Diet Linked To Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma

"Ignoramus14879" wrote in message ...
In article , pearl wrote:
"J" wrote in message ...
pearl wrote:

snipped

Please stop (all of you) your infernal cross-posting to sci.med.diseases.cancer

Sorry, but I'm unwilling to comply with your request, as I believe
that cancer sufferers are entitled to information that may well help
improve their condition, and help to prevent any future recurrence.

How would this information help people who already have cancer.

If your bath is overflowing, do you;
a. Leave the taps on, and the plug in?
b. Turn the taps off, and pull out the plug?

Simple really.

"Ignoramus14879" wrote in message ...
In article , pearl wrote:
..
How would this information help people who already have cancer.
..
cancer is not the same as bath overflowing.

In a way, it is. Continuing on a course that causes a problem,
is like wading further out to sea when you need to go ashore.

Cancer cells are malignant cells that proliferate without control.

Changing conditions that could cause cells become malignant is not
relevant once malignancy already exists.

Yet replacing that which is causing a problem with something
that protects against it (while promoting overall health), could
slow progression of the condition, far better enable remission,
support recovery, and also help prevent any future occurrence.

"Ignoramus14879" wrote in message ...
In article , pearl wrote:
..
As for being fit, it requires exercise and not diet.

Read the above-linked paper.

how can you be strong and agile, and develop endurance, without
exercise? That's what fitness is.

Research suggests that a low-protein diet increases rather
substantially voluntary physical activity. Read the paper.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...sis_paper.html

..

"pearl" wrote in message ...
"Ignoramus14879" wrote in message ...
..
How would this information help people who already have cancer.
..
.. (while promoting overall health), ..

... and ..

'A strong immune system can kill cancer cells.'
http://www.cancer-info.com/cancerdeath.htm

****witted Lesley commits the ecological fallacy

pearl wrote:
"Bob in CT" wrote in message news
From:

http://www.lowcarbresearch.org/lcr/r....asp?catid=204

O Putting Meat on Our Bones (Press Release) Added on: 1/30/2004 Hits: 53
From the USDA Agricultural Research Service and the Journal of Nutrition,
2003: A team of researchers compared the effects of several weeks a
controlled high and low meat diets on calcium retention and bone mass in
15 healthy postmenopausal women for 8 weeks. They noted that while the
high meat intake group had higher renal acid secretion at the onset of the
diet, it fell signficantly with time. At the end of the study, the
researchers noted that there was no difference in bone mass or calcium
retention among the two groups. They concluded that high meat diets do not
reduce calcium retention or bone mass.


..'
http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicl...eoporosis.html

http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...-anat-8e.shtml

Let us now briefly examine some of the limitations of
the China Study and its results. Quotes from the
principal (China Study) authors are used liberally
below, so you can learn about the limitations from the
study authors themselves.

* Level of aggregation of the study data yields,
at most, 65 observations (data points) for analysis.
The data in the China Study are aggregated at the
county level. The result is that for most
health/disease/dietary factors to be analysed, there
are 65 (or less) observations (data points). This is
important for two reasons:

o The study is often described as
authoritative and reliable--characteristics that are
usually associated with "large" data sets. When one
learns there are only 65 observations (and hundreds of
variables), it suddenly seems far less authoritative.
Note that the term "large" is relative; for simple
analysis of a very few variables, 65 data points may be
adequate, but for sophisticated models involving
several variables, hundreds (or even thousands) of data
points may be appropriate.

o The limit of 65 observations places limits
on the number of variables that can be analyzed
simultaneously (via multivariate--that is,
multiple-variable--techniques).

Side note: (statistical, can skip if
you wish) Even a simple technique like some of the
regression methods based on splines may be seriously
limited on a data set of only 65 points. Spline methods
are becoming increasingly important, because unlike
traditional regression techniques they do not assume
the functional form of a relationship between
variables. (That is, they do not assume ahead of time
what particular mathematical relationship may exist
between one variable and another.)

Such limits are quite frustrating on a data set
that includes hundreds of variables. Campbell [1989]
appears to acknowledge this (p. 2):

Although uniquely comprehensive... it is not
yet clear how satisfactory the analysis of multiple
factor effects will be upon disease risk, given the
limited number of survey counties (65). More complete
evaluations of the virtually unlimited interactions
between different disease causes may have to await the
addition of still more dietary and lifestyle studies of
disease mortality rates.

* Limits on the use of geographical correlations,
the primary data of the China Study monograph (Junshi
et al. [1990]). The China Study monograph [Junshi et
al. 1990] provides geographic correlations which are of
limited direct use. Although it is possible to develop
statistical models in which the dependent variable is a
correlation, models constructed using the underlying
variables from the relevant correlation may be far more
meaningful and useful. Peto, writing in Junshi et al.
[1990, pp. 76-77] notes:

Although geographic variation in particular
disease rates can provide clear evidence that, in areas
where those rates are high, that disease is largely
avoidable, they may provide frustratingly unclear
evidence as to exactly how it can be avoided...

An even more striking example of the
limitations of geographic correlations is that
oesophageal cancer in China has no clear geographic
association with smoking, and has a significantly (P
0.01) negative association with daily alcohol intake.

Peto and Doll [1981], as cited by Peto in Junshi
et al. [1990], also remind us that attempts to separate
causality from confounding factors in geographical data
via the technique of multiple regression are often
unsuccessful (or, my comment--misleading, which is even
worse).

* The China Study report lists only 6
statistically significant correlations between
meat-eating and disease mortality. Further, 4 of the
correlations are negative, which indicates that the
mortality rate for that disease decreased as meat
consumption increased. The two diseases that had
positive correlations with meat consumption are
schistosomiasis, a parasite, and pneumoconiosis and
dust disease.

Thus, the direct evidence of the study is hardly
the condemnation of meat consumption that veg*n dietary
advocates may claim it to be. It should be noted here
that correlation is a measure only of linear
relationships, and other analytical methods may yield
different results. Despite the possibility of the
existence of more complicated statistical
relationships, it seems quite odd, given the
interpretations of the study made by veg*n dietary
advocates, that meat intake generally did not correlate
with disease mortality. (See table 5033, pp. 634-635 of
Junshi et al. [1990].)

* Ecological studies (like the China Study)
generate hypotheses, they do not prove them. Campbell
and Junshi [1994] concisely state this limitation (p.
1155S):

First, this study is ecological and includes
6,500 individuals residing in 130 villages. Thus
according to widely held assumptions, any inferences
concerning cause-and-effect relationships should be
considered to be hypothetical only, with validation to
be provided only by intervention or prospective
analytic studies on individuals.

Thus we note that the China Study requires
backup clinical studies before making inferences or
drawing conclusions. The main hypothesis of the China
Study is whether diets that are predominantly plant
foods reduce chronic diseases. However, some veg*n
advocates go far beyond the main hypothesis of the
study, and claim it proves that veg*n diets are
"better" than all omnivore diets. Further, such claims
may be made without supporting clinical studies, and
without regard for the actual range of diets included
in the study. (The latter point is discussed later herein.)

* The ecological fallacy, and its impact on
ecological inference. Freedman [1999, p. 1] provides a
brief overview of the ecological fallacy (boldface
emphasis below is mine):

In 19th century Europe, suicide rates were
higher in countries that were more heavily Protestant,
the inference being that suicide was promoted by the
social conditions of Protestantism (Durkheim 1897). A
contemporary example is provided by Carroll (1975):
death rates from breast cancer are higher in countries
where fat is a larger component of the diet, the idea
being that fat intake causes breast cancer. These are
"ecological inferences," that is, inferences about
individual behavior drawn from data about groups...

The ecological fallacy consists in thinking
that relationships observed for groups necessarily hold
for individuals: if countries with more Protestants
have higher suicide rates, then Protestants must be
more likely to commit suicide; if countries with more
fat in the diet have higher rates of breast cancer,
then women who eat fatty foods must be more likely to
get breast cancer. These inferences may be correct, but
are only weakly supported by the aggregate data.

...However, it is all too easy to draw
incorrect conclusions from aggregate data.... For
example, recent studies of individual-level data cast
serious doubt on the link between breast cancer and fat
intake (Holmes et al. 1999).

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:21:14 -0000, "pearl"
posted:

"usual suspect" wrote in message ...
Jonathan Ball wrote:
..
"vegan" diets are linked with B-12 deficiency.

And iron deficiency, zinc deficiency, etc.

Common in the general population.

The Baer report (Rutgers Univ., 1984) "Variations in Mineral
Contents of Vegetables"
Percentage of | Quantities per 100 Grams | Trace Elements. Parts per million
Dry Weight Dry Weight Dry matter

Vegetable: Mineral Ash | Calcium Magnesium | Boron Manganese Iron Copper Cobalt
Snap Beans
Organic 10.45 40.5 60 73 60 227 69 0.26
Non-organic 4.04 15.5 14.8 10 2 10 3 0
Cabbage
Organic 10.38 60 43.6 42 13 94 48 0.15
Non-organic 6.12 17.5 13.6 7 2 20 0.4 0
Lettuce
Organic 24.48 71 49.3 37 169 516 60 0.19
Non-organic 7.01 16 13.1 6 1 9 3 0
Tomatoes
Organic 14.2 23 59.2 36 68 1938 53 0.63
Non-organic 6.07 4.5 4.5 3 1 1 0 0
Spinach
Organic 28.56 96 203.9 88 117 1584 32 0.25
Non-organic 12.38 47.5 46.9 12 1 49 0.3 0.2

http://www.organicnutrition.co.uk/wh...whyorganic.htm

Look at the amazing numbers, and then look at the URL. Bull****!!!

Organic produce MUST contain less minerals than conventional.

Organic growing can't replace the harvested minerals, whereas
conventional growing analyses and replenishes the mined minerals.

On 27 Mar 2004 13:24:48 GMT, Ignoramus25877
posted:

In article , Moosh wrote:
On 25 Mar 2004 17:37:09 GMT, Ignoramus20562
posted:

In article , Bob in CT wrote:
On 25 Mar 2004 17:25:19 GMT, Ignoramus20562
wrote:
[cut]


fruits are always restricted because they contain a lot of carbs (sans
avocado).

That said, within one's daily allowance of carbs, fruits are
permitted. I feel that vegetables give more bang for the buck than
fruits anyway, and eat about one apple per day only as far as fruits
are concerned.

I personally think that there is a lot of truth in raw foodism, which
is saying that raw foods are great foods. The logical fallacy that
they make is saying that they want to ONLY eat raw foods, instead of
correctly saying that they should eat a lot of raw foods.

So, a great majority of what I eat is raw, sans for meat and
such. Tried to eat raw meat also, but it is not very practicable due
to spoliation/contamination issues.

i

Veges are way better than fruits in my opinion -- less carbs and higher
fiber typically. I do tend toward the berries though, and eat some type
of berry almost every day. My typical day includes a large salad,
tomatoes, onions, cooked tomatoes (salsa), and berries. Also, I eat nuts
almost every day.


I could have repeated what you said, word for word.

Fruits are basically a lot of sugar with some fiber and vitamins. Vegs
are basically a little bit of sugar with fiber and vitamins. Better
than fruits.

Why exactly? Starch is the same as sugar to the body, and many veges
have a deal of this. Where are you getting your energy requirements
from?

Check out my fitday report at

http://igor.chudov.com/weightloss/

Link didn't work for me.

for precise information on where I get my energy. I do eat a bit of
bread and hot cereal (150 g carbs per day), and also plenty of fat and
meat.

As for starches, I eat mostly raw vegetables, and those tend to be not
too starchy. Raw starch is also not particularly digestible.

Yep, I prefer less fat and more fruit. More micronutrients I would
guess.

On 27 Mar 2004 09:00:40 -0800, (jpatti) posted:

"Moosh" wrote in message . ..

Why exactly? Starch is the same as sugar to the body, and many veges
have a deal of this. Where are you getting your energy requirements
from?

This thread is massively cross-posted.

Yes, but as I don't know where different participants are reading
from, I'm loathe to trim them. Just gotta see it out I'm afraid

When low-carbers talk about the piles of vegetables they eat, we
usually aren't referring to potatoes. Starchy vegetables are avoided
on low-carb.

I realise this. That's what I'm questioning.

Energy requirements are easily fulfilled with protein and fat, carbs
are not necessary for calories.

Neither are protein and fat. I'm interested in the advantages of
restricting one particular energy source for a normal healthy human.

Protein can be metabolized as
glucose, so starch or sugar is not needful even for production of
glucose for blood sugar.

Well gluconeogenesis is not generally very fast, but of course you can
get glucose from part of fat and excess protein. Doesn't explain why
you would go for this contortion.

The reason some people consider veggies "better" than fruits is
because if you are restricting carbohydrates, you get more bang for
your buck out of cabbage than from an apple... more food and hence
more fiber and micronutrients for the same amount of carb.

But carb gives more "bang for the buck" nutritionally than fat.
And what about all the micronutrients from apples that don't occur in
cabbage. See, I would eat both, and cut a tiny bit of empty fat
calories.

This is also why berries and melon are often referred to, these are
lower carb than most fruits.

Are you sure? They often have more fructose, and therefore have lower
GI.

As to whether low-carb is a healthy diet, this depends on how the
individual chooses to do it. Some get virtually all their carbs from
vegetables and fruit. Others do low-carb by eating "low carb" junk
food. Obviously, there's a big difference in how healthy those diets.

But my question is what is the advantage of "low carb" in the first
place. That refined food should be avoided is a given

I am personally sort of intermediate, I eat a lot of vegetables, some
fruit, but probably more dairy than I strictly need. My diet would be
improved by getting more of my carbs from veggies and fewer from
cheese and cream.

Cheese and cream have negligible carbs, I would have thought.

"Moosh" wrote in message ...
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:21:14 -0000, "pearl"
posted:

"usual suspect" wrote in message ...
Jonathan Ball wrote:
..
"vegan" diets are linked with B-12 deficiency.

And iron deficiency, zinc deficiency, etc.

Common in the general population.

The Baer report (Rutgers Univ., 1984) "Variations in Mineral
Contents of Vegetables"
Percentage of | Quantities per 100 Grams | Trace Elements. Parts per million
Dry Weight Dry Weight Dry matter

Vegetable: Mineral Ash | Calcium Magnesium | Boron Manganese Iron Copper Cobalt
Snap Beans
Organic 10.45 40.5 60 73 60 227 69
0.26
Non-organic 4.04 15.5 14.8 10 2 10 3 0
Cabbage
Organic 10.38 60 43.6 42 13 94 48
0.15
Non-organic 6.12 17.5 13.6 7 2 20 0.4 0
Lettuce
Organic 24.48 71 49.3 37 169 516 60 0.19
Non-organic 7.01 16 13.1 6 1 9 3
0
Tomatoes
Organic 14.2 23 59.2 36 68 1938 53 0.63
Non-organic 6.07 4.5 4.5 3 1 1 0
0
Spinach
Organic 28.56 96 203.9 88 117 1584 32 0.25
Non-organic 12.38 47.5 46.9 12 1 49 0.3 0.2

http://www.organicnutrition.co.uk/wh...whyorganic.htm

Look at the amazing numbers, and then look at the URL. Bull****!!!

Ipse dixit. .. Anyway, you have a reference.

Organic produce MUST contain less minerals than conventional.

Organic growing can't replace the harvested minerals, whereas
conventional growing analyses and replenishes the mined minerals.

Mineral content: This may be the most important nutritional difference
between organic and regular produce since heavy use of fertilizer inhibits
absorption of some minerals, which are likely to be at lower levels to
begin with in soils that have been abused. This may be caused in part
by the lack of beneficial mycorrhizae fungi on the roots since high levels
of fertilizer tend to kill them. Standard diets tend to be low in various
minerals, resulting in a variety of problems including osteoporosis.
http://math.ucsd.edu/~ebender/Health...s/organic.html

'The emphasis of organic agriculture on feeding soils is the primary
step in achieving products of high nutritional content. An
understanding of nutritional balance, physical and biophysical soil
composition underpins a successful organic farming system. '
http://www.rirdc.gov.au/pub/org5yr3.htm

Results
Against a background of declining mineral levels in fresh
produce over the last sixty years (Mayer 1997), and given that
many people fail to achieve the recommended daily allowance for
a variety of nutrients (MAFF 1996, Clayton 2001), the nutrient
contents of organic and non-organic produce are worthy of
comparison. ..

While similar controlled studies in humans are difficult, clinical
experience and recorded observations have suggested similar
benefits in human reproductive health (Foresight), recovery from
illness (Plaskett 1999) and general health (Daldy 1940) from
the consumption of organically produced food.
http://www.organic.aber.ac.uk/librar...%20quality.pdf

'More research confirms organic food is better for you
RESEARCH PAPER: ARCHIVED

The Soil Association Organic Farming, Food Quality and Human
Health report showed that the nutritional content of organic was
higher than non-organic foods. New US research shows by how
much.

"While my review looked at the entire picture of nutritional food
quality" says Shane Heaton, author of the Soil Association food
quality report, "this research, by nutritionist Virginia Worthington,
has looked specifically at the comparative vitamin and mineral
contents, reviewing a similar collection of scientific studies.

"Her research confirms our findings that, on average, organic
produce contains significantly higher levels of vitamin C, iron,
magnesium and phosphorus, and how seemingly small
differences in nutrients can mean the difference between
getting the recommended daily allowance - or failing to."

All 21 minerals compared were higher in organic produce.
...'
http://www.soilassociation.org/sa/sa...s10122001.html

Study Denying Nutritional Benefits of Organic Was Bogus
...
Zinc levels, one of the more interesting comparisons given it's
importance as a trace mineral in human health and because
many people are not able to obtain the recommended daily
allowance, described as 'negligible', are reported as the same
level in all twenty crops, which is often 100 percent higher
than the conventional food table figures. Clearly the zinc
levels were not properly assessed.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/Orga...tudy071902.cfm

'According to the USDA, the calcium content of an apple has
declined from 13.5 mg in 1914 to 7 mg in 1992. The iron
content has declined from 4.6 mg in 1914 to 0.18 mg in 1992.
...
A study published in the Journal of Applied Nutrition, Vol. 45,
#1, 1993 compared the nutrient content of supermarket food
versus organically grown food from food stores in the Chicago
area. The organic produce averaged twice the mineral content
of the supermarket food
http://www.drlwilson.com/articles/or...griculture.htm

'A study commissioned by the Organic Retailers and Growers
Association of Australia (ORGAA) found that conventionally
grown fruit and vegetables purchased in supermarkets and
other commercial retail outlets had ten times less mineral content
than fruit and vegetables grown organically.
Source: Organic Retailers and Growers Association of Australia,
2000, as cited in Pesticides and You, Vol. 20, No. 1, Spring
2000, News from Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against
the Misuse of Pesticides.
http://www.organicconnection.net/nutritional.html

'... chemical isolation combined with nuclear magnetic resonance
(NMR) spectroscopy revealed that the organically-grown oranges
contained 30% more vitamin C than the conventionally-grown fruits
- even though they were only about half the size. '
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0603071017.htm

Organic oats have much higher levels of essential nutrients
than conventional
...
As the chart below shows, preliminary nutritional analysis
of oat plants from The Rodale Institute's Farming Systems
Trial found that the organic plants had increases of up to
74 percent in nutrient content over conventionally grown
plants, suggesting an answer to the perennial question,
"Is organic better?"
http://www.newfarm.org/columns/jeff_moyer/1003.shtml

"Moosh" wrote in message . ..

Yes, but as I don't know where different participants are reading
from, I'm loathe to trim them. Just gotta see it out I'm afraid

Yes, I was just clarifying why I'm writing such "basic" stuff on the
low-cabr newsgroup.

When low-carbers talk about the piles of vegetables they eat, we
usually aren't referring to potatoes. Starchy vegetables are avoided
on low-carb.

I realise this. That's what I'm questioning.

Energy requirements are easily fulfilled with protein and fat, carbs
are not necessary for calories.

Neither are protein and fat. I'm interested in the advantages of
restricting one particular energy source for a normal healthy human.

There are archeological studies indicating humans were much healthier
prior to the development of agriculture... on a much lower-carb diet.
Larger skeletons, better tetth, stuff of that sort. Of course, with
no soft tissue studies, it's a limited indicator of health.

I don't know if the benefits are there for normal human beings. My
SIL is on a low-fat diet and exercising and seems to be growing both
slimmer and stronger. I think the only major benefit for her might be
that fat and protein tend to be more filling than carb, and thus
easier to restrict calories.

But... many of the posters from the low-carb newsgroup are not "normal
healthy humans." I am diabetic myself. Many are not diagnosed
diabetics, but their success on low-carb when low-fat was not
successful indicates insulin resistance.

Protein can be metabolized as
glucose, so starch or sugar is not needful even for production of
glucose for blood sugar.

Well gluconeogenesis is not generally very fast, but of course you can
get glucose from part of fat and excess protein. Doesn't explain why
you would go for this contortion.

Stabilizing blood sugar... fat has the slowest effect, protein the
next slowest effect on blood sugar. Thus the "glycemic index" of fat
and protein is better than even the best carbs. This provides a
longer-term source of energy, thereby reducing hunger for longer
periods.

There are futher benefits... mostly based on the differences in
insulin-mediated biochemistry versus glucagon-mediated biochemistry.
Aside from fat-burning benefits of glucagon, and controlling blood
sugar, lowered insulin/raised glucagon raised HDL and lwers
triglycerides. There's a host of good health benefits to limiting
carbs.

I recommend the book "Protein Power" for more details and references
to the relevant research.

But carb gives more "bang for the buck" nutritionally than fat.
And what about all the micronutrients from apples that don't occur in
cabbage. See, I would eat both, and cut a tiny bit of empty fat
calories.

Fat is not entirely empty calories, some fat is necessary. There are
"good" fats and "bad" fats just as there are "good" carbs versus "bad"
carbs.

As for me... an apple sends my blood sugar well over 200. That
overwhelms any micronutrients in the apple.


Are you sure? They often have more fructose, and therefore have lower
GI.

Overall carbs (excluding fiber) is mostly what we measure. The thing
is... to *some* degree, glycemic index is irrelevant. It's not just
about how fast blood sugar rises, but also about how much insulin is
prodced, and how much effect there is overall.

Fructose has a poor glycemic inex, no doubt. But we are talking about
fruit - which pretty much comes with fructose. Berries and melon are
fairly low-carb as fruits go and are thus more "bang for your buck"
than most other fruits.


As to whether low-carb is a healthy diet, this depends on how the
individual chooses to do it. Some get virtually all their carbs from
vegetables and fruit. Others do low-carb by eating "low carb" junk
food. Obviously, there's a big difference in how healthy those diets.

But my question is what is the advantage of "low carb" in the first
place. That refined food should be avoided is a given

Primarily reducing insulin, blood sugar and hunger. Since both high
and low blood sugar results in *ravenous* levels of hunger, it's
pretty pleasant to get off the blood sugar rollercoaster.

For more info, see the book recommended above.


I am personally sort of intermediate, I eat a lot of vegetables, some
fruit, but probably more dairy than I strictly need. My diet would be
improved by getting more of my carbs from veggies and fewer from
cheese and cream.

Cheese and cream have negligible carbs, I would have thought.

What is negligible depends on one's goals. My personal eating plan is
to stay within the ange of 30-50 grams of carb per day. I use up a
good 10 gram of that just on creaming my coffee (I drink a *lot* of
coffee).

Since I *love* dairy, I use up a lot of carbs on it, which could
frankly better be spent with more veggies and even a bit more fruit.