Lancet reveiw article lauds merit of megadose folic acid

[William A.]

The abstract is available as PMID 11755633

The bottom line is found under the heading INTERPRETAT|ION,
"Folic acid fortification should be increased. Additionally
women planning a pregnancy should take 5 milligrams of folic
acid tablets daily, instead of the 0.4 dose presently
recommended."

Concerning the preventing of neural tube defects in offspring,
it can be said more is better. Even a balanced whole food diet
is inadequate for a percent of the population. "An increase of
0.4 mg/day would reduce the risk by about 36%, of 1 mg/day by
57%, and taking a 5 mg tablet daily would reduce the risk by
about 85%."

While these results are discussed around the issue of NTD
prevention, the results have clear application to both genders
and all ages as some have diminished uptake of folate and
there is no reason be believe this is gender specific.

Folate shortfalls for the individuals with higher the median
requirements result in higher uracil mutations, cleft lips,
NTDs, some childhood leukemias, and cardiovascular disease.

Clearly the UL for folic acid is criminally low.

Skin pigmentation level evolution is said by some to be driven
from in part a tension between the requirements of vitamin D
(pale skins produce more in a shorter time), sunburn (dark
skins are more resistent) and folate acid preservation (dark
skins are more thrifty) as sunlight breaks folic acid down.

_____________William Noyes____________

[Mooshie Pe]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 00:45:43 -0700, "William A. Noyes"
<no.address@ctc.net> posted:

>The abstract is available as PMID 11755633
>
>The bottom line is found under the heading INTERPRETAT|ION,
>"Folic acid fortification should be increased. Additionally
>women planning a pregnancy should take 5 milligrams of folic
>acid tablets daily, instead of the 0.4 dose presently
>recommended."

Recommended for whom? It's a small percantage of a population,
BTW, and as folic acid is cheap and harmless and most folk eat
a terrible diet, supplementation is fine.

>Concerning the preventing of neural tube defects in
>offspring, it can be said more is better. Even a balanced
>whole food diet is inadequate for a percent of the
>population. "An increase of 0.4 mg/day would reduce the risk
>by about 36%, of 1 mg/day by 57%, and taking a 5 mg tablet
>daily would reduce the risk by about 85%."

Yep, but has a balanced, wholefood diet with much leafy veg
ever been tried? The easiest public health measure is to
fortify for a small percentage of the population who need it.

>While these results are discussed around the issue of NTD
>prevention, the results have clear application to both
>genders and all ages as some have diminished uptake of folate
>and there is no reason be believe this is gender specific.

Again, we are looking at a population with a generally
appalling diet.

>Folate shortfalls for the individuals with higher the median
>requirements result in higher uracil mutations, cleft lips,
>NTDs, some childhood leukemias, and cardiovascular disease.
>
>Clearly the UL for folic acid is criminally low.

Well why do you think this is? Lack of evidence, perhaps? Or
have you another conspiracy theory?

[William A.]

"Mooshie peas" <almostnothing@very.little> wrote in message
news:4r9rkvg1ane3h7tk2cndrbdu4tt9uk5utg@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 00:45:43 -0700, "William A. Noyes"
> <no.address@ctc.net> posted:
>
> >The abstract is available as PMID 11755633
> >
> >The bottom line is found under the heading INTERPRETAT|ION,
> >"Folic acid fortification should be increased. Additionally
> >women planning a pregnancy should take 5 milligrams of
> >folic acid tablets daily, instead of the 0.4 dose presently
recommended."
>
> Recommended for whom? It's a small percantage of a
> population, BTW, and as folic acid is cheap and harmless and
> most folk eat a terrible diet, supplementation is fine.

I see MooShe defines the human population of fertile females
as small. LOL

>
> >Concerning the preventing of neural tube defects in
> >offspring, it can be said more is better. Even a balanced
> >whole food diet is inadequate for a percent of the
> >population. "An increase of 0.4 mg/day would reduce the
> >risk by about 36%, of 1 mg/day by 57%, and taking a 5 mg
> >tablet daily would reduce the risk by about 85%."
>
> Yep, but has a balanced, wholefood diet with much leafy veg
> ever been tried?

Your balanced grain based wholefood diet won't likely reach
the level of a 5 milligram daily intake? Will It? Moreover
your plan presents compliance issues. Moreover since 5
milligrams of synthetic folic acid is much better absorbed 5
milligrams of natural folate from your leafy diet folate
levels need to be multipled by .5 to .667 to yeild a
comparable number.

> The easiest public health measure is to fortify for a small
> percentage of the population who need it.

That's not what you say when comes to fluoridation is it??

Fortify?? Don't you mean supplement?? That is how one clearly
targets help to a specific population. Or does the word
supplement stick in your throat?? he he

Anyway your aim is off. Even if we limit folic acid
supplementation to females who can get pregnant and at risk
of NTD's ( an unreasonable choice as I will discuss further
down) how are YOU (or those like you in bias) going to sort
out those who have high or low folic acid requirements??
Are you going wait until someone gives birth to a
defective?? To support the current practice of inadequate
folic acid supplementation or fortification is cruel,
stupid and even vicious. Since as you admit it is low cost
and safe, which more than some fossil conservative
authorities admit (you get a point), it only makes sense to
supplement all females who can get pregnant with 5
milligrams per day. As the paper in the Lancet suggests is
best practice!! That is a large population, all females
that can get pregnant. That includes the 12 year old who
shouldn't but does get pregnant or the female hispanic
women who has natural pregnancy in her mid 50's or even the
women implanted with her daughter's fertilized eggs at age
60. That is most females from age 12 to age 55!! Get over
it. And since high requirement of is an indicator of a more
wide spread problem, it obvious this should include most of
the population. And yeah throw in one milligram of B-12 per
day for good measure. Its cheap and safe too.

>
> >While these results are discussed around the issue of NTD
> >prevention, the results have clear application to both
> >genders and all ages as some have diminished uptake of
> >folate and there is no reason be believe this is gender
> >specific.
>
> Again, we are looking at a population with a generally
> appalling diet.

No. We are looking at the prevalance of NTDs and the
biochemical defects or/and absorptions problems that lead to
it, as indicators for the wider population which includes
males and elderly females like yourself as possibly having
impaired folic acid status even if their diet is pretty good.

>
> >Folate shortfalls for the individuals with higher the
> >median requirements result in higher uracil mutations,
> >cleft lips, NTDs, some childhood leukemias, and
> >cardiovascular disease.

You didn't even address this point!! Perhaps because you think
it doesn't apply to you as you are pass the age of
childbirth?? Shades of self centeredness perhaps..... IMO. You
do have grandkids don't you??

> >
> >Clearly the UL for folic acid is criminally low.
>
> Well why do you think this is? Lack of evidence, perhaps? Or
> have you another conspiracy theory?

Well there is a lack of evidence for setting the UL so low.
Assuming you even know what that is?

You're the one who charges the supplement industry with
conspiracy aren't you???:-) That's right deny it.

Not every conspiracy is amongst men in a dark upper room
planning to kill the Archduke. Some conspiracies are public.
Some conspiracies are born from bias. Some bias are fostered
by both corporations thru public relation firms or "advisory
boards". Besides I wasn't charging conspiracy, that is your
"red herring". You do understand that expression, don't you?

MooShe is a "red herring".............William A. Noyes

[Brad Shepp]

A recent study showed that folic acid, while bringing down
homocysteine levels, did not improve CHD outcomes for those
with high homosysteine levels. Of course, this is a totally
different population than pregnant women.

"William A. Noyes" <no.address@ctc.net> wrote in message
news:<3f5292ac$0$3350$a32e20b9@news.nntpservers.com>...
> "Mooshie peas" <almostnothing@very.little> wrote in message
> news:4r9rkvg1ane3h7tk2cndrbdu4tt9uk5utg@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 00:45:43 -0700, "William A. Noyes"
> > <no.address@ctc.net> posted:
> >
> > >The abstract is available as PMID 11755633
> > >
> > >The bottom line is found under the heading
> > >INTERPRETAT|ION, "Folic acid fortification should be
> > >increased. Additionally women planning a pregnancy should
> > >take 5 milligrams of folic acid tablets daily, instead of
> > >the 0.4 dose presently
> recommended."
> >
> > Recommended for whom? It's a small percantage of a
> > population, BTW, and as folic acid is cheap and
> > harmless and most folk eat a terrible diet,
> > supplementation is fine.
>
> I see MooShe defines the human population of fertile females
> as small. LOL
>
> >
> > >Concerning the preventing of neural tube defects in
> > >offspring, it can be said more is better. Even a balanced
> > >whole food diet is inadequate for a percent of the
> > >population. "An increase of 0.4 mg/day would reduce the
> > >risk by about 36%, of 1 mg/day by 57%, and taking a 5 mg
> > >tablet daily would reduce the risk by about 85%."
> >
> > Yep, but has a balanced, wholefood diet with much leafy
> > veg ever been tried?
>
> Your balanced grain based wholefood diet won't likely reach
> the level of a 5 milligram daily intake? Will It? Moreover
> your plan presents compliance issues. Moreover since 5
> milligrams of synthetic folic acid is much better absorbed 5
> milligrams of natural folate from your leafy diet folate
> levels need to be multipled by .5 to .667 to yeild a
> comparable number.
>
> > The easiest public health measure is to fortify for a
> > small percentage of the population who need it.
>
> That's not what you say when comes to fluoridation is it??
>
> Fortify?? Don't you mean supplement?? That is how one
> clearly targets help to a specific population. Or does the
> word supplement stick in your throat?? he he
>
> Anyway your aim is off. Even if we limit folic acid
> supplementation to females who can get pregnant and at risk
> of NTD's ( an unreasonable choice as I will discuss further
> down) how are YOU (or those like you in bias) going to sort
> out those who have high or low folic acid requirements?? Are
> you going wait until someone gives birth to a defective?? To
> support the current practice of inadequate folic acid
> supplementation or fortification is cruel, stupid and even
> vicious. Since as you admit it is low cost and safe, which
> more than some fossil conservative authorities admit (you
> get a point), it only makes sense to supplement all females
> who can get pregnant with 5 milligrams per day. As the paper
> in the Lancet suggests is best practice!! That is a large
> population, all females that can get pregnant. That includes
> the 12 year old who shouldn't but does get pregnant or the
> female hispanic women who has natural pregnancy in her mid
> 50's or even the women implanted with her daughter's
> fertilized eggs at age 60. That is most females from age 12
> to age 55!! Get over it. And since high requirement of is an
> indicator of a more wide spread problem, it obvious this
> should include most of the population. And yeah throw in one
> milligram of B-12 per day for good measure. Its cheap and
> safe too.
>
>
> >
> > >While these results are discussed around the issue of NTD
> > >prevention, the results have clear application to both
> > >genders and all ages as some have diminished uptake of
> > >folate and there is no reason be believe this is gender
> > >specific.
> >
> > Again, we are looking at a population with a generally
> > appalling diet.
>
> No. We are looking at the prevalance of NTDs and the
> biochemical defects or/and absorptions problems that lead
> to it, as indicators for the wider population which
> includes males and elderly females like yourself as
> possibly having impaired folic acid status even if their
> diet is pretty good.
>
>
> >
> > >Folate shortfalls for the individuals with higher the
> > >median requirements result in higher uracil mutations,
> > >cleft lips, NTDs, some childhood leukemias, and
> > >cardiovascular disease.
>
> You didn't even address this point!! Perhaps because you
> think it doesn't apply to you as you are pass the age of
> childbirth?? Shades of self centeredness perhaps..... IMO.
> You do have grandkids don't you??
>
> > >
> > >Clearly the UL for folic acid is criminally low.
> >
> > Well why do you think this is? Lack of evidence, perhaps?
> > Or have you another conspiracy theory?
>
> Well there is a lack of evidence for setting the UL so low.
> Assuming you even know what that is?
>
> You're the one who charges the supplement industry with
> conspiracy aren't you???:-) That's right deny it.
>
>
> Not every conspiracy is amongst men in a dark upper room
> planning to kill the Archduke. Some conspiracies are public.
> Some conspiracies are born from bias. Some bias are fostered
> by both corporations thru public relation firms or "advisory
> boards". Besides I wasn't charging conspiracy, that is your
> "red herring". You do understand that expression, don't you?
>
> MooShe is a "red herring".............William A. Noyes

[William A.]

We've "Brad Sheppard" <Brad@sheppardsoftware.com> wrote in
message
news:b06e736a.0309010810.167968e0@posting.google.com...
> A recent study showed that folic acid, while bringing down
> homocysteine levels, did not improve CHD outcomes for those
> with high homosysteine levels. Of course, this is a totally
> different population than pregnant women.

In my view this isn't entirely true. Those women prone to
bearing young with NTDs and cleft lips are relatives to
other folks who are older, younger, male and female. It
suggests others have problems with folate absorption and
folic acid metabolism. Granted these others won't have the
catastrophic failure of a NTD birth that is know to be
correlated to low folic acid status, but that doesn't mean
their health isn't impacted.

More and better studies need to take place. I'd think it might
take decades of folic acid supplementation to show clear
benefits. Granted, I was hoping it would help with endothelial
function as a clear short-term benefit to hang a hat on.
Though arginine is pretty clearly effective, if one whats
improvement in endothelial function.

I take a generous dose of folic acid with the wild eyed hope
that it will improve my dna methylation and slow the onset of
dysregulation of the genetic code that comes with aging. I
also take a generous dose because I've been told not to by
those I regards as worse than fools. Also I take a generous
B-12 supplement as so. Generous is defined as at or over one
milligram.

rEv Jerry Falwell is a toxic
cleric.................William A. Noyes

>
> "William A. Noyes" <no.address@ctc.net> wrote in message
news:<3f5292ac$0$3350$a32e20b9@news.nntpservers.com>...
> > "Mooshie peas" <almostnothing@very.little> wrote in
> > message news:4r9rkvg1ane3h7tk2cndrbdu4tt9uk5utg@4ax.com...
> > > On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 00:45:43 -0700, "William A. Noyes"
> > > <no.address@ctc.net> posted:
> > >
> > > >The abstract is available as PMID 11755633
> > > >
> > > >The bottom line is found under the heading
> > > >INTERPRETAT|ION, "Folic acid fortification should be
> > > >increased. Additionally women planning a pregnancy
> > > >should take 5 milligrams of folic acid tablets daily,
> > > >instead of the 0.4 dose presently
> > recommended."
> > >
> > > Recommended for whom? It's a small percantage of a
> > > population, BTW, and as folic acid is cheap and harmless
> > > and most folk eat a terrible diet, supplementation is
> > > fine.
> >
> > I see MooShe defines the human population of fertile
> > females as small.
LOL
> >
> > >
> > > >Concerning the preventing of neural tube defects in
> > > >offspring, it can
be
> > > >said more is better. Even a balanced whole food diet is
> > > >inadequate
for a
> > > >percent of the population. "An increase of 0.4 mg/day
> > > >would reduce the risk by about 36%, of 1 mg/day by 57%,
> > > >and taking a 5 mg tablet daily would reduce the risk by
> > > >about 85%."
> > >
> > > Yep, but has a balanced, wholefood diet with much leafy
> > > veg ever been tried?
> >
> > Your balanced grain based wholefood diet won't likely
> > reach the level of a 5 milligram daily intake? Will It?
> > Moreover your plan presents compliance issues. Moreover
> > since 5 milligrams of synthetic folic acid is much better
> > absorbed 5 milligrams of natural folate from your leafy
> > diet folate levels need to be multipled by .5 to .667 to
> > yeild a comparable number.
> >
> > > The easiest public health measure is to fortify for a
> > > small percentage of the population who need it.
> >
> > That's not what you say when comes to fluoridation is it??
> >
> > Fortify?? Don't you mean supplement?? That is how one
> > clearly targets help to a specific population. Or does the
> > word supplement stick in your throat?? he he
> >
> > Anyway your aim is off. Even if we limit folic acid
> > supplementation to females who can get pregnant and at
> > risk of NTD's ( an unreasonable choice as I will discuss
> > further
down)
> > how are YOU (or those like you in bias) going to sort out
> > those who have high or low folic acid requirements?? Are
> > you going wait until someone gives birth to a defective??
> > To support the current practice of inadequate folic acid
> > supplementation
or
> > fortification is cruel, stupid and even vicious. Since as
> > you admit it is low cost and safe, which more than some
> > fossil conservative authorities admit (you get a point),
> > it only makes sense to supplement all females who can get
> > pregnant with 5 milligrams per day. As the paper in the
> > Lancet suggests is best practice!! That is a large
> > population, all females that can get pregnant. That
> > includes the 12 year old who shouldn't but does get
> > pregnant or the female hispanic women who has natural
> > pregnancy in her mid 50's or even the women implanted with
> > her daughter's fertilized eggs at age 60. That is most
> > females from age 12 to age 55!! Get over it. And since
> > high requirement of is an indicator of a more wide spread
> > problem, it obvious this should include most of the
> > population. And yeah throw in one milligram of B-12 per
> > day for good measure. Its cheap and safe too.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >While these results are discussed around the issue of
> > > >NTD prevention, the results have clear application to
> > > >both genders and all ages as
some
> > > >have diminished uptake of folate and there is no reason
> > > >be believe
this
> > > >is gender specific.
> > >
> > > Again, we are looking at a population with a generally
> > > appalling diet.
> >
> > No. We are looking at the prevalance of NTDs and the
> > biochemical defects or/and absorptions problems that lead
> > to it, as indicators for the wider
population
> > which includes males and elderly females like yourself as
> > possibly having
impaired
> > folic acid status even if their diet is pretty good.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >Folate shortfalls for the individuals with higher the
> > > >median
requirements
> > > >result in higher uracil mutations, cleft lips, NTDs,
> > > >some childhood leukemias, and cardiovascular disease.
> >
> > You didn't even address this point!! Perhaps because you
> > think it doesn't apply to you as you are pass the age of
> > childbirth?? Shades of self centeredness perhaps..... IMO.
> > You do have grandkids don't you??
> >
> > > >
> > > >Clearly the UL for folic acid is criminally low.
> > >
> > > Well why do you think this is? Lack of evidence,
> > > perhaps? Or have you another conspiracy theory?
> >
> > Well there is a lack of evidence for setting the UL so
> > low. Assuming you even know what that is?
> >
> > You're the one who charges the supplement industry with
> > conspiracy aren't you???:-) That's right deny it.
> >
> >
> > Not every conspiracy is amongst men in a dark upper room
> > planning to kill the Archduke. Some conspiracies are
> > public. Some conspiracies are born from bias. Some bias
> > are fostered by both corporations thru public relation
> > firms or "advisory boards". Besides I wasn't charging
> > conspiracy, that is your "red herring". You do understand
> > that expression, don't you?
> >
> > MooShe is a "red herring".............William A. Noyes

[William A.]

We've "Brad Sheppard" <Brad@sheppardsoftware.com> wrote in
message
news:b06e736a.0309010810.167968e0@posting.google.com...
> A recent study showed that folic acid, while bringing down
> homocysteine levels, did not improve CHD outcomes for those
> with high homosysteine levels. Of course, this is a totally
> different population than pregnant women.

In my view this isn't entirely true. Those women prone to
bearing young with NTDs and cleft lips are relatives to
other folks who are older, younger, male and female. It
suggests others have problems with folate absorption and
folic acid metabolism. Granted these others won't have the
catastrophic failure of a NTD birth that is know to be
correlated to low folic acid status, but that doesn't mean
their health isn't impacted.

More and better studies need to take place. Is the Dutch study
described in PMID 12821232 that used 0.5 milligrams per day
for two or three years in statin users to which you refer??
That dose didn't work under those conditions. I'd think it
might take decades of folic acid supplementation to show clear
benefits. Granted, I was hoping it would help with endothelial
function as a clear short-term benefit to hang a hat on. PMID
12472909 Or perhaps for the pregnant PMID 12396998 Arginine is
pretty clearly effective, if one wants improvement in CVS
endothelial function. PMID 12504835

I take a generous dose of folic acid with the wild eyed hope
that it will improve my dna methylation and slow the onset
of dysregulation of the genetic code that comes with aging.
PMID 11506798 PMID 12003352 And of course to reduce
oxidative stress and the resulting DNA damage. I also take a
generous dose because I've been told NOT to!! I've done this
for decades!!

The other thing about folic acid and CHD is that even trio of
folic acid, b-6, and B-12 represents only part of the picture.
Issues of the FA ratios, vitamin antioxidants such K-1, K-2,
the various E vitamers, & C must play role. Then there is the
issue C-reactive protein and chronic inflammation........

rEv Jerry Falwell is a toxic cleric.....
............William A. Noyes

>
> "William A. Noyes" <no.address@ctc.net> wrote in message
news:<3f5292ac$0$3350$a32e20b9@news.nntpservers.com>...
> > "Mooshie peas" <almostnothing@very.little> wrote in
> > message news:4r9rkvg1ane3h7tk2cndrbdu4tt9uk5utg@4ax.com...
> > > On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 00:45:43 -0700, "William A. Noyes"
> > > <no.address@ctc.net> posted:
> > >
> > > >The abstract is available as PMID 11755633
> > > >
> > > >The bottom line is found under the heading
> > > >INTERPRETAT|ION, "Folic acid fortification should be
> > > >increased. Additionally women planning a pregnancy
> > > >should take 5 milligrams of folic acid tablets daily,
> > > >instead of the 0.4 dose presently
> > recommended."
> > >
> > > Recommended for whom? It's a small percantage of a
> > > population, BTW, and as folic acid is cheap and harmless
> > > and most folk eat a terrible diet, supplementation is
> > > fine.
> >
> > I see MooShe defines the human population of fertile
> > females as small.
LOL
> >
> > >
> > > >Concerning the preventing of neural tube defects in
> > > >offspring, it can
be
> > > >said more is better. Even a balanced whole food diet is
> > > >inadequate
for a
> > > >percent of the population. "An increase of 0.4 mg/day
> > > >would reduce the risk by about 36%, of 1 mg/day by 57%,
> > > >and taking a 5 mg tablet daily would reduce the risk by
> > > >about 85%."
> > >
> > > Yep, but has a balanced, wholefood diet with much leafy
> > > veg ever been tried?
> >
> > Your balanced grain based wholefood diet won't likely
> > reach the level of a 5 milligram daily intake? Will It?
> > Moreover your plan presents compliance issues. Moreover
> > since 5 milligrams of synthetic folic acid is much better
> > absorbed 5 milligrams of natural folate from your leafy
> > diet folate levels need to be multipled by .5 to .667 to
> > yeild a comparable number.
> >
> > > The easiest public health measure is to fortify for a
> > > small percentage of the population who need it.
> >
> > That's not what you say when comes to fluoridation is it??
> >
> > Fortify?? Don't you mean supplement?? That is how one
> > clearly targets help to a specific population. Or does the
> > word supplement stick in your throat?? he he
> >
> > Anyway your aim is off. Even if we limit folic acid
> > supplementation to females who can get pregnant and at
> > risk of NTD's ( an unreasonable choice as I will discuss
> > further
down)
> > how are YOU (or those like you in bias) going to sort out
> > those who have high or low folic acid requirements?? Are
> > you going wait until someone gives birth to a defective??
> > To support the current practice of inadequate folic acid
> > supplementation
or
> > fortification is cruel, stupid and even vicious. Since as
> > you admit it is low cost and safe, which more than some
> > fossil conservative authorities admit (you get a point),
> > it only makes sense to supplement all females who can get
> > pregnant with 5 milligrams per day. As the paper in the
> > Lancet suggests is best practice!! That is a large
> > population, all females that can get pregnant. That
> > includes the 12 year old who shouldn't but does get
> > pregnant or the female hispanic women who has natural
> > pregnancy in her mid 50's or even the women implanted with
> > her daughter's fertilized eggs at age 60. That is most
> > females from age 12 to age 55!! Get over it. And since
> > high requirement of is an indicator of a more wide spread
> > problem, it obvious this should include most of the
> > population. And yeah throw in one milligram of B-12 per
> > day for good measure. Its cheap and safe too.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >While these results are discussed around the issue of
> > > >NTD prevention, the results have clear application to
> > > >both genders and all ages as
some
> > > >have diminished uptake of folate and there is no reason
> > > >be believe
this
> > > >is gender specific.
> > >
> > > Again, we are looking at a population with a generally
> > > appalling diet.
> >
> > No. We are looking at the prevalance of NTDs and the
> > biochemical defects or/and absorptions problems that lead
> > to it, as indicators for the wider
population
> > which includes males and elderly females like yourself as
> > possibly having
impaired
> > folic acid status even if their diet is pretty good.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >Folate shortfalls for the individuals with higher the
> > > >median
requirements
> > > >result in higher uracil mutations, cleft lips, NTDs,
> > > >some childhood leukemias, and cardiovascular disease.
> >
> > You didn't even address this point!! Perhaps because you
> > think it doesn't apply to you as you are pass the age of
> > childbirth?? Shades of self centeredness perhaps..... IMO.
> > You do have grandkids don't you??
> >
> > > >
> > > >Clearly the UL for folic acid is criminally low.
> > >
> > > Well why do you think this is? Lack of evidence,
> > > perhaps? Or have you another conspiracy theory?
> >
> > Well there is a lack of evidence for setting the UL so
> > low. Assuming you even know what that is?
> >
> > You're the one who charges the supplement industry with
> > conspiracy aren't you???:-) That's right deny it.
> >
> >
> > Not every conspiracy is amongst men in a dark upper room
> > planning to kill the Archduke. Some conspiracies are
> > public. Some conspiracies are born from bias. Some bias
> > are fostered by both corporations thru public relation
> > firms or "advisory boards". Besides I wasn't charging
> > conspiracy, that is your "red herring". You do understand
> > that expression, don't you?
> >
> > MooShe is a "red herring".............William A. Noyes

[Mooshie Pe]

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 17:19:45 +0800, "William A. Noyes"
<no.address@ctc.net> posted:

>
>"Mooshie peas" <almostnothing@very.little> wrote in message
>news:4r9rkvg1ane3h7tk2cndrbdu4tt9uk5utg@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 00:45:43 -0700, "William A. Noyes"
>> <no.address@ctc.net> posted:
>>
>> >The abstract is available as PMID 11755633
>> >
>> >The bottom line is found under the heading
>> >INTERPRETAT|ION, "Folic acid fortification should be
>> >increased. Additionally women planning a pregnancy should
>> >take 5 milligrams of folic acid tablets daily, instead of
>> >the 0.4 dose presently
>recommended."
>>
>> Recommended for whom? It's a small percantage of a
>> population, BTW, and as folic acid is cheap and harmless
>> and most folk eat a terrible diet, supplementation is fine.
>
>I see MooShe defines the human population of fertile females
>as small. LOL

Yep. What percentage of the total world population is having
or about to have a child? Then the fraction of these that will
be helped by megadoses of folic acid is again tiny.

>> >Concerning the preventing of neural tube defects in
>> >offspring, it can be said more is better. Even a balanced
>> >whole food diet is inadequate for a percent of the
>> >population. "An increase of 0.4 mg/day would reduce the
>> >risk by about 36%, of 1 mg/day by 57%, and taking a 5 mg
>> >tablet daily would reduce the risk by about 85%."
>>
>> Yep, but has a balanced, wholefood diet with much leafy veg
>> ever been tried?
>
>Your balanced grain based wholefood diet won't likely reach
>the level of a 5 milligram daily intake? Will It?

Almost certainly not, but this level is only needed to catch a
tiny few with a metabolic abnormality. It's not necessary for
most folk. But as I've said before, as it's cheap and
harmless, good idea to fortify common foods with it.

>Moreover your plan presents compliance issues.

Nothing to do with compliance issues. It is just the optimum
diet eaten by the vast majority of humans over the aeons. If
it's not complied with (as it isn't, commonly, in developed
countries) then it's not complied with. The vast majority of
folk don't comply with supplementation recommendations.

>Moreover since 5 milligrams of synthetic folic acid is much
>better absorbed 5 milligrams of natural folate from your
>leafy diet folate levels need to be multipled by .5 to .667
>to yeild a comparable number.

Irrelevant.

>> The easiest public health measure is to fortify for a small
>> percentage of the population who need it.
>
>That's not what you say when comes to fluoridation is it??

It's exactly what I say.

>Fortify?? Don't you mean supplement??

No "fortify". Add it in the food/water supply for everyone.

>That is how one clearly targets help to a specific
>population. Or does the word supplement stick in your
>throat?? he he

"he he"? Are youi keeping something a secret here?

Supplement is a fine word. No problems there. Foods are
fortified with folic acid.

>Anyway your aim is off.

I don't think so. I'm happy with a cheap harmless dose of
folic acid to all so that the rare horrendous complication of
NTD can be reduced.

> Even if we limit folic acid supplementation to females who
> can get pregnant and at risk of NTD's ( an unreasonable
> choice as I will discuss further down) how are YOU (or those
> like you in bias) going to sort out those who have high or
> low folic acid requirements??

I suggest you read what I say before going off half-cocked. I
do hope you know exactly why a tiny proportion of women need a
megadose of folic acid.

>Are you going wait until someone gives birth to a
>defective?? To support the current practice of inadequate
>folic acid supplementation or fortification is cruel, stupid
>and even vicious.

For the tiny number with the genetic fault, I agree. Who is
objecting? Certainly not anyone I've heard in Oz.

>Since as you admit it is low cost and safe, which more than
>some fossil conservative authorities admit (you get a point),
>it only makes sense to supplement all females who can get
>pregnant with 5 milligrams per day.

Are you saying there are folks who object to this
fortification? Are they anti-fluoridationists, or
anti-vaccinationists?

>As the paper in the Lancet suggests is best practice!!

I agree. Try reading what I write.

>That is a large population, all females that can get
>pregnant.

Yes, but those who actually do is smaller, and those likely
to have an NTD child are even smaller, neverytheless, I
agree that everyone should be supplemented, for the reasons
I have given.

>That includes the 12 year old who shouldn't but does get
>pregnant or the female hispanic women who has natural
>pregnancy in her mid 50's or even the women implanted with
>her daughter's fertilized eggs at age 60.

I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

>That is most females from age 12 to age 55!!

See above.

>Get over it.

Over what? Your inabilty to read" Hokay.

>And since high requirement of is an indicator of a more wide
>spread problem,

Pardon?

>it obvious this should include most of the population. And
>yeah throw in one milligram of B-12 per day for good measure.
>Its cheap and safe too.

To guard against the blanket overdosing of folate? Maybe a B12
assay may be in order for older symptomatic folks?

>> >While these results are discussed around the issue of NTD
>> >prevention, the results have clear application to both
>> >genders and all ages as some have diminished uptake of
>> >folate and there is no reason be believe this is gender
>> >specific.
>>
>> Again, we are looking at a population with a generally
>> appalling diet.
>
>No. We are looking at the prevalance of NTDs and the
>biochemical defects or/and absorptions problems that lead to
>it, as indicators for the wider population which includes
>males and elderly females like yourself as possibly having
>impaired folic acid status even if their diet is pretty good.

So show that a varied, wholefood diet is causing any problems
in a normal healthy adult. Sepulchral silence :)

>> >Folate shortfalls for the individuals with higher the
>> >median requirements result in higher uracil mutations,
>> >cleft lips, NTDs, some childhood leukemias, and
>> >cardiovascular disease.
>
>You didn't even address this point!! Perhaps because you
>think it doesn't apply to you as you are pass the age of
>childbirth?? Shades of self centeredness perhaps..... IMO.
>You do have grandkids don't you??

And you STILL can't read?

>> >Clearly the UL for folic acid is criminally low.
>>
>> Well why do you think this is? Lack of evidence, perhaps?
>> Or have you another conspiracy theory?
>
>Well there is a lack of evidence for setting the UL so low.

Safety, perhaps? The "some is good so a bucketful must me
marvellous" approach is often dangerous in many areas of life.

>Assuming you even know what that is?

Nope.

>You're the one who charges the supplement industry with
>conspiracy aren't you???:-) That's right deny it.

Conspiracy to sell more supplements? Yes, do you deny it? Just
look at the occasional spam we get here. Look at the millions
of snake oil sites on the web.

[William A.]

"Mooshie peas" <almostnothing@very.little> wrote in message
news:a9ualvs16gqitk7ho0391iliq6e1evpkea@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 17:19:45 +0800, "William A. Noyes"
> <no.address@ctc.net> posted:
>
> >
> >"Mooshie peas" <almostnothing@very.little> wrote in message
> >news:4r9rkvg1ane3h7tk2cndrbdu4tt9uk5utg@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 00:45:43 -0700, "William A. Noyes"
> >> <no.address@ctc.net> posted:
> >>
> >> >The abstract is available as PMID 11755633
> >> >
> >> >The bottom line is found under the heading
> >> >INTERPRETAT|ION, "Folic acid fortification should be
> >> >increased. Additionally women planning a pregnancy
> >> >should take 5 milligrams of folic acid tablets daily,
> >> >instead of the 0.4 dose presently
> >recommended."
> >>
> >> Recommended for whom? It's a small percantage of a
> >> population, BTW, and as folic acid is cheap and harmless
> >> and most folk eat a terrible diet, supplementation is
> >> fine.
> >
> >I see MooShe defines the human population of fertile
> >females as small.
LOL
>
> Yep. What percentage of the total world population is having
> or about to have a child? Then the fraction of these that
> will be helped by megadoses of folic acid is again tiny.

Any female that can get pregnant is at risk without screening.

>
> >> >Concerning the preventing of neural tube defects in
> >> >offspring, it can
be
> >> >said more is better. Even a balanced whole food diet is
> >> >inadequate for
a
> >> >percent of the population. "An increase of 0.4 mg/day
> >> >would reduce the risk by about 36%, of 1 mg/day by 57%,
> >> >and taking a 5 mg tablet daily would reduce the risk by
> >> >about 85%."
> >>
> >> Yep, but has a balanced, wholefood diet with much leafy
> >> veg ever been tried?
> >
> >Your balanced grain based wholefood diet won't likely reach
> >the level of a 5 milligram daily intake? Will It?
>
> Almost certainly not, but this level is only needed to catch
> a tiny few with a metabolic abnormality. It's not necessary
> for most folk. But as I've said before, as it's cheap and
> harmless, good idea to fortify common foods with it.

No certainly not. Depending on the population 5 to 25% have a
double dose of the gene that codes for a less stable version
of a gene needed to process one of the folic acid metabolites.

>
> >Moreover your plan presents compliance issues.
>
> Nothing to do with compliance issues. It is just the optimum
> diet eaten by the vast majority of humans over the aeons.

First of all an aeon is a billion years. Second, your diet
isn't as effect as the synthetic supplement. You sound like
the anti-GM crusaders.

> If it's not complied with (as it isn't, commonly, in
> developed countries) then it's not complied with. The vast
> majority of folk don't comply with supplementation
> recommendations.
>
> >Moreover since 5 milligrams of synthetic folic acid is much
> >better absorbed 5 milligrams of natural folate from your
> >leafy diet folate levels need to be multipled by .5 to .667
> >to yeild a comparable number.
>
> Irrelevant.

No it not irrelevant. The poorer available of folate as
compared to folic puts your diet at an even greater
disadvantage when compared those take 5 mg of folic acid
due to need.
>
> >> The easiest public health measure is to fortify for a
> >> small percentage of the population who need it.
> >
> >That's not what you say when comes to fluoridation is it??
>
> It's exactly what I say.

Then why oppose the 5 mg level for all females subject to
pregnancy.

>
> >Fortify?? Don't you mean supplement??
>
> No "fortify". Add it in the food/water supply for everyone.
>
> >That is how one clearly targets help to a specific
> >population. Or does the word supplement stick in your
> >throat?? he he
>
> "he he"? Are youi keeping something a secret here?
>
> Supplement is a fine word. No problems there. Foods are
> fortified with folic acid.
>
> >Anyway your aim is off.
>
> I don't think so. I'm happy with a cheap harmless dose of
> folic acid to all so that the rare horrendous complication
> of NTD can be reduced.

good.

>
> > Even if we limit folic acid supplementation to females who
> > can get pregnant and at risk of NTD's ( an unreasonable
> > choice as I will discuss further down) how are YOU (or
> > those like you in bias) going to sort out those who have
> > high or low folic acid requirements??
>
> I suggest you read what I say before going off half-cocked.
> I do hope you know exactly why a tiny proportion of women
> need a megadose of folic acid.
>
> >Are you going wait until someone gives birth to a
> >defective?? To support the current practice of inadequate
> >folic acid supplementation
or
> >fortification is cruel, stupid and even vicious.
>
> For the tiny number with the genetic fault, I agree. Who is
> objecting? Certainly not anyone I've heard in Oz.
>
> >Since as you admit it is low cost and safe, which more than
> >some fossil conservative authorities admit (you get a
> >point), it only makes sense to supplement all females who
> >can get pregnant with 5 milligrams per day.
>
> Are you saying there are folks who object to this
> fortification?

YES.

> Are they anti-fluoridationists, or anti-vaccinationists?
>
> >As the paper in the Lancet suggests is best practice!!
>
> I agree. Try reading what I write.
>
> >That is a large population, all females that can get
> >pregnant.
>
> Yes, but those who actually do is smaller, and those likely
> to have an NTD child are even smaller, neverytheless, I
> agree that everyone should be supplemented, for the reasons
> I have given.
>
> >That includes the 12 year old who shouldn't but does get
> >pregnant or the female hispanic women who has natural
> >pregnancy in her mid 50's or even the women implanted with
> >her daughter's fertilized eggs at age 60.
>
> I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

They can get pregnant therefore they need the extra vitamin. I
was simply setting the limits to the population set.

>
> >That is most females from age 12 to age 55!!
>
> See above.

>
> >Get over it.
>
> Over what? Your inabilty to read" Hokay.

Driving the point home.

>
> >And since high requirement of is an indicator of a more
> >wide spread problem,
>
> Pardon?

See another branch of the thread.

>
> >it obvious this should include most of the population. And
> >yeah throw in one milligram of B-12 per day for good
> >measure. Its cheap and safe too.
>
> To guard against the blanket overdosing of folate? Maybe a
> B12 assay may be in order for older symptomatic folks?

With a question mark. How about some B-12 instead of the assay
since the vitamin is cheaper.
>
> >> >While these results are discussed around the issue of
> >> >NTD prevention, the results have clear application to
> >> >both genders and all ages as
some
> >> >have diminished uptake of folate and there is no reason
> >> >be believe
this
> >> >is gender specific.
> >>
> >> Again, we are looking at a population with a generally
> >> appalling diet.
> >
> >No. We are looking at the prevalance of NTDs and the
> >biochemical defects or/and absorptions problems that lead
> >to it, as indicators for the wider
population
> >which includes males and elderly females like yourself as
> >possibly having
impaired
> >folic acid status even if their diet is pretty good.
>
> So show that a varied, wholefood diet is causing any
> problems in a normal healthy adult. Sepulchral silence :)
>
> >> >Folate shortfalls for the individuals with higher the
> >> >median
requirements
> >> >result in higher uracil mutations, cleft lips, NTDs,
> >> >some childhood leukemias, and cardiovascular disease.
> >
> >You didn't even address this point!! Perhaps because you
> >think it doesn't apply to you as you are pass the age of
> >childbirth?? Shades of self centeredness perhaps..... IMO.
> >You do have grandkids don't you??
>
> And you STILL can't read?
>
> >> >Clearly the UL for folic acid is criminally low.
> >>
> >> Well why do you think this is? Lack of evidence, perhaps?
> >> Or have you another conspiracy theory?
> >
> >Well there is a lack of evidence for setting the UL so low.
>
> Safety, perhaps? The "some is good so a bucketful must
> me marvellous" approach is often dangerous in many areas
> of life.

Not this one provided there is a bit of care.
>
> >Assuming you even know what that is?
>
> Nope.

It figures.

>
> >You're the one who charges the supplement industry with
> >conspiracy aren't you???:-) That's right deny it.
>
> Conspiracy to sell more supplements? Yes, do you deny it?
> Just look at the occasional spam we get here. Look at the
> millions of snake oil sites on the web.

Well then don't sneer with the comment "conspiracy" as you
believe in one too. The comment takes on shades of yelling
Commie Pinko in the 50's

We've got too many branches going on this thread. But that is
fine, I can repeat myself also.

[Mooshie Pe]

On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 01:14:37 +0800, "William A. Noyes"
<no.address@ctc.net> posted:

>
>"Mooshie peas" <almostnothing@very.little> wrote in message
>news:a9ualvs16gqitk7ho0391iliq6e1evpkea@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 17:19:45 +0800, "William A. Noyes"
>> <no.address@ctc.net> posted:
>>
>> >
>> >"Mooshie peas" <almostnothing@very.little> wrote in
>> >message news:4r9rkvg1ane3h7tk2cndrbdu4tt9uk5utg@4ax.com...
>> >> On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 00:45:43 -0700, "William A. Noyes"
>> >> <no.address@ctc.net> posted:
>> >>
>> >> >The abstract is available as PMID 11755633
>> >> >
>> >> >The bottom line is found under the heading
>> >> >INTERPRETAT|ION, "Folic acid fortification should be
>> >> >increased. Additionally women planning a pregnancy
>> >> >should take 5 milligrams of folic acid tablets daily,
>> >> >instead of the 0.4 dose presently
>> >recommended."
>> >>
>> >> Recommended for whom? It's a small percantage of a
>> >> population, BTW, and as folic acid is cheap and harmless
>> >> and most folk eat a terrible diet, supplementation is
>> >> fine.
>> >
>> >I see MooShe defines the human population of fertile
>> >females as small.
>LOL
>>
>> Yep. What percentage of the total world population is
>> having or about to have a child? Then the fraction of
>> these that will be helped by megadoses of folic acid is
>> again tiny.
>
>Any female that can get pregnant is at risk without
>screening.

Of course, a tiny risk, so what is your problem with
fortifying foods to overcome some of this small risk?

>> >> >Concerning the preventing of neural tube defects in
>> >> >offspring, it can
>be
>> >> >said more is better. Even a balanced whole food diet is
>> >> >inadequate for
>a
>> >> >percent of the population. "An increase of 0.4 mg/day
>> >> >would reduce the risk by about 36%, of 1 mg/day by 57%,
>> >> >and taking a 5 mg tablet daily would reduce the risk by
>> >> >about 85%."
>> >>
>> >> Yep, but has a balanced, wholefood diet with much leafy
>> >> veg ever been tried?
>> >
>> >Your balanced grain based wholefood diet won't likely
>> >reach the level of a 5 milligram daily intake? Will It?
>>
>> Almost certainly not, but this level is only needed to
>> catch a tiny few with a metabolic abnormality. It's not
>> necessary for most folk. But as I've said before, as it's
>> cheap and harmless, good idea to fortify common foods
>> with it.
>
>No certainly not. Depending on the population 5 to 25% have a
>double dose of the gene that codes for a less stable version
>of a gene needed to process one of the folic acid
>metabolites.

Which means what percentage of the total population will get
NTD babies on a good diet?

>> >Moreover your plan presents compliance issues.
>>
>> Nothing to do with compliance issues. It is just the
>> optimum diet eaten by the vast majority of humans over
>> the aeons.
>
>First of all an aeon is a billion years.

Not in my dictionary. Nor yours apparently. (AHD3)

>Second, your diet isn't as effect as the synthetic
>supplement. You sound like the anti-GM crusaders.

Yet you haven't pointed out any problem from following
this diet.

>> If it's not complied with (as it isn't, commonly, in
>> developed countries) then it's not complied with. The vast
>> majority of folk don't comply with supplementation
>> recommendations.
>>
>> >Moreover since 5 milligrams of synthetic folic acid is
>> >much better absorbed 5 milligrams of natural folate from
>> >your leafy diet folate levels need to be multipled by .5
>> >to .667 to yeild a comparable number.
>>
>> Irrelevant.
>
>No it not irrelevant. The poorer available of folate as
>compared to folic puts your diet at an even greater
>disadvantage when compared those take 5 mg of folic acid
>due to need.

Which folate are you talking about? Does not folic acid and
calcium ions form calcium folate?

>> >> The easiest public health measure is to fortify for a
>> >> small percentage of the population who need it.
>> >
>> >That's not what you say when comes to fluoridation is it??
>>
>> It's exactly what I say.
>
>Then why oppose the 5 mg level for all females subject to
>pregnancy.

I don't, where did you get this from?

>> >Fortify?? Don't you mean supplement??
>>
>> No "fortify". Add it in the food/water supply for everyone.
>>
>> >That is how one clearly targets help to a specific
>> >population. Or does the word supplement stick in your
>> >throat?? he he
>>
>> "he he"? Are youi keeping something a secret here?
>>
>> Supplement is a fine word. No problems there. Foods are
>> fortified with folic acid.
>>
>> >Anyway your aim is off.
>>
>> I don't think so. I'm happy with a cheap harmless dose of
>> folic acid to all so that the rare horrendous complication
>> of NTD can be reduced.

>good.

>> > Even if we limit folic acid supplementation to females
>> > who can get pregnant and at risk of NTD's ( an
>> > unreasonable choice as I will discuss further down) how
>> > are YOU (or those like you in bias) going to sort out
>> > those who have high or low folic acid requirements??
>>
>> I suggest you read what I say before going off half-cocked.
>> I do hope you know exactly why a tiny proportion of women
>> need a megadose of folic acid.
>>
>> >Are you going wait until someone gives birth to a
>> >defective?? To support the current practice of inadequate
>> >folic acid supplementation
>or
>> >fortification is cruel, stupid and even vicious.
>>
>> For the tiny number with the genetic fault, I agree. Who is
>> objecting? Certainly not anyone I've heard in Oz.
>>
>> >Since as you admit it is low cost and safe, which more
>> >than some fossil conservative authorities admit (you get a
>> >point), it only makes sense to supplement all females who
>> >can get pregnant with 5 milligrams per day.
>>
>> Are you saying there are folks who object to this
>> fortification?
>
>YES.

Who are they?

>> Are they anti-fluoridationists, or anti-vaccinationists?
>>
>> >As the paper in the Lancet suggests is best practice!!
>>
>> I agree. Try reading what I write.
>>
>> >That is a large population, all females that can get
>> >pregnant.
>>
>> Yes, but those who actually do is smaller, and those likely
>> to have an NTD child are even smaller, neverytheless, I
>> agree that everyone should be supplemented, for the reasons
>> I have given.
>>
>> >That includes the 12 year old who shouldn't but does get
>> >pregnant or the female hispanic women who has natural
>> >pregnancy in her mid 50's or even the women implanted with
>> >her daughter's fertilized eggs at age 60.
>>
>> I don't understand the point you are trying to make.
>
>They can get pregnant therefore they need the extra vitamin.
>I was simply setting the limits to the population set.

The population that will benefit, or who are at risk, or who
it is pragmatic to treat?

My only point here is that this supplementation won't benefit
males and non-reproducing women eating a good diet.

>> >That is most females from age 12 to age 55!!
>>
>> See above.
>
>>
>> >Get over it.
>>
>> Over what? Your inabilty to read" Hokay.
>
>Driving the point home.

If that's what floats your boat. But I've seen no-one opposing
this. You seem to be trying to convince imaginary adversaries.

>> >And since high requirement of is an indicator of a more
>> >wide spread problem,
>>
>> Pardon?
>
>See another branch of the thread.

You will have to show evidence that the general population on
a good diet benefits from megadoses of folate. The evidence
I've seen is hardly convincing. Yes, supplementation is a
reasonable compromise in a population that eats a crap diet.
But that's not what I'm on about.

>> >it obvious this should include most of the population. And
>> >yeah throw in one milligram of B-12 per day for good
>> >measure. Its cheap and safe too.
>>
>> To guard against the blanket overdosing of folate? Maybe a
>> B12 assay may be in order for older symptomatic folks?
>
>With a question mark. How about some B-12 instead of the
>assay since the vitamin is cheaper.

If that's the case, then fine, but it won't be beneficial to
the vast bulk of the population. Most oral B12 is not
absorbed, anyway.

>> >> >While these results are discussed around the issue of
>> >> >NTD prevention, the results have clear application to
>> >> >both genders and all ages as
>some
>> >> >have diminished uptake of folate and there is no reason
>> >> >be believe
>this
>> >> >is gender specific.
>> >>
>> >> Again, we are looking at a population with a generally
>> >> appalling diet.
>> >
>> >No. We are looking at the prevalance of NTDs and the
>> >biochemical defects or/and absorptions problems that lead
>> >to it, as indicators for the wider
>population
>> >which includes males and elderly females like yourself as
>> >possibly having
>impaired
>> >folic acid status even if their diet is pretty good.
>>
>> So show that a varied, wholefood diet is causing any
>> problems in a normal healthy adult. Sepulchral silence :)
>>
>> >> >Folate shortfalls for the individuals with higher the
>> >> >median
>requirements
>> >> >result in higher uracil mutations, cleft lips, NTDs,
>> >> >some childhood leukemias, and cardiovascular disease.
>> >
>> >You didn't even address this point!! Perhaps because you
>> >think it doesn't apply to you as you are pass the age of
>> >childbirth?? Shades of self centeredness perhaps..... IMO.
>> >You do have grandkids don't you??
>>
>> And you STILL can't read?
>>
>> >> >Clearly the UL for folic acid is criminally low.
>> >>
>> >> Well why do you think this is? Lack of evidence,
>> >> perhaps? Or have you another conspiracy theory?
>> >
>> >Well there is a lack of evidence for setting the UL
>> >so low.
>>
>> Safety, perhaps? The "some is good so a bucketful must
>> me marvellous" approach is often dangerous in many areas
>> of life.
>
>Not this one provided there is a bit of care.

Well not above the UL, of course. I was thinking of selenium.

>> >Assuming you even know what that is?
>>
>> Nope.
>
>It figures.

Yeah you show you figure real good.

>> >You're the one who charges the supplement industry with
>> >conspiracy aren't you???:-) That's right deny it.
>>
>> Conspiracy to sell more supplements? Yes, do you deny it?
>> Just look at the occasional spam we get here. Look at the
>> millions of snake oil sites on the web.
>
>Well then don't sneer with the comment "conspiracy" as you
>believe in one too. The comment takes on shades of yelling
>Commie Pinko in the 50's

Commie pinko had no basis in fact. Lies to con the public
about the need for supplements is obvious, on the net.

Your conspiracy theories include that I am other people,
remember.

>We've got too many branches going on this thread. But that is
>fine, I can repeat myself also.

That's about ALL you do :)

[William A.]

<snip>
> >> >> >The bottom line is found under the heading
> >> >> >INTERPRETAT|ION, "Folic acid fortification should be
> >> >> >increased. Additionally women planning a pregnancy
> >> >> >should take 5 milligrams of folic acid tablets daily,
> >> >> >instead of the 0.4 dose presently
> >> >recommended."
> >> >>
> >> >> Recommended for whom? It's a small percantage of a
> >> >> population, BTW, and as folic acid is cheap and
> >> >> harmless and most folk eat a terrible diet,
> >> >> supplementation is fine.
> >> >
> >> >I see MooShe defines the human population of fertile
> >> >females as small.
> >LOL
> >>
> >> Yep. What percentage of the total world population is
> >> having or about to have a child? Then the fraction of
> >> these that will be helped by megadoses of folic acid is
> >> again tiny.
> >
> >Any female that can get pregnant is at risk without
> >screening.
>
> Of course, a tiny risk, so what is your problem with
> fortifying foods to overcome some of this small risk?

While I prefer supplementation, fortification is pretty
effective. One problem with fortification is mired in
politics. Note that the Lancet authors want higher levels of
fortification.

<snip>
> >> >Your balanced grain based wholefood diet won't likely
> >> >reach the level of a 5 milligram daily intake? Will It?
> >>
> >> Almost certainly not, but this level is only needed to
> >> catch a tiny few with a metabolic abnormality. It's not
> >> necessary for most folk. But as I've said before, as it's
> >> cheap and harmless, good idea to fortify common foods
> >> with it.
> >
> >No certainly not. Depending on the population 5 to 25% have
> >a double dose of the gene that codes for a less stable
> >version of a gene needed to process one of the folic acid
> >metabolites.
>
> Which means what percentage of the total population will get
> NTD babies on a good diet?

Your good diet? Or what the authorities call a good diet?

Just look at the Lancet article. Your diet if implemented
would yield a diet containing over a milligram of folate which
would be equal to perhaps 600 to 700 mcgs of synthetic folic
acid. Since even poor diet generally contains 200 mcg then a
400 mcg supplement it may be equal to the lowest level of
supplementation. Which results in a 36 % reduction in NTDs. So
your diet might do a bit better. Since the authorities suggest
something closer to the standard diet plus supplements and
fortification, the result is a nearly 50% reduction, as their
diet seems to contain more free folic acid:-) Get their diet
fortified to 5 mgs plus what is in their diet, the reduction
is 85% of NTDs.

<snip>

> >Second, your diet isn't as effective as the synthetic
> >supplement. You sound like the anti-GM crusaders.
>
> Yet you haven't pointed out any problem from following
> this diet.

It wouldn't be followed. It will not be as effective as the
higher level suggested by the Lancet authors.
>
> >> If it's not complied with (as it isn't, commonly, in
> >> developed countries) then it's not complied with. The
> >> vast majority of folk don't comply with supplementation
> >> recommendations.
> >>
> >> >Moreover since 5 milligrams of synthetic folic acid is
> >> >much better absorbed 5 milligrams of natural folate from
> >> >your leafy diet folate levels need to be multipled by .5
> >> >to .667 to yeild a comparable number.
> >>
> >> Irrelevant.
> >
> >No it not irrelevant. The poorer available of folate as
> >compared to folic puts your diet at an even greater
> >disadvantage when compared those take 5 mg of folic acid
> >due to need.
>
> Which folate are you talking about? Does not folic acid and
> calcium ions form calcium folate?

I was using the standard terminology. The term folate is used
to imply that natural folic acid is bound to polyglutamates
from which it need to be hydrolyzed. To match a 5 mg dose of
synthetic unbound folic acid you will need something like 8 to
10 mgs of folate. That is either impossible or impractical.

>
> >> >> The easiest public health measure is to fortify for a
> >> >> small percentage of the population who need it.
> >> >
> >> >That's not what you say when comes to fluoridation is
> >> >it??
> >>
> >> It's exactly what I say.
> >
> >Then why oppose the 5 mg level for all females subject to
> >pregnancy.
>
> I don't, where did you get this from?
>
> >> >Fortify?? Don't you mean supplement??
> >>
> >> No "fortify". Add it in the food/water supply for
> >> everyone.
> >>
> >> >That is how one clearly targets help to a specific
> >> >population. Or does the word supplement stick in your
> >> >throat?? he he
> >>
> >> "he he"? Are youi keeping something a secret here?
> >>
> >> Supplement is a fine word. No problems there. Foods are
> >> fortified with folic acid.
> >>
> >> >Anyway your aim is off.
> >>
> >> I don't think so. I'm happy with a cheap harmless dose of
> >> folic acid to all so that the rare horrendous
> >> complication of NTD can be reduced.
>
> >good.
>
> >> > Even if we limit folic acid supplementation to females
> >> > who can get pregnant and at risk of NTD's ( an
> >> > unreasonable choice as I will discuss further
down)
> >> >how are YOU (or those like you in bias) going to sort
> >> >out those who have high or low folic acid requirements??
> >>
> >> I suggest you read what I say before going off
> >> half-cocked. I do hope you know exactly why a tiny
> >> proportion of women need a megadose of folic acid.
> >>
> >> >Are you going wait until someone gives birth to a
> >> >defective?? To support the current practice of
> >> >inadequate folic acid
supplementation
> >or
> >> >fortification is cruel, stupid and even vicious.
> >>
> >> For the tiny number with the genetic fault, I agree. Who
> >> is objecting? Certainly not anyone I've heard in Oz.
> >>
> >> >Since as you admit it is low cost and safe, which more
> >> >than some fossil conservative authorities admit (you get
> >> >a point), it only makes sense to supplement all females
> >> >who can get pregnant with 5 milligrams per day.
> >>
> >> Are you saying there are folks who object to this
> >> fortification?
> >
> >YES.
>
> Who are they?

Kesseler objected for a number of years though he embraced
it. The flour makers objected as I recall. Now the issue is
the level, some want more and some want lower it a little.
Some of the papers (as I recall) refer objections but don't
name the parties.
>
> >> Are they anti-fluoridationists, or anti-vaccinationists?
> >>
> >> >As the paper in the Lancet suggests is best practice!!
> >>
> >> I agree. Try reading what I write.
> >>
> >> >That is a large population, all females that can get
> >> >pregnant.
> >>
> >> Yes, but those who actually do is smaller, and those
> >> likely to have an NTD child are even smaller,
> >> neverytheless, I agree that everyone should be
> >> supplemented, for the reasons I have given.
> >>
> >> >That includes the 12 year old who shouldn't but does get
> >> >pregnant or the female hispanic women who has natural
> >> >pregnancy in her mid 50's or even the women implanted
> >> >with her daughter's fertilized eggs at age 60.
> >>
> >> I don't understand the point you are trying to make.
> >
> >They can get pregnant therefore they need the extra
> >vitamin. I was simply setting the limits to the
> >population set.
>
> The population that will benefit, or who are at risk, or who
> it is pragmatic to treat?

The both though the latter carries more weight..

>
> My only point here is that this supplementation won't
> benefit males and non-reproducing women eating a good diet.

If elevated homocysteine is a cause of anything, it will help
some males. Elevated homocysteine causes intima to increase in
end stage renal patients. PMID 12792513 It will benefit all
the real folks who don't eat as good as you. It helps maintain
the methylation process that has a role in control of DNA. It
said to take somewhere around 600 or 700 mcgs of folic acid or
was that folate to maintain the methylation process in best
order. Someone else posted an abstract of the paper making the
claim to this forum recently.

I am sleepy..............

>
> >> >That is most females from age 12 to age 55!!
> >>
> >> See above.
> >
<snip>
> >> >And since high requirement of is an indicator of a more
> >> >wide spread problem,
> >>
> >> Pardon?
> >
> >See another branch of the thread.
>
> You will have to show evidence that the general population
> on a good diet benefits from megadoses of folate.

Why a good diet, that isn't going to happen.

> The evidence I've seen is hardly convincing. Yes,
> supplementation is a reasonable compromise in a population
> that eats a crap diet. But that's not what I'm on about.

Well then you need to point folks to good folate sources and
not just repeat your mantra. It won't work for the lurkers.
>
> >> >it obvious this should include most of the population.
> >> >And yeah throw in one milligram of B-12 per day for good
> >> >measure. Its cheap and safe too.
> >>
> >> To guard against the blanket overdosing of folate? Maybe
> >> a B12 assay may be in order for older symptomatic folks?
> >
> >With a question mark. How about some B-12 instead of the
> >assay since the vitamin is cheaper.
>
> If that's the case, then fine, but it won't be beneficial to
> the vast bulk of the population. Most oral B12 is not
> absorbed, anyway.

It would take about a milligram if you want to cover nearly
everyone. If you are willing to write some people off, 25
mcgs will do.
>
<snip>
>> >We've got too many branches going on this thread.
> >But that is fine, I can repeat myself also.
>
> That's about ALL you do :)

I learned from the best, MooShe......you;-)

[Mooshie Pe]

On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 03:07:56 +0800, "William A. Noyes"
<no.address@ctc.net> posted:

><snip>
>> >> >> >The bottom line is found under the heading
>> >> >> >INTERPRETAT|ION, "Folic acid fortification should be
>> >> >> >increased. Additionally women planning a pregnancy
>> >> >> >should take 5 milligrams of folic acid tablets
>> >> >> >daily, instead of the 0.4 dose presently
>> >> >recommended."
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Recommended for whom? It's a small percantage of a
>> >> >> population, BTW, and as folic acid is cheap and
>> >> >> harmless and most folk eat a terrible diet,
>> >> >> supplementation is fine.
>> >> >
>> >> >I see MooShe defines the human population of fertile
>> >> >females as small.
>> >LOL
>> >>
>> >> Yep. What percentage of the total world population is
>> >> having or about to have a child? Then the fraction of
>> >> these that will be helped by megadoses of folic acid is
>> >> again tiny.
>> >
>> >Any female that can get pregnant is at risk without
>> >screening.
>>
>> Of course, a tiny risk, so what is your problem with
>> fortifying foods to overcome some of this small risk?
>
>While I prefer supplementation, fortification is pretty
>effective. One problem with fortification is mired in
>politics. Note that the Lancet authors want higher levels of
>fortification.

I'm not sure what is fortified here. I believe breakfast
cereals, but I wonder if a better result could be achieved
from a wider range of foods. I know some people who don't eat
breakfast cereals.

>> >> >Your balanced grain based wholefood diet won't likely
>> >> >reach the level of a 5 milligram daily intake? Will It?
>> >>
>> >> Almost certainly not, but this level is only needed to
>> >> catch a tiny few with a metabolic abnormality. It's not
>> >> necessary for most folk. But as I've said before, as
>> >> it's cheap and harmless, good idea to fortify common
>> >> foods with it.
>> >
>> >No certainly not. Depending on the population 5 to 25%
>> >have a double dose of the gene that codes for a less
>> >stable version of a gene needed to process one of the
>> >folic acid metabolites.
>>
>> Which means what percentage of the total population will
>> get NTD babies on a good diet?
>
>Your good diet? Or what the authorities call a good diet?
>
>Just look at the Lancet article. Your diet if implemented
>would yield a diet containing over a milligram of folate
>which would be equal to perhaps 600 to 700 mcgs of synthetic
>folic acid. Since even poor diet generally contains 200 mcg
>then a 400 mcg supplement it may be equal to the lowest level
>of supplementation. Which results in a 36 % reduction in
>NTDs. So your diet might do a bit better. Since the
>authorities suggest something closer to the standard diet
>plus supplements and fortification, the result is a nearly
>50% reduction, as their diet seems to contain more free folic
>acid:-) Get their diet fortified to 5 mgs plus what is in
>their diet, the reduction is 85% of NTDs.

But you are confusing avoidance of NTDs, which I agree with,
and benefit to the wider community.

>> >Second, your diet isn't as effective as the synthetic
>> >supplement. You sound like the anti-GM crusaders.
>>
>> Yet you haven't pointed out any problem from following
>> this diet.
>
>It wouldn't be followed.

That's rather irrelevant. Eucaloric diets are not followed.
You don't disagree that this is desirable?

> It will not be as effective as the higher level suggested by
> the Lancet authors.

For avoidance of NTDs (I agree) or for the benefit of the
wider community (I don't agree)

>> >> If it's not complied with (as it isn't, commonly, in
>> >> developed countries) then it's not complied with. The
>> >> vast majority of folk don't comply with supplementation
>> >> recommendations.
>> >>
>> >> >Moreover since 5 milligrams of synthetic folic acid is
>> >> >much better absorbed 5 milligrams of natural folate
>> >> >from your leafy diet folate levels need to be multipled
>> >> >by .5 to .667 to yeild a comparable number.
>> >>
>> >> Irrelevant.
>> >
>> >No it not irrelevant. The poorer available of folate as
>> >compared to folic puts your diet at an even greater
>> >disadvantage when compared those take 5 mg of folic acid
>> >due to need.
>>
>> Which folate are you talking about? Does not folic acid and
>> calcium ions form calcium folate?
>
>I was using the standard terminology. The term folate is used
>to imply that natural folic acid is bound to polyglutamates
>from which it need to be hydrolyzed.

By hydrochloric acid?

>To match a 5 mg dose of synthetic unbound folic acid you will
>need something like 8 to 10 mgs of folate. That is either
>impossible or impractical.

Are you talking about the difference in molecular weights?

>> >> Are you saying there are folks who object to this
>> >> fortification?
>> >
>> >YES.
>>
>> Who are they?
>
>Kesseler objected for a number of years though he embraced
>it. The flour makers objected as I recall. Now the issue is
>the level, some want more and some want lower it a little.
>Some of the papers (as I recall) refer objections but don't
>name the parties.

Thanks. I wonder what the reasons are. I can understand the
flour millers objecting to fortification per se, but not to
the level once it is done.

>> >> Are they anti-fluoridationists, or anti-vaccinationists?
>> >>
>> >> >As the paper in the Lancet suggests is best practice!!
>> >>
>> >> I agree. Try reading what I write.
>> >>
>> >> >That is a large population, all females that can get
>> >> >pregnant.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, but those who actually do is smaller, and those
>> >> likely to have an NTD child are even smaller,
>> >> neverytheless, I agree that everyone should be
>> >> supplemented, for the reasons I have given.
>> >>
>> >> >That includes the 12 year old who shouldn't but does
>> >> >get pregnant or the female hispanic women who has
>> >> >natural pregnancy in her mid 50's or even the women
>> >> >implanted with her daughter's fertilized eggs at age
>> >> >60.
>> >>
>> >> I don't understand the point you are trying to make.
>> >
>> >They can get pregnant therefore they need the extra
>> >vitamin. I was simply setting the limits to the
>> >population set.
>>
>> The population that will benefit, or who are at risk, or
>> who it is pragmatic to treat?
>
>The both though the latter carries more weight..

But that's not the point. Only a tiny fraction of the total
population benefit, above a good diet. That's my point.

>> My only point here is that this supplementation won't
>> benefit males and non-reproducing women eating a good diet.
>
>If elevated homocysteine is a cause of anything, it will help
>some males.

In a very few with the deficiency, folate will reduce
homocysteine levels, but this has been shown to produce no
benefit. Again, if it helps in type2 diabetics' homocysteine
reduction, it will be another benetit of dosintg the whole
population.

>Elevated homocysteine causes intima to increase in end stage
>renal patients.

I don't doubt this, as well as lots of other nasty things
happening in these very ill patients.

>PMID 12792513 It will benefit all the real folks who don't
>eat as good as you.

I agree entirely. I agree with multivitamin/mineral
supplementation. My only point is that I've seen NO evidence
that NOT supplementing someone who eats a varied, wholefood
eucaloric doet with regular moderate exercise will bring any
disadvantage. If you have seen any evidence, please tell me,
and I will change my mind.

>It helps maintain the methylation process that has a role in
>control of DNA.

Theoretically. In practical terms, what has this to do with
old age degenerative diseases and longevity?

>It said to take somewhere around 600 or 700 mcgs of folic
>acid or was that folate to maintain the methylation process
>in best order. Someone else posted an abstract of the paper
>making the claim to this forum recently.

I'm sure, but what is the practical implication of this?

>I am sleepy..............

Pop a pill :)

>> >> >That is most females from age 12 to age 55!!
>> >>
>> >> See above.
>> >
><snip>
>> >> >And since high requirement of is an indicator of a more
>> >> >wide spread problem,
>> >>
>> >> Pardon?
>> >
>> >See another branch of the thread.
>>
>> You will have to show evidence that the general population
>> on a good diet benefits from megadoses of folate.
>
>Why a good diet, that isn't going to happen.

That's irrelevant. I'm saying that supplementation is not
needed with the diet I cite. You are disagreeing with
this, remember?

>> The evidence I've seen is hardly convincing. Yes,
>> supplementation is a reasonable compromise in a population
>> that eats a crap diet. But that's not what I'm on about.
>
>Well then you need to point folks to good folate sources and
>not just repeat your mantra. It won't work for the lurkers.

Umm, to coin a phrase, "Stuff the lurkers" I merely cite the
age old advice, and say I've not seen evidence that folks who
follow this need any supplementation, and invite participants
or lurkers to tell me if they have come across evidence that
without supplementation these folks are disadvantaged.

>> >> >it obvious this should include most of the population.
>> >> >And yeah throw in one milligram of B-12 per day for
>> >> >good measure. Its cheap and safe too.
>> >>
>> >> To guard against the blanket overdosing of folate? Maybe
>> >> a B12 assay may be in order for older symptomatic folks?
>> >
>> >With a question mark. How about some B-12 instead of the
>> >assay since the vitamin is cheaper.
>>
>> If that's the case, then fine, but it won't be beneficial
>> to the vast bulk of the population. Most oral B12 is not
>> absorbed, anyway.
>
>It would take about a milligram if you want to cover nearly
>everyone. If you are willing to write some people off, 25
>mcgs will do.

Well if folks have a routine occasional FBC at the lab, they
will pick all that up.

[William A.]

"Mooshie peas" <almostnothing@very.little> wrote in message
news:u0qjlvs649ndhu7v87crgnan6gpdsbm0ju@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 03:07:56 +0800, "William A. Noyes"
> <no.address@ctc.net> posted:
>
> ><snip>
> >> >> >> >The bottom line is found under the heading
> >> >> >> >INTERPRETAT|ION, "Folic acid fortification should
> >> >> >> >be increased. Additionally women planning a
> >> >> >> >pregnancy should take 5 milligrams of folic acid
> >> >> >> >tablets daily, instead of the 0.4 dose presently
> >> >> >recommended."
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Recommended for whom? It's a small percantage of a
> >> >> >> population,
BTW,
> >> >> >> and as folic acid is cheap and harmless and most
> >> >> >> folk eat a
terrible
> >> >> >> diet, supplementation is fine.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I see MooShe defines the human population of fertile
> >> >> >females as
small.
> >> >LOL
> >> >>
> >> >> Yep. What percentage of the total world population is
> >> >> having or
about
> >> >> to have a child? Then the fraction of these that will
> >> >> be helped by megadoses of folic acid is again tiny.
> >> >
> >> >Any female that can get pregnant is at risk without
> >> >screening.
> >>
> >> Of course, a tiny risk, so what is your problem with
> >> fortifying foods to overcome some of this small risk?
> >
> >While I prefer supplementation, fortification is pretty
> >effective. One problem with fortification is mired in
> >politics. Note that the Lancet authors want higher levels
> >of fortification.
>
> I'm not sure what is fortified here. I believe breakfast
> cereals, but I wonder if a better result could be achieved
> from a wider range of foods. I know some people who don't
> eat breakfast cereals.

Yeah, I think we may agree on this point at least a little.

>
> >> >> >Your balanced grain based wholefood diet won't likely
> >> >> >reach the level of a 5 milligram daily intake? Will
> >> >> >It?
> >> >>
> >> >> Almost certainly not, but this level is only needed to
> >> >> catch a tiny few with a metabolic abnormality. It's
> >> >> not necessary for most folk. But as I've said before,
> >> >> as it's cheap and harmless, good idea to fortify
> >> >> common foods with it.
> >> >
> >> >No certainly not. Depending on the population 5 to 25%
> >> >have a double dose of the gene that codes for a less
> >> >stable version of a gene needed to process one of the
> >> >folic acid metabolites.
> >>
> >> Which means what percentage of the total population will
> >> get NTD babies on a good diet?
> >
> >Your good diet? Or what the authorities call a good diet?
> >
> >Just look at the Lancet article. Your diet if implemented
> >would yield a diet containing over a milligram of folate
> >which would be equal to perhaps 600 to 700 mcgs of
> >synthetic folic acid. Since even poor diet generally
> >contains 200 mcg then a 400 mcg supplement it may be equal
> >to the lowest level of supplementation. Which results in a
> >36 % reduction in NTDs. So your diet might do a bit
> >better. Since the authorities suggest something closer to
> >the standard diet plus supplements and fortification, the
> >result is a nearly 50% reduction, as their diet seems to
> >contain more free folic acid:-) Get their diet fortified
> >to 5 mgs plus what is in their diet, the reduction is 85%
> >of NTDs.
>
> But you are confusing avoidance of NTDs, which I agree with,
> and benefit to the wider community.

Recall that hyperhomocystiene levels are a "strong
independent" indicator for dementia and AD. These later
problems burden both our economies with persons requiring
a lot of care and a very low quality of life. These
affect more females than males as I recall (women live
longer) but certainly it affects far more males than the
NTD birth thing:-)

Old wine can be perfect but new wine is sweet and good.....
.......William A. Noyes

>
> >> >Second, your diet isn't as effective as the synthetic
> >> >supplement. You sound like the anti-GM crusaders.
> >>
> >> Yet you haven't pointed out any problem from following
> >> this diet.
> >
> >It wouldn't be followed.
>
> That's rather irrelevant. Eucaloric diets are not followed.
> You don't disagree that this is desirable?
>
> > It will not be as effective as the higher level suggested
> > by the Lancet authors.
>
> For avoidance of NTDs (I agree) or for the benefit of the
> wider community (I don't agree)
>
> >> >> If it's not complied with (as it isn't, commonly, in
> >> >> developed countries) then it's not complied with. The
> >> >> vast majority of folk don't comply with
> >> >> supplementation recommendations.
> >> >>
> >> >> >Moreover since 5 milligrams of synthetic folic acid
> >> >> >is much better absorbed 5 milligrams of natural
> >> >> >folate from your leafy diet folate levels need to be
> >> >> >multipled by .5 to .667 to yeild a comparable number.
> >> >>
> >> >> Irrelevant.
> >> >
> >> >No it not irrelevant. The poorer available of folate as
> >> >compared to folic puts your diet at an even greater
> >> >disadvantage when compared those take 5 mg of folic acid
> >> >due to need.
> >>
> >> Which folate are you talking about? Does not folic acid
> >> and calcium ions form calcium folate?
> >
> >I was using the standard terminology. The term folate is
> >used to imply that natural folic acid is bound to
> >polyglutamates from which it need to be hydrolyzed.
>
> By hydrochloric acid?
>
> >To match a 5 mg dose of synthetic unbound folic acid you
> >will need something like 8 to 10 mgs of folate. That is
> >either impossible or impractical.
>
> Are you talking about the difference in molecular weights?
>
> >> >> Are you saying there are folks who object to this
> >> >> fortification?
> >> >
> >> >YES.
> >>
> >> Who are they?
> >
> >Kesseler objected for a number of years though he embraced
> >it. The flour makers objected as I recall. Now the issue is
> >the level, some want more and some want lower it a little.
> >Some of the papers (as I recall) refer objections but don't
> >name the parties.
>
> Thanks. I wonder what the reasons are. I can understand the
> flour millers objecting to fortification per se, but not to
> the level once it is done.
>
> >> >> Are they anti-fluoridationists, or
> >> >> anti-vaccinationists?
> >> >>
> >> >> >As the paper in the Lancet suggests is best
> >> >> >practice!!
> >> >>
> >> >> I agree. Try reading what I write.
> >> >>
> >> >> >That is a large population, all females that can get
> >> >> >pregnant.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes, but those who actually do is smaller, and those
> >> >> likely to have
an
> >> >> NTD child are even smaller, neverytheless, I agree
> >> >> that everyone should be supplemented, for the reasons
> >> >> I have given.
> >> >>
> >> >> >That includes the 12 year old who shouldn't but does
> >> >> >get pregnant or the female hispanic women who has
> >> >> >natural pregnancy in her mid 50's or even the women
> >> >> >implanted with her daughter's fertilized eggs at age
> >> >> >60.
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't understand the point you are trying to make.
> >> >
> >> >They can get pregnant therefore they need the extra
> >> >vitamin. I was simply setting the limits to the
> >> >population set.
> >>
> >> The population that will benefit, or who are at risk, or
> >> who it is pragmatic to treat?
> >
> >The both though the latter carries more weight..
>
> But that's not the point. Only a tiny fraction of the total
> population benefit, above a good diet. That's my point.
>
> >> My only point here is that this supplementation won't
> >> benefit males and non-reproducing women eating a good
> >> diet.
> >
> >If elevated homocysteine is a cause of anything, it will
> >help some
males.
>
> In a very few with the deficiency, folate will reduce
> homocysteine levels, but this has been shown to produce no
> benefit. Again, if it helps in type2 diabetics' homocysteine
> reduction, it will be another benetit of dosintg the whole
> population.
>
> >Elevated homocysteine causes intima to increase in end
> >stage renal
patients.
>
> I don't doubt this, as well as lots of other nasty things
> happening in these very ill patients.
>
> >PMID 12792513 It will benefit all the real folks who don't
> >eat as good as you.
>
> I agree entirely. I agree with multivitamin/mineral
> supplementation. My only point is that I've seen NO evidence
> that NOT supplementing someone who eats a varied, wholefood
> eucaloric doet with regular moderate exercise will bring any
> disadvantage. If you have seen any evidence, please tell me,
> and I will change my mind.
>
> >It helps maintain the methylation process that has a role
> >in control of DNA.
>
> Theoretically. In practical terms, what has this to do with
> old age degenerative diseases and longevity?
>
> >It said to take somewhere around 600 or 700 mcgs of folic
> >acid or was that folate to maintain the methylation process
> >in best order. Someone else posted an abstract of the paper
> >making the claim to this forum recently.
>
> I'm sure, but what is the practical implication of this?
>
> >I am sleepy..............
>
> Pop a pill :)
>
> >> >> >That is most females from age 12 to age 55!!
> >> >>
> >> >> See above.
> >> >
> ><snip>
> >> >> >And since high requirement of is an indicator of a
> >> >> >more wide spread problem,
> >> >>
> >> >> Pardon?
> >> >
> >> >See another branch of the thread.
> >>
> >> You will have to show evidence that the general
> >> population on a good diet benefits from megadoses of
> >> folate.
> >
> >Why a good diet, that isn't going to happen.
>
> That's irrelevant. I'm saying that supplementation is not
> needed with the diet I cite. You are disagreeing with this,
> remember?
>
> >> The evidence I've seen is hardly convincing. Yes,
> >> supplementation is a reasonable compromise in a
> >> population that eats a crap diet. But that's not what I'm
> >> on about.
> >
> >Well then you need to point folks to good folate sources
> >and not just repeat your mantra. It won't work for the
> >lurkers.
>
> Umm, to coin a phrase, "Stuff the lurkers" I merely cite the
> age old advice, and say I've not seen evidence that folks
> who follow this need any supplementation, and invite
> participants or lurkers to tell me if they have come across
> evidence that without supplementation these folks are
> disadvantaged.
>
> >> >> >it obvious this should include most of the
> >> >> >population. And yeah throw in one milligram of B-12
> >> >> >per day for good measure. Its cheap and safe too.
> >> >>
> >> >> To guard against the blanket overdosing of folate?
> >> >> Maybe a B12 assay may be in order for older
> >> >> symptomatic folks?
> >> >
> >> >With a question mark. How about some B-12 instead of the
> >> >assay since the vitamin is cheaper.
> >>
> >> If that's the case, then fine, but it won't be beneficial
> >> to the vast bulk of the population. Most oral B12 is not
> >> absorbed, anyway.
> >
> >It would take about a milligram if you want to cover nearly
> >everyone. If you are willing to write some people off, 25
> >mcgs will do.
>
> Well if folks have a routine occasional FBC at the lab, they
> will pick all that up.