HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kenl@origami.cc.bellcore.com (Ken Lehner)
Subject: Re: Prof. Moon et al. on "vitamin" D
Organization: Bellcore
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 19:54:22 GMT

I'd like to think I'm objective, because I know nothing of the subject
being discussed.  I had a few questions and comments about the following
post:

In article <altar.725693071@sfu.ca>, altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar) writes:
|> 
|> Here are some of the concluding remarks from this scholarly paper:
                                                     ^^^^^^^^^

Why did the poster need to include this adjective, after giving the
citation?  Sets off an alarm in my mind.

|>      observation.  Thus, the 10 edition of the US RDAs
|>      concludes:
|>           Since the toxic level of vitamin D may in some
|>           cases be only 5 times the RDA, and there is
|>           evidence that sunlight-stimulated production of the
|>           vitamin active throughout the warm months, dietary
                   ^^^^^
				   missing something?

|>           supplements may be detrimental for the normal
|>           child or adult who drinks at least two glasses of
|>           vitamin D-fortified milk per day.

Did they say that such fortified milk was potentially dangerous?  On the
face of it, the words seem to indicate that this is acceptable.  What's
the difference between such milk and "dietary supplements"?

|> I think we can all agree that we must always be wary and
|> leery of those PSEUDO-EXPERTS who would merely make his or
|> her assertions `ex-cathedra', who would resort to a
|> patronizing tone or even insults, and ultimately would
|> disrespect your independent intelligence.  The truly
|> informed have no need to belittle others and are quite

Doesn't mean that the truly informed don't belittle others, though.  It is
not true that "someone is truly informed if and only if they do not
belittle others".  Actually, what you say is not true.  The acknowledged
expert in a given field may have psychological reasons for belittling
others; such reasons have no relationship to that person's expertise.

|> willing to patiently explain and provide substantiation or
|> references for their crucial points.

See above.

Ken "don't know nothing 'bout biology" Lehner
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Calcium/Magnesium
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 03:02:16 GMT

In article <C01zGx.AL6@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> Would you mind explaining how/why credentials can ever be used to 
rl> reasonably test the truth or falsity of a statement concerning 
rl> human nutrition?  On the whole, you seem to be saying that 
rl> credentials are admissible when you say they are, and they're not 
rl> admissible when you say they're not.  Please tell us the guidelines
rl> that you use for making the distinction.

From article <1992Dec30.225515.21708@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
ry> As quoted by Ted Wayn Altar:

====================================================================
>     Agumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority)  . . . This
>     method of argument is not always strictly fallacious, for the
>     reference to an admitted authority in the special field of
>     his competence may carry great weight and constitute relevant
>     evidence.  If laymen are disputing over some question of
>     physical science and one appeals to the testimony of Einstein
>     on the matter, that testimony is very relevant.  Although it
>     does not prove the point, it certainly tends to support it.
>         (from Irving Copi, INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC, 3r ed., p. 66-67)
====================================================================

Re-read the last sentence very carefully.  What does the author
mean by the phrase:

   "ALTHOUGH IT DOES NOT PROVE THE POINT, ..."

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
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 05:22:53 GMT

young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young) writes:

>As quoted by Ted Wayn Altar:

>    Agumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority)  . . . This
>    method of argument is not always strictly fallacious, for the
>    reference to an admitted authority in the special field of
>    his competence may carry great weight and constitute relevant
>    evidence.  If laymen are disputing over some question of
>    physical science and one appeals to the testimony of Einstein
>    on the matter, that testimony is very relevant.  Although it
>    does not prove the point, it certainly tends to support it.
>        (from Irving Copi, INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC, 3r ed., p. 66-67)


Well, I'm very glad to see that you are indeed learning something
about logic from me.  ;-)   ;-)

						ted
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
From: jil@donuts0.bellcore.com (Jamie Lubin)
Subject: Wine & The Heart (LDLs)
Reply-To: jil@donuts0.bellcore.com (Jamie Lubin)
Organization: Bellcore, Piscataway, NJ
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 15:07:57 GMT

A few months back, there were some postings re wine & the heart.  I recently
came across the following:

"The beneficial affect that drinking red wine has on the heart can also be
gained by drinking grape juice, according to recent studies.  You may have
heard that a substance in red wine has been found to lower LDL (bad) cholesterol
levels.  Now there is good news for non-wine drinkers.  The same substance,
resveratrol, has been discovered in grape juice.  In a test of 30 red wines,
grape juice was found to contain 3-to-4 times more resveratrol than half of the
red wines tested.

Cornell University researchers state that the chemical is naturally produced
by grape to fight fungal disease & is present in the skin of purple Concord
grapes.  White grapes & table grapes contain only small amounts of resveratrol.
Along with maintaining a healthy diet & regular exercise, drinking grape juice
may play an important role in controlling the risk of heart disease."

Sources: Cornell University; Technology Review (MIT)
From: sandipan@sdd.hp.com (Sandipan B.)
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
Subject: Why organic?
Date: 23 Dec 1992 23:49:48 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdl131.sdd.hp.com

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
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
From: young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: Calcium/Magnesium
Originator: young@plasma
Reply-To: young@clpd.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 93 17:14:05 GMT

In article <altar.725956563@sfu.ca> altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar) writes:
>
>Ted Altar writes:
>>>
>>>Well, I'm very glad to see that you are indeed learning something
>>>about logic from me.  ;-)   ;-)
>
>Rich Young replies:
>
>>	It's too bad you felt it necessary to flaunt your flatulent ego
>>	once again.  This logic is not new, it's merely a timely presentation
>>	of a well-known principle in a form which might make a small but
>>	significant dent in the intellectual isolation of the original
>>	questioner.
>
>
>Gee, I thought this was a conference about nutrition, not
>about mind reading and character analysis!  Tell me Rich,
>do you do horiscopes as well  ;-)  :-)  ;-)

	Gee, I wonder why the purpose of the group is such a big deal with you
	NOW, as opposed to when Mr. Lawrence asked the question in the first
	place?  And no, I don't do "horiscopes"...I don't even know what they
	are.  I do read horoscopes for amusement on occasion, however.  They
	often have a great deal in common with your postings.

[...]

>Rich, you seem to have missed the winking simileys I place at the
>end of my attempt at some levity.

	Ted, I've been reading your postings for nearly a year and I have yet
	to see you use a smiley as anything except an attempt to avoid rebuttal
	of a point or as cover to a thinly-veiled insult to one or a group of
	posters.

	Now, _I_ see no further need for public exchanges on this subject 
	and would as soon drop it...but I'll bet you won't, will you?


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Xref: sparky sci.med.nutrition:1744 sci.med:23339
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition,sci.med
Subject: Re: Vitamin D from sunshine
Date: 3 Jan 93 00:20:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: spdcc.1993Jan3.002022.29895
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA

In article <habersch.726014948@husc.harvard.edu> habersch@husc9.harvard.edu (Oren Haber-Schaim) writes:
>To really answer this, one should probably know the spectral absorption
>curve for the vitamin D precursor or whatever, and also the
>spectral absorption curve for your particular sunblock.

Vitamin D is synthesized when the skin is exposed to UV wavelengths
in the range of 290-315nm, or more or less exactly what is called UV-B
light, the light which causes sunburn.  Most sunblocks are effective
against UV-B, and less so against UV-A, although newer products
attempt to protect against both.  Using a sunscreen is akin to getting
exposed to sunlight off-season, when UV-B wavelength are less intense.

>Since you are unlikely to find anyone who knows both of these,
>I will shoot from the hip, and speculate that since 
>sunblock has been shown, in practice, not to prevent
>the formation of melanomas, that it would also not
>prevent, in practice, the formation of D.

Well, the risk of melanoma is associated with a childhood history of
severe sunburns.  Using sunscreens as an adult has been shown to
help reduce the incidence of squamous-cell and basal cell carcinomas;
however, it may be too late for them to measure any effect against
developing melanoma.

>However, I know nothing about
>the incidence of D deficiency in "vegans", and it would be nice 
>to have an answer from someone who does.

If they get enough sunlight, there should be no trouble.
As people get older, their ability to produce the vitamin
from sun exposure is impaired, and many elderly tend to get
less sun in general, unless they live in Miami Beach.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
From: bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano)
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
Subject: Re: Why organic?
Date: 24 Dec 1992 00:31:51 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In reference to your question:  why organic?

In the U.S. there are currently more than 500 pesticides used
on food crops plus additional chemicals such as grain
preservatives.
Many of these have been linked to harmful effects.
Their use on farms obviously cannot be heavily controlled
as to amount used, etc.
Occasionally one of these 500 chemicals is taken off the
acceptable list when linked strongly to cancer causation.
Then the chemical company producing it is still allowed
to continue production and sell to other countries which
in turn use it on crops which crops sometimes end up back
in American supermarkets.
This is called: the circle of poison.

Hope this answers your question about why bother with organic.


-- 
Capt. Kirk: let's head for that planet, third from the sun, it
            looks promising.... |-)
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
From: mazur@bluefin.camb.inmet.com (Beth Mazur)
Subject: Re: Wine & The Heart (LDLs)
Organization: Intermetrics, Inc.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 14:56:10 GMT

jil@donuts0.bellcore.com (Jamie Lubin) writes:
>A few months back, there were some postings re wine & the heart.  I recently
>came across the following:
>
>"The beneficial affect that drinking red wine has on the heart can also be
>gained by drinking grape juice, according to recent studies. 

This month's McCalls magazine (I know, rates right up there with the NEJM)
has an article that discusses the benefits and drawbacks to various
diets.  They made two comments about the French and wine in their diet that
are interesting.  One is that cirrhosis of the liver is twice as common
in France as in the US.  The other is that the French have not been eating 
a high-fat diet as long as Americans have--the implication is that heart
disease in France could eventually be as high there as it is here now.

If one already eats a low-fat, high-fiber, diet a la the new food pyramid,
then drinking wine (in moderate quantities) or grape juice for its 
resveratrol probably won't hurt.  

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: jim@egret.imagesRus (Jim Mitchell)
Subject: Re: Colds, Flu, & Infections (was Re: Vitam
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 16:09:07 GMT
Reply-To: jim@egret.imagesRus
Organization: Harris Corp, ISD

In article 19377@polaris.utu.fi, eepee@polaris.utu.fi (Esa-Pekka P{lvim{ki) writes:
>
>How much of each ingredient is there in one pill?
>
>/ep

Quoting from the label:

"Each one (1) tab contains:
                                                   %USRDA*
 Vitamin A (Fish Liver Oil) . . . . . . 10,000 iu.     200
 Vitamin C (with Rose Hips) . . . . . .    500 mg.     833
 Garlic (Powder Concentrate). . . . . .    500 mg.       #
 Goldenseal Root. . . . . . . . . . . .    100 mg.       #
 Pantothenic Acid . . . . . . . . . . .     15 mg.       #
 Zinc (Amino Acid Chelate). . . . . . .     15 mg.     100
 Echinacea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    100 mg.       #

 * USRDA - U.S. Recommended Daily Allowance for adults.

 # USRDA has not been established.

 Manufactured with all natural fillers, binders and coating.
  This product contains no wheat, corn, soy, or dairy.
   No yeast, sugar or anything artificial."

-jdm-
From: solar@fsrg.fsrg.bear.com (William del Solar)
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
Subject: Content of fat in different kinds of meats
Summary: How much fat is there in different kinds of meats?
Keywords: cholesterol
Date: 22 Dec 92 16:35:19 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Bear Stearns & Company, New York, NY


Does anybody know the relative or absolute fat content of fat in different
kinds of meats both domestic and game.

Because my wife has a cholesterol problem, for the last four years or so,
I have served meals constituted only of fruits, grains, vegetables, tubers,
legumes, and skim milk.  About once a week I serve fish or chicken.
I do not serve turkey because we do not like it.  Mostly I steam although
sometimes I braise.  I use olive oil sparingly, and I never use any animal
fats: butter, cheese, egg yolks, lard.

I have prepared many creative, tasty meals using only those ingredients,
but I know that she is growing tired of that particular mixture of foods,
and that she would like more variety.

I have read that rabbit flesh has a low fat content, and I have seen
a note in the NYT Sunday magazine that venison is particularly low in
fat.  Is that true?  I am particularly interested in learning if cooked
octopus, squid, pheasant, rabbit, and venison have as little fat as
chicken cooked without its skin.

Is there information about the different kinds of game meats as well as
domestic meats and their fat content?  If there is, where is it available?

Please send replies to me at solar@bear.com, and I will post a summary of
replies.

Thanks in advance.


Wm del Solar
________________________________________________________
My opinions are my own:  I do not speak for my employer.
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
Subject: Re: Calcium/Magnesium
Date: 31 Dec 92 20:30:51 GMT
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA

In article <silver.725823998@sfu.ca> silver@fraser.sfu.ca (Craig Silver) writes:
>Of the classes I attended or listened to on tape in the fall semester
>(almost all, and *all* the ones regarding calciferol) I don't remember
>Moon ever saying "anabolic steroids" when speaking of calciferol.  I
>do, however, remember his referring to calciferol as a "potent
>steroidal hormone".  I'm not even sure if this is the same thing.

No, they're quite different.  Calciferol is a steroid hormone, but one which
is involved with calcium metabolism.  Anabolic steroids are synthetic male
sex hormones.  Calling calciferol a "potent" steroid hormone emphasizes
its actions in a content-free way, but isn't, strictly speaking, incorrect.

>But I thought I'd tell you what I remember hearing and what I remember not
>hearing since I was at the lectures.

It could very well be that this is an example of Moon being poorly
represented by Ted Altar, who has undoubtedly done more here to damage
Moon's reputation than any claim of his being a "crank".

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
From: jil@uts.uucp (Jamie Lubin)
Subject: Re: Why organic?
Organization: Bellcore, Piscataway, NJ
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 15:42:33 GMT
Followup-To: jil@donuts0.bellcore.com

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.
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition,rec.food.veg,sci.med
From: Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Vitamin D from sunshine
Reply-To: rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh)
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 16:42:55 GMT
Followup-To: sci.med.nutrition 


I am a vegan and have read that exposure to sunshine is sufficient to provide
vitamin D.  A few questions:

1.  Am I correct to assume that a sunblock would prevent the formation of
    vitamin D?

2.  I have extremely fair skin, with white patches (vitiligo), which means
    I never tan, but burn very easily.  How does this influence my skin's
    ability to produce vitamin D?

Thanks,

Ro
rwaigh@zooid.guild.org
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: Fri, 1 Jan 93 22:03:05 GMT

I thought I had posted the reference, although it might have been
in private email.  I believe it was from _Silent Spring_ nbby Rachael
Carson, but as I read it <counting fingers, running out of fingers>
12 or 13 years ago, I COULD be wrong.  I know I've read it somewhere, 
though...
 
If anyone HASN'T read _Silent Spring_, they should ANYWAY!

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

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: Thu, 31 Dec 92 22:01:57 GMT

In article <altar.725779373@sfu.ca> altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar) writes:
>young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young) writes:
>
>>As quoted by Ted Wayn Altar:
>
>>    Agumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority)  . . . This
>>    method of argument is not always strictly fallacious, for the
>>    reference to an admitted authority in the special field of
>>    his competence may carry great weight and constitute relevant
>>    evidence.  If laymen are disputing over some question of
>>    physical science and one appeals to the testimony of Einstein
>>    on the matter, that testimony is very relevant.  Although it
>>    does not prove the point, it certainly tends to support it.
>>        (from Irving Copi, INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC, 3r ed., p. 66-67)
>
>
>Well, I'm very glad to see that you are indeed learning something
>about logic from me.  ;-)   ;-)

	It's too bad you felt it necessary to flaunt your flatulent ego
	once again.  This logic is not new, it's merely a timely presentation
	of a well-known principle in a form which might make a small but
	significant dent in the intellectual isolation of the original
	questioner.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
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 06:54:39 GMT

I'm tired, so please excuse me if this sounds rude or abrupt...
 
The main reasons (that *I* can think of) for using organic products include:
1) Ethical reasons - it's better for the planet.  It's better, in the long
run, for our animals, our crops and eventually, if you follow the chain, us.
Read Rachel Carson's book... uhh....I'm blanking on the book, and for
that matter, may have her name wrong. Silent Spring? Something like that.
 
2) Sensitivity to pesticides.
 
3) Support small farmers.
 
4) Some people can taste the difference in some products.  Most of the
things that I've had I couldn't tell, but occasionally I can.
 
Overall, I buy organic when I can afford to but don't get neurotic
about it - I can't afford to.

Clover
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
From: mazur@bluefin.camb.inmet.com (Beth Mazur)
Subject: Re: Calcium/Magnesium
Organization: Intermetrics, Inc.
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 18:18:39 GMT

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).  

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