Dean Esmay wrote:
> Granted, however, keep in mind that this is a list to support everyday
> dieters trying to incorporate paleolithic nutrition concepts into their
> daily lives. Speculation of this nature should be identified as
> speculation and phrased carefully, because you may be frightening people
> for no good reason. I don't object to the discussion but at the same time
> I would like to suggest that it's important to point out that this -is-
> speculation and it may not be true.
Then let's point out that ALL of science is speculative and may not be
true. We base our notion of "truth" in science firmly on probability
theory.
> I have yet to see convincing evidence that AA is a potent health hazard,
> either in the scientific literature or in my personal experience, nor have
> I seen even one individual who has successfully correlated health problems
> with AA in their empirical experience. Given this it seems important to me
> to tell people that they may be worried over nothing.
I have NO objections to dietary to AA content in the diet. I wonder
about its de novo production vis-a-vis insulin load. And yes, AA in and
of itself may not be a health hazard, it's the products of AA metabolism
(aka the arachidonic acid cascade) that rasies some interesting albeit
speculative questions. I hope this doesn't trouble anyone too deeply.
>
> >How can you be sure that the cause and effects you are witnessing in
> >your personal experiences are due to AA?
>
> I never claimed that they are, actually. ;-)
Out of context quotation: You is taken as "you" collectively as this
was an example and exploration of the thought processes involving cause
and effect assumptions. Probably way too speculative. My apologies to
list members. I am not attempting to threaten your way of life, your
choices and neither am I attempting to assault you sensibilities.
> What I can tell you is that when I changed my diet radically, said change
> including an ENORMOUS increase in intake of AA, my health improved in every
> measurable way. I don't credit this to the AA; perhaps I would be
> healthier still without the AA, perhaps the AA made no difference at all,
> perhaps the AA helped.
Your reasoning here begs the post hoc, ergo propter hoc conclusion.
This may oversimplify the phenomenon you've experienced. I DO NOT
disagree with your EMPIRICAL albeit uncontrolled findings. I have
experienced these myself and quite a few of the individuals I've
counseled have experienced these results as well. For instance,
yesterday alone I read, interpreted 50 lipid profiles and advised
interns and their patients on the necessary dietary changes. Weekly I
see and read in excess of 150 lipid profiles with are follow ups to
dietary recommendations. With all I see I recognize that my experiences
are still anecdotal and need control. However, what I see is consistent
with your empirical experiences.
> There's also the interesting fact that a -large- number of individuals use
> a few tablespoons of flax seed oil to improve their blood lipids. It works
> remarkably well for a lot of people, even though it's loaded with AA.
I'm fabberghasted at your insistance that dietary (exogenous) AA plays
any appreaciable role in a person's health. Again my concern is
endogenous production. Pursuant to the lipid profile, AA is
polyunsaturated and may bring the lipid profile into a more favorable
ratio. However, don't forget that polyunsaturates are more susceptible
to oxidative damage both in the gut and in the blood. In addition,
lipid transport through the blood is fairly sophisticated in that these
fats are "encased" in hydophilic proteins (hence the term
"lipoproteins"). Most fats are required to undergo esterification upon
absorption and before they are released into lymph vessels. Many of
these fats are even further altered as they filter through the liver.
I'm not concerned with the AA you stick in your mouth, eat all you want.
I think it's funny how Americans have been sold a bill of goods that low
fat/fat free foods spells low blood fats. It doesn't if low fat means
high glucose-ladened carbohydrates. I see an average of 60 lipid
profiles per week where people are dutifully restricting their fat
intake and eating the sugar-blow/fat free cakes and cookies which they
are lead to believe are beneficial. Their results are dangerously high
cholesterol and triglycerides. I don't measure serum AA, beside the
half-life of AA in serum is very brief before it is absorbed by immune
cells and incorporated into their phospholipid bilayer. Experience and
the literature are clear, starchy carbs cause the body (in most
instances) to over produce cholesterol and triglycerides. There is good
evidence that the liver produces AA in response to the same stimulus as
is it produces cholesterol and triglycerides. See the following
reference for starters:
Boustani SE, Causse JE, Descomps B, Monnier L, Mendy F, Crastes de
Paulet A. Direct in vivo characterization of delta 5 destaturase
activity in humans by deuterium labeling: Effect if insulin. Metabolism
1989; 38(4): 315-321.
It's endogenous production I'm concerned with. And to restate, I agree
there is probably very little evidence that AA is directly a danger or a
health hazard. The hazard is more a function of the products of AA
metabolism like lipoxins and leukotrienes (prostaglandins are appearing
to the snowflake on the tip of the proverbial iceberg). Remember here
I'm concerned with endogenous AA production and NOT dietary AA.
> Note that in all of this I am not suggesting that there is no possibility
> that AA is harmful to anyone. I am simply skeptical and I feel that it's
> important not to warn people off of a food that may be completely harmless,
> especially on a diet where avoiding that food is very difficult.
Again, I'm not concerned with dietary AA. I'm concerned with the body's
production of AA in response to physiological increases in insulin. I
feel comfortable enough with the knowledge that insulin in high levels
is detrimental by virtue of the evidence. In that, I feel comfortable
in making recommendations about restricting dietary sugar and starch.
It is hoped on my behalf that lowered dietary sugars and starches will
indirectly lower ENDOGENOUS production of cholesterol, triglycerides and
AA via lower insulin levels.
> >There are many many strong facts. [about AA as a health hazard]
>
> Please share them.
Clever misquotation! Is this signs of an agenda? See comments below.
> >My question I
> >ask when confronted with any argument is, "Why this perspective?" I
> >want to know why has this perspective been chosen to advance these
> >facts. What is the agenda of the author?
>
> Unfortunate. A question doesn't need too have an agenda. An argument
> against a position need not have an agenda either. Assuming an agenda, in
> my experience, is a good way to avoid having to think too hard about what
> we believe or our own arguments. Unless the question is outrageously
> slanted, it's important to simply answer it in all honesty.
You're too funny. It's basic to our thinking. We each have a
perspective that is uniquely ours. We all see this world with different
eyes. We model this world differently. Therefore we can say that we
each rely on these perception to frame our arguments, assertions,
contentions. "An argument against a position need not have an agenda."
To the contrary, your agenda is to put forward or advance your
perspective of the facts. You may want to reconsider this. I'd
recommend the following:
Critical Thinking by Richard Paul
How We Think by John Dewey
Educating the Reflective Practitioner by Donald Schon
How To Read a Book by Mortimer J Adler
> I continue to see no evidence that AA is a threat to my health, or the
> health of anyone else, and some data which suggests it isn't. So what
> specifically is it that makes you think it's a danger?
Goetzl EJ. Oxygenation products of arachidonid acid as mediators of
hypersensitivity and inflammation. Symposium on Prostaglandins. Medical
Clinics of North America 1981; 65(4): 809.
Brenner RR. The oxidative desaturation of unsaturated fatty acids in
animals. Molecular & Cellular Chemistry 1974; 3(1): 41
Smith WL. The eicosanoids and their biochemical mechanisms of action.
Biochem J 1989; 259: 315-324
Samuelsson B, Dahlen SE, Lindgren JA, Rouzer CA, Serhan CN. Leukotrienes
and lipoxins: Biosynthesis, and biological effects. Science 1987; 237:
1171-1176.
Just to name a few ... Again NOT AA but its by-products. NOT exogenous
consumption of AA but endogenous overproduction of AA. The problem is
that when you make a fair amount of AA and store it in the membranes of
cells, there will come a time when it is released ... and when it is
released it will tends to be metabolized into one of three general
classes of compounds, i.e., prostaglandins of the second series,
leukotrienes of the second series and/or lipoxins ... nost of which are
highly inflammatory resulting in immune cell induction. Speculation ...
no. You can take it to the bank. Hell, bet the house on it. I'd say
eat a diet that keeps you production of AA low, but eat all the AA you
want. If your body makes AA in response to insulin then you'll make it
in your sleep. If your main source of AA is diet, then there's a limit
as to how much you can stuff into your body and unlike endogenous
production, I can't eat it in my sleep.
> There are different definitions of "Philosopher" and it has different
> shades of meaning depending on context.
This sounds like perspective. See above.
> I am as much of a philosopher as
> you inasmuch as my philosophy is one which demands empirical evidence or
> something beyond idle speculation.
I'm not suggesting you are devoid of philosophy or a philosophy. I hope
you're not suggesting that my speculation is idle since it does not
conform to the agenda or perspective of your "philosophy is one which
*demands* empirical evidence ..." I don't interpret it as such, just
wanted to point out the perspective thing. I do believe that you have
an agenda; that being to demonstrate or illuminate your perspective.
Asking what it is or why you have it is not a bad thing as you suggetsed
earlier; see above.
> The truth is that idle speculation is the easiest part of
> research on any subject; the real work comes in when you try to demonstrate
> that your speculation is grounded in reality.
Depends on your perspective. I take exception to the derrogatory nature
of the phrase "... idle speculation is the easiest part ..."
Speculation perhaps, idle no. Biologically plausible speculation, yes.
Biologically plausible speculation, easy? No. You have to be neck deep
in the breathe and depth of the literature. You're out of your league
here and might do well to reconsider. There is a tradition and a rigor
to the speculative portion of research.
I have served as a research fellow as both an undergraduate and a
professional student. I've served a two year postdoctoral fellow in
clinical research. I have collaborated on many projects and have been
published or assisted in the publication of a number of peer-reviewed
literature. The difficult part is writting the proposal and grants.
Here you speculate on proposed methodologies and anticipated outcomes.
Here you must argue convincingly that your speculation is not a waste of
time and resources. The speculation, proposal and grant writing is not
a bunch of pot-heads speculating without a clue. Its work, hard work.
Hey, whatever ... in the final analysis this is your sandbox and I
apologize for inadvertently kicking some sand onto you.
Andrew :-S
--
Andrew S. Bonci, BA, DC, DAAPM
Assistant Professor, Department of Diagnosis
Cleveland Chiropractic College
6401 Rockhill Road
Kansas City, Missouri 64131
(816) 333-7436 ex39
|