![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 16 to 40 of 41. Go back in thread:
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 23, 2002, at 11:08:23
In reply to Hey! I sense a EFA guru here! QUESTION....., posted by bubblegumchewer on November 23, 2002, at 10:02:22
If you mean *me*, I'm only too happy to serve as a resource. :-)
> I haven't been around in a while but I've never been able to find anyone who know s**t about fish oil, EPA, etc. so I'm excited to see that there are some fish brains around here.
I'll take that in the manner in which it was intended.
>Please help me with this. I'm not asking for medical advice; I'll take that up with my doctor and I'll be responsible for myself. But I have two concerns about the supplements I've been taking and they have to do with two areas: anticoagulation and immunosuppression.
Okey-dokey.
> First, I'm about to deliver my fourth baby in 7 weeks. I'd like to give my unborn baby and myself the benefits of the fish oil I've been taking (Nordic Naturals, 1000 mg. each capsule, 600 mg. omega-3 fatty acids, 450 mg. EPA, 100 mg. DHA, 4.5 I.U. mixed tocopherols)You already have. Placental circulation is preferentially enriched in long-chain omega-3 fatty acids, by some unrecognized mechanism. During the first two years of a child's life, it has been estimated that they need one kilogram of dietary DHA for full brain development. For some totally incomprehensible reason, baby formula in North America does not require *any* of this nutrient. Take fish oil, and breast feed, or make sure that you use a formula that contains substantial amounts of DHA.
> I have never been clear about the anticoagulant properties so I've been taking only two capsules per week. I know, pretty puny. I am paranoid about risking a big hemorrhage at the time of delivery. Truthfully I don't even bother asking doctors if it's ok to take these things because they look at me as if they have no idea what I'm talking about. So I'm just wondering if you have opinion/knowledge about how much I have to worry about anticoagulation.You have nothing whatsoever to worry about. Eskimos eat 14-20 grams a day, on average, of EPA and DHA combined. And, during pregnancy, it is a cultural practice for women to eat even more. No shit. I've looked at this closely.
The anticoagulant activity is a relative phenomenon. Most people, otherwise considered to be "normal", have hypercoaguability. For some, with diagnosed consequences of such activity, like deep vein thrombosis, doctors prescribe so-called blood-thinners like coumadin. For such people, taking an exogenous anti-coagulant, changing the diet to include fish oils can cause an additive effect that can become life-threatening. Basically, the body wants blood that's less likely to coagulate than most people's already is. Fish oil lets your body have what it wants.
> My other question is: Last winter before being pregnant at all I was taking two of these capsules a day plus my kids were taking omegabrite capsules, only one per day. We all suddenly came down with the WORST ear/sinus/throat infection in the history of my family. I mean that we are healthy and have only occasionally needed antibiotics but all THREE of my young sons were instantly put on antibiotics, plus me, mom who hardly gets seriously sick, needed antibiotics also, and I mean two rounds for each of us. It suddenly felt as if someone had kicked me hard in the jaw with a boot and I went to the doctor, and sure enough, my ear was infected. I haven't had an ear infection since I was a kid (according to my mom, I can't remember it.) Could this have had anything to do with immunusuppression and could it have had to do with the fish oil??No.
This is a case of coincidental correlation. In debate, you would call it the logical fallacy of 'post hoc ergo propter hoc', or 'after this, therefore, because of this'.
You were breathing at the time. Is that suspect? (Just putting another coincidental correlation up for consideration.)
Children are extraordinary disease vectors. Need any more be said?
> Thanks, and sorry if I appear to be an ignoramus. I can't ask doctors these questions because they know so little about fatty acids that it's as if I'm asking them questions in Klingon or something.Now that's funny. <smirk>
You're not an ignoramus. Your doctors are.
Lar
Posted by bubblegumchewer on November 23, 2002, at 11:15:51
In reply to Re: In addition to fish oil..., posted by Larry Hoover on November 23, 2002, at 10:32:46
whoever was intelligently discussing the subject with you. Any insight into my questions about anticoagulation and immunosuppresion?
If you want a bonus question: I had my cholesterol profile done and it appears that despite my slight overweight status and my propensity to eat every unhealthy fat possible, my cholesterol is low (140) and my HDL and LDL are in the ideal ranges. (I'm 37 years old and female.) Meaning the ones that everyone else strives for. This is obviously a genetic trait because my mother has the same profile. We are just not a "heart disease" family.
Does this mean that I may not be a person who is in need of the blood-fat benefits of taking omega-3 fatty acids? Or is that question just way too hard to speculate on?
A bonus-bonus question: I spoke to the resident who was treating me a year and a half ago (he was also a horse's a**) about the correlation between low cholesterol and depression. He pooh-poohed the idea, saying that 140 is not low. From my research it appears that 140 in a non-athletic person with an average American junk-food diet is teetering on abnormally low. Any opinion?
Posted by bubblegumchewer on November 23, 2002, at 11:28:01
In reply to I was directing my above question to Larry and/or , posted by bubblegumchewer on November 23, 2002, at 11:15:51
Thanks, Lar. Of course I posted before seeing your nice, detailed answer. I thought I was pretty sure that the anticoagulation effect was nothing to worry about but I wanted to hear it from someone who seems to know.
Do you happen to know anything about the immunosuppression subject which I touched on? I remember doing research and hearing rumblings of suppression of natural killer cell activity, and of proliferation of colon tumors upon administration of certain PUFAs. Just curious if you know what is up with this subject. Is there a threshhold amount or proportion of blood fats that predisposes one to non-optimal immune status? Thanks in advance for letting me pick your brain.
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 23, 2002, at 12:26:36
In reply to Thanks for the answer; last question, I promise, posted by bubblegumchewer on November 23, 2002, at 11:28:01
> Thanks, Lar. Of course I posted before seeing your nice, detailed answer. I thought I was pretty sure that the anticoagulation effect was nothing to worry about but I wanted to hear it from someone who seems to know.
Emphasis on the "seemed to know". My advice might be worth what you pay for it.
> Do you happen to know anything about the immunosuppression subject which I touched on? I remember doing research and hearing rumblings of suppression of natural killer cell activity, and of proliferation of colon tumors upon administration of certain PUFAs. Just curious if you know what is up with this subject. Is there a threshhold amount or proportion of blood fats that predisposes one to non-optimal immune status? Thanks in advance for letting me pick your brain.
Again, the modulation of immunoreactivity has to be seen in the context of the baseline immunological function. Omega-6 fats increase immunoreactivity, whereas omega-3 fats diminish it, in broad strokes. The increase in autoimmune disease over the last century alone argues for an excessive immunoreactivity in the general population, which correlates nicely with the massive distortion in omega-6:omega-3 intake ratios over that period. Studies showing inhibition of T-cell lymphocyte activity and so on, after administration of fish oil, are probably a good thing. There is no evidence that high omega-3 intake leads to a compromisation of immune function.
Also, the fact that certain cancer lineages employ products of omega-3 fatty acid metabolism ought not to be too surprising. The cancer cells are, after all, human cells to begin with. For a cancer line to flourish, it must first pass through a number of stages of promotion. In the context of overall morbidity, fish consumption reduces cancer risk in the entire digestive tract, not just the colon.
The PUFAs in fish oil can be thought of as being highly reactive because they have multiple reaction sites (each unsaturated position is a reactive site). Oxidation at a reactive site, under enzymatic control, turns the PUFA into a potential signalling compound. The products are highly specific, and chiral (having three-dimensional uniqueness). Formation of signalling compounds through selective oxidation is just one of the ways we know that the PUFAs in fish oil have regulative capacity. The cancer link is because one such compound promotes the formation of new blood vessels. This feeds the tumour. But, it's perfectly natural.
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 23, 2002, at 12:43:18
In reply to I was directing my above question to Larry and/or , posted by bubblegumchewer on November 23, 2002, at 11:15:51
> If you want a bonus question: I had my cholesterol profile done and it appears that despite my slight overweight status and my propensity to eat every unhealthy fat possible, my cholesterol is low (140) and my HDL and LDL are in the ideal ranges. (I'm 37 years old and female.) Meaning the ones that everyone else strives for. This is obviously a genetic trait because my mother has the same profile. We are just not a "heart disease" family.
Very good of you to choose such good genes. <wink>
> Does this mean that I may not be a person who is in need of the blood-fat benefits of taking omega-3 fatty acids? Or is that question just way too hard to speculate on?
What is important is how genes interact with their environment. From a gene's perspective, that has multiple applications. The external environment of a gene is the inside of a cell. How the machinery there interacts with the gene determines the activity of a gene. But, the cell interacts with cells around it, so you have organ-specific gene effects. And, you have the organs interacting together to have more collective effects (e.g the digestive tract, as opposed to just the stomach). Then, of course, you have systemic interactions (whole body effects). Finally, you have all the external environment to consider (food, disease, toxins, and so on). All of these are, at their core, gene/environment interactions.
Focussing on one factor, as you have, may not be instructive. People who eat fish and fish products are healthier than those who do not. Risk of dementia alone is less than half in people who eat fish.
> A bonus-bonus question: I spoke to the resident who was treating me a year and a half ago (he was also a horse's a**) about the correlation between low cholesterol and depression. He pooh-poohed the idea, saying that 140 is not low. From my research it appears that 140 in a non-athletic person with an average American junk-food diet is teetering on abnormally low. Any opinion?The correlation of serum cholesterol with mood is equivocal. Studies do not always agree.
I'll give you my opinion. I suspect that any correlation between cholesterol and mood falls under the concept of correlation with an unidentified independent variable. If B depends on A (and thus correlates), and C depends on A, then B and C stand a good chance of correlating as well, but they may not be related in any way.
For example, if you studied the use of makeup in a primary school female cohort, you might find that height and makeup use were highly correlated, although there is no causal relationship between them. Both depend, quite separately, on maturation.
Posted by bubblegumchewer on November 23, 2002, at 13:16:01
In reply to Re: I was directing my above question to Larry and/or , posted by Larry Hoover on November 23, 2002, at 12:43:18
assume, as I've been doing, that fish oil is not something likely to harm me, so I'll keep on taking it. If I understand correctly, what you're saying about tumor proliferation is that the few cases of omega-3 acids encouraging cancer growth are basically flukes in the world of cancer. I'm going to assume that the benefits far outweigh the few possible unfortunate non-benefits.
I was just wondering because I don't seem to fit the normal blood fat "profile" that we as modern Western people seem to be grouped into. On the contrary, my family members seem to be those who live till their nineties and then drop dead of a (I presume hemorrhagic but I don't know) stroke. Which is probably a natural and biologically proper way to go, so to speak, since few live longer than that. I'm just hoping that since I appear to be from a line of non-clotting, non-inflammatory cardiovascular people that I'm not pushing things in the hemorrhagic direction by encouraging thinner and thinner blood... but I think what I understand is that the anticoagulant effect is more of a NORMALIZATION than actually pushing it too far the other way.
Thanks for the "good genes" compliment but alas, it it's not one thing, it's another, right? My poor dad was plagued by mental illness; thus me, here (my mom does not like to believe in any biological or genetic basis... ha!) and both parents have/had different leukemias. My dad finally developed deep vein thrombosis (I have my suspicions that it arose from the Tegretol he took) but I believe it was the leukemia that finally killed him. Also his mother died of colon cancer so I was wondering about that too.
My interest in fatty acid balance arose from a desire to not land in the hospital with disabling anxiety (they called it depression; whatever) like I did a year ago (really thought I was going to die it was so bad) so whether the fish oil is barking up the wrong tree for me or not, I figure it won't hurt me. Strangely enough I've spend most of my life on no antidepressants and felt mostly just fine, just like I do now, on no antidepressants. I haven't figured this stuff out yet at all. But if fish oil just MAY prevent another such episode I'm all for it.
Ok, enough thinking for today... my brain hurts!
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 23, 2002, at 13:38:30
In reply to Thank you Larry, for your input. I'm going to, posted by bubblegumchewer on November 23, 2002, at 13:16:01
> assume, as I've been doing, that fish oil is not something likely to harm me, so I'll keep on taking it.
That's the broad message. Not likely to harm, likely to help.
> If I understand correctly, what you're saying about tumor proliferation is that the few cases of omega-3 acids encouraging cancer growth are basically flukes in the world of cancer.
It has to already be cancer before this mechanism operates. It's not a cause of cancer.
>I'm going to assume that the benefits far outweigh the few possible unfortunate non-benefits.
Yes.
> I was just wondering because I don't seem to fit the normal blood fat "profile" that we as modern Western people seem to be grouped into. On the contrary, my family members seem to be those who live till their nineties and then drop dead of a (I presume hemorrhagic but I don't know) stroke. Which is probably a natural and biologically proper way to go, so to speak, since few live longer than that. I'm just hoping that since I appear to be from a line of non-clotting, non-inflammatory cardiovascular people that I'm not pushing things in the hemorrhagic direction by encouraging thinner and thinner blood... but I think what I understand is that the anticoagulant effect is more of a NORMALIZATION than actually pushing it too far the other way.Yes, normalization appears to be what happens.
> Thanks for the "good genes" compliment but alas, it it's not one thing, it's another, right? My poor dad was plagued by mental illness; thus me, here (my mom does not like to believe in any biological or genetic basis... ha!) and both parents have/had different leukemias. My dad finally developed deep vein thrombosis (I have my suspicions that it arose from the Tegretol he took) but I believe it was the leukemia that finally killed him. Also his mother died of colon cancer so I was wondering about that too.
>
> My interest in fatty acid balance arose from a desire to not land in the hospital with disabling anxiety (they called it depression; whatever) like I did a year ago (really thought I was going to die it was so bad) so whether the fish oil is barking up the wrong tree for me or not, I figure it won't hurt me. Strangely enough I've spend most of my life on no antidepressants and felt mostly just fine, just like I do now, on no antidepressants. I haven't figured this stuff out yet at all. But if fish oil just MAY prevent another such episode I'm all for it.
>
> Ok, enough thinking for today... my brain hurts!Fish oil should help with brain hurt.....just kidding. ;-)
Posted by disney4 on November 24, 2002, at 13:32:36
In reply to Re: Thank you Larry, for your input. I'm going to, posted by Larry Hoover on November 23, 2002, at 13:38:30
Hi Larry,
I have another question for you about fish oil. In the link to the Bipolar Child there is some mention about cell membranes becoming stiff when people eat a diet high in trans fatty acids and take fish oil. I am not careful about my diet, and would hate to think I am doing more harm than good by taking fish oil.
******************************************
The Diet of the Child is of Utmost Importance. Parents need to look not only to capsules, however, but to the total diet of their children. Because, as we said earlier, other lipids compete in the cell membranes for the spots that the omega-3's would occupy, a diet high in fat and trans-fatty acids will interfere with omega-3 integration in the cell membrane and the membranes will become stiff and inflexible.
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 24, 2002, at 14:15:16
In reply to Re: Thank you Larry, for your input. I'm going to » Larry Hoover, posted by disney4 on November 24, 2002, at 13:32:36
> Hi Larry,
>
> I have another question for you about fish oil. In the link to the Bipolar Child there is some mention about cell membranes becoming stiff when people eat a diet high in trans fatty acids and take fish oil. I am not careful about my diet, and would hate to think I am doing more harm than good by taking fish oil.
> ******************************************
> The Diet of the Child is of Utmost Importance. Parents need to look not only to capsules, however, but to the total diet of their children. Because, as we said earlier, other lipids compete in the cell membranes for the spots that the omega-3's would occupy, a diet high in fat and trans-fatty acids will interfere with omega-3 integration in the cell membrane and the membranes will become stiff and inflexible.I take it that the latter paragraph is a quotation? I see it as a comparison of taking fish oil *or* consuming trans fatty acids.
Trans fats, although they are unsaturated, have a different three-dimensional structure that do cis fats. Trans fats condense at a higher tremperature than do cis ones. We see that as trans fats solidifying at room temperature, whereas cis fats remain liquid, often even under refrigeration.
An unsaturated fat has carbon-carbon double bonds. If there is only a single bond, each carbon is free to rotate about the axis of the bond. However, a double bond is rigid, pinning the orientation of the carbons.
Because the single bonds of a saturated carbon chain can reorient themselves, they can line up in neat rows beside other chains. When they do that, they stop moving around, and the fatty acids are said to condense, or solidify.
Trans fatty acids aren't very much different than saturated fatty acids in the overall orientation of the carbon chain, and they also solidify fairly readily.
Cis fats have a kink in the long carbon chain, sending the chain off at a 120 degree angle. If there's more than one cis bond, there's more than one kink. The "kinkier" a fatty acid is, the harder it is for it to align with other fatty acids and come to rest in a solid form.
Neuronal membranes depend on the long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids like DHA and AA for their fluid nature, because the kinky fatty acids cannot condense. If your brain only has trans fatty acids available when it comes time to replace membrane constituents, then that's what it will use, but the membranes will be stiffer, or less fluid, as a result.
Part of the mechanism by which neurotransmitters dock at membrane receptors requires the membrane to be quite flexible. A stiffer membrane has the effect of reducing the signal arising from a particular amount of a neurotransmitter; it's as if there is a deficiency in the neurotransmitter itself.
It's been estimated that the daily turnover rate for membrane fats is no more than 3%. For technical reasons, it is an exponential relationship between supply of DHA and DHA replacement in the membrane, but it might take four months (ballpark) of fish oil supplementation to get the brain replenished in the necessary omega-3 fatty acids.
Posted by disney4 on November 24, 2002, at 14:29:07
In reply to Re: Thank you Larry, for your input. I'm going to, posted by Larry Hoover on November 24, 2002, at 14:15:16
You really do know your material! So basically the combination of trans fatty acids and fish oil would not cause the stiff cell membranes, but rather if you eat a lot of trans fatty acids and don't use fish oil you could cause that to happen. Am I following you correctly?
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 24, 2002, at 14:36:26
In reply to Re: Thank you Larry, for your input. I'm going to » Larry Hoover, posted by disney4 on November 24, 2002, at 14:29:07
> You really do know your material! So basically the combination of trans fatty acids and fish oil would not cause the stiff cell membranes, but rather if you eat a lot of trans fatty acids and don't use fish oil you could cause that to happen. Am I following you correctly?
Yes. Excess dietary intake of saturated fat, and/or trans fat, *relative* to omega-3 intake, will reduce the fluidity of cell membranes.
The 'treatment' for this condition is to adjust the relative amounts of these kinds of fat in your diet. In other words, if it says "hydrogenated" on the label, don't eat it. That'll take care of the trans fats. No margarine.
Posted by bubblegumchewer on November 24, 2002, at 17:55:42
In reply to Re: Thank you Larry, for your input. I'm going to, posted by Larry Hoover on November 24, 2002, at 14:36:26
So if you don't mind my asking, I just bought some "smart balance" yellow solid stuff and boy does it taste great and buttery on bread. It boasts "no trans fats!" and "non-hydrogenated." The first ingredients, however, are soy, palm, canola and olive oil. How in the heck did they make it solid without hydrogenating it? And isn't palm oil a definite no-no, if not soy oil as well?
I know that they have a website that touts their revolutionary method of solidifying these oils... geez, can a person help but be confused in the world of margarine wars??? Should I just eat butter? Any insight into this, Larry? I'm not going to give up the solid yellow stuff since as I said, I seem to have a good blood fat balance, but I was mainly thinking about my typical male overweight hub when I bought the stuff.
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 24, 2002, at 18:43:22
In reply to You brought up margarine, Larry, posted by bubblegumchewer on November 24, 2002, at 17:55:42
> So if you don't mind my asking, I just bought some "smart balance" yellow solid stuff and boy does it taste great and buttery on bread. It boasts "no trans fats!" and "non-hydrogenated." The first ingredients, however, are soy, palm, canola and olive oil. How in the heck did they make it solid without hydrogenating it? And isn't palm oil a definite no-no, if not soy oil as well?
I slipped up earlier when I included saturated fat in my no-no list. There has been so much propaganda vilifying sat fat, that I have trouble sometimes remembering that saturated fat has no effect on blood lipids and cholesterol. It's considered to be neutral. Shorter-chain saturates in coconut oil may well be beneficial. We've been fed a load of bull for years, and the obesity epidemic will certainly serve as evidence of that.
Years ago, McDonalds used to fry their french fries in beef tallow. That was heart neutral. Instead, now they use a vegetable blend full of trans fats and polyunsaturates, which decompose on heating. Beef tallow good. Vegetable shortening bad. McDonald's stupid.
Anyway, from what I can discover, Smart Balance uses palm oil as it's thickener. Palm oil is normally quite solid at room temperature. The other oils are blended in to smooth it out a bit. That's about all there is to this product, as far as I can tell. Other trans-fat-free products use whipped protein as a thickener (think gelatin).
Palm oil is not a problem. It contains many of the fatty acids your body makes when it converts starch into bigger bellies. These fats are quite neutral from a heart-health perspective. They are used as fuel for the body's energy production. But they're not bad, like trans fats.
> I know that they have a website that touts their revolutionary method of solidifying these oils... geez, can a person help but be confused in the world of margarine wars??? Should I just eat butter?
You know what? Butter is good for you. Better for you than Smart Balance. Particularly if you can get it from cows fed on pasture. Butter isn't a bad guy. Slabs of it (i.e. overconsumption) are.
>Any insight into this, Larry? I'm not going to give up the solid yellow stuff since as I said, I seem to have a good blood fat balance, but I was mainly thinking about my typical male overweight hub when I bought the stuff.
You might want to consider looking at the Atkins diet. High-protein. High-fat. Low carb. Obesity is linked to high carb intake, even on calorie restricted plans. The low-fat diet is collapsing under the weight of contrary evidence. The emperor has no clothes.
If you're going to fry something, use a saturated fat (naturally solid at room temperature).
Posted by Pfinstegg on November 24, 2002, at 22:52:54
In reply to Re: In addition to fish oil..., posted by Larry Hoover on November 23, 2002, at 10:32:46
Lar,thank you for that wonderfully informative post, particularly the magnesium abstracts. I really appreciate your taking the time to reply so thoughtfully and completely. One thing which you mentioned at the end struck me as very important- that we don't normally do all we can in terms of nutrition, vitamins and supplements in order to keep our nervous systems functioning at their best. Even though we don't yet have a sophisticated or complete knowledge of all the billions (trillions?) of neurochemical exchanges taking place in our brains at every moment, we (or at any rate, you!) do have knowledge which we are not using fully. It seems like such a good approach, once one has some knowledge about it, and anything we can do to make the scattershot approach of the ADs somewhat less necessary, or even the doses we need lower, is all to the good.
May I ask what your professional field actually is? Just gotten very curious- don't feel you have to answer!
Pfinstegg
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 25, 2002, at 10:33:07
In reply to Re: In addition to fish oil... » Larry Hoover, posted by Pfinstegg on November 24, 2002, at 22:52:54
> Lar,thank you for that wonderfully informative post, particularly the magnesium abstracts. I really appreciate your taking the time to reply so thoughtfully and completely.
It's something I'm happy to share.
>One thing which you mentioned at the end struck me as very important- that we don't normally do all we can in terms of nutrition, vitamins and supplements in order to keep our nervous systems functioning at their best. Even though we don't yet have a sophisticated or complete knowledge of all the billions (trillions?) of neurochemical exchanges taking place in our brains at every moment, we (or at any rate, you!) do have knowledge which we are not using fully. It seems like such a good approach, once one has some knowledge about it, and anything we can do to make the scattershot approach of the ADs somewhat less necessary, or even the doses we need lower, is all to the good.
The medical system seems inordinately focussed on symptomatic treatment, not on prophylaxis, symptom prevention. I don't know how I came to be mentally ill, but it didn't happen in one day. Subtle changes must have been occurring for a long time, long before symptoms emerged, and even longer before I came to the conclusion that my symptoms needed treatment.
It's just my opinion that most psychiatric drugs are a bit like using duct tape to "fix" something. Duct tape doesn't fix anything, not really.
I start with the idea that I am what I eat. Throw in a vast array of chemical reprocessing, and out the other end comes consciousness, replete with affect, memory, attitude, behaviour, expectation, and so on. Somehow, the chemistry promotes the outcomes. Seems to me that small changes, earlier on in the process (nutrition) might have greater effect than big changes (drugs) towards the end.
I'm not anti-drug. I am pro-nutrition. Drugs have their place. They saved my life, and more than once. But my quality of life, more and more, goes back to food and nutrition.
>
> May I ask what your professional field actually is? Just gotten very curious- don't feel you have to answer!
>
> PfinsteggI'm a chemist. I really think I've been one all my life. I tend towards environmental toxicology, for spiritual reasons. I could make a lot more money working for industry, but that wouldn't suit me (or them).
Posted by BeardedLady on November 26, 2002, at 8:06:52
In reply to Re: You brought up margarine, Larry, posted by Larry Hoover on November 24, 2002, at 18:43:22
> Years ago, McDonalds used to fry their french fries in beef tallow. That was heart neutral. Instead, now they use a vegetable blend full of trans fats and polyunsaturates, which decompose on heating. Beef tallow good. Vegetable shortening bad. McDonald's stupid.
McDonald's not stupid. McDonald's sued. By vegetarians who ate those beef-laden fries. That's why the recipe was changed. (That's why the fries used to taste good and don't taste good now!)
> You might want to consider looking at the Atkins diet. High-protein. High-fat. Low carb. Obesity is linked to high carb intake, even on calorie restricted plans. The low-fat diet is collapsing under the weight of contrary evidence. The emperor has no clothes.
You are right. I cut out bread and pasta, and I lost ten pounds. Here is the best article I've ever seen on diet.
http://www.mercola.com/2002/jul/24/carbs1.htmI think Mercola's probably a bozo, but he reprinted this article from the New York Times magazine. I have the actual article at home and have read it a couple of times. I think it's brilliant.
This site has it divided into two parts. You'll have to get the link to part two from the part one site, but it agrees that the Atkins diet is the most sound, though it is very hard to convince yourself, never mind the rest of the world, that eating a big sausage and fried eggs is good for you.
beardy
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 26, 2002, at 14:17:01
In reply to McDonald's and Big Fat Lie article about fat » Larry Hoover, posted by BeardedLady on November 26, 2002, at 8:06:52
> > Years ago, McDonalds used to fry their french fries in beef tallow. That was heart neutral. Instead, now they use a vegetable blend full of trans fats and polyunsaturates, which decompose on heating. Beef tallow good. Vegetable shortening bad. McDonald's stupid.
>
> McDonald's not stupid. McDonald's sued. By vegetarians who ate those beef-laden fries. That's why the recipe was changed. (That's why the fries used to taste good and don't taste good now!)The recipe was changed long before the lawsuit:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134291061_mcdonalds02m0.html
> > You might want to consider looking at the Atkins diet. High-protein. High-fat. Low carb. Obesity is linked to high carb intake, even on calorie restricted plans. The low-fat diet is collapsing under the weight of contrary evidence. The emperor has no clothes.
>
> You are right. I cut out bread and pasta, and I lost ten pounds. Here is the best article I've ever seen on diet.
> http://www.mercola.com/2002/jul/24/carbs1.htmThe original Taubes article is here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/07FAT.html
> I think Mercola's probably a bozo, but he reprinted this article from the New York Times magazine. I have the actual article at home and have read it a couple of times. I think it's brilliant.
Mercola is on the beneficial side of the line, but some of his remarks are quackery.
> This site has it divided into two parts. You'll have to get the link to part two from the part one site, but it agrees that the Atkins diet is the most sound, though it is very hard to convince yourself, never mind the rest of the world, that eating a big sausage and fried eggs is good for you.
>
> beardyThe Atkins Foundation has a website, but it's very busy right now....on the verge of crashing I think. Can't handle the load?
atkinscenter.com
Full of information, but perhaps a little biased (as in right, maybe?).
Lar
Posted by BeardedLady on November 26, 2002, at 14:58:37
In reply to Re: McDonald's and Big Fat Lie article about fat, posted by Larry Hoover on November 26, 2002, at 14:17:01
you have to be a member, and I didn't have the time to sign up (and didn't think others would, just to read the article).
Thanks for clearing up about McDonald's. I thought they only recently changed the recipe.
beardy
Posted by bubblegumchewer on November 26, 2002, at 21:30:37
In reply to Thanks for the article link, but... » Larry Hoover, posted by BeardedLady on November 26, 2002, at 14:58:37
I was going to get a little worried if you thought Mercola was a god or something. He makes some points, but...
Have you ever read quackwatch.com? I love that website.
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 26, 2002, at 22:39:40
In reply to Thanks for the quackery comment...., posted by bubblegumchewer on November 26, 2002, at 21:30:37
> I was going to get a little worried if you thought Mercola was a god or something. He makes some points, but...
>
> Have you ever read quackwatch.com? I love that website.Yes, but there is a lot of bias at quackwatch too. There out to be a quackwatchwatch.
Posted by BeardedLady on November 27, 2002, at 7:32:48
In reply to Re: Thanks for the quackery comment...., posted by Larry Hoover on November 26, 2002, at 22:39:40
Quackwatch has doctors in it that I don't find to be quacks just because, for example, they thing recreational drug use is a mind opener. Imagaine that.
But Mercola, though his good diet ideas make sense, he is full of silly no-nos--things to avoid that one can't really avoid. You'd have to have all new toilet paper, if it were up to him.
beardy
Posted by disney4 on November 28, 2002, at 8:08:18
In reply to Re: In addition to fish oil..., posted by Larry Hoover on November 25, 2002, at 10:33:07
Hi Larry,
I read a thread where someone mentioned you helped them with magnesium info, as well as fish oil, but when I ran a search, it did not show up. I have my own question about it, and I know you are most knowledgable about research subjects! I hope you are not getting overwhelmed by everyone's questions!
I take a slow releasing form of magnesium called Mag-Tab SR. It is distributed by Niche Pharmeceuticals, yet available over the counter as it is a supplement. I originally took it to help with medication side effect headaches, but I am no longer taking that med. There is magnesium in my multi, so I am wondering if continuing the slow release form is over kill. From studies I have read, it can provide some anxiety relief, as well as digestive support, so I have continued it. What is your take on the subject?
Thanks, Elsie
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 28, 2002, at 8:40:46
In reply to Re: In addition to fish oil... » Larry Hoover, posted by disney4 on November 28, 2002, at 8:08:18
> Hi Larry,
>
> I read a thread where someone mentioned you helped them with magnesium info, as well as fish oil, but when I ran a search, it did not show up. I have my own question about it, and I know you are most knowledgable about research subjects! I hope you are not getting overwhelmed by everyone's questions!I don't mind the questions. They help keep me focussed on doing the right things for me. I'm your classic absent-minded-(ex)-professor type.
> I take a slow releasing form of magnesium called Mag-Tab SR.
Slow-release is good, provided it does all its release before it gets out of the system. I haven't heard of slow-release magnesium before.
>It is distributed by Niche Pharmeceuticals, yet available over the counter as it is a supplement. I originally took it to help with medication side effect headaches, but I am no longer taking that med. There is magnesium in my multi, so I am wondering if continuing the slow release form is over kill.
No. Most people (estimated at 90% in U.S.) are magnesium-deficient. Stress of any sort increases the demand further. Most mental illnesses are stressful.
>From studies I have read, it can provide some anxiety relief, as well as digestive support, so I have continued it. What is your take on the subject?
> Thanks, ElsieThe anxiety relief arises from modulation of NMDA receptors. That's a good thing, for a lot of reasons. Digestive support arises from the co-enzyme status of magnesium in the formation of stomach acid. Magnesium takes part in over 300 different enzyme reactions which we know of.
Posted by petroranger on December 2, 2003, at 1:48:02
In reply to FISH OIL, EPA, DHA , posted by freedom2001 on November 22, 2002, at 1:34:44
i'm studying about enrichment of DHA in fish oil.If this is of interest to you, I'd love to hear of anything you come across.
Posted by petroranger on December 3, 2003, at 19:21:10
In reply to In addition to fish oil... , posted by Pfinstegg on November 22, 2002, at 14:44:10
is there anybody have an idea in enrichment of omega-3 in fish oil...
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.