HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
Subject: Re: Enrichment/nutrient replacement question
Date: 30 Dec 92 21:37:08 GMT
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA

In article <DRAND.92Dec30115008@spinner.osf.org> drand@spinner.osf.org (Douglas S. Rand) writes:
>   Vitamin E comes in two forms, a left handed and
>   a right handed form. Your body can only use one form (the left handed
>   form, I think). Artificial Vitamin E contains both forms, while
>   natural Vitamin E contains only the form that your bady can use. This
>   is not a big problem, it just means you need to get more of the
>   artificial vitamin to get enough of the usable form of vitamin E.
>
>Many organic chemicals,  and more than just Vit. E,  come
>in stereo isomer forms.  Generally one is entirely inactive and 
>the other active.

This isn't so in the case of vitamin E.  Vitamin E activity is
standardized as one IU representing 1mg of the racemic (right-handed
and left-handed, or d,l-) mixture of alpha- tocopherol acetate.  The
"left-handed" form of alpha-tocopherol is approximately 42% as potent
as the "right-handed" form in the bioassay for vitamin E activity.

>Most artificial vitamins will contain both
>forms since the vitamins are formed by means different from the
>natural reactions plants and animals.

No, not the vitamins you get as supplements.  Vitamins used in food
supplements have the proper stereochemistry, when there are stereoisomers
(regardless of what was created during their synthesis.)  Vitamin E is 
a bit unusual in this regard, inasmuchas the IU is based on the racemic
mixture.  But then, vitamin E activity is not as stereospecific as, say,
some of these other vitamins.


-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
From: PAPAI@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (Jonathan Papai)
Subject: Re: Why organic?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 01:44:23 GMT

la1002@albnyvms.bitnet writes:

>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

	I would hope you could back that one up with some facts.
I'm tempted to post that one to alt.conspiracy or alt.folklore.urban
to see what kind of laughs they could get out of it, if you can't.

Skeptically,
-J.
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
From: jil@uts.uucp (Jamie Lubin)
Subject: Re: Why organic?
Organization: Bellcore, Piscataway, NJ
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 14:14:46 GMT
Followup-To: jil@donuts0.bellcore.com

In article <28DEC92.20241228@nerus.pfc.mit.edu> mrl@nerus.pfc.mit.edu writes:
>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.

I couldn't even tell you the last time I've eaten cereal or looked at a cereal
box--I've merely read about it.  It's similar to "enriched" white bread where
~25 known nutrients are removed & then it's "enriched" by adding back 6 (maybe
more today) synthetics--I don't feel that "enriched" bread is the staff of life.
Getting back to Frosted Flakes (a staple of everyone's diet :-), I'm not sure as
to how many of the removed natural nutrients are synthetically replaced.
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
From: mary@Cayman.COM (Mary Malmros)
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
Subject: Re: sea salt versus "table" salt
Date: 30 Dec 92 22:44:38 GMT
Followup-To: sci.med.nutrition
Organization: Cayman Systems Inc., Cambridge, MA
In-reply-to: kalin@cbnewsm.cb.att.com's message of 30 Dec 92 18:02:55 GMT


In article <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]


Unless I'm mistaken, sea salt contains naturally occuring iodide, which, as 
the salt boxes say, is a "necessary nutrient" ;-) .  Salt from
other sources does not, unless it's been added.  If it has been, there's 
no difference, as far as I know.  
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 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
From: habersch@husc9.harvard.edu (Oren Haber-Schaim)
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
Subject: Re: Vitamin D from sunshine
Date: 2 Jan 93 22:49:08 GMT

rwaigh@zooid.guild.org (Rosemary Waigh) writes:


>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?
 ...

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.

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.   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.

Oren Haber-Schaim                    (habersch@husc.harvard.edu)
 
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
From: jerry@teetot.acusd.edu (Jerry Stratton)
Subject: sea salt vs. table salt
Organization: usd
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 21:55:27 GMT

Sea salt contains more than just sodium chloride; it contains other
minerals that occur in the ocean as well, in trace amounts.

This information is from the label at the local health food store, so
take it with a grain of, well, you know :*)

Jerry Stratton
-- 
jerry@teetot.acusd.edu
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
From: young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: Prof. Moon et al. on "vitamin" D
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@clpd.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 23:34:59 GMT

In article <altar.725826895@sfu.ca> altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar) writes:
>
>For those who have not seen that earlier posting being referred
>to here of late, I'll repost it now for your benefit.

[...miles of thrice-posted "interpretation" deleted...]

	For the record, let us compare Moon's references to "steroids" to
	those which "ted" uses in his "interpretation."

	On page 568 of the journal in which Moon's paper is printed, Moon
	says, "...it has become generally accepted that vitamin D's mode of
	action is similar to that of the steroid hormones [40]."  This is
	the ONLY use of the word "steroid" in Moon's paper.

	He does use the phrase "vitamin-turned-hormone" on page 576 in
	reference to vitamin D, but this is hardly a reference to an
	"anabolic steroid."  Indeed, the phrase "potent steroid hormone"
	is not found in the paper, although he does quote Peng and Taylor
	as saying, "...reclassification as a potent, carefully controlled
	hormone should be seriously considered."

	Now let's see what "ted" had to say about the paper last March,
	when he presented to Usenet a summary of Moon's yet unpublished work
	in message number <altar.701807697@sfu.ca> in the rec.food.veg group.

	In the "summary of highlights" we find, "potent and dangerous
	anabolic seco-steroid hormone" and "synthetic steroid hormone."
	this is already more often than Moon, himself, used the term
	"steroid."

	In the next paragraph we find the phrase "steroid hormone" no less
	than twice, for a total of four.  We find it in the next paragraph
	as well (5 uses).  In the next paragraph we find "potent steroid
	hormone" once again (6 uses).  In the next paragraph we find the
	second use of "anabolic steroid hormones" (7 total, 2 "anabolic").

	Moving on, we find the phrase "steroid hormone" in heading "IV" for
	a total of 8 uses of the word "steroid", 2 uses of "anabolic."  Moon,
	if we may recall, used "steroid" only once, and rather matter-of-
	factly at that.

	I think, based on this and the recollection of Mr. Craig Silver who
	claims to have attended some of Moon's lectures and listened to taped
	copies of others, that we can safely say that Mr. Altar has most
	egregiously misrepresented Dr. Moon in his zeal to present some
	supporting evidence for his dietary lifestyle.  I suggest we keep
	his sorry intellectual chicanery in mind when next we see some
	quasi-erudite oration from his keyboard in s.m.n.  Such ludicrous
	literary legerdemain has no place in a forum where people seek facts.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
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 06:42:09 GMT

For info on non-dairy alternatives, try rec.food.veg and ask the people
there.  I have recently started a non-dairy, non-meat, non-egg diet (vegan)
and I have learned a lot from the people on this list.

Clover   
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
From: young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: Prof. Moon et al. on "vitamin" D
Originator: young@plasma
Reply-To: young@clpd.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 93 17:38:59 GMT

In article <altar.725957210@sfu.ca> altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar) writes:
>
>Rich Young wildly concludes:
>
>[...]
>>   I think, based on this and the recollection of Mr. Craig Silver who
>>   claims to have attended some of Moon's lectures and listened to taped
>>   copies of others, that we can safely say that Mr. Altar has most
>>   egregiously misrepresented Dr. Moon in his zeal to present some
>>   supporting evidence for his dietary lifestyle.  I suggest we keep
>>   his sorry intellectual chicanery in mind when next we see some
>>   quasi-erudite oration from his keyboard in s.m.n.  Such ludicrous
>>   literary legerdemain has no place in a forum where people seek facts.
>
>My goodness, what is this, a forum for character assassinations?  :-(
>
>Frankly, Rich, you really are *here* being silly.  Again, as I 
>have already said, my posting was simply a SUMMARY of some of the
>interesting points from Dr. Moon's forthcoming paper (which is now
>published) PLUS two presentations he made at the university.
>Also, I've talked to Dr. Moon and also read a news brief of his
>position as published in the November 16, 1989 issue of SIMON 
>FRASER WEEK (see below for some quotes).

	As I said before, there are only two choices: either Moon is, as
	previously labelled, a "crank" who uses these terms in his lectures
	but pointedly omits them in his published work because he knows it's
	intellectual chicanery, or you've misrepresented him badly and have
	not served his reputation well.

	We HAVE his paper, and have seen that there is one use of the word
	"steroid" and NO mention of "anabolic."  If his paper is not truly
	representative, then he would seem to be "tidying" his presentation
	to fit what he knows is actual fact, while misinforming his students
	during his lectures.  One of you is not telling the truth, is it Dr.
	Moon, or is it you?

[...]

>I'm afraid that it is you
>yourself who has "egregiously misrepresented" someone, to use
>your words.  

	If I have misrepresented you, then it is clearly Dr. Moon who is the
	"crank" and I will apologize to you.  If it is Dr. Moon who has been
	misrepresented, then it would seem that you owe him some more e-mail.

	Just tell us which one of you is doing the misrepresentation.  From
	the [deleted] quotes you supplied, perhaps Steve was right after all,
	perhaps it is Dr. Moon who is misrepresenting the facts.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
Subject: Re: Content of fat in different kinds of meats
Date: 29 Dec 92 17:45:51 GMT
	<1hnh6jINNm4q@fnnews.fnal.gov>
	<MARY.92Dec29091518@martinique.Cayman.COM>
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Boston

In article <MARY.92Dec29091518@martinique.Cayman.COM> mary@Cayman.COM (Mary Malmros) writes:

>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.

It depends on how you cook the chicken, from my observations. If the
chicken is roasting, and the fat can run off, keeping the skin off
will keep the chicken moist, and much but not all of the fat will
drain off. Clearly a good compromise between fat and taste.
  If you are browning the chicken in a pan to which you will add
sauce, on the other hand, what runs out of the chicken will stay in
the meal. 
--
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....
From: behnke@FNALF.FNAL.GOV
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
Subject: Re: Content of fat in different kinds of meats
Date: 28 Dec 92 18:33:45 GMT
Reply-To: behnke@FNALF.FNAL.GOV
Distribution: usa
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalf.fnal.gov

In article <29805@ursa.bear.com>, solar@fsrg.fsrg.bear.com (William del Solar) writes:
>
>Does anybody know the relative or absolute fat content of fat in different
>kinds of meats both domestic and game.
>
 As far as I'm concerned, if it runs, eat it.

mb

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

mb
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
From: la1002@albnyvms.bitnet
Subject: Re: Content of fat in different kinds of meats
Reply-To: la1002@albnyvms.bitnet
Organization: University of NY at Albany
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 92 06:44:26 GMT

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.  The main difference is that the chicken cooked without the
skin is drier.

Anyone care to back this up with more info?  I am very curious...

Clover
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition,misc.fitness
From: silver@fraser.sfu.ca (Craig Silver)
Subject: Add where you are to .sig file
Keywords: Add Whereabouts to .sig
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 21:25:17 GMT

Please, no flames.
 
I am posting this short article to 11 news.* groups as well as
the ones to which I subscribe (which is only around 5).
 
Since a lot of the articles one reads are from all different
parts of the globe and many internet addresses don't say from
where the article was posted (eg name@cs.iidf.com or
name@qwerty.lilon.org) I think it would be appropriate and
convenient to the readers of your articles to put your city,
province/state, and country of residence (work, study, or from
wherever you post) at the end of your articles or in your
signature file.
 
That was all.  Thanks.
-- 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Silver	           Computer Science at Simon Fraser University
silver@sfu.ca (Internet)   Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
From: bsimon@elvis.stsci.edu (Bernie Simon)
Subject: Re: Enrichment/nutrient replacement question
Organization: None. This saves me from writing a disclaimer.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 12:39:15 GMT

In article <92364.123849LAURA@UCF1VM.BITNET> Laura Kittleson <LAURA@UCF1VM.BITNET> writes:

   I have read printed articles, as well as postings to this group,
   that state or imply that "replaced" nutrients and vitamins in
   enriched breads and cereals are not as good as what might have
   been in the food to begin with.

   How come?

Let me answer your question in two parts. First are natural vitamins
better than artificial vitamins? The answer to this is no, with one
exception, Vitamin E. Vitamin E comes in two forms, a left handed and
a right handed form. Your body can only use one form (the left handed
form, I think). Artificial Vitamin E contains both forms, while
natural Vitamin E contains only the form that your bady can use. This
is not a big problem, it just means you need to get more of the
artificial vitamin to get enough of the usable form of vitamin E.

The second part of your question is whether fortified white flour
products are as good as whole wheat products. The answer here in no,
but chiefly because whole wheat flour contains fiber that the
fortified white flour does not. The average American only gets half
the recommended amount of fiber, so the missing fiber is significant.
I do not feel the small differences in vitamin and mineral content are
significant. If you are woried about the differences, I suggest taking
a vitamin and mineral supplement that contains the recommended daily
allowance. Men, however, should avoid any supplement that contains
iron unless recommended by a doctor upon diagnosis of anemia.
--
Bernie Simon	(bsimon@stsci.edu)		ad astra per aspera

Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
From: drand@spinner.osf.org (Douglas S. Rand)
Subject: Re: Enrichment/nutrient replacement question
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: 30 Dec 92 11:50:08

In article <BSIMON.92Dec30073915@elvis.stsci.edu> bsimon@elvis.stsci.edu (Bernie Simon) writes:

   In article <92364.123849LAURA@UCF1VM.BITNET> Laura Kittleson <LAURA@UCF1VM.BITNET> writes:

      I have read printed articles, as well as postings to this group,
      that state or imply that "replaced" nutrients and vitamins in
      enriched breads and cereals are not as good as what might have
      been in the food to begin with.

      How come?

   Let me answer your question in two parts. First are natural vitamins
   better than artificial vitamins? The answer to this is no, with one
   exception, Vitamin E. Vitamin E comes in two forms, a left handed and
   a right handed form. Your body can only use one form (the left handed
   form, I think). Artificial Vitamin E contains both forms, while
   natural Vitamin E contains only the form that your bady can use. This
   is not a big problem, it just means you need to get more of the
   artificial vitamin to get enough of the usable form of vitamin E.

Many organic chemicals,  and more than just Vit. E,  come
in stereo isomer forms.  Generally one is entirely inactive and 
the other active.  Most artificial vitamins will contain both
forms since the vitamins are formed by means different from the
natural reactions plants and animals.

--
Douglas S. Rand <drand@osf.org>		OSF/Motif Dev.
Snail:         11 Cambridge Center,  Cambridge,  MA  02142
Disclaimer:    I don't know if OSF agrees with me... let's vote on it.
Amateur Radio: KC1KJ
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 08:21:06 GMT

Steve Dyer proclaims:

>It certainly doesn't take credentials; it takes understanding and a
>background in biology.  Ted Altar is ignorant of biology, calcium
>metabolism, nutrition and pharmacology, just for starters.  He's a
>good typist, though.  Too bad transcribing textbooks bypasses the
>brain.

Usually that "understanding" instantiated by a proven ability
to earn some credentials.

Hmm, for balance let us employ Mr Dyer's bad form and observe in turn
that churlish Mr. Dyer is ignorant of statistics, experimental
methodology, formal logic, philosophy of science, literature,
poetry, psychology, sociology, just for starters.  He's good with
the bombast and can recite the prosaic information from general
textbooks on pharmocology.  Too bad parroting his unnamed textbooks
never cashed out in any degree in pharmacy or a single publication
in any scientific journal, nor has the spirit of intellectual
curiosity and humility rubbed off from such a parroting.
.  
 
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 21:57:24 GMT

In article <C03sFt.K16@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>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, ..."

	You forgot to include, "...IT CERTAINLY TENDS TO SUPPORT IT."

	I have had no personal contact with Mr. Copi, but I assume that he
	means just what he said: that credentials alone do not prove a point.
	I assume he also meant what he said when he wrote:

	   "...the reference to an admitted authority in the special field
	   of his competence may carry great weight and constitute relevant
	   evidence."

	Credentials cannot prove a point, but they can lend credibility to
	an opinion.  Without credentials, said opinion carries no more weight
	than yours or mine.  I suggest that YOU re-read the entire passage
	carefully.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition