No one set of rules works for everyone, but in the interest of
doing more good than harm, here's

DOC HARRIS' RULES OF PREVENTION: THE QUICK AND THE DIRTY

FOUR MYTHS

1. "If you take care of yourself, you should naturally be
healthy in old age." Wrong. Evolution cares very little
about your health in old age. How healthily you age
depends on good luck, good genes, and very careful
proactive prevention.

2. "Listen to your body. It will tell you what's right for
your health." Wrong. It will more than likely tell you
what's best for you to reproduce best when young. The
same eating urges will make you fat and ill by the end of
your life.

3. "You shouldn't need medication as you age." Wrong. Your
odds of needing medication go up as you age, since you're
trying to compensate for lack of genetic programming.
You'll likely need less medication after 40 if you eat the
right foods, stay at proper body weight, don't smoke, and
exercise. But there are no guarantees. If you need it,
don't worry about taking it.

4. "Your doctor knows what's best for you." Not necessarily.
Your doctor knows about drug treatment, and may not even
do that very well, because doing drug treatment really
well takes more time than you probably pay your doctor for
(you can change that, but you'll have to be creative).
Doctors are fine consultants in hospitals. Otherwise, the
average internist or geriatrician is just one player in a
health plan which needs to include nutritionists, physical
therapists, sports medicine specialists, and even
complementary input from people like naturopaths and
chiropractors.

THIRTEEN RULES TO LENGTHEN YOUR YOUTH-SPAN

5. Don't smoke! There aren't any anti-aging pills yet, but
there's a PRO-aging habit, and this is it. Nicotene won't
age you, but the other junk in the smoke will. That
includes your arteries, your bones, your reproductive
organs, and your skin. And it sets up for a dozen kinds of
cancer. Half a pack a day does nearly as bad a job on your
arteries as 2 packs. The good news is the arterial damage
heals in a year or two after you stop (cancer risk takes
more than a decade to fully clear).
6. Don't drive a compact car. Wear your shoulder harness
religiously.
7. Learn how to take your own vitals (pulse, temperature,
blood pressure, breathing rate), and get acquainted with
your own numbers.
8. Do whatever it takes to control your blood pressure,
cholesterol and lipid profile, C-reactive protein and
homocysteine levels (yes, this means blood tests, of
course). If you have an excuse to take a statin drug—do
it. This class of drugs is the closest thing to
life-extension drugs presently known—at least for people
at cardiovascular risk of any kind (consider a CoQ10
supplement if you take a statin, since these drugs block
CoQ10 production). Do not take fibrates for lipid problems
(gemfibrzil/Lopid or fenofibrate/Tricor)—they probably
increase cancer risk and have (unlike statins) NOT been
proven to lengthen life for any group of people in any
study. Here's a case where you need to demand your doc
show you the evidence.
9. Pay strict attention to your nutrition (see below)
10. If you do no other exercise, at least take a brisk walk
every day. If you can't walk, find an equivalent. Most
adults cannot maintain healthy body weight after 40
without daily aerobic exercise.
11. Women: know your bone density and do your mammograms.
Post-menopausal women stay away from more than a few years
of estrogen, unless you also take raloxifen (Evista) and
aspirin. Consider a natural progesterone (Prometrium)
rather than an artificial progestin (ie, Provera). Men:
See a urologist regularly for a prostate exam.
12. Get the full colonoscopy regularly after 35 or 40, even if
you have to pay for it yourself. Remember that after 40 if
your arteries are clean, you don't smoke, and breast or
prostate cancer doesn't get you, then colo-rectal cancer
is your next biggest risk.
13. After about age 40, you're far more likely to die of a
clot than a bleed. If you have any cardiovascular risks
whatever after age 40, consider taking daily low-dose
aspirin (just a baby aspirin a day). This includes use of
any kind of estrogen-active drug (including raloxifen).
14. Take frequent drug holidays, and for long term medications
consider making occasional drug switches changeovers,
under advice from your doctor. This can help you identify
side effects which have been creeping up on you slowly,
without your being aware of them.
15. Consider paying a health consultant to do internet
searches and recommend preventive tests which your health
plan doesn't cover. Pay for preventive tests yourself if
you need to. Remember that the medical establishment only
thinks about you when you're standing in front of it. See
your health consultants until they are satisfied, and it's
obvious you've gotten all you can from them.
16. Your weight (body mass index and obesity) is a major
independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease and
cancer—the two things likely to cut your life short after
40. Fat increases the inflammatory state of your body,
which means arthritis of all types and every ache and
pain. There are no magic answers to weight-control; you
must cut out junk food and exercise, that's all.
17. PS. DON'T SMOKE. I'm not kidding.

SEVEN VERY SIMPLE RULES OF GOOD NUTRITION

18. Read labels and stay away from partially hydrogenated
oils. No Crisco. Your margarine should contain no
hydrogenated oils or trans-fats. If the label says "may
contain one of the following:" and one of the following is
partially hydrogenated oil, you can be sure that it's in
there. Shop for your food around the "outside" of the
grocery store away from center isles, and stay away from
processed foods, unless they are microwavable diet meals
(these are usually okay). Everything else is likely to
have saturated fat, hydrogenated oils and lots of other
calories, sugar, and salt you don't need.
19. Dairy fat is atherogenic, and almost as bad as trans-fat.
Eat only non-fat dairy foods, and stay away from butter
and cream, except as rare treats. Moderate your cheese
intake (this partly depends on your blood lipid profile).
20. Moderate "meat" intake (make meat a side dish, not a main
dish). By "meat" is meant non-game meat (i.e., farm
raised), not including wild fish. Wild fish and game meat
can be eaten freely.
21. Center your diet on produce, breads, cereals, pasta,
olives, fancy nuts (no peanuts, which are atherogenic),
cold water fish (especially salmon and halibut), non-fat
dairy products, and eggs. The best oils are olive,
avocado, almond, and non-hydrogenated Canola. Consider a
few grams of fish body oil (not liver oil) supplement on
days you don't eat fish (or if you don't like fish).
22. Eat a wide variety of foods, and try to make sure there
are colored vegetables and fruits in most of your meals.
23.Take no more than 2 alcoholic drinks a day, and if
possible, make all your alcohol intake red wine (the author
recommends Chiantis, if you must drink your red wines young
and cheap).
24. Take a good megadose multivitamin/mineral (such as Twinlab
Daily One or Daily Two), but don't worry about taking it
every day. Several times a week is fine—give your body
time to adjust after saturation with megadose nutrients.

Steven B. Harris, M.D.

--
I welcome email from any being clever enough to fix my
address. It's open book. A prize to the first spambot that
passes my Turing test.

"Steve Harris" <sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> writes:

>No one set of rules works for everyone, but in the interest
>of doing more good than harm, here's

>DOC HARRIS' RULES OF PREVENTION: THE QUICK AND THE DIRTY

Thanks for a good useful compendium.

>FOUR MYTHS

>2. "Listen to your body. It will tell you what's right for
> your health." Wrong. It will more than likely tell you
> what's best for you to reproduce best when young. The
> same eating urges will make you fat and ill by the end of
> your life.

Those who advocate "listening to your body" usually do not
mean "indulge your appetites", but an investigative procedure
in which you you check yourself carefully for side effects,
symptoms, etc., and try and establish how various behaviours,
foods, drugs, etc., affect them, and what they mean.

>THIRTEEN RULES TO LENGTHEN YOUR YOUTH-SPAN

>2. Don't drive a compact car.

Wouldn't you be even better not driving at all? Not just the
reduction of the traffic accident hazard, but the greater
exercise forced upon you. I suspect the greatest hazard of car
driving is the ills the lack of exercise causes the driver.
--
Chris Malcolm cam@dai.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 650 3085 School of
Artificial Intelligence, Division of Informatics Edinburgh
University, 5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/daidb/people/homes/cam/ ] DoD #205

Steve Harris wrote:

> No one set of rules works for everyone, but in the interest
> of doing more good than harm, here's
>
> DOC HARRIS' RULES OF PREVENTION: THE QUICK AND THE
> DIRTY <snip>

Steve,

nice post. I would amend 6 with the caveat to avoid any
alcohol if Aldehyde dehydrogenase deficient.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Atlanta Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com

On Mon, 5 Aug 2002 14:23:33 -0700, "Steve Harris"
<sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:

>4. Center your diet on produce, breads, cereals, pasta,
> olives, fancy nuts (no peanuts, which are atherogenic),
> cold water fish (especially salmon and halibut), non-fat
> dairy products, and eggs. The best oils are olive,
> avocado, almond, and non-hydrogenated Canola. Consider a
> few grams of fish body oil (not liver oil) supplement on
> days you don't eat fish (or if you don't like fish).

What's your rationale for recommending highly refined wheat
products like bread and pasta? This is a serious question -
even though I'm a low carber, I recognize that many people
don't have a serious problem with these foods. What I fail
to see, however, is the value they bring to a diet, aside
from the simple addition of calories. Is this in fact their
value in your view - that they add calories without
increasing fat or protein consumption? Or is there some
other issue that I'm missing?

Paul

In sci.med.cardiology Steve Harris
<sbharris@ix.reticulatedobjectcom.com> wrote:

: DOC HARRIS' RULES OF PREVENTION: THE QUICK AND THE DIRTY

>>(no peanuts, which are atherogenic),

Never heard that one before. Interesting. So what's the
difference between atherosclerosis and atherogenesis?

: 7. Take a good megadose multivitamin/mineral (such as
: Twinlab Daily One or Daily Two), but don't worry about
: taking it every day. Several times a week is fine—give
: your body time to adjust after saturation with megadose
: nutrients.

How often exactly is it okay to miss the daily multivitamin?
Every other day?

Otherwise, very well done.

Noreen

"Steve Harris" wrote:
>4. Center your diet on produce, breads, cereals, pasta,
> olives, fancy nuts (no peanuts, which are atherogenic),
> cold water fish (especially salmon and halibut), non-fat
> dairy products, and eggs. The best oils are olive,
> avocado, almond, and non-hydrogenated Canola. Consider a
> few grams of fish body oil (not liver oil) supplement on
> days you don't eat fish (or if you don't like fish).

Paul Chefurka wrote: What's your rationale for recommending
highly refined wheat products like bread and pasta? This is a
serious question - even though I'm a low carber, I recognize
that many people don't have a serious problem with these
foods. What I fail to see, however, is the value they bring to
a diet, aside from the simple addition of calories. Is this in
fact their value in your view - that they add calories without
increasing fat or protein consumption? Or is there some other
issue that I'm missing?

George W. Cherry writes: I'm sure he meant whole-grain
breads cereals, and pasta. Like you, I prefer the whole
grain intact (as in whole oat groats). But the fact of the
matter is that most people eat lots of breads, cereals, and
pasta, and persuading these folks to eat whole-grain breads,
cereals, and pasta is good medicine, and Steve is a doctor
talking to folks on several newsgroups. He could have
(should have) said whole grain explicitly, and maybe he'll
"clean up" "The Quick and Dirty on Prevention and
Life-Extension" the next time he posts it.

BTW, I use prepared cold cereals as crunchy sweeteners on my
whole, in- tact oat groats. (I knew a guy once who put sugar
on his frosted flakes.)

George

On Mon, 5 Aug 2002 14:23:33 -0700, "Steve Harris"
<sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:

>(consider a CoQ10 supplement if you take a statin, since
>these drugs block CoQ10 production).

It's good to see this recommendation. The evidence for CoQ10
depletion, and our understanding of the consequences, should
be prompting every cardiologist to observe this precaution. I
worry that if we don't do this, we risk trading off CAD for
CHF over the long run. That could be an irony of litigious
proportions.

Paul

In my experience, apart from genes, the keys to longevity and
good health is to simply keep moving (exercise) and eat
lightly (caloric restriction) Most of the population though
aren't willing to make such sacrifices.

"Steve Harris" <sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote in
message news:<aimqdq$fd3$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>...
> No one set of rules works for everyone, but in the interest
> of doing more good than harm, here's
>
>
> DOC HARRIS' RULES OF PREVENTION: THE QUICK AND THE DIRTY
>
>
> FOUR MYTHS
>
> 1. "If you take care of yourself, you should naturally be
> healthy in old age." Wrong. Evolution cares very little
> about your health in old age. How healthily you age
> depends on good luck, good genes, and very careful
> proactive prevention.
>
> 2. "Listen to your body. It will tell you what's right for
> your health." Wrong. It will more than likely tell you
> what's best for you to reproduce best when young. The
> same eating urges will make you fat and ill by the end
> of your life.
>
> 3. "You shouldn't need medication as you age." Wrong. Your
> odds of needing medication go up as you age, since
> you're trying to compensate for lack of genetic
> programming. You'll likely need less medication after 40
> if you eat the right foods, stay at proper body weight,
> don't smoke, and exercise. But there are no guarantees.
> If you need it, don't worry about taking it.
>
> 4. "Your doctor knows what's best for you." Not
> necessarily. Your doctor knows about drug treatment, and
> may not even do that very well, because doing drug
> treatment really well takes more time than you probably
> pay your doctor for (you can change that, but you'll
> have to be creative). Doctors are fine consultants in
> hospitals. Otherwise, the average internist or
> geriatrician is just one player in a health plan which
> needs to include nutritionists, physical therapists,
> sports medicine specialists, and even complementary
> input from people like naturopaths and chiropractors.
>
> THIRTEEN RULES TO LENGTHEN YOUR YOUTH-SPAN
>
> 1. Don't smoke! There aren't any anti-aging pills yet, but
> there's a PRO-aging habit, and this is it. Nicotene
> won't age you, but the other junk in the smoke will.
> That includes your arteries, your bones, your
> reproductive organs, and your skin. And it sets up for a
> dozen kinds of cancer. Half a pack a day does nearly as
> bad a job on your arteries as 2 packs. The good news is
> the arterial damage heals in a year or two after you
> stop (cancer risk takes more than a decade to fully
> clear).
> 2. Don't drive a compact car. Wear your shoulder harness
> religiously.
> 3. Learn how to take your own vitals (pulse, temperature,
> blood pressure, breathing rate), and get acquainted with
> your own numbers.
> 4. Do whatever it takes to control your blood pressure,
> cholesterol and lipid profile, C-reactive protein and
> homocysteine levels (yes, this means blood tests, of
> course). If you have an excuse to take a statin
> drug—do it. This class of drugs is the closest
> thing to life-extension drugs presently known—at
> least for people at cardiovascular risk of any kind
> (consider a CoQ10 supplement if you take a statin, since
> these drugs block CoQ10 production). Do not take
> fibrates for lipid problems (gemfibrzil/Lopid or
> fenofibrate/Tricor)—they probably increase cancer
> risk and have (unlike statins) NOT been proven to
> lengthen life for any group of people in any study.
> Here's a case where you need to demand your doc show you
> the evidence.
> 5. Pay strict attention to your nutrition (see below)
> 6. If you do no other exercise, at least take a brisk walk
> every day. If you can't walk, find an equivalent. Most
> adults cannot maintain healthy body weight after 40
> without daily aerobic exercise.
> 7. Women: know your bone density and do your mammograms.
> Post-menopausal women stay away from more than a few
> years of estrogen, unless you also take raloxifen
> (Evista) and aspirin. Consider a natural progesterone
> (Prometrium) rather than an artificial progestin (ie,
> Provera). Men: See a urologist regularly for a prostate
> exam.
> 8. Get the full colonoscopy regularly after 35 or 40, even
> if you have to pay for it yourself. Remember that after
> 40 if your arteries are clean, you don't smoke, and
> breast or prostate cancer doesn't get you, then
> colo-rectal cancer is your next biggest risk.
> 9. After about age 40, you're far more likely to die of a
> clot than a bleed. If you have any cardiovascular risks
> whatever after age 40, consider taking daily low-dose
> aspirin (just a baby aspirin a day). This includes use
> of any kind of estrogen-active drug (including
> raloxifen).
> 10. Take frequent drug holidays, and for long term
> medications consider making occasional drug switches
> changeovers, under advice from your doctor. This can
> help you identify side effects which have been creeping
> up on you slowly, without your being aware of them.
> 11. Consider paying a health consultant to do internet
> searches and recommend preventive tests which your
> health plan doesn't cover. Pay for preventive tests
> yourself if you need to. Remember that the medical
> establishment only thinks about you when you're standing
> in front of it. See your health consultants until they
> are satisfied, and it's obvious you've gotten all you
> can from them.
> 12. Your weight (body mass index and obesity) is a major
> independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease and
> cancer—the two things likely to cut your life
> short after 40. Fat increases the inflammatory state of
> your body, which means arthritis of all types and every
> ache and pain. There are no magic answers to
> weight-control; you must cut out junk food and exercise,
> that's all.
> 13. PS. DON'T SMOKE. I'm not kidding.
>
>
> SEVEN VERY SIMPLE RULES OF GOOD NUTRITION
>
> 1. Read labels and stay away from partially hydrogenated
> oils. No Crisco. Your margarine should contain no
> hydrogenated oils or trans-fats. If the label says "may
> contain one of the following:" and one of the following
> is partially hydrogenated oil, you can be sure that it's
> in there. Shop for your food around the "outside" of the
> grocery store away from center isles, and stay away from
> processed foods, unless they are microwavable diet meals
> (these are usually okay). Everything else is likely to
> have saturated fat, hydrogenated oils and lots of other
> calories, sugar, and salt you don't need.
> 2. Dairy fat is atherogenic, and almost as bad as
> trans-fat. Eat only non-fat dairy foods, and stay away
> from butter and cream, except as rare treats. Moderate
> your cheese intake (this partly depends on your blood
> lipid profile).
> 3. Moderate "meat" intake (make meat a side dish, not a
> main dish). By "meat" is meant non-game meat (i.e., farm
> raised), not including wild fish. Wild fish and game
> meat can be eaten freely.
> 4. Center your diet on produce, breads, cereals, pasta,
> olives, fancy nuts (no peanuts, which are atherogenic),
> cold water fish (especially salmon and halibut), non-fat
> dairy products, and eggs. The best oils are olive,
> avocado, almond, and non-hydrogenated Canola. Consider a
> few grams of fish body oil (not liver oil) supplement on
> days you don't eat fish (or if you don't like fish).
> 5. Eat a wide variety of foods, and try to make sure there
> are colored vegetables and fruits in most of your meals.
> 6.Take no more than 2 alcoholic drinks a day, and if
> possible, make all your alcohol intake red wine (the
> author recommends Chiantis, if you must drink your red
> wines young and cheap).
> 7. Take a good megadose multivitamin/mineral (such as
> Twinlab Daily One or Daily Two), but don't worry about
> taking it every day. Several times a week is
> fine—give your body time to adjust after
> saturation with megadose nutrients.
>
>
> Steven B. Harris, M.D.

"Noreen Cooper" <ncooper@wahoo.sjsu.edu> wrote in message
news:ain6tv$59f7$1@hades.csu.net...
> In sci.med.cardiology Steve Harris
> <sbharris@ix.reticulatedobjectcom.com>
wrote:
>
> : DOC HARRIS' RULES OF PREVENTION: THE QUICK AND THE DIRTY
>
>
> >>(no peanuts, which are atherogenic),
>
> Never heard that one before. Interesting.

I would say some peanuts in conjunction with a good diet (like
the Mediteranean diet) is not a problem. Going to the ballpark
and scoffing down a 2 lb bag along with a few corndogs and
beers..........

> So what's the difference between atherosclerosis and
> atherogenesis?
>

Atherogenesis is the process that generates atherosclerosis.

> : 7. Take a good megadose multivitamin/mineral (such as
> : Twinlab Daily One
or
> : Daily Two), but don't worry about taking it every day.
> : Several times a
week
> : is fine-give your body time to adjust after saturation
> : with megadose nutrients.
>
> How often exactly is it okay to miss the daily multivitamin?
> Every other day?
>

Depends on who you ask. He did say a megavitamin, not just a
multivitamin. A recent review in JAMA (June 19th issue) did
suggest that all adults take a multivitamin and that select
groups take additional supplements.

--
CBI, MD

GeoWCherry wrote in message
<20020805215758.15382.00002169@mb-dh.aol.com>...>George W.
Cherry writes:
>I'm sure he meant whole-grain breads cereals, and pasta. . He
>could have (should have) said whole grain explicitly, and
>maybe he'll "clean up" "The Quick and Dirty on Prevention and
>Life-Extension" the next time he posts it.

Yep. I'll add it. And again, look to your label.You want bread
that isn't just brown because they added a little whole grain
flour, but bread in which whole grain flour is first
ingredient.

--
I welcome email from any being clever enough to fix my
address. It's open book. A prize to the first spambot that
passes my Turing test.

"CBI" <00doc@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:aindgs$an6$1@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
>
>
> > : 7. Take a good megadose multivitamin/mineral (such as
> > : Twinlab Daily
One
> or
> > : Daily Two), but don't worry about taking it every day.
> > : Several times a
> week
> > : is fine-give your body time to adjust after saturation
> > : with megadose nutrients.
> >
> > How often exactly is it okay to miss the daily
> > multivitamin? Every
other
> > day?
> >
>
> Depends on who you ask. He did say a megavitamin, not just a
> multivitamin.
A
> recent review in JAMA (June 19th issue) did suggest that all
> adults take a multivitamin and that select groups take
> additional supplements.
>

One additional comment: My long standing practice, which I was
glad to see is also reflected in the JAMA article, is that men
and older women should not use a vitamin with minerals. The
added iron is undesirable as it is an oxidant and associated
with cardiac disease.

--
CBI, MD

In sci.med.cardiology CBI <00doc@mindspring.com> wrote:

:> >>(no peanuts, which are atherogenic),
:>
:> Never heard that one before. Interesting.

: I would say some peanuts in conjunction with a good diet
: (like the Mediteranean diet) is not a problem. Going to the
: ballpark and scoffing down a 2 lb bag along with a few
: corndogs and beers..........

I'm not a big peanut fan; however, I'm wondering why the doc
singled out peanuts as being atherogenic. According to my
nutrition almanac, there's not much difference in the amount
of saturated fat between either peanuts, hazelnuts, or Brazil
nuts. And according to Dean Ornish's dietary recommendations
for heart patients, he suggests people eliminate all nuts
because most are loaded with saturated fats.

So why single out the peanut? Just wondering.

Thanks, CBI, for answering my other questions.

Noreen

CBI <00doc@mindspring.com> wrote in message ...

>One additional comment: My long standing practice, which I
>was glad to see is also reflected in the JAMA article, is
>that men and older women should not use a vitamin with
>minerals. The added iron is undesirable as it is an oxidant
>and associated with cardiac disease.

Twinlab is one company that makes a multivitamin with all the
minerals, but the option of the iron left out. That's for
everybody but women of childbearing years, and is in fact the
one I take myself.

--
I welcome email from any being clever enough to fix my
address. It's open book. A prize to the first spambot that
passes my Turing test.

CBI wrote:

> "CBI" <00doc@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:aindgs$an6$1@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> >
> > > : 7. Take a good megadose multivitamin/mineral (such as
> > > : Twinlab Daily
> One
> > or
> > > : Daily Two), but don't worry about taking it every day.
> > > : Several times a
> > week
> > > : is fine-give your body time to adjust after saturation
> > > : with megadose nutrients.
> > >
> > > How often exactly is it okay to miss the daily
> > > multivitamin? Every
> other
> > > day?
> > >
> >
> > Depends on who you ask. He did say a megavitamin, not just
> > a multivitamin.
> A
> > recent review in JAMA (June 19th issue) did suggest that
> > all adults take a multivitamin and that select groups take
> > additional supplements.
> >
>
> One additional comment: My long standing practice, which I
> was glad to see is also reflected in the JAMA article, is
> that men and older women should not use a vitamin with
> minerals. The added iron is undesirable as it is an oxidant
> and associated with cardiac disease.
>

correct.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Atlanta Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com

Once upon a time, our fellow GeoWCherry rambled on about
"Re: The Quick and Dirty on Prevention and Life-Extension."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts,
thusly ...

>This is a serious question - even though I'm a low carber, I
>recognize that many people don't have a serious problem with
>these foods. What I fail to see, however, is the value they
>bring to a diet, aside from the simple addition of calories.
>Is this in fact their value in your view - that they add
>calories without increasing fat or protein consumption?

Ha, ... Hah, Hah!

Excuse me? How can anyone remotely serious about their health
take your comments seriously?
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!
http://NaturalHealthPerspective.com/ The ONLY Frauds in Health
are those who couldn't care less about prevention. Beware of
anybody who brags about eating a lousy diet, being overweight,
or about smoking!

x-no-archive: yes

In article <qd7ukuga7dr8lpf757ftkv2fk2f99rclo3@4ax.com>, Paul
Chefurka <paul@chefurka.com> writes:

>
>What's your rationale for recommending highly refined wheat
>products like bread and pasta? This is a serious question -
>even though I'm a low carber, I recognize that many people
>don't have a serious problem with these foods.

Well, in bread, at least, everyone should be concerned with
acrylamide content, given it's role as a neurotoxin and
carcinogen.

Susan

"Steve Harris" <sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote in
message news:aimqdq$fd3$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> 4. <snip> If you have an excuse to take a statin drug-do
> it. This class of drugs is the closest thing to
> life-extension drugs presently known-at least for
> people at cardiovascular risk of any kind (consider a
> CoQ10 supplement if you take a statin, since these
> drugs block CoQ10 production). <snip> Here's a case
> where you need to demand your doc show you the
> evidence.
>
> Steven B. Harris, M.D.

Please provide the evidence that CoQ10 supplement is
necessary.


Am Heart J 2001 Aug;142(2):E2

The effect of pravastatin and atorvastatin on coenzyme Q10.

Bleske BE, Willis RA, Anthony M, Casselberry N, Datwani M,
Uhley VE, Secontine SG, Shea MJ.

College of Pharmacy, the General Clinical Research Center, the
Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, and the
University of Michigan Health Systems, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1065, USA. bbleske@umich.edu

BACKGROUND: Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) is an antioxidant and plays
an important role in the synthesis of adenosine triphosphate.
Studies suggest that 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A
(HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors reduce CoQ10 levels; however,
no studies have directly compared HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors
in a randomized crossover fashion.

METHODS: Twelve healthy volunteers received either 20 mg
pravastatin (P) or 10 mg atorvastatin (A) for 4 weeks in a
randomized crossover fashion. There was a 4- to 8-week washout
period between the 2 phases. CoQ10 levels and a lipid profile
were obtained.

RESULTS: There was no difference in CoQ10 levels from
baseline to post-drug therapy for either P or A (0.61 +/-
0.14 vs 0.62 +/- 0.2 microg/mL and 0.65 +/- 0.22 vs 0.6 +/-
0.12 microg/mL, respectively; P >.05). There was a
significant difference in low-density lipoprotein (LDL)
levels from baseline to post-drug therapy for both P and A
(97 +/- 21 vs 66 +/- 19 mg/dL and 102 +/- 21 vs 52 +/- 14
mg/dL, respectively; P <.01). There was no significant
correlation between LDL and CoQ10.

CONCLUSIONS: P and A did not decrease CoQ10 despite a
significant decrease in LDL levels. These findings suggest
that HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors do not significantly
decrease the synthesis of circulating CoQ10 in healthy
subjects. Routine supplementation of CoQ10 may not be
necessary when HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor therapy is
administered.

PMID: 11479481

On 06 Aug 2002 12:16:27 GMT, sufein@aol.comnospam (Susan
Fein) wrote:

>x-no-archive: yes
>
>
>In article <qd7ukuga7dr8lpf757ftkv2fk2f99rclo3@4ax.com>, Paul
>Chefurka <paul@chefurka.com> writes:
>
>>
>>What's your rationale for recommending highly refined wheat
>>products like bread and pasta? This is a serious question -
>>even though I'm a low carber, I recognize that many people
>>don't have a serious problem with these foods.
>
>Well, in bread, at least, everyone should be concerned with
>acrylamide content, given it's role as a neurotoxin and
>carcinogen.

If we're talking regular breads and pasta, then I'm less
concerned about acrylamide than glycemic load, at least as far
as short to medium term risk goes. If we're talking
crispbreads, then all bets are off :-)

Paul

On Tue, 6 Aug 2002 10:30:32 -0500, "hrj" <hrj@toast.net>
wrote:

>"Steve Harris" <sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote
>in message news:aimqdq$fd3$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
>>
>> 4. <snip> If you have an excuse to take a statin drug-do
>> it. This class of drugs is the closest thing to
>> life-extension drugs presently known-at least for
>> people at cardiovascular risk of any kind (consider a
>> CoQ10 supplement if you take a statin, since these
>> drugs block CoQ10 production). <snip> Here's a case
>> where you need to demand your doc show you the
>> evidence.
>>
>> Steven B. Harris, M.D.
>
>Please provide the evidence that CoQ10 supplement is
>necessary.

Try the references in these articles:
http://www.thyroid-info.com/articles/coq10.htm
http://www.aegis.com/pubs/catie/2001/cate11804.html http://ww-
w.healthy.net/library/journals/ortho/issue11.2/correspondence-
.htm http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/02/May02/052902/-
02p-0244-cp00001-01-vol1.pdf http://www.cardiologytoday.com/1-
99903/frameset.asp?article=statinsafety.asp

There's no doubt in my mind that anyone taking statins who is
not supplementing CoQ10 is playing Russian Roulette with
cardiomyopathy, at least over the long run.

There's a report on CNN about research done at Brigham and
women's University in boston that supports inflammation as the
source of much of the CHD that's not linked to high
cholesterol. http://www.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/08/04/beyond.chol-
esterol.ap/index.html

They also suggest that statins' anti-inflammatory action is
the reason why they work on people with low as well as high
cholesterol. This implies that there is growing evidence that
statins are indeed the magic bullet they've been made out to
be. As a result, we need to pay special attention to
mitigating any long-term side effects of their use, and from
what I've seen so far, CoQ10 depletion is the main problem we
should be looking at.

Paul

"Paul Chefurka" <paul@chefurka.com> wrote in message
news:oirvkusr4uvqg6jg16duf4uglhh87g9bim@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 6 Aug 2002 10:30:32 -0500, "hrj"
> <hrj@toast.net> wrote:
>
> >"Steve Harris" <sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote
> >in message news:aimqdq$fd3$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> >>
> >> 4. <snip> If you have an excuse to take a statin
> >> drug-do it. This class of drugs is the closest thing
> >> to life-extension drugs
presently
> >> known-at least for people at cardiovascular risk of any
> >> kind (consider
a
> >> CoQ10 supplement if you take a statin, since these drugs
> >> block CoQ10 production). <snip> Here's a case where you
> >> need to demand your doc show you the evidence.
> >>
> >> Steven B. Harris, M.D.
> >
> >Please provide the evidence that CoQ10 supplement is
> >necessary.
>
> Try the references in these articles:
> http://www.thyroid-info.com/articles/coq10.htm
> http://www.aegis.com/pubs/catie/2001/cate11804.html http://-
> www.healthy.net/library/journals/ortho/issue11.2/correspond-
> ence.htm
>
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/02/May02/052902/02p-0-
244-cp00001-01- vol1.pdf
>
http://www.cardiologytoday.com/199903/frameset.asp?article=st-
atinsafety.asp
>

By EVIDENCE I mean double-blind placebo controlled randomized
clinical trials published in peer reviewed medical journal.
Web sites are NOT peer reviewed.

Noreen Cooper <ncooper@wahoo.sjsu.edu> wrote in message
news:<aineje$588n$1@hades.csu.net>...
> :> >>(no peanuts, which are atherogenic),
> :> Never heard that one before. Interesting.
> So why single out the peanut? Just wondering.
Some people are allergic to them, which would make them bad
for some people at least. They also tend to have high levels
of aflatoxins: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?-
cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12131971&dopt=Abstract

- Rev Saude Publica 2002 Jun;36(3):319-23 Aflatoxins and
ochratoxin A in food and the risks to human health Caldas ED,
Silva SC, Oliveira JN. Faculdade de Ciencias da Saude,
Universidade de Brasilia, Brasilia, DF, Brasil.

OBJECTIVES: The presence of mycotoxins in food has been
associated with several human diseases, and health authorities
have taken actions to decrease the ingestion of these
compounds in the diet. A study was carried out to assess
aflatoxins and ochratoxin A concentrations found in food, and
to evaluate the potential risk to human health resulting from
mycotoxin exposure. METHODS: Between July 1998 to December
2001, 366 food samples were analyzed, including peanuts and
its products, nuts, maize, oat and/or wheat products, rice and
beans. Samples were processed and the extracted mycotoxins
were detected and separated using thin layer chromatography,
and then quantified with fluorescence. RESULTS: Aflatoxins
were detected in 19.6% of the samples: raw peanuts and its
products, pop corn, maize and Brazilian nuts (>2mg/kg).
Peanuts and its products showed the highest levels of
aflatoxin contamination (34.7%) with up to 1280 mg/kg of
AFB1+AFG1 and 1706 mg/kg of total aflatoxins. Of the positive
samples, AFB1 was detected in 98.5%, AFB2 in 93%, AFG1 in
66.7%, and AFG2 in 65.4%. Ochratoxin A was not detected (<25
mg/kg) in any sample analyzed. CONCLUSION: It was found that
contamination levels mainly seen in peanuts and its products
exceed Brazilian regulated standards, and they can be a
potential risk to regular consumers of these products. Food
producers' awareness allied to monitoring programs is
essential to reduce human exposure to these compounds and
prevent ensuing chronic diseases. PMID: 12131971 -

And here's the latest on peanut allergies: http://www.ncbi.nl-
m.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=-
12144563&dopt=Abstract

- Allergy 2002;57 Suppl 72:88-93 The 18 kDa peanut oleosin is
a candidate allergen for IgE-mediated reactions to peanuts.
Pons L, Chery C, Romano A, Namour F, Artesani MC, Gueant JL.

BACKGROUND: : Peanut allergy is one of the five most frequent
food allergies in children and in adults. Recently, we
purified and evaluated the allergenicity of peanut oleosins, a
family of small-sized proteins involved in the formation of
peanut oil bodies. <snip>

CONCLUSIONS: We have characterized a new peanut allergen which
belongs to the oleosins, a family of proteins involved in the
formation of oil bodies. The protein may be involved in some
of the allergic cross-reactions to peanuts and soybeans. PMID:
12144563 -

-Chris

hrj wrote in message ...

>By EVIDENCE I mean double-blind placebo controlled randomized
>clinical trials published in peer reviewed medical journal.

ROFL. Right after you give us the double-blind placebo
controlled randomized clinical trials published in peer
reviewed medical journals showing that smoking and obesity are
bad for you, and that exercise is good for you. <g>. You
already take a lot of things on faith, so long as the faith is
approved by the establishment.

You have to remember the nature of "evidence." The
placebo-controlled randomized human trial is the gold
standard, but it's not always available, or even possible (to
definitively show that HIV causes AIDS we'd have to inject
randomized people with it prospectively and blindly, vs
saline-- right?).

Possibly you don't know the story of the century-old debate
about whether or not cholesterol, and later specifically LDL,
has a causal role in atherosclerosis. Long before there were
double blind studies of cholesterol-lowering treatments in
humans, there was all kinds of evidence from epidemiology and
animal studies. The people who didn't want to believe them,
didn't. Some of those people don't believe LDL plays a causal
role in atherosclerosis, even now. These are the nuts.

It's possible to prove theories wrong in science, but not
possible to absolutely prove them correct. All you can do is
provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. And long before
you have such evidence, there are many things it is reasonable
to do, even on the basis of moderate evidence from theory or
epidemiology. You take your guess, and usually you're right
(hypertension and cholesterol control) and occasionally you're
wrong (some kinds of long term hormone replacement for women).
For something like the badness of smoking and HIV, and the
goodness of exercise, we maybe never WILL have definitive
evidence. Learn to live with it.

Steve Harris

--
I welcome email from any being clever enough to fix my
address. It's open book. A prize to the first spambot that
passes my Turing test.

On Tue, 6 Aug 2002 11:47:16 -0500, "hrj" <hrj@toast.net>
wrote:

>
>"Paul Chefurka" <paul@chefurka.com> wrote in message
>news:oirvkusr4uvqg6jg16duf4uglhh87g9bim@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 6 Aug 2002 10:30:32 -0500, "hrj"
>> <hrj@toast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >"Steve Harris" <sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com>
>> >wrote in message
>> >news:aimqdq$fd3$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
>> >>
>> >> 4. <snip> If you have an excuse to take a statin
>> >> drug-do it. This class of drugs is the closest
>> >> thing to life-extension drugs
>presently
>> >> known-at least for people at cardiovascular risk of any
>> >> kind (consider
>a
>> >> CoQ10 supplement if you take a statin, since these drugs
>> >> block CoQ10 production). <snip> Here's a case where you
>> >> need to demand your doc show you the evidence.
>> >>
>> >> Steven B. Harris, M.D.
>> >
>> >Please provide the evidence that CoQ10 supplement is
>> >necessary.
>>
>> Try the references in these articles:
>> http://www.thyroid-info.com/articles/coq10.htm
>> http://www.aegis.com/pubs/catie/2001/cate11804.html http:/-
>> /www.healthy.net/library/journals/ortho/issue11.2/correspo-
>> ndence.htm
>>
>http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/02/May02/052902/02p--
>0244-cp00001-01- vol1.pdf
>>
>http://www.cardiologytoday.com/199903/frameset.asp?article=s-
>tatinsafety.asp
>>
>
>By EVIDENCE I mean double-blind placebo controlled randomized
>clinical trials published in peer reviewed medical journal.
>Web sites are NOT peer reviewed.

Boy, I just knew someone was going to say that.

I didn't say look at the Web sites. I said "Try the
references". The references in those articles come from places
like the Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. the Journal of
Clinical Pathology, The Annals of Internal Medicine, the
European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, the Journal of
Lipid Research, the Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences etc. et. etc. Every last one of them is per reviewed.

A 10 second check of PubMed also turned up the articles
included below.

Given that there is evidence that statins lower serum CoQ10
concentrations, and given that there is evidence that low
CoQ10 levels are implicated in cardiomyopathy, and given that
CoQ10 supplementation has no known side effects other than
lowering the pecuniary content of one's bank account, I think
the recommendation to supplement if you're taking statins is
pretty darn good.

Paul

****************************
Br J Clin Pharmacol 1996 Sep;42(3):333-7 Related Articles,
Books, LinkOut

Lipid-lowering drugs and mitochondrial function: effects of
HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors on serum ubiquinone and blood
lactate/pyruvate ratio.

De Pinieux G, Chariot P, Ammi-Said M, Louarn F, Lejonc JL,
Astier A, Jacotot B, Gherardi R.

Groupe de Recherche en Pathologie Neuromusculaire (ER 269),
Faculte de Medecine de Creteil, Hopital Henri Mondor, France.

1. Statins inhibit synthesis of mevalonate, a precursor of
ubiquinone that is a central compound of the mitochondrial
respiratory chain. The main adverse effect of statins is a
toxic myopathy possibly related to mitochondrial
dysfunction. 2. This study was designed to evaluate the
effect of lipid-lowering drugs on ubiquinone (coenzyme
Q10) serum level and on mitochondrial function assessed by
blood lactate/pyruvate ratio. 3. Eighty
hypercholesterolaemic patients (40 treated by statins, 20
treated by fibrates, and 20 untreated patients, all 80
having total cholesterol levels
> 6. mmol l-1) and 20 healthy controls were included.
> Ubiquinone serum
level and blood lactate/pyruvate ratio used as a test for
mitochondrial dysfunction were evaluated in all subjects. 4.
Lactate/pyruvate ratios were significantly higher in patients
treated by statins than in untreated hypercholesterolaemic
patients or in healthy controls (P < 0.05 and P < .001). The
difference was not significant between fibratetreated patients
and untreated patients. 5. Ubiquinone serum levels were lower
in statin-treated patients (0.75 mg l-1 +/- 0.04) than in
untreated hypercholesterolaemic patients (0.95 mg l-1 +/-
0.09; P < 0.05). 6. We conclude that statin therapy can be
associated with high blood lactate/ pyruvate ratio suggestive
of mitochondrial dysfunction. It is uncertain to what extent
low serum levels of ubiquinone could explain the mitochondrial
dysfunction.

PMID: 8877024 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Lovastatin decreases coenzyme Q levels in rats.

Willis RA, Folkers K, Tucker JL, Ye CQ, Xia LJ, Tamagawa H.

Division of Graduate Nutrition, University of Texas,
Austin 78712.

Lovastatin is used for the treatment of hypercholesterolemia.
It functions by inhibiting the enzyme,
3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase (EC 1.1.1.34),
that is required for the conversion of
3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A to mevalonic acid. Since
biosynthesis of both cholesterol and coenzyme Q (CoQ) requires
mevalonic acid as a precursor, it was considered that
lovastatin therapy would also result in a lowering of cellular
CoQ levels. This study was conducted to determine whether
lovastatin treatment does decrease CoQ levels and whether such
decreases can be prevented by CoQ supplementation. Forty-five
adult male Holtzman rats were randomly assigned to one of
three treatment groups. Controls were fed ground laboratory
rat chow ad libitum. The other two groups were fed ground
laboratory rat chow containing 400 mg of lovastatin per kg of
diet ad libitum. One of the lovastatin-fed groups received
CoQ10 (15 mg per kg of body weight) daily via stomach
intubation. After 4 weeks, samples of heart, liver, and blood
were analyzed for CoQ concentrations. Results indicated that
CoQ concentrations in all tissues analyzed were decreased in
lovastatin-treated rats. Lovastatin-treated animals that were
supplemented with CoQ10 had blood, heart, and liver CoQ10
concentrations that approximated or exceeded those of control
animals. It is concluded that lovastatin does indeed lower
tissue concentrations of CoQ and that a return to normal can
be achieved by supplementation with CoQ.

PMID: 2247467 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

In sci.med.cardiology Chris Allen <callen@efn.org> wrote:

: Some people are allergic to them, which would make them bad
: for some people at least. They also tend to have high levels
: of aflatoxins: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcg-
: i?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12131971&dopt=Abstract

: - Rev Saude Publica 2002 Jun;36(3):319-23 Aflatoxins and
: ochratoxin A in food and the risks to human health Caldas
: ED, Silva SC, Oliveira JN. Faculdade de Ciencias da Saude,
: Universidade de Brasilia, Brasilia, DF, Brasil.

: And here's the latest on peanut allergies: http://www.ncbi.-
: nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_u-
: ids=12144563&dopt=Abstract

: - Allergy 2002;57 Suppl 72:88-93 The 18 kDa peanut oleosin
: is a candidate allergen for IgE-mediated reactions to
: peanuts. Pons L, Chery C, Romano A, Namour F, Artesani MC,
: Gueant JL.

Very interesting. Thanks.

Noreen

"Chris Allen" <callen@efn.org> wrote in message
news:698c89aa.0208060524.31ba8f25@posting.google.com...
> Noreen Cooper <ncooper@wahoo.sjsu.edu> wrote in message
news:<aineje$588n$1@hades.csu.net>...
> > :> >>(no peanuts, which are atherogenic),
> > :> Never heard that one before. Interesting.
> > So why single out the peanut? Just wondering.
> Some people are allergic to them, which would make them bad
> for some people at least. They also tend to have high levels
> of aflatoxins:
>
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db-
=PubMed&list_ui ds=12131971&dopt=Abstract
>

Potential allerrgies might be an issue for some people but
probably low on the list for most. The aflatoxin issue is
really a non-issue these days. The levels have been
drastically reduced to near undectable.

Neither of the above reasons explains the atherogenesis
comments.

--
CBI, MD

In sci.life-extension Steve Harris
<sbharris@ix.reticulatedobjectcom.com> wrote:

: 1. "If you take care of yourself, you should naturally be
: healthy in old age." Wrong.

Hmm - I would say that one had a lot of truth in it.

: 2. "Listen to your body. It will tell you what's right for
: your health." Wrong. It will more than likely tell you
: what's best for you to reproduce best when young. The
: same eating urges will make you fat and ill by the end of
: your life.

Listening to your body is a technique of fundamental
importance. Certainly, it will encourage you somewhat to
invest resources in babies rather than maintenance - but by
and large that isn't a bad thing.

Certainly putting *all* of your resources into maintenance and
*none* of them into reproduction seems like a questionable
plan for most people.

: 4. Center your diet on produce, breads, cereals, pasta,
: olives, fancy nuts (no peanuts, which are atherogenic),
: cold water fish (especially salmon and halibut), non-fat
: dairy products, and eggs. [...]

Not sure about dairy products: http://www.notmilk.com/

Not sure about big freshwater fish either. The things I like
in fish are small size and sea-dwelling. Often, the bigger a
fish is the more likely it is to be further up the food chain,
and the more concentrated the toxins and heavy metals in it
will be. Salmon can be a cocktail of farm growth hormones, and
fertiliser run off (which is a problem for many freshwater
fish) http://www.veg.ca/newsletr/marapr98/salmon.html mentions
some of the sorts of problems associated with them.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1.org

"Noreen Cooper" <ncooper@wahoo.sjsu.edu> wrote in message
news:aineje$588n$1@hades.csu.net...
> In sci.med.cardiology CBI <00doc@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> :> >>(no peanuts, which are atherogenic),
> :>
> :> Never heard that one before. Interesting.
>
> : I would say some peanuts in conjunction with a good diet
> : (like the Mediteranean diet) is not a problem. Going to
> : the ballpark and scoffing
down
> : a 2 lb bag along with a few corndogs and beers..........
>
> I'm not a big peanut fan; however, I'm wondering why the
> doc singled out peanuts as being atherogenic. According
> to my nutrition almanac, there's not much difference in
> the amount of saturated fat between either peanuts,
> hazelnuts, or Brazil nuts. And according to Dean Ornish's
> dietary recommendations for heart patients, he suggests
> people eliminate all nuts because most are loaded with
> saturated fats.
>
> Noreen

Lipids 1999 Dec;34(12):1305-11

Effect of peanut oil and randomized peanut oil on cholesterol
and oleic acid absorption, transport, and distribution in the
lymph of the rat.

Satchithanandam S, Flynn TJ, Calvert RJ, Kritchevsky D.

Division of Science and Applied Technology, US Food and Drug
Administration, Laurel, Maryland 20708, USA. sxs@cssan.fda.gov

Peanut oil was shown to be atherogenic in cholesterol-fed
rats, rabbits, and monkeys. However, after randomization, a
process in which the fatty acids in peanut oil are randomly
rearranged, its atherogenicity was significantly reduced in
cholesterol-fed rabbits and monkeys. The mechanism for this
effect remains unknown. This study was designed to investigate
whether the absorption, transport and distribution of dietary
cholesterol and oleic acid in the lymph were altered in the
presence of peanut oil or randomized peanut oil. Previous
investigators collected lymph through the mesenteric duct for
6 h and analyzed lymph for cholesterol. In the present study,
lymph fluids were collected at timed intervals for up to 8 h
and then at 24 h via the tho racic duct. Cholesterol and oleic
acid (fatty acid) were estimated not only in the whole lymph
but also in lymph lipoprotein fractions and in major lipid
fractions. A 24-h lymph collection will enhance accuracy as
short-term fluctuations in lipid absorption will not affect
the results. Thoracic duct lymph collection is quantitative
compared to mesenteric duct lymph collection, which provides
only a fraction of the total lymph. Rats were given a lipid
emulsion containing either peanut oil or randomized peanut
oil. The emulsion also contained cholesterol, oleic acid, and
sodium taurocholate in saline and was given through a duodenal
catheter. Results show that absorption, transport, and
distribution of cholesterol and oleic acid in the lymph fluids
were similar in both dietary groups. These results suggest
that the atherogenicity of peanut oil may be due to other
events taking place subsequent to the release of
cholesterol-containing chylomicrons and very low density
lipoprotein by the small intestinal epithelial cells into the
blood or may be due to the triglyceride structure itself.

PMID: 10652990

CBI wrote:

> > > :> >>(no peanuts, which are atherogenic),
> > > :> Never heard that one before. Interesting.
> > > So why single out the peanut? Just wondering.
> > Some people are allergic to them, which would make them
> > bad for some people at least. They also tend to have high
> > levels of aflatoxins:
> >
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&-
> db=PubMed&list_ui ds=12131971&dopt=Abstract
> >
>
> Potential allerrgies might be an issue for some people but
> probably low on the list for most. The aflatoxin issue is
> really a non-issue these days. The levels have been
> drastically reduced to near undectable.
>
> Neither of the above reasons explains the atherogenesis
> comments.

The paper that has been cited in the past is:

Lipids 1998 Aug;33(8):821-3 Lectin may contribute to the
atherogenicity of peanut oil. Kritchevsky D, Tepper SA,
Klurfeld DM.

"Peanut oil is unexpectedly atherogenic for rats, rabbits, and
primates. The lesions it produces are more fibrous than fatty.
The mechanism underlying the atherogenicity of peanut oil has
been elusive. Randomization of peanut oil reduces
significantly its atherogenic properties, but native and
randomized peanut oils have similar rates of lipolysis, and
rats fed the two oils absorb and transport lipids in a similar
fashion. Peanut oil differs from other oils in having a
relatively high lectin content, and the randomization process
markedly reduces the lectin content as well. The biologically
active lectin of peanut oil has an affinity for glycoproteins
found specifically on arterial smooth muscle cells. Peanut
lectin has been shown to stimulate growth of smooth muscle and
pulmonary arterial cells. Vigorous washing of peanut oil
reduces its lectin content by 46%. Compared to rabbits fed
cholesterol and peanut oil, rabbits fed cholesterol and washed
peanut oil exhibited less severe atherosclerosis in the aortic
arch (by 9%) and in the thoracic aorta (by 31%). The data
suggest that peanut oils' endogenous lectin may contribute
significantly to its atherogenic properties."

MattLB

Tim Tyler wrote:

><SNIP> Certainly putting *all* of your resources into
>maintenance and *none* of them into reproduction seems like a
>questionable plan for most people. <SNIP>

Why? It seems to me like it is a very logical plan for most
people if longevity is the goal.

Cheers,

Chris.

Steve Harris wrote:

> No one set of rules works for everyone, but in the interest
> of doing more good than harm, here's
>
>
> DOC HARRIS' RULES OF PREVENTION: THE QUICK AND THE DIRTY

Excellent compendium. Most of my (few) questions/quibbles have
already been addressed, save these:

> 7. Women: know your bone density and do your mammograms.
> Post-menopausal women stay away from more than a few
> years of estrogen, unless you also take raloxifen
> (Evista) and aspirin. Consider a natural progesterone
> (Prometrium) rather than an artificial progestin (ie,
> Provera).

Why would you want to take both raloxifen and estrogen? I've
never seen anything that would suggest that raloxifen would
offer some form of "protective" function against effects of
estrogen ... and what would that be?

You might add, "If you still have your uterus, and if you are
taking estrogen, you need to be taking a progesterone to
prevent endometrial cancer."

And, what is the evidence that a "natural" progesterone is
any better than an artificial one? (Please don't cite Dr.
John Lee!)

Thanks -

FurPaw

"FurPaw" <furpawnews@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3D5196E1.60907@comcast.net...
> Steve Harris wrote:
>
>
> > No one set of rules works for everyone, but in the
> > interest of doing
more
> > good than harm, here's
> >
> >
> > DOC HARRIS' RULES OF PREVENTION: THE QUICK AND THE DIRTY
>
> Excellent compendium. Most of my (few) questions/quibbles
> have already been addressed, save these:
>
> > 7. Women: know your bone density and do your mammograms.
> > Post-menopausal women stay away from more than a few
> > years of estrogen, unless you also
take
> > raloxifen (Evista) and aspirin. Consider a natural
> > progesterone (Prometrium) rather than an artificial
> > progestin (ie, Provera).
>
> Why would you want to take both raloxifen and estrogen? I've
> never seen anything that would suggest that raloxifen would
> offer some form of "protective" function against effects of
> estrogen ... and what would that be?

It would protect against breast cancer, exactly as Taxomifen
does. Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulator (SERM) drugs like
Tamoxifen and Raloxifen complete with estrogen for receptors
in breast tissue, but have no estrogen activity in sex organs
(breast or uterus). Therefore it stands to reason that they
will block some of the procancer effect of estrogen in the
breast. The only reason they haven't been tested WITH estrogen
is that nobody has gotten around to it. A different company
makes Evista than makes Prempro, don't you know.


>
> You might add, "If you still have your uterus, and if you
> are taking estrogen, you need to be taking a progesterone to
> prevent endometrial cancer."
>
> And, what is the evidence that a "natural" progesterone is
> any better than an artificial one? (Please don't cite Dr.
> John Lee!)

We suspect that the unnatural one either augment's estrogen's
effect on breast cancer, or else does something bad to
estrogen's protective effect on arteries. It's one or the
other, or else the estrogen-only arm of the WHI would not
still be going on.

Now, it is known that natural progesterone doesn't have the
same tendency to undo estrogen's good effects on blood lipids,
as Provera does. So if you have to replace Provera with
something (and women with a uterus do if they take estrogen)
then I suggest natural progesterone until we know more.

SBH

--
I welcome Email from strangers with the minimal cleverness to
fix my address (it's an open-book test). I strongly recommend
recipients of unsolicited bulk Email ad spam use
"http://combat.uxn.com" to get the true corporate name of the
last ISP address on the viewsource header, then forward
message & headers to "abuse@[offendingISP]."

"Tim Tyler" <tim@tt1.org> wrote in message
news:H0Fqz1.B3v@bath.ac.uk...
> In sci.life-extension Steve Harris
> <sbharris@ix.reticulatedobjectcom.com>
wrote:
>
> : 1. "If you take care of yourself, you should naturally be
> : healthy in old age." Wrong.
>
> Hmm - I would say that one had a lot of truth in it.

Well, you wouldn't if you had ever practiced geriatrics in
Utah. Doubtless you're still reasonably young and in denial.
That's nice for you, but it's not reality.

As for me, I've been around long enough to watch some
anti-aging gurus get old. It's not pretty.

> : 2. "Listen to your body. It will tell you what's right for
> : your health." Wrong. It will more than likely tell you
> : what's best for you to
reproduce
> : best when young. The same eating urges will make you fat
> : and ill by the end of your life.
>
> Listening to your body is a technique of fundamental
> importance. Certainly, it will encourage you somewhat to
> invest resources in babies rather than maintenance - but by
> and large that isn't a bad thing.

It will encourage you to gorge on pizza and ice cream so that
your babies don't starve this winter, being too stupid to know
that the freezer in your basement and the grocery store on the
corner is full of the same stuff. Yeah, your body's urges are
often bad things. They're out of date and out of style.

--
I welcome Email from strangers with the minimal cleverness to
fix my address (it's an open-book test). I strongly recommend
recipients of unsolicited bulk Email ad spam use
"http://combat.uxn.com" to get the true corporate name of the
last ISP address on the viewsource header, then forward
message & headers to "abuse@[offendingISP]."

"Tim Tyler" <tim@tt1.org> wrote in message
news:H0Fqz1.B3v@bath.ac.uk...

> : 4. Center your diet on produce, breads, cereals, pasta,
> : olives, fancy
nuts
> : (no peanuts, which are atherogenic), cold water fish
> : (especially salmon
and
> : halibut), non-fat dairy products, and eggs. [...]
>
> Not sure about dairy products: http://www.notmilk.com/

Link doesn't work for me.

>
> Not sure about big freshwater fish either. The things I like
> in fish are small size and sea-dwelling. Often, the bigger a
> fish is the more likely it is to be further up the food
> chain, and the more concentrated the toxins and heavy metals
> in it will be. Salmon can be a cocktail of farm growth
> hormones, and fertiliser run off (which is a problem for
> many freshwater fish)
> http://www.veg.ca/newsletr/marapr98/salmon.html mentions
> some of the sorts of problems associated with them.

Talks about farmed fish. I specifically specify wild
fish later on.

--
I welcome Email from strangers with the minimal cleverness to
fix my address (it's an open-book test). I strongly recommend
recipients of unsolicited bulk Email ad spam use
"http://combat.uxn.com" to get the true corporate name of the
last ISP address on the viewsource header, then forward
message & headers to "abuse@[offendingISP]." tt1.org

On Wed, 7 Aug 2002 17:26:54 -0600, "Steve Harris"
<sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:

>> Why would you want to take both raloxifen and estrogen?
>> I've never seen anything that would suggest that raloxifen
>> would offer some form of "protective" function against
>> effects of estrogen ... and what would that be?
>
>It would protect against breast cancer, exactly as Taxomifen
>does. Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulator (SERM) drugs like
>Tamoxifen and Raloxifen complete with estrogen for receptors
>in breast tissue, but have no estrogen activity in sex organs
>(breast or uterus). Therefore it stands to reason that they
>will block some of the procancer effect of estrogen in the
>breast. The only reason they haven't been tested WITH
>estrogen is that nobody has gotten around to it. A different
>company makes Evista than makes Prempro, don't you know.

Whoa there, big fella. If SERMs haven't been tested with
estrogen, aren't you the least bit worried about recommending
the combination as a common-sense approach to treatment? After
all, you have no way of knowing if the Law of Unintended
Consequences might pop up and hurt someone.

And "it stands to reason" has a pretty shaky history in
scientific circles. If there is no proof that "[SERMs] will
block some of the procancer effect of estrogen in the breast",
and not even any studies on that effect, why on earth would
you recommend such a treatment? "I think so" doesn't seem
quite solid enough.

I'm not saying you're wrong (WTFDIK?), but a common-sense
guide like yours should have scientifically supportable
premises for each of its recommendations. If there are no
studies there can be no scientifically acceptable support.

Paul

Steve Harris wrote:
> "FurPaw" <furpawnews@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:3D5196E1.60907@comcast.net...
>
>>Steve Harris wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>No one set of rules works for everyone, but in the interest
>>>of doing
>>
> more
>
>>>good than harm, here's
>>>
>>>
>>>DOC HARRIS' RULES OF PREVENTION: THE QUICK AND THE DIRTY
>>
>>Excellent compendium. Most of my (few) questions/quibbles
>>have already been addressed, save these:
>>
>>
>>>7. Women: know your bone density and do your mammograms.
>>> Post-menopausal women stay away from more than a few
>>> years of estrogen, unless you also
>>
> take
>
>>>raloxifen (Evista) and aspirin. Consider a natural
>>>progesterone (Prometrium) rather than an artificial
>>>progestin (ie, Provera).
>>
>>Why would you want to take both raloxifen and estrogen? I've
>>never seen anything that would suggest that raloxifen would
>>offer some form of "protective" function against effects of
>>estrogen ... and what would that be?
>
>
> It would protect against breast cancer, exactly as Taxomifen
> does. Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulator (SERM) drugs
> like Tamoxifen and Raloxifen complete with estrogen for
> receptors in breast tissue, but have no estrogen activity in
> sex organs (breast or uterus). Therefore it stands to reason
> that they will block some of the procancer effect of
> estrogen in the breast. The only reason they haven't been
> tested WITH estrogen is that nobody has gotten around to it.
> A different company makes Evista than makes Prempro, don't
> you know.
>
>
>>You might add, "If you still have your uterus, and if you
>>are taking estrogen, you need to be taking a progesterone to
>>prevent endometrial cancer."
>>
>>And, what is the evidence that a "natural" progesterone is
>>any better than an artificial one? (Please don't cite Dr.
>>John Lee!)
>
> We suspect that the unnatural one either augment's
> estrogen's effect on breast cancer, or else does something
> bad to estrogen's protective effect on arteries. It's one or
> the other, or else the estrogen-only arm of the WHI would
> not still be going on.

Huh??? The "natural" form pf progesterone wasn't even tested
in the WHI studies! How can you know that it would not behave
in the same way as provera? This logic doesn't fly. (I'm not
going to argue the suppostion that Provera is the agent
responsible for the breast cancer finding here, or that
estrogen-only has "protective effect on the arteries" (not yet
demonstrated) - since it's not germane to the discussion.)

> Now, it is known that natural progesterone doesn't have the
> same tendency to undo estrogen's good effects on blood
> lipids, as Provera does.

Known? Known by whom? Cite, please!
> So if you have to replace Provera with something (and women
> with a uterus do if they take estrogen) then I suggest
> natural progesterone until we know more.

This recommendation ("natural" vs. synthetic progesterone)
likely doesn't have the potential for harm if followed that
the one re taking raloxifene along with estrogen does, but
it's still on pretty thin ice, AFAIK.

So what I really don't understand is, how did these two
recommendations based on supposition creep into this list
that is based on evidence, or at the least, preponderance
of evidence?

I do hope that you will revise the list and remove them.

FurPaw

Paul Chefurka wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Aug 2002 17:26:54 -0600, "Steve Harris"
> <sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>Why would you want to take both raloxifen and estrogen?
>>>I've never seen anything that would suggest that raloxifen
>>>would offer some form of "protective" function against
>>>effects of estrogen ... and what would that be?
>>
>>It would protect against breast cancer, exactly as Taxomifen
>>does. Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulator (SERM) drugs
>>like Tamoxifen and Raloxifen complete with estrogen for
>>receptors in breast tissue, but have no estrogen activity in
>>sex organs (breast or uterus). Therefore it stands to reason
>>that they will block some of the procancer effect of
>>estrogen in the breast. The only reason they haven't been
>>tested WITH estrogen is that nobody has gotten around to it.
>>A different company makes Evista than makes Prempro, don't
>>you know.
>
>
> Whoa there, big fella. If SERMs haven't been tested with
> estrogen, aren't you the least bit worried about
> recommending the combination as a common-sense approach to
> treatment? After all, you have no way of knowing if the Law
> of Unintended Consequences might pop up and hurt someone.
>
> And "it stands to reason" has a pretty shaky history in
> scientific circles. If there is no proof that "[SERMs] will
> block some of the procancer effect of estrogen in the
> breast", and not even any studies on that effect, why on
> earth would you recommend such a treatment? "I think so"
> doesn't seem quite solid enough.
>
> I'm not saying you're wrong (WTFDIK?), but a common-sense
> guide like yours should have scientifically supportable
> premises for each of its recommendations. If there are no
> studies there can be no scientifically acceptable support.

Yes. That's a whole lot of supposition behind the
recommendation, given that not only are there no data behind
it. Even the manufacturer of EVISTA warns: "Concurrent
Estrogen Therapy: The concurrent use of EVISTA and systemic
estrogen or hormone replacement therapy (ERT or HRT) has not
been studied in prospective clinical trials and therefore
concomitant use of EVISTA with systemic estrogens is not
recommended."

I'm not a fan of taking everything a pharmaceutical
manufacturer says without question, but in this case it would
seem a bit irresponsible not to follow this warning, would it
not? Hormones are too powerful and too interactive to be
making recommendations based on guesswork.

I really hope that Steve will consider removing the raloxifene
bit in the next round.

FurPaw

On Wed, 7 Aug 2002 17:37:36 -0600, "Steve Harris"
<sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote in
<aisb8q$k7q$1@slb4.atl.mindspring.net> that:

>As for me, I've been around long enough to watch some
>anti-aging gurus get old. It's not pretty.

Whatever happened to Gaylord Hauser? :)

In sci.life-extension Steve Harris
<sbharris@ix.reticulatedobjectcom.com> wrote:
: "Tim Tyler" <tim@tt1.org> wrote in message
: news:H0Fqz1.B3v@bath.ac.uk...

:> Not sure about dairy products: http://www.notmilk.com/

: Link doesn't work for me.

The site seems to be there for me.

If there are problems you can reach it via Google's cache: ht-
tp://google.com/search?q=cache:ossYq3aTuW4C:www.notmilk.com/+-
notmilk&hl=en

:> Not sure about big freshwater fish either. The things I
:> like in fish are small size and sea-dwelling. Often, the
:> bigger a fish is the more likely it is to be further up the
:> food chain, and the more concentrated the toxins and heavy
:> metals in it will be. Salmon can be a cocktail of farm
:> growth hormones, and fertiliser run off (which is a problem
:> for many freshwater fish)
:> http://www.veg.ca/newsletr/marapr98/salmon.html mentions
:> some of the sorts of problems associated with them.

: Talks about farmed fish. I specifically specify wild fish
: later on.

True - but nontheless there appear to be some hazzards with
freshwater fish, and farge fish that are high up the food
chain, which it might help to be aware of.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1.org

In sci.life-extension Steve Harris
<sbharris@ix.reticulatedobjectcom.com> wrote:
: "Tim Tyler" <tim@tt1.org> wrote in message
: news:H0Fqz1.B3v@bath.ac.uk...

:> : 2. "Listen to your body. It will tell you what's right
:> : for your health." Wrong. It will more than likely tell
:> : you what's best for you to reproduce best when young.
:> : The same eating urges will make you fat and ill by the
:> : end of your life.
:>
:> Listening to your body is a technique of fundamental
:> importance. Certainly, it will encourage you somewhat to
:> invest resources in babies rather than maintenance - but by
:> and large that isn't a bad thing.

: It will encourage you to gorge on pizza and ice cream so
: that your babies don't starve this winter, being too stupid
: to know that the freezer in your basement and the grocery
: store on the corner is full of the same stuff.

Well obviously you need to listen *and* apply some
intelligence to what it tells you. If you listen - and then
make stupid uninformed decisions made on a whim then that is
not the idea at all.

: Yeah, your body's urges are often bad things. They're out of
: date and out of style.

The fact that the modern environment is not the ancestral one
is obviously a factor to bear in mind. However there are
enough similarities between the modern environment and the
ancestral one for the technique to be very useful. Your genes
encode one of the best manuals on how to live in existence. It
would almost certainly be foolish to ignore that resource.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1.org

In article <aisb8q$k7q$1@slb4.atl.mindspring.net>, Steve
Harris <sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:
>
>As for me, I've been around long enough to watch some
>anti-aging gurus get old. It's not pretty.
>
What mistakes would you say they made?
--
Nancy Lebovitz nancy@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com 100
new slogans

I want to move to theory. Everything works in theory.

FurPaw" <furpawnews@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3D51CE9A.3010309@comcast.net...
> Paul Chefurka wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Aug 2002 17:26:54 -0600, "Steve Harris"
> > <sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>Why would you want to take both raloxifen and estrogen?
> >>>I've never seen anything that would suggest that
> >>>raloxifen would offer some form of "protective" function
> >>>against effects of estrogen ... and what would that be?
> >>
> >>It would protect against breast cancer, exactly as
> >>Taxomifen does.
Selective
> >>Estrogen Receptor Modulator (SERM) drugs like Tamoxifen
> >>and Raloxifen complete with estrogen for receptors in
> >>breast tissue, but have no
estrogen
> >>activity in sex organs (breast or uterus). Therefore it
> >>stands to reason that they will block some of the
> >>procancer effect of estrogen in the
breast.
> >>The only reason they haven't been tested WITH estrogen is
> >>that nobody
has
> >>gotten around to it. A different company makes Evista
> >>than makes
Prempro,
> >>don't you know.
> >
> >
> > Whoa there, big fella. If SERMs haven't been tested with
> > estrogen,
aren't
> > you the least bit worried about recommending the
> > combination as a common-sense approach to treatment?

No. SERMs, which block estrogen, have already been shown to
prevent breast cancer. Estrogen has been shown to promote
breast cancer. If the mechanism by which SERMs block breast
cancer is not their estrogen-blocking activity, it will rank
as the biggest *&^%ing coincidence in the history of science.

The only piece of the puzzle left in my argument is the
supposition that the breast can somehow tell the difference
between estrogen a woman takes as a pill, and that which she
makes herself. If it's the same substance (as it would be if
she was taking Estrace or using some other pure estradiol
preparation), you have to not believe in fundamental chemistry
and biology to not accept this.

So I think I'm on pretty solid ground. And what the heck--
remember that lots of standard recommendations in health (I've
given examples like exercise) aren't strictly proven by double
blind study either. We all pick our lifestyles with lots of
unknowns. Wait for all the science to come in, and you'll be
long dead of old age first.

After all, you have no way of knowing
> > if the Law of Unintended Consequences might pop up and
> > hurt someone.

You never know that. You can get hit by a car while jogging
for your health. It's not my problem if you do.

> > And "it stands to reason" has a pretty >>shaky history in
> > scientific
circles.

I would say the opposite, of course. Fortunately, the universe
is uniform enough that I don't have to have run a perfect
lifespan study with 1000 identical furpaws to have some idea
of what's good for furpaw. Unless you're a Martian.

> > If there is no proof that "[SERMs] will block some of the
> > procancer
effect
> > of estrogen in the breast", and not even any studies on
> > that effect, why
on
> > earth would you recommend such a treatment? "I think so"
> > doesn't seem quite solid enough.

I've given my reasoning. It's up to you to accept or reject.
As in anything else I write. And somebody else reading this
may come to a different conclusion.

> > I'm not saying you're wrong (WTFDIK?), but a common-sense
> > guide like
yours
> > should have scientifically supportable premises for each
> > of its recommendations. If there are no studies there can
> > be no scientifically acceptable support.

Agreed. But the science is supportable. SERMs work to prevent
breast cancer and we are certainly more certain of how they
do, than we are of most drug mechanisms in biology. Based on
that, if you take estrogen, you should take a SERM. Hey, this
doesn't take Einstein.

> Yes. That's a whole lot of supposition behind the
> recommendation, given that not only are there no data
> behind it.

There is data behind it.

> Even the manufacturer of EVISTA warns: "Concurrent
> Estrogen Therapy: The concurrent use of EVISTA and
> systemic estrogen or hormone replacement therapy (ERT or
> HRT) has not been studied in prospective clinical trials
> and therefore concomitant use of EVISTA with systemic
> estrogens is not recommended."

The FDA makes them say that. The FDA are nitwits.

> I'm not a fan of taking everything a pharmaceutical
> manufacturer says without question, but in this case it
> would seem a bit irresponsible not to follow this warning,
> would it not?

ROFL. Let me count the ways I've done things which
manufacturers recommended not doing, only to be proven right
later. I once wrote out prescriptions for Nicorette gum at
parties, and was told I was being irresponsible because I had
no doctor patient relationship with the parties and it was
dangerous (manufacturer said so). I gave anybody who wanted it
ranitidine, and was told that I'd be sued by somebody bleeding
to death from an ulcer being treated merely symptomatically.
Well, I wasn't. In the days when chronic active hep C was
being treated with interferon alone (10% cure rate), I
recommended that my patients go to Mexico and get bootleg
"Vilona" to increase their cure rate to 50%. I said the FDA
would eventually countenance this as soon as they'd finished
their feud with ICN. And so it was.

In all these things, the FDA has eventually come my way. And
with routine supplementation with folate, as well. And
multivitamin therapy, which I've been using since Christ was a
corporal, is suddenly respectable. I *remember* when it
wasn't. I remember when all these things were ways in which
you could tell a good internist. And now they're all
backwards.

It's enough to make one cynical. Fortunately, my sweet and
optimistic nature prevents.

SBH

Hormones
> are too powerful and too interactive to be making
> recommendations based on guesswork.
>
> I really hope that Steve will consider removing the
> raloxifene bit in the next round.
>
> FurPaw
>
>
>

--
I welcome Email from strangers with the minimal cleverness to
fix my address (it's an open-book test). I strongly recommend
recipients of unsolicited bulk Email ad spam use
"http://combat.uxn.com" to get the true corporate name of the
last ISP address on the viewsource header, then forward
message & headers to "abuse@[offendingISP]." "

On Wed, 7 Aug 2002 21:43:34 -0600, "Steve Harris"
<sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:

>So I think I'm on pretty solid ground. And what the heck--
>remember that lots of standard recommendations in health
>(I've given examples like exercise) aren't strictly proven by
>double blind study either. We all pick our lifestyles with
>lots of unknowns. Wait for all the science to come in, and
>you'll be long dead of old age first.

Well, I'm not asking for double-blind studies, even - just
some kind of study. Blind, double-blind, clairvoyant, I don't
care. After the HRT screwup I wouldn't want to be a doctor
recommending untested hormone therapies to a wide audience.

>
>After all, you have no way of knowing
>> > if the Law of Unintended Consequences might pop up and
>> > hurt someone.
>
>
>You never know that. You can get hit by a car while jogging
>for your health. It's not my problem if you do.

If some lay person trusts your recommendation based on your
professional reputation, and that recommendation harms them,
then isn't it your problem, at least a bit? Otherwise why are
all those safety studies being performed on drug regimes every
day of the week? The companies could just say "It stands to
reason that this will be safe, and if for some unforseen
reason it isn't, hey it's not our problem." It would sure be a
lot cheaper.

>> > And "it stands to reason" has a pretty >>shaky history in
>> > scientific
>circles.
>
>I would say the opposite, of course. Fortunately, the
>universe is uniform enough that I don't have to have run a
>perfect lifespan study with 1000 identical furpaws to have
>some idea of what's good for furpaw. Unless you're a Martian.

No, but one study on somebody from furpaw's species would be
a comfort.

>I've given my reasoning. It's up to you to accept or reject.
>As in anything else I write. And somebody else reading this
>may come to a different conclusion.

I disagree. You've published a series of recommendations. They
carry the weight of your professional position (which is
significant). A reasonable lay person should be expected to
adopt them in toto for maximum benefit. There is no reason
they should analyze each recommendation, then make their own
decisions - you have already done that. that's what lists of
recommendation like this are about.

OTOH, this is Usenet, and anyone who adopts a set of
recommendations from some unknown email address posing as a
doctor without thinking them through first is a freaking idiot
who deserves what they get.

>Based on that, if you take estrogen, you should take a SERM.
>Hey, this doesn't take Einstein.

Neither did HRT, thalidomide of fenphen. We simply trusted our
doctors and did what they recommended. It only stood to reason
that they were right, after all.

>> Yes. That's a whole lot of supposition behind the
>> recommendation, given that not only are there no data
>> behind it.
>
>There is data behind it.

There is data on each individual drug. The data on the
combination, however, consists of inference, deduction and
extrapolation. While that's all well and good, there is no
hard data on your recommendation, because no studies have
been done.

>In all these things, the FDA has eventually come my way. And
>with routine supplementation with folate, as well. And
>multivitamin therapy, which I've been using since Christ was
>a corporal, is suddenly respectable. I *remember* when it
>wasn't. I remember when all these things were ways in which
>you could tell a good internist. And now they're all
>backwards.

I do love a maverick. You, Mercola and Julian Whittaker
tilting at the windmill of the FDA :-) What about a doctor who
prescribed fenphen at parties? How do you judge his actions in
retrospect? It's nice to be sure that could never happen to
you because you're smarter and understand the facts better,
but what if you're wrong?

Paul

Steve Harris wrote:
> FurPaw" <furpawnews@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:3D51CE9A.3010309@comcast.net...
>
>>Paul Chefurka wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 7 Aug 2002 17:26:54 -0600, "Steve Harris"
>>><sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:

>>>Whoa there, big fella. If SERMs haven't been tested with
>>>estrogen, aren't you the least bit worried about
>>>recommending the combination as a common-sense approach to
>>>treatment?

> No. SERMs, which block estrogen, have already been shown to
> prevent breast cancer. Estrogen has been shown to promote
> breast cancer. If the mechanism by which SERMs block breast
> cancer is not their estrogen-blocking activity, it will rank
> as the biggest *&^%ing coincidence in the history of
> science.

And what about progesterone? Does it also not block estrogen
receptors? How does your theory fare when you throw
progesterone into the mix, which you would need to do for
women who still have a uterus? What proportion of women taking
SERMs are also taking progesterone? What do you know about how
these drugs interact?

> The only piece of the puzzle left in my argument is the
> supposition that the breast can somehow tell the difference
> between estrogen a woman takes as a pill, and that which she
> makes herself. If it's the same substance (as it would be if
> she was taking Estrace or using some other pure estradiol
> preparation), you have to not believe in fundamental
> chemistry and biology to not accept this.
>
> So I think I'm on pretty solid ground.

Seems pretty shaky to me. Even IF your theory about taking
raloxifene as a BC preventitive when taking estrogen were 100%
correct, you have no data about what other interactions might
take place between the drugs, what side effects the
combination might have. If you need a model for unexpected
drug interactions, look at HRT - you know the outcomes of WHI!

> And what the heck-- remember that lots of standard
> recommendations in health (I've given examples like
> exercise) aren't strictly proven by double blind study
> either. We all pick our lifestyles with lots of unknowns.
> Wait for all the science to come in, and you'll be long dead
> of old age first.

And a lot of standard recommendations in health aren't worth
the electrons that transmit them. And a lot of standard
recommendations in health are overturned by the next round of
"medical truth." These regarding estrogen and raloxifene are
on much shakier grounds than the low-fat diet recommendations
ever were!

>>> After all, you have no way of knowing if the Law of
>>> Unintended Consequences might pop up and hurt someone.
>>
> You never know that. You can get hit by a car while jogging
> for your health. It's not my problem if you do.

No, but you didn't recommend that I jog for my health. You
recommended, on the internet, to a lay audience, a specific
drug cocktail, without having a single study showing the
effects of taking such a cocktail. Not even an anecdote!

>>>And "it stands to reason" has a pretty >>shaky history in
>>>scientific circles.
>
> I would say the opposite, of course. Fortunately, the
> universe is uniform enough that I don't have to have run a
> perfect lifespan study with 1000 identical furpaws to have
> some idea of what's good for furpaw.

If the universe were so damned uniform, you'd see no
variability in medical studies and hence there would be no
need for testing on an N > 1.

> Unless you're a Martian.

No, I'm from Venus *-).

>>>If there is no proof that "[SERMs] will block some of the
>>>procancer effect of estrogen in the breast", and not even
>>>any studies on that effect, why on earth would you
>>>recommend such a treatment? "I think so" doesn't seem quite
>>>solid enough.
>>
>
> I've given my reasoning. It's up to you to accept or reject.
> As in anything else I write. And somebody else reading this
> may come to a different conclusion.

I agree with you on myth #4. When it comes to estrogen,
raloxifene and experimentation with the mix, I do not believe
that doctor Steve knows what is best for me - and other women
would be wise to view this recommendation with a HUGE amount
of skepticism. And I think Dr. Steve is being a bit
irresponsible in mixing this recommendation in with the list.

>>>I'm not saying you're wrong (WTFDIK?), but a common-sense
>>>guide like yours should have scientifically supportable
>>>premises for each of its recommendations. If there are no
>>>studies there can be no scientifically acceptable support.
>>
>
> Agreed. But the science is supportable. SERMs work to
> prevent breast cancer and we are certainly more certain of
> how they do, than we are of most drug mechanisms in biology.
> Based on that, if you take estrogen, you should take a SERM.
> Hey, this doesn't take Einstein.
>
>>Yes. That's a whole lot of supposition behind the
>>recommendation, given that not only are there no data
>>behind it.
>
> There is data behind it.

Not behind the specific combination that you recommended.
You're putting 2 and 2 together, and concluding that it makes
4. You don't know what other factors may influence the mix if
someone were to follow your advice.

>> Even the manufacturer of EVISTA warns: "Concurrent
>> Estrogen Therapy: The concurrent use of EVISTA and
>> systemic estrogen or hormone replacement therapy (ERT or
>> HRT) has not been studied in prospective clinical trials
>> and therefore concomitant use of EVISTA with systemic
>> estrogens is not recommended."
>
> The FDA makes them say that. The FDA are nitwits.
>
>>I'm not a fan of taking everything a pharmaceutical
>>manufacturer says without question, but in this case it
>>would seem a bit irresponsible not to follow this warning,
>>would it not?
>
> ROFL. Let me count the ways I've done things which
> manufacturers recommended not doing, only to be proven right
> later. I once wrote out prescriptions for Nicorette gum at
> parties, and was told I was being irresponsible because I
> had no doctor patient relationship with the parties and it
> was dangerous (manufacturer said so).

I would agree that this was irresponsible!

> I gave anybody who wanted it ranitidine, and was told that
> I'd be sued by somebody bleeding to death from an ulcer
> being treated merely symptomatically. Well, I wasn't. In the
> days when chronic active hep C was being treated with
> interferon alone (10% cure rate), I recommended that my
> patients go to Mexico and get bootleg "Vilona" to increase
> their cure rate to 50%. I said the FDA would eventually
> countenance this as soon as they'd finished their feud with
> ICN. And so it was.

> In all these things, the FDA has eventually come my way. And
> with routine supplementation with folate, as well. And
> multivitamin therapy, which I've been using since Christ was
> a corporal, is suddenly respectable. I *remember* when it
> wasn't. I remember when all these things were ways in which
> you could tell a good internist. And now they're all
> backwards.

All well and good, but what's your batting average? Surely
you're not claiming 1000!

FurPaw

> It's enough to make one cynical. Fortunately, my sweet and
> optimistic nature prevents.
>
> SBH
>
>
>
> Hormones
>
>>are too powerful and too interactive to be making
>>recommendations based on guesswork.
>>
>>I really hope that Steve will consider removing the
>>raloxifene bit in the next round.
>>
>>FurPaw

Steve Harris wrote:

> FurPaw" <furpawnews@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:3D51CE9A.3010309@comcast.net...
> > Paul Chefurka wrote:
> > > On Wed, 7 Aug 2002 17:26:54 -0600, "Steve Harris"
> > > <sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>>Why would you want to take both raloxifen and estrogen?
> > >>>I've never seen anything that would suggest that
> > >>>raloxifen would offer some form of "protective"
> > >>>function against effects of estrogen ... and what would
> > >>>that be?
> > >>
> > >>It would protect against breast cancer, exactly as
> > >>Taxomifen does.
> Selective
> > >>Estrogen Receptor Modulator (SERM) drugs like Tamoxifen
> > >>and Raloxifen complete with estrogen for receptors in
> > >>breast tissue, but have no
> estrogen
> > >>activity in sex organs (breast or uterus). Therefore it
> > >>stands to reason that they will block some of the
> > >>procancer effect of estrogen in the
> breast.
> > >>The only reason they haven't been tested WITH estrogen
> > >>is that nobody
> has
> > >>gotten around to it. A different company makes Evista
> > >>than makes
> Prempro,
> > >>don't you know.
> > >
> > >
> > > Whoa there, big fella. If SERMs haven't been tested with
> > > estrogen,
> aren't
> > > you the least bit worried about recommending the
> > > combination as a common-sense approach to treatment?
>
> No. SERMs, which block estrogen, have already been shown to
> prevent breast cancer. Estrogen has been shown to promote
> breast cancer. If the mechanism by which SERMs block breast
> cancer is not their estrogen-blocking activity, it will rank
> as the biggest *&^%ing coincidence in the history of
> science.

As I recall, this was exactly what happened with the ill-fated
experiments on beta carotene. Smokers who took the
'protective" drugs got more lung cancer, not less. As for
SERM's protecting against breast cancer in the only actual
trial women over 50 died of the side effects of the drug as
often as they would have died of breast cancer. The net
benefit for women over 50 was 0.

BTW there is no reason to suppose that the estrogen only arm
of the WHI has not shown increased rates of cardiovascular
disease. The updates until this year included both the
combined hormone group and the estrogen only group when they
reported increased CHD, strokes, and blood clots in the
hormone using arms of the study. It was the breast cancer
rates that mandated the stopping of the combined arm not the
increased cardiovascular disease.

>
>
> The only piece of the puzzle left in my argument is the
> supposition that the breast can somehow tell the difference
> between estrogen a woman takes as a pill, and that which she
> makes herself. If it's the same substance (as it would be if
> she was taking Estrace or using some other pure estradiol
> preparation),

Crap. The only natural estrogen is what a woman produces
herself in her own body. This 'bioidentical" crap is nothing
more than marketing hype. It's "bioidentical" only as far as
science can currently map the molecule. Again like beta
carotene, the stuff out of bottles just may not do quite the
same thing that the real stuff does.

> you have to not believe in fundamental chemistry and biology
> to not accept this.
>
> So I think I'm on pretty solid ground. And what the heck--
> remember that lots of standard recommendations in health
> (I've given examples like exercise) aren't strictly proven
> by double blind study either. We all pick our lifestyles
> with lots of unknowns. Wait for all the science to come in,
> and you'll be long dead of old age first.
>
> After all, you have no way of knowing
> > > if the Law of Unintended Consequences might pop up and
> > > hurt someone.
>
> You never know that. You can get hit by a car while jogging
> for your health. It's not my problem if you do.
>
> > > And "it stands to reason" has a pretty >>shaky history
> > > in scientific
> circles.
>
> I would say the opposite, of course. Fortunately, the
> universe is uniform enough that I don't have to have run a
> perfect lifespan study with 1000 identical furpaws to have
> some idea of what's good for furpaw. Unless you're a
> Martian.
>
> > > If there is no proof that "[SERMs] will block some of
> > > the procancer
> effect
> > > of estrogen in the breast", and not even any studies on
> > > that effect, why
> on
> > > earth would you recommend such a treatment? "I think so"
> > > doesn't seem quite solid enough.
>
> I've given my reasoning. It's up to you to accept or reject.
> As in anything else I write. And somebody else reading this
> may come to a different conclusion.
>
> > > I'm not saying you're wrong (WTFDIK?), but a
> > > common-sense guide like
> yours
> > > should have scientifically supportable premises for each
> > > of its recommendations. If there are no studies there
> > > can be no scientifically acceptable support.
>
> Agreed. But the science is supportable. SERMs work to
> prevent breast cancer and we are certainly more certain of
> how they do, than we are of most drug mechanisms in biology.
> Based on that, if you take estrogen, you should take a SERM.
> Hey, this doesn't take Einstein.

So WTF bother with the estrogen since the SERM will cause the
symptoms you are presumably taking the estrogen to get rid of.
Drug layering in this fashion is really stupid. BTW if you
take estrogen and tamoxifen I wonder what your risk of
endometrial cancer becomes. I would imagine it might approach
10% or higher as an absolute risk.

>
>
> > Yes. That's a whole lot of supposition behind the
> > recommendation, given that not only are there no data
> > behind it.
>
> There is data behind it.

Does the word thrombogenic mean anything to you? And that
clotting problem is not alleviated by aspirin because it
(probably) isn't related to platelet agglutination. Evista and
estrogen are both thrombogenic and the combo is likely to be
deadlier than either one alone. Tamoxifen causes endometrial
cancer and any intact woman taking it has to be followed very
closely for endometrial cancer. Evista has been shown in
rodent studies to cause ovarian cancer. It has also been shown
to encourage the growth of one line of ovarian cancer cells in
vitro. Estrogen alone has been implicated in increased rates
of ovarian cancer and adding evista to it might well increase
that risk. I suspect that ethics boards might not look kindly
on trials that risk ovarian cancer in the study subjects.

>
>
> > Even the manufacturer of EVISTA warns: "Concurrent
> > Estrogen Therapy: The concurrent use of EVISTA and
> > systemic estrogen or hormone replacement therapy (ERT or
> > HRT) has not been studied in prospective clinical trials
> > and therefore concomitant use of EVISTA with systemic
> > estrogens is not recommended."
>
> The FDA makes them say that. The FDA are nitwits.

Yes, the FDA are nitwits. They allowed companies (and doctors)
to make claims for "hormone therapy" for 40+ years without
ever putting those claims to the test. We all know how that
turned out, don't we? As I recall you used to claim that it
made commonsense/stood to reason to use estrogen in post
menopausal women to protect against heart disease. You posted
study after study making this claim and derided the risks on
the labels as mere legalese added to keep the FDA happy.
Changed your tune a little, have you? Do you still use
megadoses of vit E to prevent heart disease?

>
>
> > I'm not a fan of taking everything a pharmaceutical
> > manufacturer says without question, but in this case it
> > would seem a bit irresponsible not to follow this warning,
> > would it not?
>
> ROFL. Let me count the ways I've done things which
> manufacturers recommended not doing, only to be proven right
> later. I once wrote out prescriptions for Nicorette gum at
> parties, and was told I was being irresponsible because I
> had no doctor patient relationship with the parties and it
> was dangerous (manufacturer said so).

Since putting safer forms of nicotine (patches and gums) on
prescription while leaving the most dangerous form (tobacco)
available to anyone who walked into a store was a no-brainer
in the first place, this practice would seem merely sensible.

> I gave anybody who wanted it ranitidine, and was told that
> I'd be sued by somebody bleeding to death from an ulcer
> being treated merely symptomatically. Well, I wasn't. In the
> days when chronic active hep C was being treated with
> interferon alone (10% cure rate), I recommended that my
> patients go to Mexico and get bootleg "Vilona" to increase
> their cure rate to 50%.

The "cure" rate for hep C is 0%. The hysteria re hep C has
been shown to be drug company driven with the drug company
that produces the "cure" setting up so-called grass roots
organizations publicizing the prevalence of