HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Calcium/Magnesium
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 08:15:08 GMT

From article <1992Dec30.054649.19891@spdcc.com>, by dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer):
> In article <altar.725683440@sfu.ca> altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar) writes:
>>It seems to be yours as you don't bother to cite your references
>>but simply burden the reader to take your word for it.
> 
> That's because everything I've said is part of the general literature.
> There's nothing esoteric here; read any reference on vitamin, calcium
> and steroid metabolism.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary
> references; common knowledge does not.  As I've said before, it isn't
> my job to tutor your out of your base ignorance; ignorance seemingly
> sufficient to make any claim, however dumb, to sound plausible, especially
> if it's repeated to you by someone who sounds authoritative.
> 
>>Nor have you provided any discursive or factual evidence for your unseemly
>>name-calling of Professor Moon as a "crank".
> 
> Moon's opinion of vitamin D supplementation is decidedly out of the
> mainstream, and his evidence for supplementation's deleterious effects,
> such as it is, is presently very tenuous.  No one with any critical
> faculties would accept his comments at face value.

This sounds familiar.  Several weeks ago you stated that the 
claim made by Ornish, Breslau, Marsh, Johnson, Allen (and many 
others) concerning the impact of protein intake on calcium 
excretion was "controversial at best"...  thereby implying that 
"mainstream" opinion was on your side (as usual).  For some 
strange reason, however, you failed to present any evidence to 
support your side of the argument.  

I won't bother to ask you again for your references, but I wonder if 
you'd mind telling us how the "mainstream" opinion against Moon's 
"crank" hypothesis stacks up against the "mainstream" opinion against 
the aforementioned "crank" hypothesis set forth by Ornish et al? 

> ...
>>Ok, so you've had a 20 year interest in pharmacology, but I take
>>it that you don't actually have any degree of any kind in
>>pharmacology?  Is that right?

> No degree.  Three courses at Harvard Medical School, which I took out
> of my own interest.  So what?

Thanks for your honesty.  I'm beginning to understand why you 
typically make a point of labeling your critics pejoratively
as "ankle biters" while portraying your own position as "mainstream".

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
From: young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: Calcium/Magnesium
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@clpd.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 23:29:20 GMT

In article <altar.725666594@sfu.ca> altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar) writes:
>Rich Young writes:
>
>>	I believe he already did that which you ask in his previous rebuttal
>>	of your interpretation of Moon's study in r.f.v.
>

[...ravings deleted...]

>Instead, we are asked to take Mr. Dyer's word for it that
>Professor Moon is a crank.  Ok, then in that case I would like know what
>Mr. Dyer's credentials are.  Does he have a PhD from accredited 
>university?  Has he any publications?  Has even a graduate degree of
>any kind?

	As I said, I believe he gave you all that in the r.f.v. exchange;
	if you've subsequently forgotten, it's not Mr. Dyer's duty to
	refresh your memory on demand.

	Not that it matters, of course, since truth or falsity cannot be
	determined by credentials alone.  After all, Nobel laureate Linus
	Pauling still thinks massive doses of vitamin C can cure/prevent
	the common cold.

>Second, no rebuttal of my "interpretation" occurred since at that time
>no one had even read the study except for myself.

	Indeed, then it HAD to be a rebuttal of your "interpretation," for the
	very reason that no one but you had yet read Moon's study.  As I
	recall, several people read it shortly thereafter, however.

>Instead, all that I saw were the mere quibbles about terms and vilification
>of a an accomplished researcher and professor of toxicology/nutrition teaching
>at a major Canadian University.  Hardly a very credible "refutation".

	Oh, I don't know as I agree with that...it was fairly well established
	that your frenetic references to "anabolic steroids" were, shall we
	say, "misguided."  It was also fairly well established that the mere
	fact that calciferol is a steroid is not a heart-stopping revelation.
	And it was fairly well established that it was fortification of food
	with vitamin D which essentially eliminated rickets from the Western
	world.  Sounds like a credible "refutation" to me.  But if all you
	saw was quibbling and vilification, then you were clearly not reading
	the rebuttals in a calm and considered manner and you might well have
	overlooked the portions which dealt with credentials and information.
	As I recall, you left in a self-righteous huff to go nurse your
	wounds in GRANOLA for several weeks right after said rebuttal.

	By the way, how many times did Moon use the phrase "anabolic
	steroid" in his paper?  How many times did _you_ use the phrase
	"anabolic steroid" in your "interpretation" of his paper?

	[Yes, these are "trick" questions; the answer to the first is "zero,"
		and the answer to the second is not.  You did not serve Dr.
		Moon at all well in your "interpretation."]


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Calcium/Magnesium
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 23:36:14 GMT

From article <1992Dec31.095617.9424@spdcc.com>, by dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer):
> Well, I have credentials: I have a masters degree in computer science.
> I made a choice early on that I wanted to do this; it's far more lucrative
> and equally as interesting as a career in pharmacology.  But I love pharma-
> cology, too, and keep up with it constantly.  I just prefer to make my
> living with computers.  But I'll let my record of posting on the topic of
> pharmacology stand on its own; anyone with a PhD in pharmacology or an MD
> would be proud to have the same record.

Proud of posting on usenet???  

I'm happy that you're around Steve, but posting umpteen passages/week 
from the Merck Manual or the PDR (for years on end) isn't the 
sort of thing that most MD's would consider a mark of special 
distinction.   

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
From: la1002@albnyvms.bitnet (Clover M.)
Subject: Re: Why organic?
Reply-To: la1002@albnyvms.bitnet
Organization: University of NY at Albany
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 02:09:02 GMT

I don't have the information exactly, but I think it may have been
from _Silent Spring_ by Rachel Carson...

   
Clover
la1002@albnyvms.bitnet
This is my very first sig.file

Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
From: la1002@albnyvms.bitnet
Subject: Re: Why organic?
Reply-To: la1002@albnyvms.bitnet
Organization: University of NY at Albany
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 92 06:58:30 GMT

Oh, I forgot one thing.
 
I don't know if this is still done, but I would assume so.
}i}i
Banks used to give loans more freely to those farmers who use
more pesticides. I object to this type of manipulation very
strongly.

Clover
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Re: Calcium/Magnesium
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 18:37:35 GMT

mazur@bluefin.camb.inmet.com (Beth Mazur) writes:

>In <altar.725818087@sfu.ca> altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar) writes:
>>Steve, this is not an academic forum where proper peer review occurs,
>>this is not an scientific journal, it is merely an electronic
>>conference of intelligent laypersons, yourself included.  

>What this really is, Ted, is anarchy.  What this means is that I must 
>tolerate your insipid attempts to defend the honor of Dr. Moon (if I
>read the word "vilify" one more time I'll puke).  

Don't do that Beth, it's bad for your teeth as the hydrochloric acid
from the stomach can actually etch your teeth when vomited up. ;-)

Now, in the passage above that you cite, I don't see the word "vilify".
Is this what you mean by anarchy?  ;-)

					Happy New Year,
						ted

.



>Beth Mazur                   "...life is more than a vision.  The sweetest
>mazur@inmet.inmet.com         part is acting after making a decision."
>...!uunet!inmet!mazur                                  -- The Indigo Girls
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Re: Calcium/Magnesium
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 22:24:08 GMT

dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:

>In article <silver.724547658@sfu.ca> silver@fraser.sfu.ca (Craig Silver) writes:
>>This is a message I sent to the man who wanted more information
>>(cpr4k@holmes.acc.Virginia.EDU (Christian P. Roberts)).  If you'd like
>>me to go into it more, let me know and I'll tell you what I know.

>You mean you'll repeat some very fringe theories of Jim Moon, eminent
>crackpot, SFU.

Care to reveal to us exactly what eminent credentials you might
happen to have earned?

Whatever your unfounded personal opinion might be of professor Moon,
he at least has published papers in respectable scientific journals,
has no need to engage in callow calumnies of his opponents, is a
professor of nutrition at Simon Fraser University, teaches advanced
courses on nutrition, and is an expert on calciferol.  

Again, what are your credentials such that they entitle you to
resort to mere name-calling instead of discursive argumentation
and referenced facts?
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
Subject: How do we know natural foods have more good stuff than bad?
Date: 3 Jan 93 18:09:14 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Boston

I've lost the post I am following up to, but someone asked how we know
that substances in food that haven't been thoroughly researched are
more likely to be good for us rather than bad for us.
  There are of course some "bad for us" compounds in foods. There are
soem foods which eaten in large quantities can make you ill. Some
fruit seeds contain poisons, and I have heard claims that alfalfa
sprouts can be toxic to some individuals in very large doses. 
   Other "natural" diets may be out of balance.
  However, overall, the evidence is that we are evolved to fit our
diets. I find it highly unlikely that our bodies would need substances
not in food (although I find it likely that in the transition from the
4,000-plus calorie diet of our ancestor's to today's 2,000 calorie
diets, some requirements might not be met)
  The evidence that we DO need the trace substances in our diets is
circumstantial but highly probable, IMHO. The more we learn about the
body, the more we have discovered about the complexities of our
chemical processes, the more roles we have foudn for trace vitamins
and minerals. It seems highly unlikely to me that we will have found
out exactly what our vitamin needs are until our understanding of our 
biochemistry is complete.
  A few hundred years ago, people were figuring out the dietary
requirements that prevented gross damage: Vitamin C against scurvy,
Iodine against goiter, Vitamin A against some types of blindness, etc.
Today's science is linking other vitamins with other disorders. We've
certainly reached the point where we've identified most of the
vitamins necessary for life. A person who only eats processed,
"enriched" foods with a fiber supplement will live...but may get any
number of digestive and cardiac problems. People who eat "whole" foods
(who admittedly also usually couple them with exercise) seem to have
fewer health problems. I doubt that we'll make startling new
discoveries about trace vitamins that make a life-or-death difference,
(except possibly for individuals with rare sensitivities or
deficiencies) but there does seem to be an overall difference.
  Eat veggies and brown rice and tofu and fruit and whole wheat bread
and just a little oil for two months. Report back! Then eat white
bread and canned foods and frozen veggies and bran-fortified cereal
and meat for another two months. I *have* tried this , eating the
latter for two years then the veggies for two years (ah, roommates who
cook!) Big differences!

--
System Administrator                  Internet: betsys@cs.umb.edu
MACS Dept, UMass/Boston               Phone   : 617-287-6448
100 Morrissey Blvd                    Staccato signals
Boston, MA 02125-3393                      of constant information....
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
From: an1060@anon.penet.fi
Subject: Protein Supplementation??
Organization: Anonymous contact service
X-Anonymously-To: sci.med.nutrition
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 16:36:17 GMT

X-Anon-To: sci.med.nutrition


Hello All,

I have a question or two about protein supplementation.

I once read, in a bodybuilding magazine, that bodybuilders require
about twice as much protein as do "ordinary" people.  More specifically,
the average person needs about 1 gram of protein for each kilogram of
body weight, whereas bodybuilders require 1.5 to 2 grams per kg. of
bodyweight.  Is this true??  It seems reasonable to me since 
bodybuilding causes muscle tearing, and protein is needed to repair
and strengthen the muscles.

Also, what form of protein supplementation is best (aside from a well
balanced diet).  How are the protein powders that once can buy at places
like the GNC??

Many thanks in advance...

Abe

mantell@ams.sunysb.edu


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind system, any replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
From: billd@informix.com (William Daul)
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
Subject: Re: sea salt versus "table" salt
Date: 30 Dec 92 19:59:56 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In <1992Dec30.180255.20998@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> kalin@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (andrew.j.kalinowitsch) writes:


>are there any health benefits derived from using
>sea salt over regular table salt?

>and what's so bad about table salt anyway?

>[followups to sci.med.nutrition]


FROM WHAT I HEARD OVER THE YEARS....

sodium chloride = sodium chloride     :-)

If I am wrong, let me know...

--Bill
-- 
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 William Daul             Advanced Support      INFORMIX SOFTWARE INC.
 4100 Bohannon Dr.        (415) 926-6488 - wk
 Menlo Park, CA. 94025    uunet!infmx!billd  or  billd@informix.com
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
From: behnke@FNALF.FNAL.GOV
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
Subject: Re: Content of fat in different kinds of meats
Date: 28 Dec 92 18:31:47 GMT
Reply-To: behnke@FNALF.FNAL.GOV
Distribution: usa
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalf.fnal.gov

In article <1992Dec24.064426.15701@sarah.albany.edu>, la1002@albnyvms.bitnet writes:
>I have read in several places that if you cook chicken with skin and
>remove it before eating it, it has no more fat than removing it before
>cooking.

I heard it just the opposite.  Remove skin, THEN cook, as majority of fat is
found in skin.  Cooking with skin on allows fat from skin to leach into what is
normally low fat meat.


mb

My opinions are my own, and MOST of them don't mean a thing !

mb
From: mary@Cayman.COM (Mary Malmros)
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
Subject: Re: Content of fat in different kinds of meats
Date: 29 Dec 92 14:15:18 GMT
	<1hnh6jINNm4q@fnnews.fnal.gov>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Cayman Systems Inc., Cambridge, MA
In-reply-to: behnke@FNALF.FNAL.GOV's message of 28 Dec 92 18:31:47 GMT


In article <1hnh6jINNm4q@fnnews.fnal.gov> behnke@FNALF.FNAL.GOV writes:

   In article <1992Dec24.064426.15701@sarah.albany.edu>, la1002@albnyvms.bitnet writes:
   >I have read in several places that if you cook chicken with skin and
   >remove it before eating it, it has no more fat than removing it before
   >cooking.

   I heard it just the opposite.  Remove skin, THEN cook, as majority of fat is
   found in skin.  Cooking with skin on allows fat from skin to leach into what is
   normally low fat meat.

According to an article that I read in the Boston Globe last year, 
if you cook chicken with the skin on and then remove it before eating, 
the fat content will be just slightly higher than if it is cooked
without skin.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Mary Malmros     | Cayman Systems Inc, 26 Landsdowne St, Cambridge, MA 02139
 mary@cayman.com  | Phone 617-494-1999  Fax 617-494-5167  AppleLink CAYMAN.TECH

Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
From: la1002@albnyvms.bitnet
Subject: Re: Milk allergies
Reply-To: la1002@albnyvms.bitnet
Organization: University of NY at Albany
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 92 06:51:03 GMT

Another safe way to tell whether something has dairy in it is to look
for Kosher food and if it has a "D" next to the kosher symbol, it 
contains dairy.  No "D" symbol or the word "Pareve" means no milk or
meat in it.

Clover
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
From: searsk@med.ge.com (Kevin D. Sears)
Subject: LDL Reduction via Grapes
Followup-To: sci.med.nutrition
Organization: GE Medical Systems
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 93 12:26:01 GMT

A short time ago, someone posted a comment that the key ingredient to lower
LDL was in the grape skin; therefore, grape juice was even a better product
than grape-based wines.

Could the person who posted this send me the info?

In regards to grape juice, are all juices created equal(frozen vs whatever
or brand name)?

Who: Kevin D. Sears-searsk@med.ge.com
What: System and Network Admin(a.k.a "Sr. Maintenance Droid")
Where: GE Medical Systems
Disclaimer: I know nothing for sure but I sure try hard!
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
From: mrl@nerus.pfc.mit.edu
Subject: RE: Why organic?
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 20:24:12 GMT

In a previous article, jil@uts.uucp (Jamie Lubin) wrote:
>In article <1hatusINNenp@hpsdlss3.sdd.hp.com> sandipan@sdd.hp.com (Sandipan B.) writes:
>>Yesterday, I was comparing the nutritional info. on two cereals. One
>>was a brand name "frosted flakes" (ff) and the other wholly organic 
>>whole wheat cereal (ww). Now, ff had better nutrients (per serving of
>>1 oz.) than ww without exception. 
>>
>>Now the question is why organic? I mean, when ff has better nutrients
>>(and tastes better..), then why do all the experts put these items
>>on the "don't eat" list.
>>
>>Well, it sure sounds like FAQ (doesn't it?) so excuse me for that! and
>>reply thru e-mail (pointers are welcome, too).
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>-sb
> 
>I agree with the previous responders points re "organic" (pesticides, etc.),
>but wanted to add another slant.  You mention that "ff" had better nutrients
>than "ww."  First of all, I assume that "ff" had a higher sugar content than
>"ww"--which means it had better anti-nutrients.  Secondly, the "higher"
>nutrient content of the "ff" comes from stripping away most of the original
>whole wheat nutrients & adding back some synthetics--not too desirable in
>my book.  By adding these synthetics, the "ff" when compared with the outdated
>RDAs, appears to be nutritious.

I've read that some nutrients, i.e. magnesium, are not added back in.

Mark London
MRL@NERUS.PFC.MIT.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: Calcium/Magnesium
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 22:32:37 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.214838.21657@netcom.com> artemis@netcom.com (Michelle Dick) writes:
>Unless he's changed his tune recently, Ornish pushes a very-low-fat
>vegetarian diet that includes nonfat milk products and egg whites.
>John McDougall is the low-fat vegan guru-doctor.

He doesn't push veganism per se, but I came away from his books with the
impresion that it was better if people stayed off dairy products entirely,
but grudgingly allowed for nonfat products and egg whites.  I don't disagree
with your assessment, though.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
From: craig@cs.toronto.edu (Craig MacDonald)
Subject: FAQ (?)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 23 Dec 92 02:34:14 GMT

I am interested in a program that calculates the deficiencies in a
diet and gives recommendations based on a dbase of basic foods and
their nutrients.  If this is a FAQ is there an ftp site.


Craig (craig@cs.toronto.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
From: donb@crash.cts.com (Donald Bowen)
Subject: purines
Organization: CTS Network Services (crash, ctsnet), El Cajon, CA
Date: 22 Dec 92 17:04:37 GMT

	I am looking for a source listing the purine content of foods.
I know organ meats are high as are some green leafy vegatables.  The
problem is that I do not know the relative content.  I have a problem
with purines and need to reduce intake.

	DonB
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: Calcium/Magnesium
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 04:27:03 GMT

In article <C05DKE.4FH@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>I'm happy that you're around Steve, but posting umpteen passages/week 
>from the Merck Manual or the PDR (for years on end) isn't the 
>sort of thing that most MD's would consider a mark of special 
>distinction.   

You must undoubtedly be confusing me with Ted Altar.  I do not post
material from other sources.  Everything I write is original, based
on my knowledge of the subject.


-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition,bionet.followup,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Squalene abstracts/citations
Date: 30 Dec 92 21:46:17 GMT
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA

In article <1992Dec30.210551.7145@ncsa.uiuc.edu> billp@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Bill Pottenger) writes:
>Secondly, I have the results of a (commercial) data base search through
>such databases as EMBASE, PASCAL,LIFE SCIENCES COLLECTION, etc, but this
>simply lists databases which contain some (any) reference to squalene, and
>doesn't give the abstracts or citations (at least not without additional
>$$$) and I'm wondering if there isn't some other way to access this kind
>of information without going through the commercial databases.

All of the Internet-accessible databases cost money, much as you would
expect.  Sometimes this $$$ is invisible, but all those I know of which
you can access here require a password and bill you for your searches.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition