yet).
I thought they recommended roughly this. Carbs 40, protein and fat
each 30% by calories.
>If you meant, instead, that the macronutrients are measured by
>mass, then you're not providing enough protein and recommending
>a high-fat diet.
Of course. Fat is ~2.5 times as calorie dense as either of the other
two macronutrients.
>So, using either basis, the USDA-recommended
>diet (as spouted by many RD's who don't know any better) is not
>balanced (according to your definition).
40:30:30 is balanced in my definition.
I think you worry too much :)
Sandy
Eric Bohlman
> On 1 Feb 2003 16:58:27 GMT, "Wayne S. Hill" <hil...@asme.org> wrote:
>>That would provide a roughly appropriate protein
>>content, at least. Although this has benefits that are well
>>recognized in research, it is not recommended by the USDA (yet).
>
> I thought they recommended roughly this. Carbs 40, protein and fat
> each 30% by calories.
Their current recommendation is roughly 55/15/30 though it's not hard-and-
fast. They currently don't distinguish between categories of fats or
categories of carbs (Willett's modified food pyramid tries to fix this).
Aaron
"Eric Bohlman" <eboh...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xns93161EAFCC0e...@130.133.1.4...
and funnily enough, willett has nothing to do with USDA based
recommendations, nor those devised by the national academy of sciences (who
by the way see nothing really wrong with diets up to ~35% protein)
--
Aaron
Wayne S. Hill
> Wayne S. Hill wrote:
>>Sandy wrote:
>>
>>> Balanced actually means varied, and containing a "balance"
>>> (equality) of the macronutrients, and all essential
>>> micronutrients. You could try a dictionary if you are
>>> confused in the future.
>>
>>Interesting: so you advocate a diet comprising one-third
>>each of protein, carbs, and fats.
>
> Roughly. That's an excellent ratio.
>
>>That would provide a roughly appropriate protein
>>content, at least. Although this has benefits that are well
>>recognized in research, it is not recommended by the USDA
>>(yet).
>
> I thought they recommended roughly this. Carbs 40, protein
> and fat each 30% by calories.
Indeed, they do not. They (USDA and 99% of RD's) bone-headedly
recommend limiting protein intake.
-Wayne
Roman
> >> Balanced actually means varied, and containing a "balance" (equality)
> >> of the macronutrients, and all essential micronutrients.
> >> You could try a dictionary if you are confused in the future.
> >
> >So, all vitamins, minerals, including trace minerals, various fatty
acids,
> >etc. should be consumed in equal amounts, in your opinion?
>
> I thought I said "macronutrients".
But you said more than just that. Reread your post, and you will see it
mention micronutrients as well.
> >What is the basis
> >for your assertion? Is that an Australian understanding of what a healthy
> >diet is? In your mind, is a balanced diet the same thing as a healthy
diet?
>
> Roughly "balanced" macronutrients consisting of varied wholefoods is
> generally healthy. Yes. Do you have a contrary view?
Yes, I do. Your type of a diet may be healthy for some but not all. Some
people thrive on different proportions. You can mention different government
agencies' recommendations all you want, but that doesn't change reality.
Roman
Sandy
>"Sandy" <S@S.S> wrote in message
>news:84lp3vsfnhpcil95f...@4ax.com...
>> >> Balanced actually means varied, and containing a "balance" (equality)
>> >> of the macronutrients, and all essential micronutrients.
>> >> You could try a dictionary if you are confused in the future.
>> >
>> >So, all vitamins, minerals, including trace minerals, various fatty
>acids,
>> >etc. should be consumed in equal amounts, in your opinion?
>>
>> I thought I said "macronutrients".
>
>But you said more than just that. Reread your post, and you will see it
>mention micronutrients as well.
I said containing two things:
1. a rough equality of macronutrients, and
2. all essential micronutrients.
Sorry if this was not clear to you.
>> >What is the basis
>> >for your assertion? Is that an Australian understanding of what a healthy
>> >diet is? In your mind, is a balanced diet the same thing as a healthy
>diet?
>>
>> Roughly "balanced" macronutrients consisting of varied wholefoods is
>> generally healthy. Yes. Do you have a contrary view?
>
>Yes, I do. Your type of a diet may be healthy for some but not all. Some
>people thrive on different proportions. You can mention different government
>agencies' recommendations all you want, but that doesn't change reality.
So who thrives on anything radically unbalanced as I've described? And
what would this "unbalanced" diet consist of?
Sandy
Sandy
Just like the ignorant, uneducated nephrologists do?
Funny, but I thought the main message was to limit calories to your
expenditure, and vary your diet over the foodgroups, and avoid refined
foods. Oh, and take regular moderate exercise.
Sandy
Sandy
wrote:
But I thought they recommended wholefoods wherever possible?
So long as you get sufficient protein for bodily functions and repair,
and enough energy to carry this out and perform all your physical
requirements, then that is "balanced. Needs balanced with supply.
It's not some exact measure.
Sandy
Roman
Fast metabolizers do. They favor flesh based foods. With lots of fat. Hunter
gatherer type prefer that too. Maybe they have faster metabolism than that
of agricultural type. An example of a whole people that does (or did?) that
are Eskimos. Fat in their diet was estimated to about 80%.
Have you read anything on metabolic typing?
Roman
Don Klipstein
>"Sandy" <S@S.S> wrote in news:1gor3vge8ufv9i81t...@4ax.com
>> So who thrives on anything radically unbalanced as I've described? And
>> what would this "unbalanced" diet consist of?
>
>Fast metabolizers do. They favor flesh based foods. With lots of fat.
>Hunter gatherer type prefer that too. Maybe they have faster metabolism
>than that of agricultural type. An example of a whole people that does
>(or did?) that are Eskimos. Fat in their diet was estimated to about 80%.
>
>Have you read anything on metabolic typing?
Actually, the faster metabolisms of those with more active lifestyles
are more carbohydrate-tolerant and their increased calories needs are
best satisfied with a diet more rich in carbohydrates than is best for
more sedentary people.
Eskimos (which call themselves Innuit - "eskimo" is a name someone else
called them) eat mostly fat and meat and not much carbohydrate only
because of what kinds of food are available there. And consider their
life expectancy (40's!) and health complications from such a diet.
And more sedentary people don't need to avoid specifically carbs so much
as they need to consume less calories. And getting less sedentary will be
a really big help. Aerobic exercise is so healthful and necessary to
enough people that it is easier to name ills not ameliorated by aerobic
exercise than ills that are. (Ills that get worse with age and
are reasonably known to not be ameliorated by aerobic exercise - male
pattern baldness, presbyopia (reduced flexibility of the lens of the eye,
caused by nothing but age) and "nuclear lens changes" (a permanent
"suntanning" of the central portion of the lens of the eye, caused by
ultraviolet and found mainly in people with outdoor jobs - bright daylight
is the problem)).
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Ghost of Lyle
It's funny (but not exactly ha-ha funny) watching some of Willet's
detractors dig really deep up in their ass to criticize him (and hold to
their 30 years out of date dogma).
Bray is a good example. He's spent nearly 30 years playing teh same
tune and is making himself look more and more foolish by trying to stand
behind it when the data just isn't there to support him.
Lyle's ghost
Ghost of Lyle
And some laughable shit it is...
Lyle's ghost
Sandy
>"Sandy" <S@S.S> wrote in message
>news:1gor3vge8ufv9i81t...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 2 Feb 2003 17:39:48 -0600, "Roman" <r_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Roughly "balanced" macronutrients consisting of varied wholefoods is
>> >> generally healthy. Yes. Do you have a contrary view?
>> >
>> >Yes, I do. Your type of a diet may be healthy for some but not all. Some
>> >people thrive on different proportions. You can mention different
>government
>> >agencies' recommendations all you want, but that doesn't change reality.
>>
>> So who thrives on anything radically unbalanced as I've described? And
>> what would this "unbalanced" diet consist of?
>
>Fast metabolizers do.
What are these?
>They favor flesh based foods. With lots of fat. Hunter
>gatherer type prefer that too. Maybe they have faster metabolism than that
>of agricultural type.
And maybe all humans are the same.
>An example of a whole people that does (or did?) that
>are Eskimos. Fat in their diet was estimated to about 80%.
And the temperature was, and the ones who couldn't cope with this
lifestyle stricture died when?
>Have you read anything on metabolic typing?
Nope. Too "fringey" :)
All humans are the same IMHO.
Sandy
Wayne S. Hill
> Eric Bohlman wrote:
>
>>Their current recommendation is roughly 55/15/30 though it's
>>not hard-and- fast. They currently don't distinguish
>>between categories of fats or categories of carbs (Willett's
>>modified food pyramid tries to fix this).
>
> But I thought they recommended wholefoods wherever possible?
And your point is? Consuming whole foods does not ensure a
decent, much less "balanced" diet.
> So long as you get sufficient protein for bodily functions
> and repair, and enough energy to carry this out and perform
> all your physical requirements, then that is "balanced.
> Needs balanced with supply. It's not some exact measure.
How would the average person know whether or not they're
getting sufficient protein? Just because your gums don't
bleed doesn't mean your diet is proper. Studies show that
older people WILL suffer sarcopenia and loss of mobility
unless they exercise against resistance and consume more
protein than they tend to, even with the nutritionist-
controlled diets in nursing homes. Considering that loss of
mobility is a leading indicator of mortality in older people,
and that this condition is known to be largely avoidable
through diet and exercise, you might think the huge medical
establishment that cares for older patients would address
this. They don't.
-Wayne
Sandy
>Sandy wrote:
>
>> Eric Bohlman wrote:
>>
>>>Their current recommendation is roughly 55/15/30 though it's
>>>not hard-and- fast. They currently don't distinguish
>>>between categories of fats or categories of carbs (Willett's
>>>modified food pyramid tries to fix this).
>>
>> But I thought they recommended wholefoods wherever possible?
>
>And your point is?
Although they don't apparently distinguish between categories of fats
and carbs, they recommend wholefoods which means unrefined
(unconcentrated) categories of these macronutrients.
>Consuming whole foods does not ensure a
>decent, much less "balanced" diet.
Varied wholefoods makes it difficult to avoid this IME.
>> So long as you get sufficient protein for bodily functions
>> and repair, and enough energy to carry this out and perform
>> all your physical requirements, then that is "balanced.
>> Needs balanced with supply. It's not some exact measure.
>
>How would the average person know whether or not they're
>getting sufficient protein?
By eating a varied, wholefood, eucaloric diet -- you can't miss :)
>Just because your gums don't
>bleed doesn't mean your diet is proper.
And how do you get your gums to bleed?
>Studies show that
>older people WILL suffer sarcopenia and loss of mobility
>unless they exercise against resistance and consume more
>protein than they tend to,
Not American (or Australians). Where is the evidence that they are
protein deficient? Sarcopenia is not directly due to a protein
deficient diet. It is mostly hormonal IIRC.
>even with the nutritionist-
>controlled diets in nursing homes. Considering that loss of
>mobility is a leading indicator of mortality in older people,
>and that this condition is known to be largely avoidable
>through diet and exercise,
Mostly exercise.
>you might think the huge medical
>establishment that cares for older patients would address
>this. They don't.
Maybe not where you are.
Sandy
Wayne S. Hill
> Wayne S. Hill wrote:
>>Sandy wrote:
>
>>Consuming whole foods does not ensure a decent, much less
>>"balanced" diet.
>
> Varied wholefoods makes it difficult to avoid this IME.
I have my doubts. People will do the damnedest things with
their diets if given simple rules like this.
>>Just because your gums don't bleed doesn't mean your diet
>>is proper.
>
> And how do you get your gums to bleed?
Either calcium deficiency or severe protein deficiency. The
point is that not having a severe protein deficiency does not
imply that protein intake is adequate.
>>Studies show that older people WILL suffer sarcopenia and
>>loss of mobility unless they exercise against resistance and
>>consume more protein than they tend to,
>
> Not American (or Australians). Where is the evidence that
> they are protein deficient?
See, here's the problem: the USDA doesn't say their diets are
protein deficient, but the studies show that they need to
increase their protein intake (and exercise against
resistance) to reverse sarcopenia effectively. IMO, that says
they are protein-deficient in fact.
> Sarcopenia is not directly due to a protein deficient diet.
> It is mostly hormonal IIRC.
Whether it's caused by changes in endocrine function, gene
expression, activity level, or whatever, a proper protein
intake and resistance training are the best hope of reversing
it.
>>even with the nutritionist-controlled diets in nursing
>>homes. Considering that loss of mobility is a leading
>>indicator of mortality in older people, and that this
>>condition is known to be largely avoidable through diet and
>>exercise,
>
> Mostly exercise.
Studies show that you need both resistance exercise and
increased protein intake. In one study, older people who had
both gained muscle mass as quickly as youngsters. People who
had either increased protein intake or resistance exercise
alone did not.
>>you might think the huge medical establishment that cares
>>for older patients would address this. They don't.
>
> Maybe not where you are.
I have seen this directly at the top-rated nursing home in
Massachusetts (this is saying something).
-Wayne
Sandy
>Sandy wrote:
>
>> Wayne S. Hill wrote:
>>>Sandy wrote:
>>
>>>Consuming whole foods does not ensure a decent, much less
>>>"balanced" diet.
>>
>> Varied wholefoods makes it difficult to avoid this IME.
>
>I have my doubts. People will do the damnedest things with
>their diets if given simple rules like this.
Yep, generally they continue on their own sweet way. But you can only
point them in the right direction.
>>>Just because your gums don't bleed doesn't mean your diet
>>>is proper.
>>
>> And how do you get your gums to bleed?
>
>Either calcium deficiency or severe protein deficiency. The
>point is that not having a severe protein deficiency does not
>imply that protein intake is adequate.
Sure, but Westerners eat too much protein along with everything else.
>>>Studies show that older people WILL suffer sarcopenia and
>>>loss of mobility unless they exercise against resistance and
>>>consume more protein than they tend to,
>>
>> Not American (or Australians). Where is the evidence that
>> they are protein deficient?
>
>See, here's the problem: the USDA doesn't say their diets are
>protein deficient, but the studies show that they need to
>increase their protein intake (and exercise against
>resistance) to reverse sarcopenia effectively. IMO, that says
>they are protein-deficient in fact.
The frail aged, or the population in general?
>> Sarcopenia is not directly due to a protein deficient diet.
>> It is mostly hormonal IIRC.
>
>Whether it's caused by changes in endocrine function, gene
>expression, activity level, or whatever, a proper protein
>intake and resistance training are the best hope of reversing
>it.
In the frail aged, I agree.
>>>even with the nutritionist-controlled diets in nursing
>>>homes. Considering that loss of mobility is a leading
>>>indicator of mortality in older people, and that this
>>>condition is known to be largely avoidable through diet and
>>>exercise,
>>
>> Mostly exercise.
>
>Studies show that you need both resistance exercise and
>increased protein intake. In one study, older people who had
>both gained muscle mass as quickly as youngsters. People who
>had either increased protein intake or resistance exercise
>alone did not.
Yep, in the frail aged.
>>>you might think the huge medical establishment that cares
>>>for older patients would address this. They don't.
>>
>> Maybe not where you are.
>I have seen this directly at the top-rated nursing home in
>Massachusetts (this is saying something).
Yep, I've heard some sad stories of your health system.
Ours seem to be heading in the same direction, alas.
Sandy
Wayne S. Hill
> Sure, but Westerners eat too much protein along with
> everything else.
Evidence? I concur many/most eat too much, but it's not clear
to me that excess protein is a problem here. I don't see a
health risk from maintaining the protein level constant, but
decreasing other macronutrients to a reasonable overall caloric
intake.
>>See, here's the problem: the USDA doesn't say their diets
>>are protein deficient, but the studies show that they need
>>to increase their protein intake (and exercise against
>>resistance) to reverse sarcopenia effectively. IMO, that
>>says they are protein-deficient in fact.
>
> The frail aged, or the population in general?
The frail aged person got there somehow. I haven't seen any
evidence that a robust middle-aged person has any particular
reason to expect to become a frail aged person.
-Wayne
Aaron
"Ghost of Lyle" <lyl...@onr.com> wrote in message
news:3E3E0B38...@onr.com...
its also funny watching willets arguements on occasion, when he shows how
bad a high carb diet is compared with his higher fat version, he always
compares his to a high GI, relatively low fat versions.
--
Aaron
Ghost of Lyle
Well, he should certainly point that fact out but it probably jibes with
reality more than not. Fact is, most people following low-fat diets end
up eating fairly high on the GI scale (esp in the US, dunno about other
countries). It's all good and well to say that low-fat/low-GI diets
have differential effects than low-fat/high-GI diets (and they do) but
most people following low-fat diets aren't eating very low on the GI scale.
Lyle's ghost
Aaron
unfortunately, when willett references studies he always shows the negative
aspects of high carb diets (high gi ones), but never correctly maintained
high carb low gi. but then again, he also has a habit of mainly using
American references, and especially his own cohorts (but that's normal,
Americans don't like foreign research :-)
I think the main point of the setting of the guidelines and all is that
while a high carb diet can be excellent, the way the general massess of
idiots go about a high carb diet is wrong. But then again, if the
recommendations are higher fat moderate carbs, the general idiots will go
about it wrong.
The best solution is a culling of the idiots.
--
Aaron
Roman
news:Xns93175F...@130.133.1.4...
> Studies show that you need both resistance exercise and
> increased protein intake. In one study, older people who had
> both gained muscle mass as quickly as youngsters. People who
> had either increased protein intake or resistance exercise
> alone did not.
Do you happen to remember details (amount of protein and exercise) or at
least location of info about the study?
Roman
Roman
> >An example of a whole people that does (or did?) that
> >are Eskimos. Fat in their diet was estimated to about 80%.
>
> And the temperature was, and the ones who couldn't cope with this
> lifestyle stricture died when?
Many were observed to live in their old age.
> >Have you read anything on metabolic typing?
>
> Nope. Too "fringey" :)
Sure, you don't like to read or consider whatever conflicts with your dogma.
But that's OK because there's always a need to for this type of people -- to
implement something, to obey orders, etc.
> All humans are the same IMHO.
Life in a society in which all humans were like you wouldn't be worth
efforts. But fortunately, you are wrong.
Roman
Roman
news:slrnb3s2g...@manx.misty.com...
> Actually, the faster metabolisms of those with more active lifestyles
> are more carbohydrate-tolerant and their increased calories needs are
> best satisfied with a diet more rich in carbohydrates than is best for
> more sedentary people.
> Eskimos (which call themselves Innuit - "eskimo" is a name someone else
> called them) eat mostly fat and meat and not much carbohydrate only
> because of what kinds of food are available there. And consider their
> life expectancy (40's!) and health complications from such a diet.
I remember reading about some researchers finding them living far more than
40's. Besides, life expectancy takes into account too many factors to make
any intelligent conclusion about diet. Getting killed by an animal will
reduce life expectancy, but what does that say about one's diet?
And what health complications from such a diet are you talking about. They
were found to be virtually free of degerative diseases as many other
isolated hunter-gatherer populations that Dr. Weston Price and other
researchers have studied.
> And more sedentary people don't need to avoid specifically carbs so much
> as they need to consume less calories. And getting less sedentary will be
> a really big help. Aerobic exercise is so healthful and necessary to
> enough people that it is easier to name ills not ameliorated by aerobic
> exercise than ills that are.
For some reason. resistance exercise are not given attention they deserve.
According to some researchers, resistance exercises are more beneficial than
aerobic ones.
Roman
Sandy
>Sandy wrote:
>
>> Sure, but Westerners eat too much protein along with
>> everything else.
>
>Evidence? I concur many/most eat too much, but it's not clear
>to me that excess protein is a problem here. I don't see a
>health risk from maintaining the protein level constant, but
>decreasing other macronutrients to a reasonable overall caloric
>intake.
Some bodybuilders probably eat too much protein per se, but the too
much in my assertion is only wrt calories. The typical Western meal is
meat and two veg, whereas the typical Asian diet is rice/veges with a
little meat or fish flavouring. Perhaps some of our osteoporosis can
be laid at the door of the calcium leaching of high protein diets.
>>>See, here's the problem: the USDA doesn't say their diets
>>>are protein deficient, but the studies show that they need
>>>to increase their protein intake (and exercise against
>>>resistance) to reverse sarcopenia effectively. IMO, that
>>>says they are protein-deficient in fact.
>>
>> The frail aged, or the population in general?
>
>The frail aged person got there somehow. I haven't seen any
>evidence that a robust middle-aged person has any particular
>reason to expect to become a frail aged person.
Then he doesn't need to worry about sarcopenia, surely.
Sandy
Sandy
>"Sandy" <S@S.S> wrote in message
>news:nbas3vosgbr2nbss1...@4ax.com...
>> >An example of a whole people that does (or did?) that
>> >are Eskimos. Fat in their diet was estimated to about 80%.
>>
>> And the temperature was, and the ones who couldn't cope with this
>> lifestyle stricture died when?
>
>Many were observed to live in their old age.
I didn't ask about those, but about the ones who didn't, when these
strictures were imposed.
>> >Have you read anything on metabolic typing?
>>
>> Nope. Too "fringey" :)
>
>Sure, you don't like to read or consider whatever conflicts with your dogma.
As Richard Dawkins said to Prince Charles: "It is fine to have an open
mind, but not so open that your brains fall out"
Amazing how apt that retort seems to be these days :)
>But that's OK because there's always a need to for this type of people -- to
>implement something, to obey orders, etc.
And we don't need flakes, btw. They are eiither too stupid and might
not reach their next birthday, or out to get your wallet. Either way,
if they could take each other out at the same time, the world would be
a better place.
>> All humans are the same IMHO.
>
>Life in a society in which all humans were like you wouldn't be worth
>efforts. But fortunately, you are wrong.
You keep imagining so, but apart from normal biological variation in a
species, humans are remarkably similar.
I find ad hominem attacks are the last bastion of the intellectually
bankrupt :)
Sandy
Yar
"Sandy" <S@S.S> wrote in message
This is so much balderdash, it is documented that meat eaters are far more
ferocious than vegetarians, in the wild that is.
Yar
Wayne S. Hill
> Wayne S. Hill wrote:
>>Sandy wrote:
>>
> Some bodybuilders probably eat too much protein per se, but
> the too much in my assertion is only wrt calories.
Bodybuilders over-consuming protein is just an expensive
source of calories. It doesn't carry any health risk for
people with normal renal function.
> The
> typical Western meal is meat and two veg, whereas the
> typical Asian diet is rice/veges with a little meat or fish
> flavouring.
I think the real problem with the "Western" diet is
overconsumption (particularly of saturated and trans fats) and
lack of exercise.
> Perhaps some of our osteoporosis can be laid at
> the door of the calcium leaching of high protein diets.
I believe recent studies have laid that concern to rest.
Perhaps Will Brink will pipe in here.
The best prescription for avoiding/reversing osteoporosis is
weight-bearing exercise: running, soccer, tennis, heavy
weight training, etc. The highest bone mineral density ever
measured in a human being was in the world record holder in
the powerlifting squat. I helped a woman start weight
training, and her doctors were astonished by the rapid
increase in her BMD.
>>The frail aged person got there somehow. I haven't seen any
>>evidence that a robust middle-aged person has any particular
>>reason to expect to become a frail aged person.
>
> Then he doesn't need to worry about sarcopenia, surely.
He does if he follows a typical diet for an older person.
-Wayne
Wayne S. Hill
> Wayne S. Hill wrote...
>> Studies show that you need both resistance exercise and
>> increased protein intake. In one study, older people who
>> had both gained muscle mass as quickly as youngsters.
>> People who had either increased protein intake or
>> resistance exercise alone did not.
>
> Do you happen to remember details (amount of protein and
> exercise) or at least location of info about the study?
There was an excellent Medline summary on the subject:
http://www.medscape.com/Medscape/Nurses/ClinicalMgmt/CM.v03/pnt-
CM.v03.html
Unfortunately, it isn't up anymore. 8-(
Fortunately, I found it at the Way-Back Machine! 8-)
http://web.archive.org/web/20011029110901/http://www.medscape.co
m/Medscape/Nurses/ClinicalMgmt/CM.v03/pnt-CM.v03.html
If you intend to look up the references, I'd recommend printing
out the page, because I don't know how long it might remain up.
Here's a summary from that page:
=============================================================
Aging and Malnutrition: Treatment Guidelines
William J. Evans, PhD
Age-Related Changes in Body Composition
Advancing age is associated with a remarkable number of
changes in body composition. Both men and women experience a
decrease in lean body mass and, in most cases, an increase in
fat mass as they age. This decreased lean body mass occurs
primarily as a result of losses in skeletal muscle mass.
Age-related loss of muscle mass has been termed sarcopenia.
Sarcopenia accounts for age-associated decreases in basal
metabolic rate, muscle strength, and activity levels, which,
in turn, cause the decreased energy requirements in the
elderly.
In sedentary individuals, the main determinant of energy
expenditure is fat-free mass, which declines by about 15%
between the third and eighth decade of life. It also appears
that declining caloric needs are not matched by an appropriate
decline in caloric intake, and the result is increased body
fat content with advancing age. Increased body fat and
increased abdominal obesity are thought to be linked directly
to the greatly increased incidence of type II diabetes among
the elderly.
Sarcopenia is a direct cause of age-related decrease in muscle
strength. Reduced muscle strength in the elderly is a major
cause of disability and may also account for the high
prevalence of falls among the institutionalized elderly.
Causes of Sarcopenia
The causes of sarcopenia are almost certainly the result of a
wide range of variables, including:
* Reduced physical activity;
* Aging of the central nervous system and resulting loss of
motor units; and
* Changing endocrine function, including decreased
circulating growth hormone, decreased testosterone production
in men, and decreased estradiol production in women.
* Changing endocrine function with age may also result in a
different pattern of fat distribution, with increased visceral
fat content.
Inadequate intake of energy and/or protein may also contribute
to sarcopenia. Castaneda and colleagues demonstrated that
the consumption of inadequate amounts of protein resulted in a
significant loss of muscle mass and reduced immune function in
elderly women, even if energy intake was adequate to prevent
weight loss. A 10-year longitudinal aging study conducted by
Vellas and colleagues found that women who had a relatively
high protein intake had fewer health problems than women who
had a lower protein intake. These investigators suggested that
the current recommended daily allowance (RDA) for protein of
0.8 g/kg body weight per day may be inadequate to meet the
needs of elderly people.
Campbell and colleagues recently completed a study to examine
whether healthy older people accommodate to the protein RDA
with a loss of muscle mass. They conducted a 14-week metabolic
balance study in which 10 healthy older men and women (age
range, 55-77 years) consumed the protein RDA while consuming
adequate calories to maintain body weight. The study
demonstrated that men and women accommodated to this protein
intake with a significant loss of muscle mass, indicating that
the current recommendation for dietary protein intake is
inadequate. It must be kept in mind, however, that these
healthy men and women demonstrated an accommodation while
consuming a eucaloric diet (no weight loss or gain). For any
older person who decreases energy intake for any reason, this
loss of muscle mass may be accelerated.........
The Role of Resistance Exercise Training
While the use of exercise may not come to mind when dealing
with frail or underweight elderly people, research has
demonstrated the remarkable capacity of even the oldest
elderly to respond with substantial gains in muscle strength
and size following a program of progressive resistance
exercise training. Resistance exercise involves lifting a
heavy weight or moving against high resistance, as opposed to
aerobic or endurance exercise, during which muscles contract
many times against little or no resistance. Aerobic exercise
has been demonstrated to increase life expectancy and prevent
many of the chronic diseases associated with advancing age.
However, aerobic exercise will not prevent or reverse
sarcopenia. Research has demonstrated that elderly people
respond to resistance exercise training with remarkable gains
in muscle strength, functional capacity, bone health, and
protein retention.
The effects of resistance exercise in residents of long-term
care facilities are particularly important. As stated above,
previous research has demonstrated that nutritional
supplements are of questionable value in improving the
nutritional status of underweight or malnourished elderly
people. The Nutrition, Exercise, and Metabolism Laboratory
examined the combined use of a nutritional supplement (240 mL
flavored liquid [Exceed, Ross Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio],
which supplied 360 kcal per day, providing one third of the
RDA of essential vitamins and minerals) and resistance
exercise in frail, very old nursing home residents. After 10
weeks, the subjects who had been randomized to an exercise
group demonstrated an average tripling of muscle strength,
along with improved balance, walking speed, and ability to
climb stairs.
The addition of a nutritional supplement increased energy
intake and body weight only in those people randomized to an
exercise group. The researchers also observed that this type
of exercise greatly improves protein retention. In other
words, for those individuals consuming lower amounts of
protein, resistance exercise will allow a much more efficient
use of the protein consumed, effectively lowering dietary
protein needs.
Resistance Exercise Prescription Guidelines for Elderly People
Candidates
Adults of all ages are candidates for resistance exercise.
However, elderly, hypertensive patients should be carefully
evaluated before beginning a strength training program.
Instead of a treadmill stress test, researchers at the
Nutrition, Exercise, and Metabolism Laboratory use a
weight-lifting stress test. Have the patient perform 3 sets of
8 repetitions at approximately 80% of the 1-repetition
maximum. (The "1-repetition maximum" is defined as the maximum
amount of weight an individual can lift [with good form] 1
single time. If an individual can lift a weight for 2 or more
repetitions without stopping, the weight is not the
1-repetition maximum.)
Blood pressure and ECG should be monitored. Patients with
rheumatoid or osteoarthritis may participate, but patients
with limited range of motion should train within a range of
motion that is relatively pain-free for them. Most patients
will see a dramatic improvement in pain-free range of motion
as a result of resistance training.
Exercises
Resistance training should be directed at the large muscle
groups important in everyday activities, including those
centered at the shoulders, arms, spine, hips, and legs. Each
repetition is performed slowly through a full range of motion,
allowing 2 to 3 seconds to lift the weight (concentric
contraction) and 4 to 6 seconds to lower the weight (eccentric
contraction). Performing the exercise more quickly will not
enhance strength gains and may increase the risk of an injury.
Training Intensity and Duration
A high-intensity resistance training program has been shown to
have the most dramatic effects at all ages. High-intensity
training is defined as training that will result in or
approaches muscular fatigue after an exercise has been
performed 8 to 12 times with proper form. Using a weight that
can be lifted 20 or more times will increase muscular
endurance, but will not result in much strength gain or gain
in muscle mass.
The amount of weight lifted should increase as strength builds
-- generally about every 2 to 3 weeks. In the author's
research, a 10% to 15% increase in strength per week has been
identified during the first 8 weeks of training. Significant
gains in muscle strength and mass as well as an improvement in
bone density have been seen with only 2 days of training per
week...........
Summary
Malnutrition and involuntary weight loss are common problems
among very old men and women and are associated with increased
morbidity and mortality. Older individuals, particularly those
in long-term care facilities, are very likely to have a number
of chronic diseases treated with a wide variety of drugs, many
of which have a direct effect on appetite. Indeed, even aging
itself impairs appetite regulation.
Because undernutrition and involuntary weight loss are likely
to be multifactorial problems, they should be approached
systematically. The systematic approach presented in the
algorithms described above can lead to a definitive diagnosis
of the potential cause of the weight loss and treatment. While
it seems intuitive that simply providing more food to an
undernourished individual would solve the immediate problem,
this strategy is rarely effective, and use of protein-calorie
supplements to treat involuntary weight loss has only limited
use. Even after carefully evaluating and treating the cause of
weight loss, many elderly people may not be responsive. For
these individuals with a poor appetite, the use of an appetite
stimulant can result in increased food intake and weight
stabilization. Age-related changes in taste, thirst, and
appetite make the treatment of involuntary weight loss
particularly difficult. However, no treatment or mistreatment
of involuntary weight loss in elderly residents of long-term
care facilities is associated with a poor prognosis..........
-Wayne
Roman
> Some bodybuilders probably eat too much protein per se, but the too
> much in my assertion is only wrt calories. The typical Western meal is
> meat and two veg, whereas the typical Asian diet is rice/veges with a
> little meat or fish flavouring. Perhaps some of our osteoporosis can
> be laid at the door of the calcium leaching of high protein diets.
Some indigenous natives have eaten high protein diets (diets of some of them
consist of a lot of meat and a lot of milk); yet, they display no skeletal
problems. How does your theory explain that?
Roman
Roman
> On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 23:31:40 -0600, "Roman" <r_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >"Sandy" <S@S.S> wrote in message
> >news:nbas3vosgbr2nbss1...@4ax.com...
> >> >An example of a whole people that does (or did?) that
> >> >are Eskimos. Fat in their diet was estimated to about 80%.
> >>
> >> And the temperature was, and the ones who couldn't cope with this
> >> lifestyle stricture died when?
> >
> >Many were observed to live in their old age.
>
> I didn't ask about those, but about the ones who didn't, when these
> strictures were imposed.
We were talking about their diet. How does lifestyle difficulties relate to
value of a particular macronutrient in their diet?
> >Sure, you don't like to read or consider whatever conflicts with your
dogma.
>
> As Richard Dawkins said to Prince Charles: "It is fine to have an open
> mind, but not so open that your brains fall out"
>
> Amazing how apt that retort seems to be these days :)
First, you have to brains to risk their falling out.
> ...apart from normal biological variation in a
> species, humans are remarkably similar.
They differ enough to justify radically different diets.
Roman
Roman
news:TVN%9.40331$jM5.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
>
>
> You keep imagining so, but apart from normal biological variation in a
> > species, humans are remarkably similar.
>
> This is so much balderdash, it is documented that meat eaters are far more
> ferocious than vegetarians, in the wild that is.
>
> Yar
See, Sandy considers only those studies proper that go along with her dogma.
Roman
Ghost of Lyle
>
> Sandy wrote:
> > Perhaps some of our osteoporosis can be laid at
> > the door of the calcium leaching of high protein diets.
>
> I believe recent studies have laid that concern to rest.
> Perhaps Will Brink will pipe in here.
yes and no. The current idea on the issue is, more or less, this.
1. High protein with insufficient calcium leads to net calcium loss
2. high protein with sufficient calcium leads to net calcium gain
It's the interaction of the two. So a diet which artificially raises
protein (i.e. using some type of purified source which was common in the
early studies) and changes nothing else will see a different effect than
one which raises calcium along with protein.
The study below (and accompanying editorial) showed up in last year's AM
J Clin Nutr.
Lyle's ghost
****
1: Am J Clin Nutr 2002 Apr;75(4):773-9
Comment in:
Am J Clin Nutr. 2002 Apr;75(4):609-10.
Calcium intake influences the association of protein intake with rates
of bone
loss in elderly men and women.
Dawson-Hughes B, Harris SS.
Calcium and Bone Metabolism Laboratory, Jean Mayer US Department of Agriculture
Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging, Tufts University, Boston, MA 02111,
USA. hug...@hnrc.tufts.edu
BACKGROUND: There is currently no consensus on the effect of dietary protein
intake on the skeleton, but there is some indication that low calcium intakes
adversely influence the effect of dietary protein on fracture risk. OBJECTIVE:
The objective of the present study was to determine whether supplemental calcium
citrate malate and vitamin D influence any associations between protein intake
and change in bone mineral density (BMD). DESIGN: Associations between protein
intake and change in BMD were examined in 342 healthy men and women
(aged > or =
65 y) who had completed a 3-y, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of calcium
and vitamin D supplementation. Protein intake was assessed at the
midpoint of
the study with the use of a food-frequency questionnaire and BMD was assessed
every 6 mo by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. RESULTS: The mean (+/-SD)
protein intake of all subjects was 79.1 +/- 25.6 g/d and the mean total calcium
intakes of the supplemented and placebo groups were 1346 +/- 358 and 871
+/- 413
mg/d, respectively. Higher protein intake was significantly associated
with a
favorable 3-y change in total-body BMD in the supplemented group (in a model
containing terms for age, sex, weight, total energy intake, and dietary calcium
intake) but not in the placebo group. The pattern of change in femoral
neck BMD
with increasing protein intake in the supplemented group was similar to
that for
the total body. CONCLUSION: Increasing protein intake may have a favorable
effect on change in BMD in elderly subjects supplemented with calcium citrate
malate and vitamin D.
Publication Types:
Clinical Trial
Randomized Controlled Trial
PMID: 11916767 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
2: Am J Clin Nutr 2002 Apr;75(4):609-10
Comment on:
Am J Clin Nutr. 2002 Apr;75(4):773-9.
Protein and calcium: antagonists or synergists?
Heaney RP.
Publication Types:
Comment
Editorial
Ghost of Lyle
Well:
a. The research he's using (high GI on low fat) is probably closer to
what most people are doing
b. It's not that Americans don't like foreign research, we just don't
like foreigners
c. He should still point out that he's being selective in the studies
he's citing (or mention that the effects of high-carb/high-GI are
different than high-carb/low GI), just to be intellectually honest
> I think the main point of the setting of the guidelines and all is that
> while a high carb diet can be excellent,
Under certain conditions,certainly.
> the way the general massess of
> idiots go about a high carb diet is wrong.
Yup.
>But then again, if the
> recommendations are higher fat moderate carbs, the general idiots will go
> about it wrong.
>
> The best solution is a culling of the idiots.
Yes, and foreigners.
Lyle's ghost
Aaron
good thing im not foreign and your already a ghost
--
Aaron
Wayne S. Hill
> "Wayne S. Hill" wrote:
>> Sandy wrote:
>
>> > Perhaps some of our osteoporosis can be laid at the door
>> > of the calcium leaching of high protein diets.
>>
>> I believe recent studies have laid that concern to rest.
>> Perhaps Will Brink will pipe in here.
>
> yes and no. The current idea on the issue is, more or less,
> this.
>
> 1. High protein with insufficient calcium leads to net
> calcium loss 2. high protein with sufficient calcium leads
> to net calcium gain
<snipped and archived>
Thanks, Lyle, very interesting.
-Wayne
Sandy
>You keep imagining so, but apart from normal biological variation in a
>> species, humans are remarkably similar.
>
>This is so much balderdash, it is documented that meat eaters are far more
>ferocious than vegetarians, in the wild that is.
In what wild?
Where is it documented?
Sandy
Sandy
>Sandy wrote:
>
>> Wayne S. Hill wrote:
>>>Sandy wrote:
>>>
>> Some bodybuilders probably eat too much protein per se, but
>> the too much in my assertion is only wrt calories.
>
>Bodybuilders over-consuming protein is just an expensive
>source of calories. It doesn't carry any health risk for
>people with normal renal function.
Perhaps not, but the nephrologists don't recommend it, and I thought
it would tend towards the loss of bone mineral.
>> The
>> typical Western meal is meat and two veg, whereas the
>> typical Asian diet is rice/veges with a little meat or fish
>> flavouring.
>
>I think the real problem with the "Western" diet is
>overconsumption (particularly of saturated and trans fats) and
>lack of exercise.
Yep.
>> Perhaps some of our osteoporosis can be laid at
>> the door of the calcium leaching of high protein diets.
>
>I believe recent studies have laid that concern to rest.
>Perhaps Will Brink will pipe in here.
Fair enough. What was that study that showed milk drinkers had more
osteoporosis than other folks?
>The best prescription for avoiding/reversing osteoporosis is
>weight-bearing exercise: running, soccer, tennis, heavy
>weight training, etc. The highest bone mineral density ever
>measured in a human being was in the world record holder in
>the powerlifting squat. I helped a woman start weight
>training, and her doctors were astonished by the rapid
>increase in her BMD.
Yep, exercise seems to be the key to so much.
>>>The frail aged person got there somehow. I haven't seen any
>>>evidence that a robust middle-aged person has any particular
>>>reason to expect to become a frail aged person.
>>
>> Then he doesn't need to worry about sarcopenia, surely.
>
>He does if he follows a typical diet for an older person.
Then he surely isn't a robust middle aged.
Anyway from what you said above, diet is pretty irrelevant, exercise
is the key.
Sandy
Sandy
The second most important factor, exercise -- hard physical work.
Sandy
Sandy
>"Sandy" <S@S.S> wrote in message
>news:3ltu3v0q5lbf4l0h7...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 23:31:40 -0600, "Roman" <r_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"Sandy" <S@S.S> wrote in message
>> >news:nbas3vosgbr2nbss1...@4ax.com...
>> >> >An example of a whole people that does (or did?) that
>> >> >are Eskimos. Fat in their diet was estimated to about 80%.
>> >>
>> >> And the temperature was, and the ones who couldn't cope with this
>> >> lifestyle stricture died when?
>> >
>> >Many were observed to live in their old age.
>>
>> I didn't ask about those, but about the ones who didn't, when these
>> strictures were imposed.
>
>We were talking about their diet.
I thought it was longevity.
>How does lifestyle difficulties relate to
>value of a particular macronutrient in their diet?
Whole lifestyle is what determiines longevity, not some magic bullet
food constituent.
>> >Sure, you don't like to read or consider whatever conflicts with your
>dogma.
>>
>> As Richard Dawkins said to Prince Charles: "It is fine to have an open
>> mind, but not so open that your brains fall out"
>>
>> Amazing how apt that retort seems to be these days :)
>
>First, you have to brains to risk their falling out.
Roman 1, Sandy 0 :)
>> ...apart from normal biological variation in a
>> species, humans are remarkably similar.
>
>They differ enough to justify radically different diets.
Apparently not, unless you are on a quest for the magic bullet.
Yes, some gene pools have some tendencies to some diseases removed,
but with so much interbreeding, the differences are minimal.
Sandy
Sandy
>"Yar" <min...@bigpondee.com> wrote in message
>news:TVN%9.40331$jM5.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
>>
>>
>> You keep imagining so, but apart from normal biological variation in a
>> > species, humans are remarkably similar.
>>
>> This is so much balderdash, it is documented that meat eaters are far more
>> ferocious than vegetarians, in the wild that is.
Grrrrrrrrr! :)
Yes and dogs that eat raw meat are much more ferocious than those that
eat cooked meat. Tell that to my savage little bastard.
>See, Sandy considers only those studies proper that go along with her dogma.
Projection noted.
Sandy
Roman
> 1. High protein with insufficient calcium leads to net calcium loss
> 2. high protein with sufficient calcium leads to net calcium gain
That might explain why Masai have no skeletal problems. While they eat lots
of meat, they also drink lots of milk (up to two quarts a day).
Roman
Roman
Wayne S. Hill
> Wayne S. Hill wrote:
>>Bodybuilders over-consuming protein is just an expensive
>>source of calories. It doesn't carry any health risk for
>>people with normal renal function.
>
> Perhaps not, but the nephrologists don't recommend it, and I
> thought it would tend towards the loss of bone mineral.
What nephrologists do you listen to? There is absolutely NO
evidence that high protein diets cause kidney disease or
dysfunction. In addition, if you read Lyle's follow-up,
you'll see that it isn't the protein that causes mineral loss,
it's the combination of high protein and insufficient calcium.
>>> Perhaps some of our osteoporosis can be laid at the door
>>> of the calcium leaching of high protein diets.
>>
>>I believe recent studies have laid that concern to rest.
>>Perhaps Will Brink will pipe in here.
>
> Fair enough. What was that study that showed milk drinkers
> had more osteoporosis than other folks?
Do not take epidemiological studies as disclosing causal
links. There are WAY too many uncontrolled parameters in such
studies to do so. At best, such a study could spur a double-
blind, placebo-controlled specific study that could disclose
causality, but 99% of epidemiological studies prove nothing.
>>>>The frail aged person got there somehow. I haven't seen
>>>>any evidence that a robust middle-aged person has any
>>>>particular reason to expect to become a frail aged person.
>>>
>>> Then he doesn't need to worry about sarcopenia, surely.
>>
>>He does if he follows a typical diet for an older person.
>
> Then he surely isn't a robust middle aged.
That's ridiculous: an individual is virtually a different
person at middle age and older age. A lot can happen between
middle age and older age to reduce muscle mass and bone
density. Principal among these are a sedentary lifestyle and
insufficient protein/calcium consumption.
> Anyway from what you said above, diet is pretty irrelevant,
> exercise is the key.
Are you paying attention? Without sufficient protein, the
whole thing falls apart.
-Wayne
Don Klipstein
>"Don Klipstein" <d...@manx.misty.com> wrote in message
>news:slrnb3s2g...@manx.misty.com...
>> Actually, the faster metabolisms of those with more active lifestyles
>> are more carbohydrate-tolerant and their increased calories needs are
>> best satisfied with a diet more rich in carbohydrates than is best for
>> more sedentary people.
>> Eskimos (which call themselves Innuit - "eskimo" is a name someone else
>> called them) eat mostly fat and meat and not much carbohydrate only
>> because of what kinds of food are available there. And consider their
>> life expectancy (40's!) and health complications from such a diet.
>
>I remember reading about some researchers finding them living far more than
>40's. Besides, life expectancy takes into account too many factors to make
>any intelligent conclusion about diet. Getting killed by an animal will
>reduce life expectancy, but what does that say about one's diet?
>
>And what health complications from such a diet are you talking about. They
>were found to be virtually free of degerative diseases as many other
>isolated hunter-gatherer populations that Dr. Weston Price and other
>researchers have studied.
Degerative diseases like what? Arthritis? If people die mostly in
their 40's whether by being eaten by polar bears, frozen to death (maybe
in part due to weak hearts) or by heart attack, I would think such a
population would have less than its usual share of artritis.
And I think lack of doctors' offices would mean fewer degenerative
disease diagnoses.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
Like Innuit, who mostly die before becoming old enough to have a risk
of osteoporosis?
And do only some native groups with high protein diets avoid skeletal
problems, or do most?
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Sandy
>Sandy wrote:
>
>> Wayne S. Hill wrote:
>
>>>Bodybuilders over-consuming protein is just an expensive
>>>source of calories. It doesn't carry any health risk for
>>>people with normal renal function.
>>
>> Perhaps not, but the nephrologists don't recommend it, and I
>> thought it would tend towards the loss of bone mineral.
>
>What nephrologists do you listen to?
American nephrologists association or similar.
They have a recommended maximum protein in the diet.
>There is absolutely NO
>evidence that high protein diets cause kidney disease or
>dysfunction.
I wonder why they say to limit protein then. Perhaps a blanket rule to
protect all members of the community, or just being on the cautious
side?
>In addition, if you read Lyle's follow-up,
>you'll see that it isn't the protein that causes mineral loss,
>it's the combination of high protein and insufficient calcium.
I agree, and exercide (weight bearing) with its hormonal implications.
>>>> Perhaps some of our osteoporosis can be laid at the door
>>>> of the calcium leaching of high protein diets.
>>>
>>>I believe recent studies have laid that concern to rest.
>>>Perhaps Will Brink will pipe in here.
>>
>> Fair enough. What was that study that showed milk drinkers
>> had more osteoporosis than other folks?
>
>Do not take epidemiological studies as disclosing causal
>links.
Never do, but I believe a causal suggestion was made from that study.
But yes, there are probably many more direct causal factors, like
decreased activity (weight bearing)
>There are WAY too many uncontrolled parameters in such
>studies to do so.
In which studies? This particular one?
>At best, such a study could spur a double-
>blind, placebo-controlled specific study that could disclose
>causality, but 99% of epidemiological studies prove nothing.
And they are not designed to. Trouble is, there is no controlled
experiment capable of "proving" causation in some of the uncovered
correlations. Circumstantial evidence is often a useful guide.
>>>>>The frail aged person got there somehow. I haven't seen
>>>>>any evidence that a robust middle-aged person has any
>>>>>particular reason to expect to become a frail aged person.
>>>>
>>>> Then he doesn't need to worry about sarcopenia, surely.
>>>
>>>He does if he follows a typical diet for an older person.
>>
>> Then he surely isn't a robust middle aged.
>
>That's ridiculous: an individual is virtually a different
>person at middle age and older age. A lot can happen between
>middle age and older age to reduce muscle mass and bone
>density. Principal among these are a sedentary lifestyle and
>insufficient protein/calcium consumption.
So they become frail? Make up your mind :)
Diet is not a very important factor, apparently.
Given just sufficient protein, exercise seems to be the deciding
factor. So increasing exercise is a far better intervention than
trying to compenste with extra protein.
>> Anyway from what you said above, diet is pretty irrelevant,
>> exercise is the key.
>
>Are you paying attention? Without sufficient protein, the
>whole thing falls apart.
No, I read it as without sufficient exercise. Are you paying
attention?
Instead of force feeding extra protein, it appears much more
efficaceous to increase the weight-bearing exercise.
Sandy
Roman
> >Some indigenous natives have eaten high protein diets (diets of some of
them
> >consist of a lot of meat and a lot of milk); yet, they display no
skeletal
> >problems. How does your theory explain that?
>
> The second most important factor, exercise -- hard physical work.
How do you prove that? Wayne has replied to your similar statement earlier.
Roman
Roman
> >> ...apart from normal biological variation in a
> >> species, humans are remarkably similar.
> >
> >They differ enough to justify radically different diets.
>
> Apparently not, unless you are on a quest for the magic bullet.
> Yes, some gene pools have some tendencies to some diseases removed,
> but with so much interbreeding, the differences are minimal.
I've seen enough in people that I know personally and correspond via the net
that I am confident that differences are significant at present. Some people
evidently thrive on high protein (sometimes also high fat) diets, whereas
others can't live without high carb intake.
Roman
Sandy
Epidemiology, experimentation and reading all the massive body of work
that has already been done.
With a "reasonably adequate diet"
The factors for degenerative disease and longevity are genetic,
physical activity, and then way down the track, actual dietary makeup.
Geez even psychological factors come above this one.
Sandy
Sandy
And why isn't this just what they are used to? Humans are quite
versatile.
Sandy
Wayne S. Hill
> Wayne S. Hill wrote:
>>Sandy wrote:
>
>>There is absolutely NO
>>evidence that high protein diets cause kidney disease or
>>dysfunction.
>
> I wonder why they say to limit protein then. Perhaps a
> blanket rule to protect all members of the community, or
> just being on the cautious side?
God knows. Maybe they just aren't paying attention to the
studies.
>>Do not take epidemiological studies as disclosing causal
>>links.
>
> Never do, but I believe a causal suggestion was made from
> that study. But yes, there are probably many more direct
> causal factors, like decreased activity (weight bearing)
A causal suggestions are worthless. Causal suggestions
include not eating eggs, replacing butter with margarine,
eating high-carbohydrate diets, etc.
>>There are WAY too many uncontrolled parameters in such
>>studies to do so.
>
> In which studies? This particular one?
All epidemiological studies. Saying that people who drink
milk are more likely to suffer osteoporosis based on a survey
of many people doesn't teach anything. For all you know, the
older people who drink milk may be trying to reverse
osteoporosis, or might be less likely to engage in strenuous
weight-bearing exercise, or might be genetically predisposed,
might say they drink milk because that's what they think the
surveyers want them to say, etc., etc., etc.
>>At best, such a study could spur a double-
>>blind, placebo-controlled specific study that could disclose
>>causality, but 99% of epidemiological studies prove nothing.
>
> And they are not designed to. Trouble is, there is no
> controlled experiment capable of "proving" causation in some
> of the uncovered correlations. Circumstantial evidence is
> often a useful guide.
No, it isn't. That's the point. USDA policy has been steered
around by circumstantial evidence to the detriment of public
health.
> Diet is not a very important factor, apparently.
>
> Given just sufficient protein, exercise seems to be the
> deciding factor. So increasing exercise is a far better
> intervention than trying to compenste with extra protein.
"Just sufficient" means more protein than they normally get in
their nurtritionist-controlled diets.
>>> Anyway from what you said above, diet is pretty
>>> irrelevant, exercise is the key.
>>
>>Are you paying attention? Without sufficient protein, the
>>whole thing falls apart.
>
> No, I read it as without sufficient exercise. Are you paying
> attention?
>
> Instead of force feeding extra protein, it appears much more
> efficaceous to increase the weight-bearing exercise.
You really aren't paying attention: it takes BOTH strenuous
weight-bearing exercise AND increased protein intake to
reverse sarcopenia. This "force-feeding" comprises giving the
person more meat, fish, milk and/or eggs, or a protein shake,
and less potatoes and rice: big deal. The increased protein
is a component of a healthful diet that, were the
nutritionists not so ignorant, would be called a normal,
balanced diet. This brings us back to Doh, the definition of
a balanced diet.
-Wayne
Wayne S. Hill
> "Roman" wrote:
>>
>>How do you prove that? Wayne has replied to your similar
>>statement earlier.
>
> Epidemiology, experimentation and reading all the massive
> body of work that has already been done.
Epidemiology doesn't prove anything, and any epidemiologist
that claims it does is incompetent. Experimentation must be
performed in specific, double-blind, placebo-controlled, peer-
reviewed studies to indicate anything, and proof requires
multiple such studies, performed independently, in strong
concurrence. The massive body of work includes much
unscientific drivel.
> With a "reasonably adequate diet"
Which is to say, not the diet they're receiving.
> The factors for degenerative disease and longevity are
> genetic, physical activity, and then way down the track,
> actual dietary makeup. Geez even psychological factors come
> above this one.
Well, psychological factors are strongly influenced by the
other factors. So, the things you can actually do something
about are diet and exercise.
-Wayne
Roman
> >Some indigenous natives have eaten high protein diets (diets of some of
> >them consist of a lot of meat and a lot of milk); yet, they display no
> >skeletal problems. How does your theory explain that?
>
> Like Innuit, who mostly die before becoming old enough to have a risk
> of osteoporosis?
Many were observed to live into their old ages, still with virtually no
degenerative diseases of any kind... until they switched to "civilized"
foods.
> And do only some native groups with high protein diets avoid skeletal
> problems, or do most?
That's a good question. I based that mostly on works of Dr. Weston Price. He
looked for healthy native and studied there diets. Their diet differed a
lot, but all were healthy. One common part in their diets was that they
consumed considerable amount of animal fats (from fish, dairy, and/or
animals). I will look for more details to answer your question more
accurately.
Roman
Roman
> >And what health complications from such a diet are you talking about.
They
> >were found to be virtually free of degerative diseases as many other
> >isolated hunter-gatherer populations that Dr. Weston Price and other
> >researchers have studied.
>
> Degerative diseases like what? Arthritis? If people die mostly in
> their 40's whether by being eaten by polar bears, frozen to death (maybe
> in part due to weak hearts) or by heart attack, I would think such a
> population would have less than its usual share of artritis.
> And I think lack of doctors' offices would mean fewer degenerative
> disease diagnoses.
Yes, arthritis is one of them. Heart attack would also be a generative
disease. Dental problems are too. In the "civilized" word, you can find
dental problems in virtually everyone, even small children. That says a lot,
IMO.
Roman
Roman
> >I've seen enough in people that I know personally and correspond via the
net
> >that I am confident that differences are significant at present. Some
people
> >evidently thrive on high protein (sometimes also high fat) diets, whereas
> >others can't live without high carb intake.
>
> And why isn't this just what they are used to? Humans are quite
> versatile.
I know people who, for some reason, went on low fat/high carb diets that
were rich in grains and such, and then they developed new problems and/or
had their current problems worsen. That sometimes happened over several
years, so you'd think they had enough time to "get used to". Then they
dropped the low fat crap and reduced carbs and added protein and fat from
flesh and rather quickly regained health.
Humans are versatile, but there's a limit, which varies from an individual
to individual.
RStevrock
>were rich in grains and such, and then they developed new problems and/or
>had their current problems worsen. That sometimes happened over several
>years, so you'd think they had enough time to "get used to". Then they
>dropped the low fat crap and reduced carbs and added protein and fat from
>flesh and rather quickly regained health
I'll jump in here even though I haven't been reading this thread too well.
When I went to Weight Watchers, I stopped eating my favorite breakfast,
(slices of cheese on Orowheat bread, cheese melted onto the bread in the
microwave). I absolutelyl love cheese. But Weight Watchers is low fat and I
could not accommodate the points. I am allergic to milk, lactose thing, but
also allergy, so I ate my cereal with Soy milk. The Vanilla soy milk was ok.
In the morning I have a paper route. I teach Spanish during the day, and
that means that I am up, walking around and spending the day talking. I need
energy. The year that I drank soy milk on my cereal I always felt tired. I
often had to sit down. Now I eat my cheese bread and have my energy back.
I take the Fosamax at 3:30 and between 3:30 and 5:00 drink a liter of
water. I eat at 6:30 and am with kids constantly from 7:30 -12:00. To go from
6:30 until 12:00 with the cereal and soy milk -- I had no energy. I put quite
a bit of cheese on my bread and love it. Cheese gives me the energy that I
need to walk, talk, and work hard to get the kids to speak Spanish. Cheese has
to be my favorite food, and I don't mean funny cheese like maybe feta. I eat
sharp cheddar, monterey jack, etc. I have my energy back. Many of us don't
sit at our jobs, but we need to walk and speak. The "animal fat" is
what I think makes my body run better than anything else. I have never had a
cholesterol problem and my good cholesterol has been around 85 which my doctor
likes. I will change my mind about the animal fat if my blood test get bad,
but I do have to agree with the theories that some bodies need the fat.
Just my opinion.
Sammy, female 60 off of Prempro for 6 months.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Sandy
>Sandy wrote:
>
>> Wayne S. Hill wrote:
>>>Sandy wrote:
>>
>>>There is absolutely NO
>>>evidence that high protein diets cause kidney disease or
>>>dysfunction.
>>
>> I wonder why they say to limit protein then. Perhaps a
>> blanket rule to protect all members of the community, or
>> just being on the cautious side?
>
>God knows. Maybe they just aren't paying attention to the
>studies.
You really think you've read more than they have and you understand
the significance better? Oh, dear.
>>>Do not take epidemiological studies as disclosing causal
>>>links.
>>
>> Never do, but I believe a causal suggestion was made from
>> that study. But yes, there are probably many more direct
>> causal factors, like decreased activity (weight bearing)
>
>A causal suggestions are worthless. Causal suggestions
>include not eating eggs, replacing butter with margarine,
>eating high-carbohydrate diets, etc.
Very well put. Are you aware of what you are saying?
>>>There are WAY too many uncontrolled parameters in such
>>>studies to do so.
>>
>> In which studies? This particular one?
>
>All epidemiological studies.
Epidemiologist as well as nephrologist, are we?
>Saying that people who drink
>milk are more likely to suffer osteoporosis based on a survey
>of many people doesn't teach anything.
That's why they don't take noltice of you if you do it.
>For all you know, the
>older people who drink milk may be trying to reverse
>osteoporosis, or might be less likely to engage in strenuous
>weight-bearing exercise, or might be genetically predisposed,
>might say they drink milk because that's what they think the
>surveyers want them to say, etc., etc., etc.
Yes, they wouldn't want you doing the research.
>>>At best, such a study could spur a double-
>>>blind, placebo-controlled specific study that could disclose
>>>causality, but 99% of epidemiological studies prove nothing.
>>
>> And they are not designed to. Trouble is, there is no
>> controlled experiment capable of "proving" causation in some
>> of the uncovered correlations. Circumstantial evidence is
>> often a useful guide.
>
>No, it isn't. That's the point. USDA policy has been steered
>around by circumstantial evidence to the detriment of public
>health.
Thus speaks an eminent researcher who doesn't quite know what's
involved.
>> Diet is not a very important factor, apparently.
>>
>> Given just sufficient protein, exercise seems to be the
>> deciding factor. So increasing exercise is a far better
>> intervention than trying to compenste with extra protein.
>
>"Just sufficient" means more protein than they normally get in
>their nurtritionist-controlled diets.
Huh? How much would that be?
>>>> Anyway from what you said above, diet is pretty
>>>> irrelevant, exercise is the key.
>>>
>>>Are you paying attention? Without sufficient protein, the
>>>whole thing falls apart.
>>
>> No, I read it as without sufficient exercise. Are you paying
>> attention?
>>
>> Instead of force feeding extra protein, it appears much more
>> efficaceous to increase the weight-bearing exercise.
>
>You really aren't paying attention: it takes BOTH strenuous
>weight-bearing exercise AND increased protein intake to
>reverse sarcopenia.
Not from what was written here very recently.
>This "force-feeding" comprises giving the
>person more meat, fish, milk and/or eggs, or a protein shake,
>and less potatoes and rice: big deal.
No, a normal 20 to 30% of the calories as protein.
Sarcopenia will ensue if no exercise is taken, but exercise is the
most efficaceous
>The increased protein
>is a component of a healthful diet that, were the
>nutritionists not so ignorant,
Did they do something to you as a child? You certainly have an
obsession about them.
>would be called a normal,
>balanced diet.
Rubbish, loading up with protein is no magic bullet to avoid weight
bearing exercise.
>This brings us back to Doh, the definition of
>a balanced diet.
Well you have an obsession that dietitians are somehow evil, and
protein is the magic bullet to cram instead of the broadly
healthgiving exercise.
Sandy
Sandy
>Sandy wrote:
>
>> "Roman" wrote:
>>>
>>>How do you prove that? Wayne has replied to your similar
>>>statement earlier.
>>
>> Epidemiology, experimentation and reading all the massive
>> body of work that has already been done.
>
>Epidemiology doesn't prove anything, and any epidemiologist
>that claims it does is incompetent.
Just out of curiosity, what do you think DOES prove anything?>
>Experimentation must be
>performed in specific, double-blind, placebo-controlled, peer-
>reviewed studies to indicate anything, and proof requires
>multiple such studies, performed independently, in strong
>concurrence. The massive body of work includes much
>unscientific drivel.
From an obviously practicing scientist.
Back to the drawing board, I'm afraid.
>> With a "reasonably adequate diet"
>
>Which is to say, not the diet they're receiving.
O heavens forbid no, those evil dietitians.
>> The factors for degenerative disease and longevity are
>> genetic, physical activity, and then way down the track,
>> actual dietary makeup. Geez even psychological factors come
>> above this one.
>
>Well, psychological factors are strongly influenced by the
>other factors. So, the things you can actually do something
>about are diet and exercise.
Exactly, so glad you've caught up.
Sandy
Don Klipstein
>"Don Klipstein" <d...@manx.misty.com> wrote in message
>>
>> their 40's whether by being eaten by polar bears, frozen to death (maybe
>> in part due to weak hearts) or by heart attack, I would think such a
>> population would have less than its usual share of artritis.
>> And I think lack of doctors' offices would mean fewer degenerative
>> disease diagnoses.
>
>Yes, arthritis is one of them. Heart attack would also be a generative
>disease.
Maybe, to the extent they develop from gradually degenerating body
conditions. But what degenerative diseases do Innuit have so much less
of? Includes heart atacks? If so, then what percentage of their deaths
have causes established?
> Dental problems are too. In the "civilized" word, you can find
>dental problems in virtually everyone, even small children. That says a
>lot, IMO.
The bacteria that are the cause (or essential contributing factor) of
most dental disease thrive on carbohydrates with only minimal protein and
won't do well in people usually eating only carb-free or nearly carb-free
foods. I am not surprised that Innuit have healthier teeth than
"more-civilized" people of the same age.
I would think that if I had to decide between healthier arteries and
healthier teeth, I would choose healthier arteries. Then again, I use
toothbrushes and floss.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Paulp
"Sandy" <S@S.S> wrote in message
> On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 23:31:40 -0600, "Roman" <r_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >efforts.
> I find ad hominem attacks are the last bastion of the intellectually
> bankrupt :)
Right again.