From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Re: Calcium/Magnesium
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:07:45 GMT

Ted Wayn Altar writes:
>   >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.

Steve Dyer replies:
>It helps.  "Anabolic" gets its associations in connection with
>the misuse of anabolic steroids by athletes and would-be athletes.

Well, if you do a survey I think you would find that most of
the public merely thinks of those athletes as abusing
steroid hormones per se; the extra modifier "anabolic" being neither
here nor there for them.  In any case, associations one way
or another will occur.  One can either pander to the public
sensibility or attempt to educate it.  The current designation
of calciferol as "vitamin D" is neither necessary nor justified
nor in the best interests of public health.

>   >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.

>You can call it a vitamin (though many would argue with this--however,
>it's at least common usage), or a prohormone or a steroid hormone.  None of
>these are incorrect, whatever their utility as "propaganda".  Calling
>vitamin D an "anabolic seco-steroid" is simply distortion, for all
>the reasons we've rehashed.  If you called it a "potent hormone
>controlling calcium metabolism", I couldn't argue with you.

There is little advantage in common usage that is "wrong" and
is serving to give calciferol an associated safety and dietary
necessity which it does not have.  Nothing wrong with advancing
and updating scientific terminology, especially as it might
be used by the scientists themselves as their understanding
and knowledge advances.  Dr. Moon has his good reasons for wishing
to group calciferol as an anabolic steroid, but again this
is a moot point.
.

>   >"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".

>Moon is trying to scare people about ordinary supplements of vitamin D.
>He does not seem to be unwilling to use terms which play to irrational
>fears, at least to certain undiscriminating lay audiences.

He is concerned and has his reasons for this concern.  It is his
wish to alert people to what he and others have argued are its
real dangers.  I don't seem him pandering to irrational fears
but rather attempting to rationally disclose the likelihood of
newly associated risk and dangers of so-called "vitamin" D.


>   >>  >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.

>It most definitely IS relevant.  You're repeating something you don't
>understand.  I expect you to take some responsibility for the stuff
>you repeat.  If you don't understand it, you have no business parrotting it.

There are a lot of things that I don't understand, like how a digital
watch works but that doesn't entail that I have no business referring
to what I have been told by the manufactuer as a "digital watch" to
BE a "digital watch".  That you would put such constraints on
what people report from credible sources would make USERnet or
netNEWS no longer a PUBLIC forum for "users" interested in exchanging
"news", "ideas" and "views".  Reporters don't have to be nuclear
scientists to interview such scientists and report on what they
have said.  That you would demean such fair reportage and the
beginnings of understanding as "parrotting" shows a disrepect
for the very process itself in which one becomes informed and comes
to understand in the first place.

You can't tell me that everything you mention you also understand
so fully that everthing completely related to that thing and all
ramification and ties to other field of knowledge you also understand.
There are practical limits to understanding and context, as well as
purpose, properly set limits of "relevance" to what one needs to
understand.

>   >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 [blah blah]...

>If you're going to bandy around a line like "That it is a seco-steroid
>hormone is not in doubt", you had better well know what you're saying.
>In brief, a seco-steroid is one in which the B ring of the characteristic
>4-member steroid ring structure has been broken open.  Calciferol and its
>analogues are the only important members of this family.

I'm bandying about a term that I, at least, have read DIRECTLY from good
authority, like Prof. Anthony Normans, who is arguably the world's
leading expert on the biochemistry of calciferol.  I'm sure a lot
of people bandy about terms they've only heard second hand or from
secondary sources.



>   >>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.

>Listen Ted, if you or Moon repeatedly emphasize that it's a steroid hormone,
>and argue that no steroid hormones are safe to take chronically (shall I
>quote the line and verse for you?), you don't get off by saying that your
>intent is not to smear vitamin D by association.

There is nothing wrong with inference of associated properties given
that something can be classed with other objects that are known to
possess those properties.  But let's be fair, Moon doesn't stop
there but proceeds to justify such an assoication with empirical
and theorectical evidence.

>   >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.

>"may be is"?  Make up your mind.

And why should I?  I'm entitled to reserve a personal opnion but this
is not to be confused with my fair reportage of what was said by
Professor Moon himself.  Of course, I do think he is right and
therefore this "may be is" is merely an appeal for some
open-mindedness towards Professor Moon's thesis.  Since I'm
willing to entertain doubt towards Dr. Moon's thesis, I would
hope that you in turn are willing to entertain acceptance of it.



>The point is that this is a thought
>experiment based on a review of the literature; it's designed to provoke
>thought and suggest further research.  It does not yet resemble any kind
>of evidence which would argue persuasively for a change in current practice.

Nothing wrong with thought experiments, but I think we have more than
a thought experiment.  What we have is a proposed causal mechanism
as part of the causal story for the development of atherosclerosis
and osteoporosis in which so-called "vitamin D" is implicated, at
least with respect to the increased incidence of these two diseases
in Western countries that add calciferol to the general food supply.


>   >The just first part of his four part paper, Moon considers 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

>No one who knows about calcium (and expects to be taken seriously)
>would ever make such an argument.  Calcium channel blockers play no
>role in calcium metabolism at the macro level.  They block calcium
>channels in cell membranes, preventing the slow influx of Ca++ in
>its role as a cellular messenger.  They protect against IHD through
>their role as vasodilators and hypotensive agents in the treatment
>of hypertension; they have no direct effect on atherosclerosis.
>This has absolutely _nothing_ to do with calcium metabolism as regards
>bone resorption, calcification of cholesterol deposits, or blood
>calcium levels.  _Nothing_.

You've ignore that fact that Moon cites Parmley, 1987 ("Calcium channel
blockers and atherogensis" AM J MED, 82(3b):3-8) who does say that Ca
channel blockers exert *some* of their protective effect against IHD by
blocking against aortic Ca deposits.

Second, Moon also cites 4 primary references to point out that Ca channel
blockers do reduce the development of experimental artherosclerosis.

These points Moon makes only to first draw support for the role of Ca in
atherosclerosis.


>   >- 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.

>So what?  This is its function, after all.

Part of the causal story.  Given that this is one of its function, then we
must ask what happens when this function goes awry.


>   >- vitamin D excess directly causes arterial calcification

>So?  The issue is not what happens in excess, it's what happens due
>to public health supplementation.

If it happens in excess in the short run, there is nothing wrong with then
wondering what is going to happen in the long run at lower levels.  Also,
there was the study of Canadian woman that Moon reported that showed them
to be consuming, in total from various sources, excessive "vitamin" D even
by RDA standards.



>   >- laboratory experiments have showned that EITHER high cholesterol
>   >    OR high vitamin D diets can produce atherosclerosis, AND
>   >    together this effect is synergistically accentuated.

>Fine, so?

It all part of the detective story of gathering clues and showing that
Moon's thesis possesses what in the philosophy of science is called the
"comprehesive and conceptual POWER" to unify under a single causal story a
lot of formerly disparate facts and concepts.  This is one of the important
criterions of a good scientific theory..


>   >- the closes approximation of experimentally produced arterial
>   >    disease is produced only when vitamin D, cholesterol and
>   >    nicotine are used together.

>So?

see above.


>   >- Mg deficiency and vitamin D excess also synergistically induce
>   >    experimental aterial calcification

>Great; big deal.  Not at the levels seen in dietary supplementation.

see above


>   >- vitamin D excess and Mg deficit result in abnormal lipid
>   >    metabolism.

>Wow.
>   >Vitamin D by itself has been implicated as
>   >    hypercholesterolemic in humans.

see aove


>In ordinary doses?  Please.

>   >    hypercholesteremia or with nicotthe 3 vasotoxic factors moderate
>   >    vitamin D excess along

>Huh?

see above


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

>Well, you're 0 for 0 so far.

see above



>   >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.

>Believe me Ted, they won't.

No?  Can you be so sure and why risk underestimating the intelligence and
curiosity of net readers?   In point of fact, it turns out that not a few
(yourself included) have now obtained Professor Moon's paper due to my
bothering to post a summary of it (and maybe the flame that you started
also incited interest).  Not a bad achievement in bringing to people's
attention an interesting paper and getting them to read further into this
issue.

You see, I don't want to foster intellectual dependency nor do I think that
the net should EVER be the last place to obtain an opinion on nutrition,
but rather only the first place to prompt further personal INQUIRY and
READING.



>   >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.

>Hardly.  The careful reader will not come to this concludion.

I don't see why not, especially if they now are piqued to read the paper
for themselves and compare what you earlier distainfully said about it.


>   >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..

>Oh, do you think so?  You haven't contradicted anything I've said.
>You simply dredge out misunderstanding and misreading based on rote
>reading without any knowledge of of the material.  When I am contra-
>dicted, I'll be sure to let you know.

You've omitted in the above quote from me to also include the context where
I stated that this was simply "PARROTING" you own style of discourse.  Now,
if you can't take your own medicine, don't give it out.



>   >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.

>Right.  It doesn't apply--it's meaningless.

So you say, but that's all you are doing.  This hardly constitutes a
counter-argument.



>   >>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.

>Hydrocortisone and prednisone act trivially in the same way all steroids
>do, by binding to a cellular receptor which is transported to the nucleus,
>which then causes the expression of certain genes which produce proteins
>which ultimately effect the hormone's physiological effects.  This was your
>so-called argument that any steroid was "anabolic", even those which are not.

Wrong.  Read again what I said.  I drew attention to those facts in that
earlier posting only to first establish that "vitamin D" was indeed a
steroid hormone.  One thing at a time, if you please.


>   >>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.

>Snort.  Ignorance is bliss.


Steve, up to now you were doing very well.  Too bad that you again
couldn't refrain from mere insults instead of discursive and informed
argument.  Still, this is a marked improvement.  :-)







Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition