From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Re: Calcium/Magnesium
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 03:28:45 GMT

Ted Wayn Altar writes:

>	>With respect to "vitamin D" being an ANABOLIC SECO-STEROID
>	>HORMONE or simply a SECO-STEROID HORMONE, this is really a
>	>silly quibble.  
>
>It's not a silly quibble, because the word "anabolic" is being used as
>propaganda.

I beg to differ.  Here's why.  The words "steroid", hormone", 
seco-steroid hormon" etc. can be use, as you say, for "propandandistic" 
purposes since in the public mind there are immediate negative 
associations, right or wrong, about even these terms.  We don't 
have to invoke the term, "anabolic", to arouse uninformed fears.  
Conversely, the term "vitamin" immediately carries for the public 
the positive assoications, right or wrong,  of something good, 
necessary and safe.  One could, therefore, equally argue that 
calling caliciferol a vitamin, a hormone, a steroid hormone, is 
also propaganda.  Hence, it was Moon's sensible recommendation:

"to avoid confusion that might lead to excessive self-administration, 
the more correct hormone name, `calciferol,' rather than the common 
name, `vitamin D,' be used for labelling purposes"

Now, such a sensible recommendation should not be lost sight of in 
this quibble about the term "anabolic".  



>	>That it is a seco-steroid hormone is not in doubt.
>
>Tell me Ted, what's a "seco-steroid"?  No fair looking at your textbooks.

What is this?  A bully-boy intimidation?  Really, this is quite
irrelevant and it is not in the purpose of this conference for you to be presuming to be the grand inquisitor authorized to bang and bully people over the heads with test questions. 

Now, to play your game, since I would be condemned if I did not play it.  
All that I know from the top of my head is that the prefix "seco" 
pertains to the molecular structure where something about a triene 
system of double bonds exists.  No doubt you will find this woefully 
insufficient, but if there is some relevance to knowing more about 
the term "seco", then I do know how to look things up.  After all, 
if I may be permitted to quote Samual Johnston who said something to 
the effect, "there are 2 kinds of knowledge, to know a thing itself 
and to know where one can find out more about it"  It seems to me 
that this latter kind of knowing is something you show unwarranted 
distain towards.



>
>	>The important point forwarded by Professor Moon, and conveyed by
>	>yourself, is that it is indeed a steroid hormone that has some
>	>associated risks and which is being implicated as possibly
>	>playing a key role in some major diseases like osteoporsis and
>	>atherosclerosis.
>
>Duh!  This is moronic.  Even if vitamin D could be implicated in the
>etiology of osteoporosis or atherosclerosis, it's not because it's
>a steroid.

I didn't say that "BECAUSE" it was a steroid hormone therefore the
associated risks.  Rather, only that this steroid hormone HAS some 
assoicated risks.  You keep setting up Straw Man arguments by this 
repeated failure to read more carefully what was actually said.


>
>Let me explain Moon's sleight of hand here (it can't be Ted's because
>it's beyond his knowledge):  Corticosteroids can cause osteoporosis
>when used in therapeutic doses.  Anabolic steroids (male sex hormones)
>affect blood lipids adversely, and long term use (or being a male) is
>associated with atherosclerosis.  Therefore, we must be wary of
>calciferol, which is also a steroid.  Needless to say, Moon doesn't really
>believe this, because it's faulty logic based on a faulty understanding
>of the actions of steroids.  However, to people who do not know that
>different steroids have wildly different physiological effects, this
>can be persuasive.  It persuaded Ted, didn't it?  Think of him as your
>typical ignorant individual who is easily swayed by propaganda.

Boy, what a misreading and misrepresentation this is!  
Unbelievable! 

Craig provided a good summary of the proposed vitamin D 
mechanism involved in making for a faulty Ca homeostasis, that 
in turn may be is a key factor in the the development of these 
the two seemingly unrelated diseases, osteoporosis and atherosclerosis.
You've completely ignored what Craig ably presented and what
Professor Moon himself says in his paper.

The just first part of his four part paper, Moon considers the the role 
of soft tissue calcification in atherosclerosis.  He begins by point 
out how some of the mechanisms involved in aortic tissue calcification 
are similar to what occurs in bone mineraliztion.  Some other 
things to considerations that Moon cites to support his general
thesis include:


- Ca channel blockers protect against atheroscleroisis & IHD
- vitamin D steroidally induces the production of calcium-binding 
   proteins (which is only one of the proteins induced by vitamin
   D), and such calcium-binding protein is thought to be a factor
   in the movement of Ca accross the lumen of the intestine.
- vitamin D excess directly causes arterial calcification
- laboratory experiments have showned that EITHER high cholesterol
    OR high vitamin D diets can produce atherosclerosis, AND 
    together this effect is synergistically accentuated.
- the closes approximation of experimentally produced arterial
    disease is produced only when vitamin D, cholesterol and
    nicotine are used together.  
- Mg deficiency and vitamin D excess also synergistically induce
    experimental aterial calcification
- vitamin D excess and Mg deficit result in abnormal lipid 
    metabolism.  Vitamin D by itself has been implicated as
    hypercholesterolemic in humans.
    hypercholesteremia or with nicotthe 3 vasotoxic factors moderate 
    vitamin D excess along

What Moon has said is not at all what you have claimed.  And this is
just the first part of his 4 part paper.  


>
>	>For example, in de Gruyter's  "Concise Encyclopedia of
>	>Biochemistry, 2nd ed., 1985", the following:
>	>     ANABOLIC STEROIDS:  a group of synthetic steroids which
>	>      stimulate the production of body protein.
>	>This is referred to as the "anabolic effect" and no mention is
>	>made that the kinds of protein have to be only those involved in
>	>muscle tissue, although for the gonadal steroid hormones it is,
>	>or at least that is how their anabolic effect is measured (the
>	>so-called Hershberg test).
>
>Amazing how it's possible to rehash this same stuff over and over again.

Amazing how all you've offered in turn is mere nay-saying, personal
insults and the sole argument, "I say so".  At least I provided a 
*referenced* definition and one that allows the thoughful reader to 
make up their own mind.  No need to take my word for it.



>Ted's approach is to just keep repeating his argument again and again
>until people wear down from exhaustion.  

More personal attacks, but no discursive argument.


>However, he seems impervious to correction. 

Not at all.  I've freely admitted to when I have been wrong and
duly corrected.  You do have a short memory!  Of course, I don't
meekly concede to your persistent personal attacks since they,
plain and simple, do not constitute a relevant argument worth 
considering, and they certainly don't evince rationality and
fact.



> His inability to understand what he reads due to his
>limited background hasn't changed at all.

Odd when that you should say this.   I've now documented a
number of occasions when you have misconstrued and misread
what even I've said, let alone what Dr. Moon has said.


>...
>People should always be wary of "argument from dictionary definitions".
>It usually means that the person opening the dictionary doesn't know what
>he's talking about.

If I may be permitted to copy your poor style of argumentation to help 
show how very useless it is:

People should always be wary of "ex cathedra" pronoucements.
It usually means that the person pontificating doesn't know what 
he's talking about and can't countenance being contradicted..



>
>	>I had posted elsewhere the following from Anthony Norman (chpt. 6
>	>of "Vitamin D Molecular Biology & Clinical Nutrition, edited by
>	>Anthony Norman, 1980), who is leading expert on the biochemistry
>	>of vitamin D.  Norman tells us that 1,25-(OH)2-vitamin D:
>	>      has specific cells in target
>	>      organs with specific receptor proteins; the receptor-ligand
>	>      complex moves to the nucleus where it binds to the chromatin
>	>      and stimulates the transcription of particular genes to
>	>      produce specific RNAs which code for the synthesis of
>	>      specific proteins.
>	>What we have, then is the hormone stimulated production of
>	>calcium binding protein, which then can result in macro skeletal
>	>changes.  So by de Gruyter's definition as it stands, it would
>	>seem that vitamin D can be considered as a steroid hormone having
>	>anabolic effects, hence a anabolic steroid hormone.
>
>Wrong.  He's not claiming that it's an anabolic steroid.  

You missed the point.  Norman is simply describing some of the 
biological response mechanisms of this steroid substance.  I'm 
simply applying Normans description to de Gruyter's definition. 

>. . .
>By your useless definition, hydrocortisone or prednisone are "anabolic
>steroids", since they behave in exactly this way.  In fact, they cause
>nitrogen excretion and loss of lean tissue; they are "catabolic".

I'm sorry, but it is not my definition but de Gruyter's, nor are
you making a case that hydrocortisone or prednisone fit de Grutyer's
definition.  Quite the opposite.



>
>	>In some biochemical dictionaries, the definition is even less
>	>well-circumcribed, as in J. Stenesh, "Dictionary of
>	>Biochemistry", 1975, where the term "anabolic" is simply defined
>	>as "pertaining to anabolism" which in turn is defined as:
>	>     1.  the phase of intermediary metabolism that encompasses
>	>      the biosynthetic and energy-requiring reactions whereby cell
>	>      components are produced.  2.  The cellular assimilation of
>	>      macromolecules and complex substances from low-molecular
>	>      weight precursors.
>	>Given Norman's passage above, we again have something that
>	>qualifies under this definition as "anabolic".  Also, there there
>	>are dozens of articles on the stimulation of cell growth and
>	>differentiation under the influence of calciferol.
>
>So what?  This is not what the term "anabolic steroid" means.

Again, this "I say so" is really not much of a REASON for why we 
should now meekly genuflect to your authority on this matter.



>
>	>Indeed, it seems that Anthony Norman takes it for granted that
>	>all steroid hormones are "anabolic", with one exception:
>	>
>	>     "there is an ever-increasing body of inferential evidence
>	>      that suggests that ALL steroids, including 2,15-IOH)2-D3,
>	>      act by a similar pathway to produce a similar set of general
>	>      effects.  With the exception of the glucocorticoids, which
>	>      produce both ANABOLIC and catabolic effects, tissue
>	>      responses to all steroid hormones are characterized by a
>	>      general increase in metabolism that includes RNA, DNA, and
>	>      protein synthesis." (emphasis mine)
>	>           (Anthony Norman, 1980 p. 210)
>
>Note that he didn't say that all steroids are anabolic steroids.  

That's right, he mentions the exception of glucocorticoids.


>To claim
>at the cellular level that a steroid has anabolic effects does not make a
>steroid an anabolic steroid.

So you say.



>
>	>Now, what is this anabolic effect but none other than "a general
>	>increase in metabolism that includes RNA, DNA, and protein
>	>synthesis"?  The glucocortoicoids are then distinguished by their
>	>catabolic effects, not their anabolic effects.
>
>The "anabolic effect" is an increase in lean tissue mass.  Not all steroids
>effect this.  Calciferol most definitely does not.
>
This is your definition, no reference given.  



>	>Now if the only argument given here on the net is merely one that
>	>amounts to simply saying "I say so", then the expert I choose is
>	>Professor J. Moon over that of someone, say, who has not
>	>published anything in a scientific journal on vitamin D and only
>	>has a BSc in biology.  Some such criterion has to be employed if
>	>we are to decided between differing views with the information at hand.
>
>Snort.  When you're ignorant, everything sounds equally authoritative.

Another fine example of discursive reasoning.  ;-(


>
>	>Also, I think we should modestly observe that scientific terms
>	>are not rigid entities written in stone, but are evolving
>	>concepts which are not always used in exactly the same manner by
>	>every expert. While most if not all endrocrinologists may use the
>	>term anabolic to refer in their practice only to the male gonadal
>	>hormones, this does not preclude a wider usage by other experts
>	>in other fields.
>
>Snort.  It most certainly does.  "Anabolic steroid" is a very precise term.
>To use it in other contexts, specifically in the context of vitamin D toxicity,
>indicates an intention to deceive and to mislead.

Again, all we have here is merely an inflated "I say so" type 
of argument.


>
>	>Frankly, I think this quibble is best left to the experts proper.
>
>But not before you get the last word, Ted?  How many times are you going
>to repeat yourself?

You're seem to be doing a fine job of repeating you mere "snorts" 
and gunts of disproval.  Repetition is indeed adds nothing to
the authority of your claims.




>
>	>Our task on this conference, I think, is the more humble one
>	>where we sincerely seek to find, understand (as best we can), and
>	>share and report upon some interesting findings and implications
>	>about things pertaining to nutrition.
>
>Pardon me while I puke.  Ted, you're a pompous ass, and your fatuous
>claim of humility is simply disingenuousness.  It's nauseating.

You're pardoned.   Steve, it is passing strange that you should
so violently take objection to my mere posting of a summary of
Dr. Moon's thesis and my taking objection to your glib dismissal
of Professor Moon as a mere "crank".  That you choose to go even 
further and engage in such hostile personal attacks is even more 
curious.  This is really not warranted by anything I have done or 
said to you.  I do beleive that everyone is free to post what they 
think might be of interest on the net, that everyone is entitled to 
voice their best thoughts and opinions about things.  Even by the 
minimal usernet standards of civility, this kind of rude name-calling 
and personal attack is not acceptable behaviour, yet you persist. 
One might think that you actually enjoy this kind of thing.


>. . .
>	>Again, I don't presume to be infallible in my reportage, but the
>	>kinds of criticisms we've seen so far directed to what I thought
>	>would be an interesting report, have for the most part been
>	>either simply unseemly personal attacks or unreferenced counter-
>	>claims.
>
>The man can't read, either.

Thanks, you've just made my point once again.

Now, is there any hope that you can bury your hatchet?

                                       ted



Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition