Page 3 of 3
Re: Nutrition Scientists - why are they wrong so often?
Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2015 12:13 pm
by Pointedstick
madbean wrote:
Thanks to MG's link I got my blood test results from Quest in less then 24 hours and it showed a total cholesterol number of 293 which is apparently quite high but my HDL which is the so-called good cholesterol was also high at 54 so with that evidence I'm pretty sure I'm going to terminate the statins after the first round to make my doctor happy. As to why my body is naturally producing cholesterol numbers that are high, I guess that will remain a mystery. I didn't have this problem (if it is a problem) as late as my 50's. It only started in my 60's.
My mother in law says that as soon as she hit menopause, her cholesterol shot up. This was a couple of years ago and since doctors have been Very Concerned about this, she's tried a whole bunch of things to get it back down, from diet to exercise regimens to drugs. Nothing's budged it so far. She's decided that since none of those things seemed to work (and the drugs were expensive), and it just kind of happened on its own, that she's not going to worry about it. I think doctors get too concerned about numbers that we still don't really understand. Boiling health down to a few cute figures seems pretty hubristic unless you know all the inputs and have verified that there is an actual link between "bad" numbers and bad health.
Re: Nutrition Scientists - why are they wrong so often?
Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2015 12:40 pm
by MachineGhost
dualstow wrote:
MG, I read that the latest iteration of Soylent replaced fish oil (herring, mackerel) with algal (algae) oil for Omega 3. Any comments on that?
I assume it's good because that's where some of the fish themselves get their Omega 3's.
Didn't know what you were talking about, so I looked it up. I remember that now! They say they use algal oil which is not cheap, so if theres actually 750mg DHA in Soylent, its gotta be super expensive since 200mg DHA is what is typically sold:
http://store.martek.com/ProductDetails. ... 5013747058
Here is what it really is:
http://www.cornucopia.org/what-are-marteks-dha-and-ara-oils/ wrote:
Martek Biosciences Corporation, owned by the $12 billion Dutch conglomerate Royal DSM, markets DHA oil from a strain of algae that was genetically modified through induced mutations with the use of radiation and/or harsh chemicals. Any technique that genetically modifies organisms or modifies their development through means that are not possible under natural conditions is strictly prohibited in organic food production.
The algae and fungus are fermented in stainless steel tanks containing the microorganisms’ “feed,”? which includes corn syrup, ethanol and other ingredients that are likely derived from genetically modified corn.
The algae and fungus, when used in infant formula, are then immersed in bath of hexane, a petrochemical and highly explosive synthetic solvent. Hexane is a known neurotoxin (according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) and hazardous air pollutant (according to the Environmental Protection Agency). The use of hexane is strictly prohibited in organic food production.
Algae destined for foods other than infant formula are extracted with the use of another synthetic solvent, isopropyl alcohol. Isopropyl alcohol is also prohibited in organic food production.
If the algal or fungal oil is found in powdered products, like infant formula or dry baby food such as rice cereal, it has been microencapsulated. Microencapsulation is also listed in the federal organic standards as a prohibited practice.
Finally, the algal or fungal oil – whether in fluid form or powdered form – is often stabilized and preserved with synthetic ingredients that are prohibited in organic foods, including the synthetic sugar alcohol mannitol, modified starch, glucose syrup solids, ascorbyl palmitate, etc.
As an aside, Soylent itself looks like what must be an overpriced mass gainer drink. It looks like a great way to induce diabesity. Thats what happens when you get an engineer with no experience reading up on a field out of his domain expertise -- no street smarts.
EDIT: Oh, it was 750mg Omega-3 in the initial. The revised is providing 130mg DHA and 90mg EPA per bottle. So divide that into 1/3rd for per serving. Woefully insufficient.
Re: Nutrition Scientists - why are they wrong so often?
Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2015 1:16 pm
by MachineGhost
MangoMan wrote:
How can you tell if it's EE vs. TG?
It will tell you on the label when it is triglyceride (TG). And if it says "molecularly distilled', "pharmaceutical grade" or "ultra purified" it's a dead giveaway it is ethyl esters (EE).
Here's an example of a EE that is synthetically made back into a TG, called ReTG:
http://www.nowfoods.com/Tri-3D-Omega-90-Softgels.htm wrote:Supplement Facts
Serving Size: 1 Softgel
Servings Per Container: 90
Amount Per Serving % Daily Value*
* Percent Daily Values are based on 2,000 calorie diet.
† Daily Value not established.
Calories 10
Calories from Fat 10
Total Fat 1 g 2%*
Cholesterol
Vitamin D3 1,000 IU 250%
(as Cholecalciferol) (from Lanolin) 0 mg 0%
Natural Fish Oil Concentrate 1 g (1,000 mg) †
Omega-3 Fatty Acids:
Eicosapentaenoic Acid (EPA)** 330 mg †
Docosahexaenoic Acid (DHA)** 220 mg †
**As the naturally occurring triglyceride forms.
And an example of a natural state TG (this is the first of its kind product):
Here's an example where the source matarial is available in both EE and natural TG (the discontinued liquid version was TG), so they ethically identify it:
BTW this is all off topic. Fish oil has nothing to do with "lowering cholesterol". It's used for lowering elevated triglycerides, which is a marker for the conversion of excess carbs into fat.
Re: Nutrition Scientists - why are they wrong so often?
Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2015 1:48 pm
by Benko
I just use nordic naturals (who specialize in fish oils) DHA
http://www.nordicnaturals.com/en/Produc ... rodID=1413
Re: Nutrition Scientists - why are they wrong so often?
Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2015 7:35 pm
by dualstow
Much appreciated, MG!
MachineGhost wrote:
dualstow wrote:
MG, I read that the latest iteration of Soylent replaced fish oil (herring, mackerel) with algal (algae) oil for Omega 3. Any comments on that?
I assume it's good because that's where some of the fish themselves get their Omega 3's.
Didn't know what you were talking about, so I looked it up. I remember that now! They say they use algal oil which is not cheap, so if theres actually 750mg DHA in Soylent, its gotta be super expensive since 200mg DHA is what is typically sold:
http://store.martek.com/ProductDetails. ... 5013747058
Here is what it really is:
As an aside, Soylent itself looks like what must be an overpriced mass gainer drink. It looks like a great way to induce diabesity. Thats what happens when you get an engineer with no experience reading up on a field out of his domain expertise -- no street smarts.
EDIT: Oh, it was 750mg Omega-3 in the initial. The revised is providing 130mg DHA and 90mg EPA per bottle. So divide that into 1/3rd for per serving. Woefully insufficient.
Re: Nutrition Scientists - why are they wrong so often?
Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2015 11:33 pm
by Benko
FROm MGS link:
Many manufacturers of "fish oil" dietary supplements don't list the chemical form of EPA and DHA on the bottle because it is not required. Only a few manufacturers such as Nordic Naturals, Bluebonnet, Whole Foods, Pharmax, and Quell list the chemical form of the omega-3s in their supplement facts panel.
Re: Nutrition Scientists - why are they wrong so often?
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2015 9:57 am
by Libertarian666
Overall mortality is not lowered by taking statins (assuming you haven't had a heart attack already), because the slight reduction in heart attacks is offset by other causes of death being increased, specifically including heart failure due to muscle wasting. Here's a site that has all you would ever need to know not to take them.
http://spacedoc.com/
I would never take statins unless I had already had a heart attack, and maybe not then.
Re: Nutrition Scientists - why are they wrong so often?
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2015 11:30 am
by MachineGhost
Libertarian666 wrote:
I would never take statins unless I had already had a heart attack, and maybe not then.
If you had a heart attack, there are much more things wrong with you that no drug is going to fix. You fix those underlyng problems, not only will you stay alive, you won't rely on the security theatre of a statin. In other words, don't be a Cheney unicorn.
Re: Nutrition Scientists - why are they wrong so often?
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2015 2:05 pm
by MachineGhost
This study is rather interesting... run, don't crawl away from statins unless you prefer to be a crippled SVOL (Sedentary Vat of Lard).
[quote=
https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/72929]CONCLUSION: These results indicate that statin treatment had a negative impact on muscle function and cellular regulation in muscles in hypercholesterolemic mice. The combination of exercise and statin treatment decreased mitochondrial content and the expression of PGC1-?. Additionally, muscle oxidative stress and the protein degradation were increased by the combination of exercise and statins while exercise alone elicited mitochondrial and antioxidant benefits.[/quote]
Re: Nutrition Scientists - why are they wrong so often?
Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 5:55 pm
by MachineGhost
The tools at the AHA and their crony supporters continue to act like nothing has changed. Cover your eyes and weep:
[quote=
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news ... 51177.html]Low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol -- the bad kind -- leads to thick, hard deposits of plaque that can narrow arteries and make them less flexible.
"Statin therapy has been demonstrated to slow or even reverse progression of plaque along with preventing heart attacks and strokes," said Dr. Gregg Fonarow, a professor of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles. "However, response to statins may vary among individuals."
Prior studies have shown that clinical benefits of statin therapy are in direct proportion to how much LDL is reduced, said Fonarow, who was not involved with the study.
He agreed that the findings of this study "suggest it may be important for evaluating clinical response to monitor LDL reduction during statin therapy."
For people who don't respond to statins, there may be hope on the horizon. Fonarow said new drugs to lower LDL cholesterol are being tested in large clinical trials.[/quote]
It's hard to believe this bullstuffs has been going on longer than civil forfeiture.
Re: Nutrition Scientists - why are they wrong so often?
Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2015 10:39 am
by MachineGhost
This is da bomb!
[quote=
http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/hea ... ve-disease]Dr Kailash Chand, deputy chairman of the British Medical Association, was speaking following research which found those who take the cholesterol-lowering drugs
are more than twice as likely to develop Parkinson’s disease in later life than those who do not.
A study last week showed statin use
increases the risk of diabetes by 46 per cent.
It has led to calls to end to the widespread use of the drugs.
The Parkinson’s research carried out over 20 years, and involving nearly 16,000 people, suggests
cholesterol may have a vital role in protecting the brain and nervous system.
The findings have alarmed experts who say if applied to the number of Britons deemed eligible for statins it could equate to 150,000 extra patients with Parkinson’s, a central nervous system disorder affecting one in 350 mostly older people.
The work has also fuelled concerns that statins, now recommended for up to half the adult population over 50 by government drug policy adviser the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence,
may be doing many patients more harm than good.
...
Other studies have shown a link between the cholesterol-lowering drugs and
potentially disabling side effects including cataracts, diabetes, muscle pains, fatigue and memory loss.[/quote]
Re: Nutrition Scientists - why are they wrong so often?
Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2015 12:36 pm
by Libertarian666
MachineGhost wrote:
This is da bomb!
http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/562600/Parkinsons-link-statins-mass-use-drug-risk-thousands-developing-nerve-disease wrote:Dr Kailash Chand, deputy chairman of the British Medical Association, was speaking following research which found those who take the cholesterol-lowering drugs
are more than twice as likely to develop Parkinson’s disease in later life than those who do not.
A study last week showed statin use
increases the risk of diabetes by 46 per cent.
It has led to calls to end to the widespread use of the drugs.
The Parkinson’s research carried out over 20 years, and involving nearly 16,000 people, suggests
cholesterol may have a vital role in protecting the brain and nervous system.
The findings have alarmed experts who say if applied to the number of Britons deemed eligible for statins it could equate to 150,000 extra patients with Parkinson’s, a central nervous system disorder affecting one in 350 mostly older people.
The work has also fuelled concerns that statins, now recommended for up to half the adult population over 50 by government drug policy adviser the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence,
may be doing many patients more harm than good.
...
Other studies have shown a link between the cholesterol-lowering drugs and
potentially disabling side effects including cataracts, diabetes, muscle pains, fatigue and memory loss.
I'm sure the pharmaceutical-industrial complex will be fighting back against these facts.