From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: Calcium/Magnesium
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 08:30:49 GMT

In article <altar.726204525@sfu.ca> altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (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.  

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

	>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.

	>"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"

I have no particular opinion about this.  I do not disagree with it,
though I don't think it would make much difference one way or another.

	>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.

	>>	>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.

	>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.

	>>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.

	>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.  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.

	>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

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_.

	>- 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.

	>- 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.

	>- 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?

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

So?

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

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

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

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

In ordinary doses?  Please.

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

Huh?

	>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.

	>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.

	>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.

	>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 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.

	>>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.

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