Rodent Study Confirms: GMO Soybean Oil is Pro-Inflammatory & Induces DNA Damage! Extra Virgin Olive Oil to the Rescue! - SuppVersity: Nutrition and Exercise Science for Everyone

Rodent Study - GMO Soybean Oil is Pro-Inflammatory & Induces DNA Damage! Extra Virgin Olive Oil to the Rescue

GMO Soybean oil? Better for cars only.
I am pretty sure there will be rebuttals to the results of this study... although, it's published in the OpenSource journal Nutrients
and was conducted by scientists from Saudi Arabia and the UK who
probably don't have the media-connections the scientists who conducted
the GMO-corn study back in the day had.

Against that background it's unlikely that non-SuppVersity-readers will even hear about the paper El-Kholy et al. published in the June edition of Nutrients (El-Kohly. 2014) -- Well, that is - unless you spread the word, obviously ;-)


Ketogenic Diets, I: Ways to Make a Diet Ketogenic - Perfect Health Diet | Perfect Health Diet

Ketogenic Diets, I: Ways to Make a Diet Ketogenic

I was going to write a single post about how to implement a therapeutic ketogenic (ketone-generating) diet.

But then I thought it was worth spelling out issues in some detail.
There are various ways to make a diet ketogenic, and different ways are
appropriate in different diseases. Also, different diseases may call for
a different balance between three criteria:

1)      Safety. Does the diet generate side effects?

2)      Therapy. Is the diet as curative as it can be?

3)      Pleasurability and practicality. Is the diet unnecessarily expensive, unpalatable, or boring?

I soon realized that with so many factors affecting diet design, it
would be hard to fit everything into a single post. So I’m going to
split up the discussion into parts. Today I’ll look at the various ways
to make a diet ketogenic. On Tuesday I’ll look at how to design a diet
for Kindy’s NBIA kids. We’ll look at what they’re eating now, and
consider ways they might be able to improve their diets further – and,
hopefully, get further improvements in health, longevity, and function.

Maybe we’ll look at some other diseases after that, or maybe I’ll
just move on to the lemon juice series I’ve been planning. The lemon
juice and acid-base balance issues will fit in nicely since kidney
stones and acidosis are risks of ketogenic diets and lemon juice
relieves those risks.

So: how can we make a diet ketogenic?

What Is a Ketone?

The liver is responsible for making sure that the body (but
especially the brain and heart) have access to a sufficient supply of
energy from the blood. To fulfill that responsibility, it manufactures
two energy substrates – glucose and ketones – and exports them into the blood as needed.

The most important ketones are acetoacetic acid and beta-hydroxybutyric acid.

Ketones are water-soluble small molecules. They diffuse throughout
the body into cells, and are taken up by mitochondria and oxidized for

Ketones are especially important to neurons, which can only consume
glucose or ketones. So if something is wrong with glucose metabolism,
ketones can be the sole usable energy source of neurons. (Other cell
types, but not neurons, burn fats.)

Manufacture of Glucose and Ketones During Starvation

While preparing this post, I was surprised at how long it took for
doctors to appreciate that ketones are an acceptable alternative energy
source for the brain. The realization that the brain doesn’t perpetually
rely on glucose during starvation apparently didn’t sink in until 1967!

The use of prolonged starvation for the treatment of
obesity has posed a fascinating problem; namely, that man is capable of
fasting for periods of time beyond which he would have utilized all of
his carbohydrate resources and all of his proteins for gluconeogenesis
in order to provide adequate calories as glucose for the central nervous

This study was designed to clarify the apparent paradox, and it was
found that beta-hydroxybutyrate and acetoacetate replace glucose as the
brain’s primary fuel during starvation. [1]
This makes it a bit easier to understand why ketogenic diets have not
yet become standard therapies for neurological diseases. Epileptics
caught a lucky break – the ketogenic diet was already in use for
epilepsy in the 1920s. The ketogenic diet’s therapeutic potential for
other neurological disorders probably couldn’t have been appreciated
until after 1967, and by then medicine had turned its back on dietary

But back to ketones. During starvation, glucose and ketones have to
be manufactured from body parts. The body’s resources include:

  • Glycogen – a storage form of glucose. However, glycogen supplies are minimal.
  • “Complete” protein – a mix of amino acids similar to that found in animal meats.
  • Long-chain fats – fatty acids 14-carbons or longer in length,
    attached to a glycerol backbone as either triglycerides or
During starvation, different raw materials end up as different energy substrates:

  • Glycogen can be used to make glucose but not ketones. So glycogen converts 100% to glucose.
  • Protein is broken down into its constituent amino acids. Some amino
    acids can become glucose but never ketones; some can become either; some
    can become ketones but glucose. “Complete” protein usually found in the
    body typically converts 46% to ketones, 54% to glucose. [UPDATE: Actually, this is incorrect. As Tony Mach points out in the comments,
    complete protein converts 20% to ketones, 80% to glucose. The 46-54
    ratio is the contribution to Wilder’s ketogenic ratio, see below.]
  • Triglycerides and phospholipids are broken up into their constituent
    parts. The fatty acids can make ketones but not glucose; the glycerol
    backbones can make glucose but not ketones. Typically, 10-12% of energy
    from a triglyceride is in the form of glycerol (which has the potential
    to become glucose) and 88-90% is in the form of fatty acids (which have
    the potential to become ketones).
As we note in the book, during starvation the body is cannibalizing
tissues that are roughly 74% fat, 26% protein by calories. Due to the
preponderance of fat, starvation is highly “ketogenic” (ketone
generating). The 26% of calories that are protein generate roughly equal
amounts of ketones and glucose, but the 74% of calories that are fat
generate only ketones.

This doesn’t mean that during starvation ketones are 87% of energy
and glucose 13% of energy. Most of the fats are burnt directly for
energy without conversion to ketones. But a fair amount of fats are
diverted into ketone production, and ketones are abundant during

A Ketogenic Diet Using “Body Part Foods”

If your diet could include only compounds found in the body –
glucose, complete protein, and long-chain fats stored as triglycerides
or phospholipids – then we can use the above numbers to estimate the
“ketogenic potential” of the diet.

I have to credit commenter “Cathy” at the PaNu Forum for this next part. Kindy posted a question about the ketogenic diet for NBIA on the PaNu Forum in October 2010, and Cathy left an informative comment:

The ketogenic formula was originally developed by Wilder
at the Mayo clinic in the 1920’s. By googling WILDER KETOGENIC FORMULA, I
found a link to the book “The Ketogenic Diet: A Treatment for Epilepsy”
published in 2000. Quite a bit of the book is available for reading
online; here is the URL

On page 36 of this book is Wilder’s formula for the ketogenic potential of a diet:

This formula basically treats all fats as triglycerides of long-chain
fatty acids, and protein as “complete” protein with a typical mix of
amino acids. It makes a ratio of the ketone precursors to the glucose

Wilder’s “ketogenic ratio” was used by Dr. Richard Bernstein in his Diabetes Solution
to help people appraise the ketogenicity of a diet. A ratio below 1.5
signifies a minimally ketogenic diet; the higher the ratio goes above
1.5, the more ketones will be generated.

Other Dietary Ketone Precursors

If you’re not starving, you have the opportunity to eat foods that are not components of the body, and that are more ketogenic than “body part foods.”

Specifically, you can eat:

  • Short-chain fats such as are found in coconut oil.
  • A mix of amino acids that is not “complete,” but is biased toward the ketogenic amino acids.
If you do this then your diet will be more ketogenic than Wilder’s formula would suggest.

Eating these foods may be advantageous. For instance, suppose you want to eat enough carbs to avoid “zero-carb dangers” such as mucus deficiency.
At the same time, you want to generate abundant ketones to nourish the
brain. You can achieve both by eating carbs for glucose, but also eating
short-chain fats and ketogenic amino acids to make ketones.

So let’s look at why these foods are so effective at producing ketones.

Amino Acids

The main metabolic process which converts one metabolic substrate into another is called the citric acid cycle, tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle, or Krebs cycle.

The TCA cycle looks like this (blue arrows):

The passage from succinyl CoA to fumarate is where ATP is made. The cycle can be fed in several ways:

  • By pyruvate which is an intermediate produced in glucose metabolism;
  • By acetyl CoA which is an intermediate produced by ketones or fatty acid oxidation;
  • By amino acids which can enter the TCA cycle at various points.
The green boxes show glucogenic amino acids entering the cycle. The white boxes show ketogenic
amino acids that are made into either acetyl CoA or acetoacetyl CoA and
thence can either leave as ketones (via HMG-CoA) or enter the cycle by
conversion of acetyl CoA to citrate.

The crucial takeaway, as far as this post is concerned, is the distribution of amino acids among green and white boxes:

  • Leucine and lysine appear only in white boxes, not in green boxes. They are purely ketogenic.
  • Isoleucine, tryptophan, phenylalanine, and tyrosine appear in both
    green and white boxes. They can be either ketogenic or glucogenic.
  • The other amino acids appear only in green boxes and are purely glucogenic.
So if the diet is rich in leucine and lysine, but poor in glucogenic amino acids, then it will be highly ketogenic.

Short-Chain Fats

Fats are made into acetyl CoA. Acetyl CoA can either enter the TCA
cycle or be converted to ketones. What decides which way it goes?

One important factor is whether the cell has enough ATP. If the cell
has plenty of ATP then it won’t allow the TCA cycle to make any more,
and the TCA cycle gets stuffed with succinyl CoA and then with all the
other intermediates in the pipeline behind it.

Once the TCA cycle is full, acetyl CoA no longer enters the cycle and instead leaves as ketones.

Long-chain fats can follow this route, but not terribly easily. They have alternatives:

  • Long-chain fats can serve as structural molecules in cell membranes throughout the body.
  • Long-chain fats can be stored in adipose cells.
  • Long-chain fats can be burned by cells throughout the body, and transported to cells that need them.
These factors mean that you have to eat a very large amount of long-chain fats before you produce substantial ketones.

Short-chain fats (12 carbons or less in length; often called
medium-chain) are different. Short-chain fats do not appear in cell
membranes and are not stored in adipose tissue (except for a little
12-carbon fatty acids). Rather than being transported throughout the
body, they are shunted to the liver for disposal.

This means that if you eat a lot of coconut oil (which is 58%
short-chain fats), you deliver a lot of fat to the liver for disposal.
The disposal process for fat is conversion to acetyl CoA followed by
either burning in the TCA cycle or conversion to ketones.

After a big cup of coconut oil is delivered to the liver, the liver’s
ATP levels are quickly saturated. The TCA cycle is stuffed and the
liver will dispose of the coconut oil by making ketones.

It will do this whether the rest of the body needs the ketones or not. The liver wants to get rid of the coconut oil, and it does it by making ketones whether the rest of the body wants them or not.


So we have three ways to make the diet ketogenic:

1)      Make Wilder’s “ketogenic ratio” high by eating a lot of fat, very few carbs, and not too much protein.

2)      Supplement with the ketogenic amino acids lysine and leucine.

3)      Supplement with coconut oil or another source of short-chain fats.

If we do (2) or (3), then the diet can be ketogenic even if it has a fair number of carbs.

So now we have an arsenal of ways to generate ketones. We have to
look at diseases and diet risks to figure out which way of making the
diet ketogenic is optimal.

I’ll look at that next week.


[1] Owen OE et al. Brain metabolism during fasting. J Clin Invest. 1967 Oct;46(10):1589-95. http://pmid.us/6061736.


Prolonged fasting 're-boots' immune system - Medical News Today

Prolonged fasting 're-boots' immune system - Medical News Today

Results of a new study on mice and a phase 1 trial of humans
suggest that prolonged

cycles of fasting - for 2-4 days at a time - not only protect against
toxic effects of chemotherapy, but also trigger stem cell regeneration
of new immune cells

and clearing out of old, damaged cells.

The study, by researchers from the University of Southern California (USC) in Los Angeles, and published in the journal Cell Stem Cell, is the first to show that a natural intervention

can trigger regeneration of an organ or system through stem cells.

The team believes the findings could benefit people with immune system damage, for example if

they have received chemotherapy treatment for cancer. It could also benefit the elderly whose

immune systems are weakened through aging, making them more susceptible to disease.

The scientists say prolonged fasting appears to shift stem cells of the immune system from a

dormant state to an active state of self-renewal.

Results from experiments with mice and a phase 1 human clinical trial showed that long periods

of fasting significantly lowered levels of white blood cells. In the mice, it flipped a switch

that changed the signaling pathways of hematopoietic stem cells - a group of stem cells that

generate blood and immune systems.

"We could not predict that prolonged fasting would have such a remarkable effect in promoting

stem cell-based regeneration of the hematopoietic system," says Valter Longo, a professor of

Gerontology and the Biological Sciences at the USC Davis School of Gerontology, and director of the

USC Longevity Institute.

He says that when you stop eating, the body uses up stored glucose, fat and ketones, and also

recycles worn out and damaged immune cells.

"What we started noticing in both our human work and animal work is that the white blood cell

count goes down with prolonged fasting," he explains. "Then when you re-feed, the blood cells come

back. So we started thinking, well, where does it come from?"

In mice, prolonged fasting replenished worn out immune cells with new ones

Empty plate

researchers found that fasting for 2-4 days reduced PKA, an enzyme that
is involved in extending lifespan in simple organisms.
In mice, prolonged periods of fasting - repeated cycles of 2-4 days with no food - over

the course of 6 months, killed older and damaged immune cells and generated new ones.

During each fasting cycle, the drop in white cell levels triggered a stem-cell based

regeneration of new immune cells. In particular, prolonged fasting reduced PKA, an enzyme that the

team had previously discovered is involved in extending lifespan in simple organisms.

Other studies have also linked PKA to the control of stem cell self-renewal and pluripotency -

the extent to which they can become different cell-types.

Prolonged fasting also led to a drop in IGF-1, a growth factor hormone linked to aging, cancer

and tumor progression.

Switching off the gene for PKA is the key step that triggers the stem cells to shift to

regeneration, Prof. Longo says. "It gives the OK for stem cells to go ahead and begin

proliferating and rebuild the entire system."

And the good news, he adds, is that the body also rids itself "of the parts of the system

that might be damaged or old, the inefficient parts, during the fasting. Now, if you start with a

system heavily damaged by chemotherapy or aging, fasting cycles can generate, literally, a new

immune system."

Three-day fast protected cancer patients from toxic chemo effects

In a clinical trial involving a small group of cancer patients, the team also found that

fasting for 3 days before receiving chemotherapy protected them from its toxic effects.

While chemotherapy saves lives, it also causes significant damage to the immune system, and the

team hopes their findings show that fasting may help to minimize some of that harm.

Meanwhile, there is no suggestion that people should try to get these same effects by prolonged

fasting, which should only be done under medical supervision.

More clinical studies are now needed to test the effectiveness of the approach in humans and

also examine the side effects.

Prof. Longo says they are now investigating whether these same regeneration effects work with

other systems and organs as well as the immune system. His lab is already planning further animal

studies and clinical trials.

Funds from the National Institute of Aging of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the V

Foundation and the National Cancer Institute of the NIH helped finance the study.

Meanwhile, Medical News Today recently reported how stem cells show potential for brain

damage repair
. Research from Australia suggests by manipulating cell-surface proteins it may

be possible to get bone marrow stem cells to differentiate into brain cells. If the method proves

viable, it could lead to ways of generating new brain cell populations for repairing brain


Written by


Foods High in Inositol | LIVESTRONG.COM

Foods High in Inositol | LIVESTRONG.COM

Last Updated: Dec 18, 2013 |

By Louise Tremblay

Foods High in Inositol

Citrus is high in inositol.

Photo Credit Medioimages/Photodisc/Photodisc/Getty Image
Inositol, sometimes known colloquially as "vitamin
B-8," is a beneficial nutrient that has been implicated in the

treatment of some behavioral or emotional disorders. Your body can

produce inositol by breaking down glucose, and does not rely on inositol

in your diet. However, your digestive tract can absorb inositol from

the foods you eat; consuming foods high in inositol can boost your

overall inositol intake.


Foods High in Inositol


Photo Credit Heather Down/iStock/Getty Image

One type of food high in inositol are beans.

Consuming 100 grams of navy and lima beans provides your body with

approximately 65 and 44 milligrams of inositol, respectively. Beans are

also rich sources of other nutrients including several vitamins and

minerals. Consuming beans increases your intake of dietary fiber to help

prevent constipation. When possible, consume fresh beans, as the

canning process can decrease the inositol content of foods.

Citrus Fruits and Cantaloupe

Foods High in Inositol


Photo Credit psycodesign/iStock/Getty Images

A number of fruits also contain inositol.

Cantaloupe and many citrus fruits, with the exception of lemon, serve as

extremely rich sources of the nutrient. For example, an 8 ounces

serving of grapefruit juice contains around 468 milligrams of inositol.

Fruits also contain other beneficial nutrients, including vitamin C,

which helps maintain your skin and blood vessels. Consume fresh fruit to

increase your inositol intake, since freezing, canning and processing

decreases the food's inositol content.

Whole Grain Bread

Foods High in Inositol

Whole grain bread

Photo Credit Jupiterimages/Photos.com/Getty Images

Bread made from whole grains can also increase

your inositol content. Each 37 grams slice of whole grain bread contains

around 13 milligrams of inositol. Consuming breads made from whole

grains also benefits your overall health, since the fiber found in whole

grain foods can help regulate your blood sugar and cholesterol, as well

as decrease your risk of diabetes and possibly some types of cancer,

notes the Linus Pauling Institute.


Foods High in Inositol

Fruits and vegetables

Photo Credit Noel Hendrickson/Photodisc/Getty Images

Inositol is not an essential nutrient, so it does

not have a recommended intake level, since your body can produce as much

inositol as it needs to function. In addition, many foods -- including

several fruits, vegetables, grains and legumes -- contain phytic acid, a

plant compound converted to inositol after digestion. If you're

interested in modifying your diet to increase your inositol intake, talk

to a registered dietitian to design a meal


Antioxidants: the 21st century snake oil? › Dr Karl's Great Moments In Science (ABC Science)

Antioxidants: the 21st century snake oil? › Dr Karl's Great Moments In Science (ABC Science):

Antioxidants: the 21st century snake oil?

vitamin C
Water-soluble antioxidants include vitamin C and glutathione (Source: sasimoto/iStockphoto)
If you've ever gone into a health food shop, you will have seen rows and rows of antioxidant supplements for sale.
'Antioxidants' are big news. Food suppliers sell what they claim are antioxidant-rich super foods — that will do everything from preventing cancer to slowing ageing. These foods include green tea, goji berries, chia seeds and even red wine and dark chocolate.
You might not have studied biochemistry or dietetics, but you are probably familiar with the basic claim. If, as we are told, oxidants are bad, then, antioxidants must be good. And if a little antioxidant is good, surely more must be better. That is the antioxidant claim in a nutshell — but the whole story doesn't seem to be that simple.
Maybe supplemental antioxidants are the 21st century version of snake oil (the oft-expensive purported cure-all medicine that is 100 per cent pure rip-off)?
First, a little chemistry.
Oxidants, are also called free radicals, and are entirely natural chemicals produced when our cells turn food into energy. But oxidants are also produced by sunlight in our skin and eyes, cigarette smoke, alcohol, air pollution and even exercise — yes, exercise. Oxidants are very reactive chemicals, and they are the reason why iron will rust, or a cut apple will turn brown.
Oxidation is a twin-edged sword — it is essential for life, but it can also cause damage.
Antioxidants are molecules that tend to slow or block this oxidation. Antioxidants fall into two main classes — they either dissolve in water, or in fat.
Fat-soluble antioxidants include vitamin A and beta-carotene (which you get from the yellow, orange and reddish fruit and vegetables) as well as co-enzyme Q. These fat-soluble antioxidants often protect cell membranes.
The water-soluble antioxidants include vitamin C and glutathione. They react mainly with oxidants that exist in the water inside your cells, and in your blood.
It seems that plants make antioxidants as part of their self-preservation. Plants have to survive attacks by tiny pathogens and large grazing animals, as well as heat and cold, and drought and flood.
That's the chemistry, so now back to the story.
We know that physical exercise helps build muscle, and improves your life expectancy. Exercise can also improve your risks with regard to type 2 diabetes and insulin resistance.
But in 2009, it was discovered that if you do exercise and take antioxidant supplements, suddenly you lose all the health-promoting effects of exercise. So your muscles don't get bigger, and you don't get protected from diabetes. In other words, antioxidants from a bottle were bad for you.
We found the same result with lung cancer. We all know that smoking cigarettes can cause lung cancer. If you give people with lung cancer a diet rich in natural antioxidants, they will live a bit longer than expected. So it seems reasonable to expect that if a little bit of antioxidants is good, then surely lots of antioxidants will be better. So the researchers tried giving extra supplemental antioxidants — in other words, antioxidants from a bottle, not food. The results were astonishing — people didn't live longer. In fact, they died sooner. The additional antioxidants shortened their life expectancy!
This is still early days, and we don't have the full story yet, but let me tell you what we do have.
First, when we humans exercise, we manufacture oxidants. Is this bad? No. Our natural oxidants then trigger our cells to make our own natural antioxidants, which then give us the benefits of exercise. Not only do our natural antioxidants make our muscles stronger, they do unexpected stuff — such as protect us from air pollution.
Second, what about the antioxidants in natural foods? It seems that they work inside our bodies in the same way as do our natural antioxidants that we trigger with exercise.
And don't forget all the other good stuff in whole foods — the fibre and all the other 'planty' goodness we haven't even discovered. This bio-active stuff almost certainly works hand-in-hand with the antioxidants from natural foods.
Third, it seems that when you take supplemental antioxidants from a bottle, they actually prevent your body from making its own natural antioxidants. Even though the supplements provide antioxidants, they don't balance the loss of your own native antioxidants.
A 2012 study looked at 200,000 healthy people and 81,000 people with various diseases. The study found no benefits from antioxidant supplements. But the death rate increased in those taking beta-carotene, and possibly vitamins A and E.
At the moment, the supplemental antioxidant industry generates $23 billion a year in the USA. But these health fads come and go.
Nature is hard to get right — in a pill.


Vitamin C Can Be Dangerous, Study Finds - New York Times

Taking Too Much Vitamin C Can Be Dangerous, Study Finds - New York Times:

"Taking Too Much Vitamin C Can Be Dangerous, Study Finds
Published: April 9, 1998
Those who think that if a little vitamin C is good, more must be better should think again, says a team of British researchers, who found that a supplement of 500 milligrams a day could damage people's genes.

Many Americans take that much, or more, in hopes of preventing colds and reaping the widely celebrated antioxidant benefits of vitamin C. Antioxidants, which block cellular and molecular damage caused by the highly reactive molecules called free radicals, are believed to protect against heart disease, cancer, eye disorders like cataracts and macular degeneration, and other chronic health problems.

But the British researchers, chemical pathologists at the University of Leicester, found in a six-week study of 30 healthy men and women that a daily 500-milligram supplement of vitamin C had pro-oxidant as well as antioxidant effects on the genetic material DNA. The researchers found that at the 500-milligram level, vitamin C promoted genetic damage by free radicals to a part of the DNA, the adenine bases, that had not previously been measured in studies of the vitamin's oxidative properties.

The finding, published in the current issue of the British journal Nature, corroborates warnings that have been issued for decades by an American physician, Dr. Victor Herbert, professor of medicine at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York. Dr. Herbert has shown, primarily through laboratory studies, that vitamin C supplements promote the generation of free radicals from iron in the body.
''The vitamin C in supplements mobilizes harmless ferric iron stored in the body and converts it to harmful ferrous iron, which induces damage to the heart and other organs,'' Dr. Herbert said in an interview.

''Unlike the vitamin C naturally present in foods like orange juice, vitamin C as a supplement is not an antioxidant,'' Dr. Herbert said. ''It's a redox agent -- an antioxidant in some circumstances and a pro-oxidant in others.''

In contrast, vitamin C naturally present in food, he said, has no oxidizing effects.

Vitamin C supplements in large doses have been linked to genetic damage as far back as the mid-1970's. In a study then, Canadian researchers found that use of the vitamin in doses larger than in the British study, but not much larger than the amounts some people take to ward off colds and the flu, damaged genetic material in three systems: bacterial cells, human cells grown in test tubes, and live mice.

The lead author of the new study, Dr. Ian Podmore, said that at 500 milligrams, vitamin C did act as an antioxidant on one part of the DNA, the guanine bases. Oxidation of guanine to oxoguanine is what is usually measured to determine the degree of DNA damage through oxidation.

As expected, when the volunteers took a daily 500-milligram dose of vitamin C for six weeks, oxoguanine levels indeed declined, ''which is why vitamin C is generally thought to be an antioxidant,'' Dr. Podmore said.

But when they measured a second indicator of DNA oxidation, oxoadenine, the researchers found that it had risen rather than declined, ''indicating genetic damage to this DNA base,'' Dr. Podmore said.

A colleague, Dr. Joseph Lunec, said that at the 500-milligram level, vitamin C's ''protective effect dominated, but there was also a damaging effect.''

''There should be caution about taking too much vitamin C,'' Dr. Lunec said. ''The normal healthy individual would not need to take supplements of vitamin C.''

In the United States and Britain alike, the recommended daily intake of vitamin C for healthy adults is 60 milligrams, which can be easily obtained from foods -- by drinking about six ounces of orange juice, for example. Larger amounts are recommended for smokers and for pregnant and lactating women, but even these amounts can be readily obtained from foods.

Dr. Lunec took issue with the late Dr. Linus C. Pauling, the Nobel laureate chemist who took 12,000 milligrams of vitamin C daily and suggested that people could take as much of it as they wanted with no ill effect.

''We think that's not the case, to say the least,'' Dr. Lunec said. ''You can have too much of a good thing.''

The research team is now studying the effects of lower doses of vitamin C, ''to see if we can maximize the protective effect and minimize the damage,'' Dr. Lunec said. Given the new finding, he said, ''it would be unethical to test higher levels.''

'via Blog this'


Turmeric: Tasty in Curry, Questionable as Medicine « Science-Based Medicine

Turmeric: Tasty in Curry, Questionable as Medicine « Science-Based Medicine:


The “14 drugs” website recommends that everyone:
use certified organic (non-irradiated) turmeric in lower culinary doses on a daily basis so that heroic doses won’t be necessary later in life after a serious disease sets in.
There is no evidence to support any part of that recommendation. And the scientific evidence for turmeric is insufficient to incorporate it into medical practice. As with so many supplements, the hype has gone way beyond the actual evidence. There are some promising hints that it may be useful, but there are plenty of promising hints that lots of other things “may” be useful too. Since I have no rational basis for choosing one over another, I see no reason to jump on the turmeric bandwagon. On the other hand, I see no compelling reason to advise people not to use it, as long as they understand the state of the evidence well enough to provide informed consent and know that they are essentially guinea pigs in an uncontrolled experiment that makes no attempt to collect data. I will keep an open mind and stay tuned for further evidence in the form of well-designed clinical studies in humans.

Turmeric: Tasty in Curry, Questionable as Medicine

turmericA correspondent asked me to look into the science behind the health claims for turmeric. He had encountered medical professionals “trying to pass turmeric as some sort of magical herb to cure us from the ‘post-industrial chemical apocalypse.’” It is recommended by the usual promoters of CAM: Oz, Weil, Mercola, and the Health Ranger (who conveniently sells his own superior product,Turmeric Gold liquid extract for $17 an ounce).
Turmeric (Cucurma longa) is a plant in the ginger family that is native to southeast India. It is also known as curcumin. The rhizomes are ground into an orange-yellow powder that is used as a spice in Indian cuisine. It has traditionally been used in folk medicine for various indications; and it has now become popular in alternative medicine circles, where it is claimed to be effective in treating a broad spectrum of diseases including cancer, Alzheimer’s, arthritis, and diabetes. One website claims science has proven it to be as effective as 14 drugs, including statins like Lipitor, corticosteroids, antidepressants like Prozac, anti-inflammatories like aspirin and ibuprofen, the chemotherapy drug oxaliplatin, and the diabetes drug metformin. I wish those claims were true, because turmeric is far less expensive and probably much safer than prescription drugs. It clearly has some interesting properties, but the claims go far beyond the actual evidence.
The Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database has reviewed all the available scientific studies and has concluded that it is “Likely Safe,” “Possibly Effective” for dyspepsia and osteoarthritis, and “Insufficient Reliable Evidence” to rate effectiveness for other indications, such as Alzheimer’s, anterior uveitis, colorectal cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, and skin cancer.

Mechanism of action

The “14 drugs” website says turmeric is one of the most thoroughly researched plants ever, with 5,600 peer-reviewed studies, 175 distinct beneficial physiological effects, and 600 potential preventive and therapeutic applications. They provide a database of 1,585 hyperlinks to turmeric abstracts. Naturally I can’t read all of them, but a sampling indicates that they are almost entirely animal and in vitro studies. The NMCD has conveniently provided a list of the most pertinent studies.
The pertinent preclinical studies, in animal models and in vitro, indicate that curcumin has anti-inflammatory properties; can induce apoptosis in cancer cells and may inhibit angiogenesis; has antithrombotic effects; can decrease the amyloid plaque associated with Alzheimer’s; has some activity against bacteria, Leishmania, HIV; etc. These effects sound promising, but animal studies and in vitro studies may not be applicable to humans. As Rose Shapiro pointed out in her book Suckers, you can kill cancer cells in a Petri dish with a flame thrower or bleach. Preclinical studies must always be followed by clinical studies in humans before we can make any recommendations to patients.

Preliminary clinical research

There are preliminary pilot studies in humans suggesting that:
Clinical research on turmeric is being funded by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM), but the NCCAM website is not very encouraging. Under the section What the Science Says, it reads:
  • There is little reliable evidence to support the use of turmeric for any health condition because few clinical trials have been conducted.
  • Preliminary findings from animal and other laboratory studies suggest that a chemical found in turmeric—called curcumin—may have anti-inflammatory, anticancer, and antioxidant properties, but these findings have not been confirmed in people.
  • NCCAM-funded investigators have studied the active chemicals in turmeric and their effects—particularly anti-inflammatory effects—in human cells to better understand how turmeric might be used for health purposes. NCCAM is also funding basic research studies on the potential role of turmeric in preventing acute respiratory distress syndrome, liver cancer, and post-menopausal osteoporosis.

Side effects

Turmeric is generally considered safe, but high doses have caused indigestion, nausea, vomiting, reflux, diarrhea, liver problems, and worsening of gallbladder disease. TheNMCD warns that it may interact with anticoagulants and antiplatelet drugs to increase the risk of bleeding, that it should be used with caution in patients with gallstones or gallbladder disease and in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease, and that it should be discontinued at least 2 weeks before elective surgery. Purchasers of supplements are not given that information.


How a wild lifestyle or poor diet in your 20s could damage your unborn child's health DECADES later | Mail Online

How a wild lifestyle or poor diet in your 20s could damage your unborn child's health DECADES later | Mail Online

  • Drinking, smoking or eating badly could put a baby’s health at risk
  • There is now 'overwhelming evidence' that poor health can be recorded in a father’s sperm or a mother’s eggs, say Australian researchers
  • Parenting starts before conception', they warn 
Drinking, smoking or eating badly could put a baby's health at risk - years before it is conceived
Drinking, smoking or eating badly could put your baby’s health at risk - years before it is conceived.

latest research suggests that a wild lifestyle in your teens or 20s
could come back to haunt you if you become a parent later.

Scientists say there is now ‘overwhelming evidence’ that poor health can be recorded in a father’s sperm or a mother’s eggs.

or other problems caused by lifestyle can then be passed on to the next
generation - making a baby ‘pre-programmed’ for a life of poor health,
researchers say.

Australian scientists, building on a decade of research into the way
health can be passed between generations, said there is a clear message
for prospective mothers and fathers: ‘Parenting starts before

Sarah Robertson of the University of Adelaide said: ‘People used to
think that lifestyle didn’t matter, because a child represented a new
beginning, with a fresh start.

reality is we can now say with great certainty that the child doesn’t
quite start from scratch – they already carry over a legacy of factors
from their parents’ experiences that can shape development in the foetus
and after birth.

‘Depending on the situation, we can give our children a burden before they’ve even started life.’

research, published in the journal Science, suggests that babies whose
parents had poor lifestyles before conception were more likely to have
health problems such as diabetes, heart issues and immune disorders.

Robertson said: ‘Many things we do in the lead up to conceiving is
having an impact on the future development of the child – from the age
of the parents, to poor diet, obesity, smoking and many other factors,
all of which influence environmental signals transmitted into the

The biggest impact for both men and
women is caused by their behaviour in the final three months before
conception, when sperm and eggs both undergo final developments.

But lifestyle and events that take place many years before could also have a dramatic impact, the scientists think.

recently, scientific thinking relied on the Darwinian evolutionary
theory that a baby’s fate is set in stone many years before the child is

The sequence of
two parents’ DNA, itself set by their own parents, effectively
predetermined every aspect of a baby’s nature and make-up, the old
thinking held.

But the latest research has led to a more
subtle understanding of genetics, which accepts that tiny changes are
made to an individual’s genes by smoking, diet and other environmental
factors that we come across in everyday life.

Scientists say there is now 'overwhelming evidence' that poor health can be recorded in a father's sperm or a mother's eggs

Scientists say there is now 'overwhelming evidence' that poor health can be recorded in a father's sperm or a mother's eggs

Those ‘epigenetic’ changes can be passed on to the next generation via the egg or sperm.

think the ability to pass those epigenetic factors to a baby lies in
the evolutionary need to adapt to changing environment.

means, for example, that if a man or woman experience a period of
famine, their genes are altered by the ‘memory’ of that hard time so
their baby is able to cope with less food.

if that baby goes on to eat normal amounts, their body cannot cope with
the abundance and they can develop metabolic diseases such as diabetes.

if a parent overeats in life, the baby adapts to expect lots of food.
When they do not get it health problems are the result.

Professor Robertson said it is not all bad news for would-be parents.

few lifestyle changes by potential parents and improvements in the
right direction, especially in the months leading up to conception,
could have a lasting, positive benefit for the future of their child,’
she said.


What is “relative risk” (RR)? The case of alcohol frequency and its impact on mortality from stroke - Health Correlator

Health Correlator: What is “relative risk” (RR)? The case of alcohol frequency and its impact on mortality from stroke

"This post is not really about the study by Rantak├Âmi and colleagues. It is about the following question, which is in the title of this post:  

What is “relative risk” (RR)? "

Chris D said...
Amazes me that scientist are still using RR as opposed to taking the (small) extra step to perform a bayesian analysis. It also amazes me that "Statistical Significance" is valued over "Practical Significance". Statistical significance is important, and always will be. However, presenting results that have no practical significance is just bad science. Show that you are smarter than the analytic software that spits out statistical significance. Show that you can interpret results and apply those results to the real world...


As for the issue of alcohol consumption frequency and mortality, I leave you with the results of a 2008 study by Breslow and Graubard, with more citations and published in a more targeted journal (4):
“Average volume obscured effects of quantity alone and frequency alone, particularly for cardiovascular disease in men where quantity and frequency trended in opposite directions.”
In other words, alcohol consumption in terms of volume (quantity
multiplied by frequency) appears to matter much more than quantity or
frequency alone. We can state this even more simply: drinking two
bottles of whiskey in one sitting, but only once every two weeks, is not
going to be good for you.

In the end, providing more information to readers so that they can place
the results in context is a matter of scientific honesty.


Fiber & resistant starch are KETOGENIC for people who have healthy colon bacteria | Free The Animal

Why I'm All Over Jimmy Moore's Ass | Free The Animal:

What may bring this topic full circle is the apparent fact that resistant starch is ketogenic. From:  http://physrev.physiology.org/content/81/3/1031.full:
Human colonic bacteria ferment RS and nonstarch polysaccharides (NSP; major components of dietary fiber) to short-chain fatty acids (SCFA), mainly acetate, propionate, and butyrate. SCFA stimulate colonic blood flow and fluid and electrolyte uptake. Butyrate is a preferred substrate for colonocytes and appears to promote a normal phenotype in these cells. Fermentation of some RS types favors butyrate production. Measurement of colonic fermentation in humans is difficult, and indirect measures (e.g., fecal samples) or animal models have been used. Of the latter, rodents appear to be of limited value, and pigs or dogs are preferable. RS is less effective than NSP in stool bulking, but epidemiological data suggest that it is more protective against colorectal cancer, possibly via butyrate.
In layman’s terms, fiber and resistant starch are ketogenic for people who have healthy colon bacteria. The bacteria ferment fiber and resistant starch into short-chain fatty acids, which the body preferentially breaks down into ketone bodies.
Furthermore, it’s these short-chain fatty acids (or the ketone bodies produced therefrom) that are thought to prevent colon cancer.

Dr. Joanne Slavin talks about "the good carbohydrate"

Total darkness at night key to success of breast cancer therapy, study shows -- ScienceDaily

Total darkness at night key to success of breast cancer therapy, study shows -- ScienceDaily

July 25, 2014
Tulane University
Exposure to light at night, which shuts off nighttime production of the hormone melatonin, renders breast cancer completely resistant to tamoxifen, a widely used breast cancer drug, says a new study. Melatonin by itself delayed the formation of tumors and significantly slowed their growth, researchers report, but tamoxifen caused a dramatic regression of tumors in animals with either high nighttime levels of melatonin during complete darkness or those receiving melatonin supplementation during dim light at night exposure.


Muscle tissue = endocrine, fat tissue = ...CICO? OKAY, MAKES SENSE RIGHT - *The Scribble Pad*

*The Scribble Pad*: Muscle tissue = endocrine, fat tissue = ...CICO? OKAY, MAKES SENSE RIGHT.:

lui marco channel 

You know, I must say I have been a fan of this lui marco channel  on youtube for many months. I have like NO interest in body building what so ever, but Lui provides lulz and general good advice. He also mocks fitness frauds which I can appreciate from my perspective being woo, as fitness frauds whether bodybuilders or weight loss gurus are fucking annoying. With so many freaks / cretins advocating injecting GH and testosterone and various horrific drugs for no reason, I also appreciate a person into body building from a healthy perspective educating young guys there are consequences to it all.  Always good entertains on the luimarco channel!

Anyway, the video above is about some UFC fighter who was clearly abusing steroids. This guy gained like 60 pounds of lean mass in a few minutes, claimed to be following a healthy diet, and was roundly mocked for this obvious lie/deception. Eventually he was caught with having a testosterone level like 14000, so he had to quit his gear. Within like 2 seconds he collapsed into a 200 pound pile of mushy soft dough relative to his former condition and is now a terrible fighter. The end.

We see this story all the time in the fitness world. Guy injects GH/androgen/takes millions of drugs becomes a beast like caricature of a human. They grow muscle and relatedly/independently of this athletic performance enhances; androgens and the like are also called performance enhancing drugs. Ultimately though it all hangs on the balance of the endocrine system. Consider this; two athletes may have the same training regimen, the same genetics, the same lifestyle, the same food habits. The athlete taking 14x normal androgen is going to grow to a UFC champion fighter. The athlete not taking anything will be a 205 lb soft failure in the ring. That's the fact. It's the endocrine that rules muscle, training behavior and calories are only factors which are slaves under THE ENDOCRINE status. This is why every single bodybuilder you see and many fitness gurus as well are all one one or more endocrine modifying hormones or stimulants. They are almost never honest about that fact because of the shame/stigma attached to using drugs...that is unless they are too autistic/psychopathic to know better (like the guy I argued with a few weeks ago, danger and playing in traffic or something like that).

In the fitness world this is simply not even a question. It's just not even a DEBATE. Huge muscles, rapid muscle gain? He has taken drugs to modify his endocrine system. Done and done. There is no doubt, there is no question. It's just accepted muscle behavior and the function of the human body is under neuroendocrine control. Testosterone, GH, insulin (novolog 4hr quick acting insulin after training to stimulate IGF1), clenbuterol, I mean, the notion that adjusting calories or doing more exercise works as well would be laughed out of the room.

Now, please careen your attentions away from the world of athletics and body building, this way over to the world of dieting and body fat control. There are a lot more women, and a lot less men.  Perhaps relatedly there is a lot more hilarious irrational bullshit with no relevance what so ever to biological physiological reality, such as the notion feelings/sadness can cause fat gain. Or, perhaps the belief being a conscientious agreeable good dieter and accounting for every calorie will magically transform you into a slim butterfly; nothing more sciency involved to this but eating calories in and calories out.

This is obviously untrue. It is an obvious FACT the endocrine system has 100% control over the growth of adipose, calories and exercise only modify that just as is the case with athleticism and fitness. Calories and training modify performance and muscle growth but ultimately this is only so under direction/facilitation of whatever endocrine status you might have. The adipocytes are no different from myocytes; they are subjected to the laws and regulation of physiology, their growth and function is not some random anarchic chaos which exists separate from the whole of the body. The adipocyte is not this bank account that just accepts deposits endlessly until you take "control" and exert "willpower" to stop the hording. These emotional ridiculously unscientific ideas have been thoroughly debunked in the scientific literature. The adipocytes are connective tissue, but more importantly, the adipose is an endocrine site, part of the endocrine system. Ironically, the adipose exerts a greater homeostatic pressure over itself than does the muscle tissue; the adipose is actively regulating itself  via leptin and many other cytokines virtually preventing growth or shrinkage long term. If either tissue can be said to be passive, the muscle tissue meets that qualification much more so than the adipose. In spite of this, it is much more accepted as a truth that the muscle growth is an endocrine proposition, meanwhile the fat growth is a mental/emotional problem.

In scientific reality there is no *question* the muscle, and DEFINITELY not fat, are passive blank slate like tissues just waiting for you to mold them into shape. This is not a legitimate point of view respected by science. Get real. 

The adipose is regulated tightly, and an attempt to reduce adiposity is doomed to fail with like 95+% certainty for this reason.

Muscle = Controlled by endocrine system; man exhibits massive change in muscle function/size we know he has taken endocrine modifying substances. Done and done. No one says the UFC fighter ate less calories and did less exercise. We know he collapses because his endocrine status is typical/kaput. There is not one tard in the crowd who would hilariously suggest he could regain his former glory by eating differently or exercising differently. We know this is not true. WE know the calories he eats and the exercises he does are USELESS without the testosterone of 14000 to put them in proper place.

Adipose = gluttony, sloth, indolence, mental illness/emotional problems, "eating your feelings", in denial of CICO.  Woman gains 60 pounds after progesterone& cortisol assault of pregnancy = she just is under stress/mentally ill/depression/get a grip/count calories. Woman gains 20 pounds at age 37 in perimenopause with declining estrogen = go on a diet, get your grove back. Stop eating junkfood you lazy slob (says an even more out of shape man).

It's really hilarious isn't it?

I hear Gary Taubes is going to "debate" iq 110 fitness entrepreneur / gym owner / paleo heckler Teh Alan Aragon re: CICO.  Can't wait for this riveting battle of wits. Maybe Alan will use his patented facebook method of mocking the "insulin fairies" for causing weight gain as if it were anything but self evident that fat gain was caused by moral failure and greed at the dinner table.

Why are we having debates in 2014 of this nature? Why is this even a question?

Anyone who denies that obesity is a disease and fat tissue is regulated by the endocrine system ought to be dismissed with a hand wave like an obnoxious opinionated child. These people are too ignorant to have insight into their own ignorance. As well, contrary to what unpaxiled anoretics would lead you to believe, the scientific consensus is quite clear that body fat is under neuroendocrine control. Obesity is NOT caused by eating more calories than you burn, even if it is true the obese maybe eat more calories. Calories are to fat gain in a moribidly obese person as calories are to muscle gain in a testosterone abusing UFC fighter. Required, but not causative.