Various Topics on Alternative Medicine

..m.. ..strian..

"Study: Broil or bake fish for heart benefits", Atlanta Journal -
Constitution, May 2, 2005,
Link: http://www.ajc.com/health/content/he...fishheart.html

Trying to eat more fish for a healthy heart? Fish sticks don't count.

So says a study suggesting only fish that's broiled or baked actually
protects against heart disease.

Most fish served fried are types that contain only small amounts of
omega-3 fatty acids, the healthy fat that can improve cholesterol and
other cardiac risk factors, scientists reported Monday at a meeting of
the American Heart ***ociation.

"All fish meals may not be equal," said Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian of the
Harvard Medical School.

A diet high in fish has long been linked with lower levels of heart
disease, so much so that the heart ***ociation recommends two or more
weekly servings - especially of oily fish such as salmon and tuna
that are particularly high in the omega-3 fatty acids. Those healthy
fats are thought to increase the so-called good HDL cholesterol and
lower unhealthy triglycerides.

Scientists suspect the omega-3s may play an even broader role, so lots
of research is under way to better define how fish affects heart
disease and just what people should be eating to get the benefit.

Mozaffarian examined ultrasound images of the hearts of 5,000 older
Americans who were given a questionnaire about their diets. After
accounting for other factors that play a role in heart disease -
including other foods - he found that people who regularly consumed
broiled or baked fish were more likely to have a lower heart rate and
blood pressure, and better blood flow to the heart.

In contrast, those who regularly consumed fried fish or fish sandwiches
showed signs of hardening arteries and other cardiac problems.

There was little evidence of omega-3s in the blood of the fried-fish
lovers, probably because the fish species that usually are served fried
are cod or other lean types that are much lower in omega-3 fats than
fattier fish like salmon, Mozaffarian said.

Nor is deep-frying healthy.

The study advances scientists' understanding of how fatty fish affect
the heart, said Dr. Jean Olson of the National Heart, Lung and Blood
Institute, which funded it. For consumers, "the bottom line is, 'Eat
more fish,'" she said.

..

Roman Bystrianyk wrote:
> "Study: Broil or bake fish for heart benefits", Atlanta Journal -
> Constitution, May 2, 2005,
> Link: http://www.ajc.com/health/content/he...fishheart.html
>
> Trying to eat more fish for a healthy heart? Fish sticks don't count.
>
> So says a study suggesting only fish that's broiled or baked actually
> protects against heart disease.
>
> Most fish served fried are types that contain only small amounts of
> omega-3 fatty acids, the healthy fat that can improve cholesterol and
> other cardiac risk factors, scientists reported Monday at a meeting
of
> the American Heart ***ociation.
>
> "All fish meals may not be equal," said Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian of
the
> Harvard Medical School.
>
> A diet high in fish has long been linked with lower levels of heart
> disease, so much so that the heart ***ociation recommends two or more
> weekly servings - especially of oily fish such as salmon and tuna
> that are particularly high in the omega-3 fatty acids. Those healthy
> fats are thought to increase the so-called good HDL cholesterol and
> lower unhealthy triglycerides.
>
> Scientists suspect the omega-3s may play an even broader role, so
lots
> of research is under way to better define how fish affects heart
> disease and just what people should be eating to get the benefit.
>
> Mozaffarian examined ultrasound images of the hearts of 5,000 older
> Americans who were given a questionnaire about their diets. After
> accounting for other factors that play a role in heart disease -
> including other foods - he found that people who regularly consumed
> broiled or baked fish were more likely to have a lower heart rate and
> blood pressure, and better blood flow to the heart.
>
> In contrast, those who regularly consumed fried fish or fish
sandwiches
> showed signs of hardening arteries and other cardiac problems.
>
> There was little evidence of omega-3s in the blood of the fried-fish
> lovers, probably because the fish species that usually are served
fried
> are cod or other lean types that are much lower in omega-3 fats than
> fattier fish like salmon, Mozaffarian said.
>
> Nor is deep-frying healthy.
>
> The study advances scientists' understanding of how fatty fish affect
> the heart, said Dr. Jean Olson of the National Heart, Lung and Blood
> Institute, which funded it. For consumers, "the bottom line is, 'Eat
> more fish,'" she said.


I wonder if they considered that fried fish is very often served with
french fries and soda while baked or broiled fish would more commonly
be served with vegetables and some other drink. This is probably the
case in restaurant and in the home.

TC

..harris[atsign]ix.netc...c..

>>The study advances scientists' understanding of how fatty fish affect

the heart, said Dr. Jean Olson of the National Heart, Lung and Blood
Institute, which funded it. For consumers, "the bottom line is, 'Eat
more fish,'" she said.<<

COMMENT:

Another unhelpful opinion from another government "expert" who just
doesn't get it.

We are repeating the vitamin wars of 20 years ago, in which all kinds
of good things were found out about this or that vitamin (folate, say),
and a ton of government money was spent to find out how much this or
that vitamin was in foods, and how they should be prepared, and how
much leached out into the water you boil your vegetables in, and ad
nauseum. But it made a lot of nutritionists happy for decades because
it paid their salaries. And did the public no good at all. Finally, in
the case of folate, after a few thousand more deformed babies were
born, there was a giant argument between a bunch of government
conservatives (at the NIH) and another set (at the FDA) until finally a
third bunch of government types who were at bit more enlightened (at
the USDA) finally won out. Then the feds just started mandating the
addition of folate to "enriched" flour. That actually began solving the
problem. It was very much the same story as adding iodide to salt three
generations earlier. And as with iodine, the food-fettish nutritionists
fought folate pills all the way until the day folate finally wound up
in flour. Then they shut up. And moved on to the next nutrient.

We've seen this before. It took about half a century for
multivitamin/mineral pills to be accepted by nutritionists, because
such pills made about half of what nutritionists did for the whole 20th
century (measuring vitamins and minerals in foods and recommending
foods with particular nutrients), irrelevent. But that doesn't mean
that nutritionists have stopped hating supplement pills just because
they finally gave in on multivitamins. As we said, if what's in the
supplement pill is added to your food by your helpful government, that
nutrient will drop off the nutritionist radar screens. Until then,
however, professional nutritionists will be in the middle of things,
screwing things up, wasting money, and trying to get people to do
*anything* but take the nutrient pill.

I suspect we won't be rid of the unwanted and unhelpful advice of this
pesky profession on the omega-3 issue until the USDA finds a way to add
EPA+DHA to the food supply somehow---- and since that's going to be
very difficult due to the needed dose and oxygen sensitivity of these
nutrients, I suspect his nonsense will instead drag on for decades.
Look for a lot more fishmeal to be fed to chickens and pigs and beef,
but it won't be enough. After all, it took decades to get DHA into
canned infant formula (lowering a lot of infant IQs in the process, no
doubt), and that is an EASY chemical problem compared with getting DHA
into the general adult food supply in any kind of preventive amounts.

So meanwhile, here we are again, back with a new thing (long chain
omega-3 FA's) and we're stuck at war with the anti-supplement-pill
nutritionists as usual. Will we never learn? Unless you eat sardines or
red/sockeye salmon, you really don't know how much omega-3's in that
fish in front of you. So why go through all the nonsense trying to
figure it out? Take an omega-3 EPA/DHA supplement! It's cheap (25
cents a day). It works (has been proven in prospective double blind
studies of fish oil supplements in heart patients). End of omega-3
problem. It seems too simple. It IS too simple.

The simple fix is not happening for more than one reason. Not only do
we have the anti-pill nutritionists screwing things up so more people
don't take fishoil pills, but on the other side we have the Rx
*pill-pushing* pharm-FDA industrial complex. This coalition has made
sure the government (or your government sponsored health plan) is
paying for some share of your prescription items, and that you don't or
won't really count a pill as "real" medicine or "strong" medicine
*unless* a doctor prescribes it for you, a pharmacist gives it to you,
and your health plan pays for it. Which, in the case of fish oil
capsules, the FDA and the DHHS and USPTO are making difficult enough
that it's not likely to happen.

Again, however, fish oil pills are supplements which do as well or
better than the top-selling statins at preventing cardiac death in
people with coronary disease. But, even though the AHA weakly endorses
fish oil pills (along, of course, with all the various kinds of fatty
and confusing fish) relatively few people with coronary disease take
them. The government pays for their angioplastics, their byp***es and
(yes) their statins. And their cholesterol binders and niacin and
fibrates and so on. Even their aspirin (provided it can be made to look
powerful and be extra expensive). But not their fish oil pills. The
only thing the government DOES pay for nutritionally, is studies by a
bevy of nutritionists to look at fish as food and figure out ways to
divert people's attention from fish oil supplements. Go figure.

Fish oil capsules are example of an easy, inexpensive, and fairly
effective treatment for a very difficult and expensive problem
(coronary disease--- I don't review the many other uses for them). Of
course, fish oil capsules are not a cure-all. They won't fix heart
disease. They don't lower cholesterol that well, though they do a good
job on triglycerides. They are apparently excellent antiarrhythmics.
They may act synergistically with prescription drugs in heart disease
to prevent death, and I expect they do. They merely deserve to be seen
as on par with the best pharmacological therapies (in terms of effect)
and as easily beating many medical therapies in terms of cost, safety,
and side effects. I personally have zero commercial interest in them.
But in terms of bang-for-buck, I find them incredibly impressive.

And yet, your government is doing almost everything it can, short of
making fish oil pills actually *illegal,* to keep the average person
from swallowing them. They pay for prescription drugs that don't work
(fibrates). They pay for studies on what fish to eat (but none which
can tell you for sure how to avoid those full of mercury and which have
little omega-3s). The government is unlikely to pay for studies on fish
oil pills (the biggest one was done in Italy), and the government
prescription drug benefit of course will not pay for the fish oil pills
themselves. How is that for strange? It's almost enough to make one
wonder about conspiracies. But it's not. It's simply the usual
confederacy of dunces we saw with iodine, niacin, folate, and so on.
And it's the usual information problem which crimps our use of almost
any nutrient in a pill.

And it's not as though the health care system we have, has much "bang
for buck," that they don't need to look for other ways to attack health
problems. Rather the opposite. Those treadmills, CCU's, nuclear heart
scans, byp***es, angioplasties and statin drugs are breaking the
healthcare system. They contribute greatly to medicaid costs which are
growing exponentially everywhere. I heard the governnor of Virginia
last night on CNN bemoan the fact that medicaid is now 24% of his state
budget, and doubing in cost every 7 years (that way lies bankrupcy very
soon). Medicaid costs now DRIVE most state budgets, even ahead of K-12
ed. But no state is going broke trying to supply "vulnerable
populations" with fish oil capsules. They ARE, however, going broke
trying to decide whether to pay for Lipitor vs Pravachol. The fish oil,
by contrast, would actually be financially do-able. How's that for
irony?


SBH

..ntygr..

It's funny that people like yourself can see the nonsense involved in
much of "nutritional science" today, but yet you don't realize that
there is absolutely no scientific evidence that dietary polyunsaturated
fatty acids are needed by non-pregnant, adult humans (humans can and do
make their own PUFA, called the Mead acid, which is very stable and yet
does everything the omega 3s and 6s can do). The study that is quoted
(there is only one) as a citation that "proves" the "essentiality" of
omega 3 and 6 PUFAs was done in 1930 on rats. At the time, several
truly essential nutrients were not known at all, so of course the rats
exhibited "deficiency symptoms." Now that the truly essential
nutrients are known, how expensive would it be to get a few rats
together and do the experiment properly? Rats are a terrible model for
this, but at least the experiment would be scientific in the most basic
sense. One can't prove a negative - that is basic logic. I can't
prove that dietary PUFAs are not essential, but I've avoided them for a
few years now and feel better than ever. My grandparents never had any
appreciable source of omega 3s and still don't, yet are doing fairly
well (early 90s, mid 80s). If anyone wants to take me up on the offer,
I'll put up a huge amount of money (and you match it) - loser pays for
the experiment and admits defeat in a signed and notarized do***ent,
given to the winner. We will feed one group of dogs no appreciable
source of fat except for cocount oil, and the other group gets plenty
of omega 3s and 6s, and if the coconut dog group lives significantly
less then you win, but if not, then I win. I choose what to feed the
dogs on the coconut oil diet, in terms of non-fat items - you can feed
your unfortunate dogs the same, as long as they are getting a few grams
of omega 3s and 6s each day.

Have you ever realized that there is no standard for the amount of
"essential fatty acids" people are supposed to consume each day, unlike
other essential nutrients? And why did it take about 60 years before
the public started to be told about how "essential" these fatty acids
are? That alone is a strong indictment of the establishment,
regardless of whether omega 3s and 6s are "essential."

There is a huge scientific literature do***enting how dangerous PUFAs
can be (especially of the omega 3 and 6 variety). One researcher
commented that it appears that arachidonic acid is not safe at any
level and in any tissue. Several have ommented about how these fatty
acids appear to be the root cause of most "chronic disease." The
papers are being published at a nearly daily rate. Just go to
pubmed.com and search for arachidonic, lipid peroxidation, linoleic,
oxidative stress, and reactive oxygen species, for example, if you
think I am fabricating this. If we are not to pay attention to the
many researchers who have come to this conclusion, why should we listen
to any scientist? How can we accept one terribly flawed study from
1930 and yet ignore hundreds that have been published recently? Why
not just create a religion of food? Oh, I forgot, that's the situation
that we are presently in now.

..st_ed53sp.. ..hoo.c..

I think I've found the study (below).

It seems to show better health with more baked or broiled fish
and worse with fried (my call: usually white-fish low in omega 3).
That would be more omega 3 is better for you (just in terms of
ischemic stroke, they don't have anything to abstract about
other mortality).

Ed



Arch Intern Med. 2005 Jan 24;165(2):200-6. Related Articles, Links


Erratum in:
Arch Intern Med. 2005 Mar 28;165(6):683.

Fish consumption and stroke risk in elderly individuals: the
cardiovascular health study.

Mozaffarian D, Longstreth WT Jr, Lemaitre RN, Manolio TA, Kuller LH,
Burke GL, Siscovick DS.

Channing Laboratory, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's
Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Harvard School of Public Health,
Boston, MA, USA. dmozaffa@hsph.harvard.edu

BACKGROUND: ***ociations between fish consumption and stroke risk have
been inconsistent, possibly because of the differences in types of fish
meals consumed. Additionally, such relationships have not been
specifically evaluated in the elderly, in whom disease burden may be
high and diet less influential. METHODS: Among 4775 adults 65 years or
older (range, 65-98 years) and free of known cerebrovascular disease at
baseline in 1989-1990, usual dietary intake was ***essed using a food
frequency questionnaire. In a subset, consumption of tuna or other
broiled or baked fish, but not fried fish or fish sandwiches (fish
burgers), correlated with plasma phospholipid long-chain n-3 fatty acid
levels. Incident strokes were prospectively ascertained. RESULTS:
During 12 years of follow-up, participants experienced 626 incident
strokes, including 529 ischemic strokes. In multivariate analyses,
tuna/other fish consumption was inversely ***ociated with total stroke
(P = .04) and ischemic stroke (P = .02), with 27% lower risk of
ischemic stroke with an intake of 1 to 4 times per week (hazard ratio
[HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-0.98) and 30% lower risk
with intake of 5 or more times per week (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.50-0.99)
compared with an intake of less than once per month. In contrast, fried
fish/fish sandwich consumption was positively ***ociated with total
stroke (P = .006) and ischemic stroke (P = .003), with a 44% higher
risk of ischemic stroke with consumption of more than once per week
(HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.12-1.85) compared with consumption of less than
once per month. Fish consumption was not ***ociated with hemorrhagic
stroke. CONCLUSIONS: Among elderly individuals, consumption of tuna or
other broiled or baked fish is ***ociated with lower risk of ischemic
stroke, while intake of fried fish or fish sandwiches is ***ociated
with higher risk. These results suggest that fish consumption may
influence stroke risk late in life; potential mechanisms and alternate
explanations warrant further study.

PMID: 15668367

..harris[atsign]ix.netc...c..

>>It's funny that people like yourself can see the nonsense involved in

much of "nutritional science" today, but yet you don't realize that
there is absolutely no scientific evidence that dietary polyunsaturated

fatty acids are needed by non-pregnant, adult humans (humans can and do

make their own PUFA, called the Mead acid, which is very stable and yet

does everything the omega 3s and 6s can do). <<


COMMENT:
That is complete nonsense. Read a modern textbook. You can't even grow
mammalian cells in a dish without lipids. If you try, they ac***ulate
"Mead's acid" (aka ETA or 18:3w9) which they synthesize, and die. Of
essential fatty acid deficiency. I'll append an abstract at the end of
this, and you can find it on medline and c**** on the links to find
dozens of cases of EFA deficiency in culture. As well as the use of
Mead's acid to diagnose the condition in vivo as well. And interesting
preliminary work that w-9 ETA makes cancer cells grow faster, and w-3
EFAs slow it down. The kinds of things made from w-9 fats are
pathological in many systems. Why you think they might substitute for
w-3 in your brain is beyond me. It's well known that mammals have no
systems to make w-3 or w-6 fatty acids from w-9's like ETA.

There are numerous examples known of essential fatty acid deficiency in
human adults. And experimentally in many other mammals besides rodents.


>> The study that is quoted
(there is only one) as a citation that "proves" the "essentiality" of
omega 3 and 6 PUFAs was done in 1930 on rats.<<

No. Read a modern text book.


>>I can't
prove that dietary PUFAs are not essential, but I've avoided them for a

few years now and feel better than ever.<<


COMMENT:
It's pretty hard to avoid them completely. And on a low level, you
really don't know what your coronaries are doing, or what cancers
you're encouraging.


>> My grandparents never had any appreciable source of omega 3s and
still don't, yet are doing fairly well (early 90s, mid 80s).<<


COMMENT:
Your grandparents never ate plants, or animal that eat plants?
Remarkable. They must still be on hyperalimentation, or eating a
semisynthetic diet of hydrogenated cocoanut oil.


>> If anyone wants to take me up on the offer,
I'll put up a huge amount of money (and you match it) - loser pays for
the experiment and admits defeat in a signed and notarized do***ent,
given to the winner. We will feed one group of dogs no appreciable
source of fat except for cocount oil, and the other group gets plenty
of omega 3s and 6s, and if the coconut dog group lives significantly
less then you win, but if not, then I win. I choose what to feed the
dogs on the coconut oil diet, in terms of non-fat items - you can feed
your unfortunate dogs the same, as long as they are getting a few grams

of omega 3s and 6s each day. <<


COMMENT:

You'll no doubt have one sick group of dogs. Dogs fed only
hydrogenated coconut oil (to remove all PUFAs) with cholesterol (which
dogs normally handle well) actually get atherosclerosis (!) which is
quite remarkable for dogs. And it's prevented by adding just a little
high omega-6 and omega-3 PUFA plant oil. See the abstract below. Your
experiment has already been done for you, essentially. Do you want to
send me a check for pointing this out?



>>Have you ever realized that there is no standard for the amount of
"essential fatty acids" people are supposed to consume each day, unlike

other essential nutrients? <<


COMMENT:
These things all have standard intake ranges to prevent deficiency.
Have you ever read a modern nutrition textbook in your life? The
chapters on fats have references, you know. Start with Goodhart and
Shils.

>>There is a huge scientific literature do***enting how dangerous
PUFAs
can be (especially of the omega 3 and 6 variety).<<


COMMENT:
No, sorry, but the longest lived populations in the world (Japanese and
Icelanders) have some of the highest omega-3 intakes. Omega-6 intakes
are a mixed back due to the pro-inflammatory nature of arachadonate (as
you mention), but even that can be avoided by cutting down on meat
intake, and using plant-based omega-6 precursors (like GLA) to
encourage pathways away from arachadonate.

>> One researcher commented that it appears that arachidonic acid is
not safe at any
level and in any tissue. Several have ommented about how these fatty
acids appear to be the root cause of most "chronic disease."<<

COMMENT:
They should tell that to the Japanese and the Icelanders.

>> The
papers are being published at a nearly daily rate. Just go to
pubmed.com and search for arachidonic, lipid peroxidation, linoleic,
oxidative stress, and reactive oxygen species, for example, if you
think I am fabricating this.<<

COMMENT:
No, I can see them. But these papers are wonderful examples of theory
trying to trump facts. Life span feeding studies in rodents at least
show that high PUFA diets are not harmful so long as various other
vitamins and minerals (like vitamin E and Se) are not in short supply.


>> If we are not to pay attention to the
many researchers who have come to this conclusion, why should we listen

to any scientist? How can we accept one terribly flawed study from
1930 and yet ignore hundreds that have been published recently? Why
not just create a religion of food? Oh, I forgot, that's the situation

that we are presently in now. <<

COMMENT:

Nonsense. See the following two abstracts, and see the references for
the first one.

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1995 Feb 14;92(4):1147-51.

Development and characterization of essential fatty acid deficiency in
human
endothelial cells in culture.

Lerner R, Lindstrom P, Berg A, Johansson E, Rosendahl K, Palmblad J.

Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm Soder Hospital,
Sweden.

We induced an essential fatty acid deficiency (EFAD) in human umbilical
vein
endothelial cells by culture in medium with 20% (vol/vol) delipidated
fetal calf
serum. EFAD, reflected by decreased cellular linoleic acid (18:2 omega
6) and
arachidonic acid (20:4 omega 6) and emergence of the oleic acid
derivative
5,8,11-eicosatrienoic acid (20:3 omega 9; Mead's acid), was evident
after 1 week
of culture and became pronounced after 2 weeks. Beyond that time point,
control
cells (cultured in 20% normal fetal calf serum) grew deficient of 18:2
omega 6,
and EFAD cells died. 18:2 omega 6 addition to EFAD cells resulted in
dose-dependent increases of 18:2 omega 6 and 20:4 omega 6. 20:4 omega 6
or
5,8,11,14,17-eicosapentaenoic acid (20:5 omega 3) additions resulted in
normalization of these acids, and conversion of 20:5 omega 3 to
4,7,10,13,16,19-docosahexaenoic acid (22:6 omega 3) was noted.
Agonist-induced
increases in concentrations of prostacycline (prostaglandin I2; PGI2)
and
cytosolic Ca2+, [Ca2+]i, were reduced in EFAD cells and not restored by
18:2
omega 6 or 20:4 omega 6 additions. Change of the medium in EFAD
cultures 1 day
before the experiments decreased 20:3 omega 9 and normalized the PGI2
production
and [Ca2+]i changes, whereas addition of 20:3 omega 9 to control cells
impaired
the [Ca2+]i response, indicating a suppressive effect of 20:3 omega 9.
Thus,
EFAD in endothelial cells is ***ociated with abnormalities of
eicosanoid and
second-messenger production partly attributable to 20:3 omega 9
ac***ulation.
Moreover, the gradual emergence of 18:2 omega 6 deficiency in regularly
grown
control cells underlines the need for careful analysis of fatty acids
in
long-term cell cultures.

PMID: 7862650 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


===================================
Lab Invest. 1976 Apr;34(4):394-405.

Experimental canine atherosclerosis and its prevention. The dietary
induction of
severe coronary, cerebral, aortic, and iliac atherosclerosis and its
prevention
by safflower oil.

McCullagh KG, Ehrhart A, Butkus A.

Severe atherosclerotic lesions were produced without thyroid
suppression in
seven out of eight dogs by feeding semisynthetic diets containing 5 per
cent
cholesterol and 16 per cent hydrogenated coconut oil for 12 to 14
months.
Occlusive plaques were located in the coronary arteries and major
cerebral
arteries as well as in the aorta and iliac vessels. The lesions were
characterized by an intense sclerotic reaction to areas of lipid
deposition and
foam cell ac***ulation in the intima. The diet induced a rapid
elevation of
plasma-free and esterfied cholesterol, triglyceride, and phospholipid,
and the
extent of aortic atherosclerosis was shown to be partially dependent on
mean
plasma cholesterol concentration. A second group of eight dogs were fed
a diet
identical with the first except for the replacement of 4 per cent
hydrogenated
coconut oil by 4 per cent safflower oil. Despite receiving the same
amounts of
dietary cholesterol and fat, this second group of dogs was completely
protected
from the atherogenic process. Plasma lipids became only slightly
elevated and no
induced atherosclerotic lesions were found at autopsy. Circulating
thyroid
hormone concentrations were similar between the two groups of dogs and
the
thyroid glands had a normal morphology in both groups.

PMID: 1263442 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

..m ..inn..

"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
part:

>>>The study advances scientists' understanding of how fatty fish affect
>
>the heart, said Dr. Jean Olson of the National Heart, Lung and Blood
>Institute, which funded it. For consumers, "the bottom line is, 'Eat
>more fish,'" she said.<<
>
>COMMENT:
>
>Another unhelpful opinion from another government "expert" who just
>doesn't get it.

<snip>

Amen. Exactly right.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

..trid..

Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >>The study advances scientists' understanding of how fatty fish
affect
>
> the heart, said Dr. Jean Olson of the National Heart, Lung and Blood
> Institute, which funded it. For consumers, "the bottom line is, 'Eat
> more fish,'" she said.<<
>
> COMMENT:
>
> Another unhelpful opinion from another government "expert" who just
> doesn't get it.
>
> We are repeating the vitamin wars of 20 years ago, in which all kinds
> of good things were found out about this or that vitamin (folate,
say),
> and a ton of government money was spent to find out how much this or
> that vitamin was in foods, and how they should be prepared, and how
> much leached out into the water you boil your vegetables in, and ad
> nauseum. But it made a lot of nutritionists happy for decades because
> it paid their salaries. And did the public no good at all. Finally,
in
> the case of folate, after a few thousand more deformed babies were
> born, there was a giant argument between a bunch of government
> conservatives (at the NIH) and another set (at the FDA) until finally
a
> third bunch of government types who were at bit more enlightened (at
> the USDA) finally won out. Then the feds just started mandating the
> addition of folate to "enriched" flour. That actually began solving
the
> problem. It was very much the same story as adding iodide to salt
three
> generations earlier. And as with iodine, the food-fettish
nutritionists
> fought folate pills all the way until the day folate finally wound up
> in flour. Then they shut up. And moved on to the next nutrient.
>
> We've seen this before. It took about half a century for
> multivitamin/mineral pills to be accepted by nutritionists, because
> such pills made about half of what nutritionists did for the whole
20th
> century (measuring vitamins and minerals in foods and recommending
> foods with particular nutrients), irrelevent. But that doesn't mean
> that nutritionists have stopped hating supplement pills just because
> they finally gave in on multivitamins. As we said, if what's in the
> supplement pill is added to your food by your helpful government,
that
> nutrient will drop off the nutritionist radar screens. Until then,
> however, professional nutritionists will be in the middle of things,
> screwing things up, wasting money, and trying to get people to do
> *anything* but take the nutrient pill.
>
> I suspect we won't be rid of the unwanted and unhelpful advice of
this
> pesky profession on the omega-3 issue until the USDA finds a way to
add
> EPA+DHA to the food supply somehow---- and since that's going to be
> very difficult due to the needed dose and oxygen sensitivity of these
> nutrients, I suspect his nonsense will instead drag on for decades.
> Look for a lot more fishmeal to be fed to chickens and pigs and beef,
> but it won't be enough. After all, it took decades to get DHA into
> canned infant formula (lowering a lot of infant IQs in the process,
no
> doubt), and that is an EASY chemical problem compared with getting
DHA
> into the general adult food supply in any kind of preventive amounts.
>
> So meanwhile, here we are again, back with a new thing (long chain
> omega-3 FA's) and we're stuck at war with the anti-supplement-pill
> nutritionists as usual. Will we never learn? Unless you eat sardines
or
> red/sockeye salmon, you really don't know how much omega-3's in that
> fish in front of you. So why go through all the nonsense trying to
> figure it out? Take an omega-3 EPA/DHA supplement! It's cheap (25
> cents a day). It works (has been proven in prospective double blind
> studies of fish oil supplements in heart patients). End of omega-3
> problem. It seems too simple. It IS too simple.
>
> The simple fix is not happening for more than one reason. Not only do
> we have the anti-pill nutritionists screwing things up so more people
> don't take fishoil pills, but on the other side we have the Rx
> *pill-pushing* pharm-FDA industrial complex. This coalition has made
> sure the government (or your government sponsored health plan) is
> paying for some share of your prescription items, and that you don't
or
> won't really count a pill as "real" medicine or "strong" medicine
> *unless* a doctor prescribes it for you, a pharmacist gives it to
you,
> and your health plan pays for it. Which, in the case of fish oil
> capsules, the FDA and the DHHS and USPTO are making difficult enough
> that it's not likely to happen.
>
> Again, however, fish oil pills are supplements which do as well or
> better than the top-selling statins at preventing cardiac death in
> people with coronary disease. But, even though the AHA weakly
endorses
> fish oil pills (along, of course, with all the various kinds of fatty
> and confusing fish) relatively few people with coronary disease take
> them. The government pays for their angioplastics, their byp***es and
> (yes) their statins. And their cholesterol binders and niacin and
> fibrates and so on. Even their aspirin (provided it can be made to
look
> powerful and be extra expensive). But not their fish oil pills. The
> only thing the government DOES pay for nutritionally, is studies by a
> bevy of nutritionists to look at fish as food and figure out ways to
> divert people's attention from fish oil supplements. Go figure.
>
> Fish oil capsules are example of an easy, inexpensive, and fairly
> effective treatment for a very difficult and expensive problem
> (coronary disease--- I don't review the many other uses for them). Of
> course, fish oil capsules are not a cure-all. They won't fix heart
> disease. They don't lower cholesterol that well, though they do a
good
> job on triglycerides. They are apparently excellent antiarrhythmics.
> They may act synergistically with prescription drugs in heart disease
> to prevent death, and I expect they do. They merely deserve to be
seen
> as on par with the best pharmacological therapies (in terms of
effect)
> and as easily beating many medical therapies in terms of cost,
safety,
> and side effects. I personally have zero commercial interest in them.
> But in terms of bang-for-buck, I find them incredibly impressive.
>
> And yet, your government is doing almost everything it can, short of
> making fish oil pills actually *illegal,* to keep the average person
> from swallowing them. They pay for prescription drugs that don't work
> (fibrates). They pay for studies on what fish to eat (but none which
> can tell you for sure how to avoid those full of mercury and which
have
> little omega-3s). The government is unlikely to pay for studies on
fish
> oil pills (the biggest one was done in Italy), and the government
> prescription drug benefit of course will not pay for the fish oil
pills
> themselves. How is that for strange? It's almost enough to make one
> wonder about conspiracies. But it's not. It's simply the usual
> confederacy of dunces we saw with iodine, niacin, folate, and so on.
> And it's the usual information problem which crimps our use of almost
> any nutrient in a pill.
>
> And it's not as though the health care system we have, has much "bang
> for buck," that they don't need to look for other ways to attack
health
> problems. Rather the opposite. Those treadmills, CCU's, nuclear heart
> scans, byp***es, angioplasties and statin drugs are breaking the
> healthcare system. They contribute greatly to medicaid costs which
are
> growing exponentially everywhere. I heard the governnor of Virginia
> last night on CNN bemoan the fact that medicaid is now 24% of his
state
> budget, and doubing in cost every 7 years (that way lies bankrupcy
very
> soon). Medicaid costs now DRIVE most state budgets, even ahead of
K-12
> ed. But no state is going broke trying to supply "vulnerable
> populations" with fish oil capsules. They ARE, however, going broke
> trying to decide whether to pay for Lipitor vs Pravachol. The fish
oil,
> by contrast, would actually be financially do-able. How's that for
> irony?
>
>
> SBH


Thank you. Always emminently sensible and readable.

I began taking fishoil capsules on your advice and will continue in
spite of them being more expenseive here. I know they do not lower
cholesterol, but wonder; would you put children who have been diagnosed
with FH on fishoil capsules? {Reminding you I have FH, presumably had
it as a child, am 62 with no cardiovascular disease. So far).

Zee

..harris[atsign]ix.netc...c..

>>I began taking fishoil capsules on your advice and will continue in
spite of them being more expenseive here. I know they do not lower
cholesterol, but wonder; would you put children who have been diagnosed

with FH on fishoil capsules? {Reminding you I have FH, presumably had
it as a child, am 62 with no cardiovascular disease. So far). <<


COMMENT:

Sure I would. A lot of these kids have hypertriglyceridemia, which will
be helped. And coronary disease leads to dysthrymias, which fish oil
helps.

..tt.. ..gelfire.c..

Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >>It's funny that people like yourself can see the nonsense involved
in
>
> much of "nutritional science" today, but yet you don't realize that
> there is absolutely no scientific evidence that dietary
polyunsaturated
>
> fatty acids are needed by non-pregnant, adult humans (humans can and
do
>
> make their own PUFA, called the Mead acid, which is very stable and
yet
>
> does everything the omega 3s and 6s can do). <<
>
>
> COMMENT:
> That is complete nonsense. Read a modern textbook.
[snip lots of evidence against montygram's position]

Great post, but you just know that montygram's sitting somewhere doing
the Usenet equivalent of covering his ears going "lalala I can't hear
you". The dog study was a masterstroke, not just denouncing his
***ertion, but doing it with his coconut oil panacea rather than some
other saturated fat.

MattLB