From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition,rec.food.veg
Subject: Re: VEGETARIAN DIET
Date: 10 Sep 92 14:29:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: spdcc.1992Sep10.142909.26908
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA

In article <hctn+3q.strnlght@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>Dyer continues to get it wrong through ignorance. He accepts all but
>two of the Diamond's principles after previously all but calling them
>crackpots. This shows he was ignorant of what he was attacking.

Not at all.  I said they were considered crackpots for their food
combining rules.  What don't you understand about that?

>He continues to mock two of their principles--eating fruit on an empty
>stomach, and eating nothing but fruit and fruit juices til noon.

Yup.

>The first is based on solid digestion research.

Snort.

>Fruit is digested
>mainly in the intestine, not the stomach. If it is eaten after other
>food groups which are digested initially in the stomach, the fruit
>decays/degenerates/ferments.

This is simply another version of "my colon is putrefying"
except he's moved the chamber of horrors to the stomach.

>This can lead, as anyone who tries it can verify, to digestive upsets,

Thank you for telling me that I've had digestive upsets.
Could anyone who happened to eat fruit and protein at the same
time raise their hand?  If they're still alive, that is.

>and also to poor digestion of the fruit,
>which doesn't get to the intestines until the rest of the goop in your
>stomach is sufficiently pre-processed.

Oh, not that!  As I said, fanatics of another type would argue that
this slowing of gastric emptying stops all that sugar in the fruit
from raising your blood sugar too quickly.

>The second is based on energy considerations. The body is still in its
>elimination cycle in the morning, and one is starting one's day.

What's an elimination cycle?

>Fruit/fruit juice goes almost directly into the intestines and takes
>little energy (compared to carbohydrates or proteins) to digest. This
>frees more energy for mental and physical functioning.

Oh.  You mean I either have a choice of thinking or digesting.
Pulease.

>Anyone who has
>eaten a typical high-carbohydrate breakfast knows how logy and tired
>it makes one, as energy is diverted to digestion.

Um, David, sugars ARE carbohydrates.  What's more, people don't get tired
because "energy is diverted to digestion".  What's a "typical high-carbohydrate
breakfast" in your mind?

>It makes most so
>tired that the mid-morning coffee break (to jack up one's system with
>caffeine) has become an institution. Those who follow the Diamond's
>recommendations are full of energy in the morning and don't need the
>artificial stimulus of caffeine. One of the biggest hypes in the
>country is the "eat a good breakfast" campaign of the dairy and meat
>industries.

A recommendation observed in the breach, needless to say.

>Dyer is again simply ignorant about uric acid.

Sorry, David.  You don't have the first idea about uric acid.
All you can do is parrot misstatements and misunderstandings
with the hope that you'll just wear people down.

>Studies show that the
>body can process 8 grains--the amount of uric acid in a 1-1/2 to 2
>ounce portion of meat--per day.

And what "studies" might this be?  Actually, meat has between 50-150mg
of purines (substances which are metabolized to uric acid) per 3.5oz serving.
For the pharmaceutically-impaired, one grain is about 65 mg, so that
8 grains is about 500 milligrams.  Foods which have a similar purine
content include asparagus, whole grain breads and cereals, cauliflower,
beans, peas, mushrooms, oatmeal, spinach, and wheat germ and bran.
Uh oh.

>The rest stays in the body and can
>irritate tendons and joints and cause arthritis. Carnivores have an
>enzyme humans lack, which can process much larger quantities of uric acid.

Uric acid is "processed" by excretion.  Uric acid is not very soluble,
and when it reaches an excessively high concentration in the blood, it can
precipitate out.  This is not normally reached by diet alone--it requires
a messed up metabolism.  If this elevated uric acid is a chronic condition,
uric acid deposits can form in the skin and at joints and in the kidney,
and when this happens, it's called gout, and is associated with acute, painful
inflammatory attacks caused by white blood cells attacking the crystals
in the joints.  However, to repeat myself, this hardly ever caused by diet
directly.  Like the propensity to form kidney stones, it's due to errors
in metabolism--in this case, in either synthesizing or excreting uric acid.
Most people have no trouble with this and have normal uric acid levels,
ones below the point where the substance may precipitate.

>Lastly, Dyer attempts an ad hominem appeal to authority by claiming
>the Diamonds are considered crackpots by "nutritionists and others
>in the scientific community". This is simply false in its implication.

It's not false at all.  This nonsense about "elimination cycles" and
"putrefaction" and "fermentation" and so on doesn't become true because
you can find a few flakes who have the misfortune of having credentials.
This stuff stands firmly outside any kind of mainstream science.
It's based on a misunderstanding of digestive physiology.

>Many are ill-educated in nutrition, and many nutritionists have
>vested interests to defend. Nevertheless many nutritionists and
>scientists support the Diamonds' work, and as physicians are seeing
>the results with their patients, more and more are accepting, and
>even recommending the Diamonds' work, originally a paradigm shift.

Speaking of an argument from authority...

>Their latest book bears testimonials from:
>Glenn H. Koepke, M.D. of St. Joseph Hospital, Tucson, AZ;
>Joseph Girone, M.D. of Temple University Medical School;
>Toni Manos, M.D., Yonkers, N.Y.;
>Joel Fuhrman, M.D., St. Joseph's Medical Center, Yonkers, NY;
>Terry Grossman, M.D., Granby Medical Center, Granby, CO;
>Edward Taub M.D., University of California Medical School, Irvine;
>Joshua Leichtberg, M.D., Suma Medical Group, Beverly Hills, CA;
>Michael Klaper, M.D., Santa Cruz, CA;
>Jerrine Pauling, R.D., American Dietetic Association;
>Phyllis Terry-Gold, Ph.D., Clinical Psychologist, Hofstra University;
>and others with scientific credentials.

Wow.  It must be correct then.

>Thus Dyer's ignorance is further underlined. I repeat: his forensic
>technique is name-calling as a substitute for facts in an area he
>appears not to understand.

David, don't lecture me about not understanding matters.  I feel like
I'm arguing with someone who reads too much and what he reads is nonsense.
You don't appear to have the background to understand what is crap and
what isn't, and your criterion for Truth is "Well, THAT makes sense.
THAT sounds reasonable."  This can be very misleading when it comes
to scientific matters.

>Another correspondent points out that Dyer won't accept bibliographic
>references even after asking for such evidence.

References aren't useful by themselves.  You have to read them, and read
them critically.  Tell that to your "correspondent".

>Such stubborn blindness
>is confirmed by Dyer's "they're people who are dangerous around a scientific
>citation because they can read it but not understand it.  Anyone can compile
>a bibliography; that doesn't mean that it supports what they're saying."
>That's just one more stupid ad hominem attack based on ignorance and a
>total lack of evidence.

No, it means that crazy theories need a lot of supporting evidence.
That isn't forthcoming from the Diamonds' books.


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