![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 256 to 280 of 281. Go back in thread:
Posted by Questionmark on June 11, 2011, at 16:12:42
In reply to Re: Going back to old-school - lithium. » desolationrower, posted by floatingbridge on June 11, 2011, at 15:31:54
Krill oil is totally over-hyped and not worthwhile, as far as I can tell.
The claim is that krill have much higher concentrations of omega-3s, but this is really ultimately irrelevant since you get a much lower quantity of omega-3s *for your dollar* with krill oil compared to fish oil.
> Any opinion to venture on krill oil?
>
> fb
Posted by floatingbridge on June 11, 2011, at 17:37:32
In reply to Re: Going back to old-school - lithium., posted by Questionmark on June 11, 2011, at 16:12:42
Hi Questionmark,
I take 2,000 per day, and krill is pricey!
It's asked over and over. Here it goes again.
What (brand/type) do you take (if you do)?
Thanks.
fb
Posted by desolationrower on June 11, 2011, at 17:52:30
In reply to Re: Going back to old-school - lithium. » desolationrower, posted by floatingbridge on June 11, 2011, at 15:31:54
> Sardines are a super food. Low toxic accumulation, plus they are eaten bones & all. That's a lot of trace minerals, not to mention calcium.
>
>
> Good reminder for me, d/r.
>
> Any opinion to venture on krill oil?
>
> fbwell, in general i'd say whole fish is the way to go. You get protein and b12 and taurine. I think krill oil might be better than fish oil:
-high concentration of antioxidants to prevent rancidity. I am not sure rancidity is a problem for mental health, though i like to avoid it for its general health/aging issues.
-omega3 fats more integrated into phospholipids, not triglycerides. This might favor integration into cell membranes as opposed to oxidation for fuel. Not sure about use to create signaling molecules. I haven't seen much actual research into this.
-d/r
Posted by floatingbridge on June 11, 2011, at 17:59:53
In reply to Re: Going back to old-school - lithium., posted by desolationrower on June 11, 2011, at 17:52:30
I think the below is what I heard that swayed me toward krill. Just don't expect me to remember.
Thanks. I like it when you sweep the boards. Like "Oklahoma where the wind comes sweeping down the plains."
fb
> -omega3 fats more integrated into phospholipids, not triglycerides. This might favor integration into cell membranes as opposed to oxidation for fuel. Not sure about use to create signaling molecules. I haven't seen much actual research into this.
>
> -d/r
Posted by desolationrower on June 11, 2011, at 21:06:42
In reply to Re: Going back to old-school - lithium., posted by floatingbridge on June 11, 2011, at 17:59:53
> I think the below is what I heard that swayed me toward krill. Just don't expect me to remember.
>
> Thanks. I like it when you sweep the boards. Like "Oklahoma where the wind comes sweeping down the plains."
>
> fb
>
> > -omega3 fats more integrated into phospholipids, not triglycerides. This might favor integration into cell membranes as opposed to oxidation for fuel. Not sure about use to create signaling molecules. I haven't seen much actual research into this.
> >
> > -d/r
>
>hah, thanks.
-Aeolus
Posted by Phillipa on June 11, 2011, at 21:30:02
In reply to Re: Going back to old-school - lithium., posted by desolationrower on June 11, 2011, at 21:06:42
d/r it is good to see you back. Love Phillipa
Posted by utopizen on June 13, 2011, at 6:43:27
In reply to Re: Going back to old-school - lithium., posted by desolationrower on June 11, 2011, at 13:50:09
> I should say while 'purified' fish oil isn't important, not being rancid might be important.
>I store mine in the refrigerator, too-- but keep in mind any rancid product would have more to do with Quality Assurance discipline at the plant, not the consumer.
Remember Able Labs? It was a fairly large generics company that went under in 2005 after it was cited by the FDA for "sanitation" and had a mass recall of all their stuff.
There's other terms that also mean sanitation when a recall is made, but sound more benign... anyhow, that basically means rat waste from the ceiling, etc. is being found. Honestly, you have to be doing a bad job for the FDA to ask for such a thing- it's not like some health inspector having a bad day.
At any rate, avoid independent nature food store-branded fish oil-- they were one of the very few cited by Greenpeace or some other environmental group in a lab sampling of all of the major makers. It's easy enough to google "fish oil independent rankings environmental toxins" or such.
The biggest violator was a company that I've never seen before, but markets to health food stores (tiny ones), letting them brand the health food's name on the package. It included some toxin that was a huge deal. Most actually passed with flying colors, including Nature Made.
There's a $46 bottle (of 30) that's sold at Whole Foods. I use to buy it. If I had vast amounts of money, I'd justify it still, but it's just unreasonable. They claim they do all this stuff to it, but even their own marketing seems to basically reduce itself to "you don't have to take more pills because it's more potent."
It's used in research, likely because they use the Oral-B trick my dentist tipped me off to: if you give a profession something for free, it's remarkable how often they use it themselves.
Since they're referring to 3-4/day of the fish oil capsules their $12 competitors' dosing is, I'd rather oppress myself with the drudgery of swallowing an additional gulp of water after taking my 3rd or 4th dose.
I asked the $47/bottle company if I could be spared free bottles, as I'm poor and it would be like pharmaceutical assistance-- given they're so into marketing themselves as "pharmaceutical-grade"-- They never got back to me.
Posted by floatingbridge on June 13, 2011, at 9:25:01
In reply to avoid store-*labeled* fish oil, posted by utopizen on June 13, 2011, at 6:43:27
The expensive brand you speak of is a Japanese company? I tried taking their mood formulation. Sometimes my market would sell it deeply discounted. I spent a lot of time converting doses and counting pills. I had to give them up, but did and do shell out for krill oil.
I was told and read that presently, all krill oil is made from one source, Neptune (?), so I take Now brand after being reassured. Plus Now puts it's source on the label.
Any thoughts?
Posted by Questionmark on June 15, 2011, at 17:24:40
In reply to Re: Going back to old-school - lithium. » Questionmark, posted by floatingbridge on June 11, 2011, at 17:37:32
Yes, way to pricey to seem worthwhile.
I generally take the bulk liquid of Carlson's brand fish oil. Nordic Naturals also seems really good but more costly. I'm sure there are other very good ones.
... In response to the comment about rancidity not being a problem for mental health, I don't think this is quite true. My [layman's] understanding is that rancid fats can increase oxidation (lipid peroxidation?) in the body including the brain. I also wonder if there can be some change in the molecular structure of the omega-3 fatty acids when there is rancidity. I don't know, i'm just surmising a possibility.
> Hi Questionmark,
>
> I take 2,000 per day, and krill is pricey!
>
> It's asked over and over. Here it goes again.
>
> What (brand/type) do you take (if you do)?
>
> Thanks.
>
> fb
Posted by larryhoover on June 15, 2011, at 21:35:13
In reply to Fish oil brands. Re: Going back to .. » floatingbridge, posted by Questionmark on June 15, 2011, at 17:24:40
> Yes, way to pricey to seem worthwhile.
>
> I generally take the bulk liquid of Carlson's brand fish oil. Nordic Naturals also seems really good but more costly. I'm sure there are other very good ones.Carlson's and Nordic are indeed fine products. Kept in the fridge, they seem to stay in good shape to the end of the container.
> ... In response to the comment about rancidity not being a problem for mental health, I don't think this is quite true. My [layman's] understanding is that rancid fats can increase oxidation (lipid peroxidation?) in the body including the brain.Fats can oxidize in chain reactions, where one free radical can damage a number of fat molecules, but ingesting rancid fats doesn't lead to that happening. The damaged fat molecules go to energy production.
>I also wonder if there can be some change in the molecular structure of the omega-3 fatty acids when there is rancidity. I don't know, i'm just surmising a possibility.
Well, for a surmise, you surmise quite well. ;-)
When we detect rancid fat by smell, it's because our noses have evolved to tell us how fresh a fatty food might be. If it's begun to oxidize, the products of the oxidized unsaturated fats include aldehydes and ketones, which are much more volatile, and they stink. Well, we sense the smell as a stink, because we are programmed to reject the smell of rancid food. So, you're absolutely correct, rancidity is a change in the molecular structure of an unsaturated fat. Small pieces of it are broken away, and they evaporate.
Lar
Posted by larryhoover on June 15, 2011, at 21:50:24
In reply to Fish oil brands. Re: Going back to .. » floatingbridge, posted by Questionmark on June 15, 2011, at 17:24:40
I just wanted to add that the hydroperoxide chain reaction that you were concerned about is readily quenched by vitamin E. So, if your fish oil supplement contains vitamin E, the risk is essentially zero.
Lar
Posted by Questionmark on June 16, 2011, at 16:55:39
In reply to Re: Fish oil brands. Re: Going back to .. » Questionmark, posted by larryhoover on June 15, 2011, at 21:35:13
> Fats can oxidize in chain reactions, where one free radical can damage a number of fat molecules, but ingesting rancid fats doesn't lead to that happening. The damaged fat molecules go to energy production.
>Oh, but so do fats that are oxidized produce free radicals? I thought that most molecules that are oxidized become pro-oxidants themselves.
Why have we evolved to not want rancid food?> Well, for a surmise, you surmise quite well. ;-)
Oh good, thank you.
And thank you for that other info. Interesting. And helpful.
Posted by larryhoover on June 16, 2011, at 19:56:32
In reply to Re: Fish oil brands. Re: Going back to .. » larryhoover, posted by Questionmark on June 16, 2011, at 16:55:39
> Oh, but so do fats that are oxidized produce free radicals? I thought that most molecules that are oxidized become pro-oxidants themselves.
Yes, but. The buts do matter.
Usually, you can plot the reactants and products on a reactivity chart such that what goes in is more reactive than what comes out. So, that's a general trend, entropy.
In a petri dish, or a test tube, you can get long-standing chain reactions. A candle flame burning sheep fat or whale oil is a chain reaction. In our bodies, we have protective mechanisms to break those chains. Antioxidants such as superoxide dismustase, glutathione, vitamins E and C, and a variety of supporting cast members such as CoQ10 or melatonin or heme-type structures quench the reactivity of the oxidizers.
Your own mitochondria are virtual free-radical machines, churning out massive numbers/types of oxidizers. Somehow, we keep ourselves from catching fire, and only maintain a temperature of 37C/98.6F.
The bottom line is, we're well protected, even from rancid fats. I think people get too caught up in the details.
> Why have we evolved to not want rancid food?
I think of it as a "lack of freshness" detection system. Given a choice, we choose the fresher food. I don't know about you, but when I'm cleaning out the fridge, the process is as much one of smelling the materials as it is about reading best before dates.
As I've become more mature, I find that I've trained my nose, also. Certain aromas from cheese I now find inviting, whereas before I'd have thought they indicated spoilage. But in contrast, I'm exquisitely sensitive to rancidity in nutmeats. I just can't bear nuts that aren't fresh, and it has nothing to do with what I think about the situation. When it comes to rancidity, I lean towards nature, rather than nurture.
> And thank you for that other info. Interesting. And helpful.
My pleasure. Truly.
Lar
Posted by Phillipa on June 16, 2011, at 20:12:20
In reply to Re: Fish oil brands. Re: Going back to .. » Questionmark, posted by larryhoover on June 16, 2011, at 19:56:32
Lar shoot I have no taste and smell the mechanism is missing. Phillipa
Posted by larryhoover on June 16, 2011, at 20:17:07
In reply to Re: Fish oil brands. Re: Going back to .. » larryhoover, posted by Phillipa on June 16, 2011, at 20:12:20
> Lar shoot I have no taste and smell the mechanism is missing. Phillipa
Ya, I know. Damn virus!
I guess you're stuck with reading best before dates. Or, maybe you can save money and eat the stuff that's on the "reduced for quick sale" table? You can look at it both ways, I suppose.
L
Posted by desolationrower on June 16, 2011, at 20:38:37
In reply to Re: Fish oil brands. Re: Going back to .., posted by larryhoover on June 16, 2011, at 20:17:07
I think there is health risk from rancid fat, though this area and advanced glycation endproducts is a new area of study.
"Fats can oxidize in chain reactions, where one free radical can damage a number of fat molecules, but ingesting rancid fats doesn't lead to that happening. The damaged fat molecules go to energy production."
I have not seen research showing that rancid fats are preferentially burned. if you know of some, please share.
I also disagree rancid always smells bad. Some oxidized fat products smell good. Wok-hai comes from the use of peanut oil, which contain a lot of polyunsaturated fat, at quite high temperatures. Rancid smells from rotting corpses we can detect and avoid. but from the processing/cooking of food, we generally like unhealthy molecules.
-d/r
Posted by larryhoover on June 16, 2011, at 21:50:13
In reply to Re: Fish oil brands. Re: Going back to .., posted by desolationrower on June 16, 2011, at 20:38:37
I think you're taking some simple observations I made, and taking them on extreme tangents of interpretation.
> I think there is health risk from rancid fat, though this area and advanced glycation endproducts is a new area of study.
Advanced glycation products are derived from sugars, or sugars and amino acids. I don't know what they have to do with the prior discussion. Rancid fat is produced via the oxidation of unsaturated fatty acids, yielding aldehydes, ketones, carboxylic acids, and hydroperoxides. We have intercellular and extracellular processes to deal with each of those.
> "Fats can oxidize in chain reactions, where one free radical can damage a number of fat molecules, but ingesting rancid fats doesn't lead to that happening. The damaged fat molecules go to energy production."
>
> I have not seen research showing that rancid fats are preferentially burned. if you know of some, please share.I did not say they are preferentially burned. It is true that they are indistinguishable from the oxidation products formed during oxidation of fatty acids for energy. If they (rancid fat products) are absorbed, they will be transported to organelles where they will be oxidized, as they have no structural value.
> I also disagree rancid always smells bad. Some oxidized fat products smell good. Wok-hai comes from the use of peanut oil, which contain a lot of polyunsaturated fat, at quite high temperatures.Again, you're taking a tangent. An extremely high ambient temperature is required for the formation of these aromatics, and they are not formed exlusively from fatty acids. Moreover, they are not oxidation products.
> Rancid smells from rotting corpses we can detect and avoid.
Or nuts. Or dairy. Or any other product containing unsaturated fatty acids, which has begun to oxidize.
> but from the processing/cooking of food, we generally like unhealthy molecules.
>
> -d/rLike e.g. nitrosamines, or other high-temperature molecules produced via the Maillard reaction, Amadori rearrangements, or Schiff bases.....which go back to your advanced glycation products, at least in so far as they are involved in complications of diabetes, particularly in the eye. But those are carbohydrate metabolism issues.
Lar
Posted by Phillipa on June 16, 2011, at 23:41:45
In reply to Re: Fish oil brands. Re: Going back to .., posted by larryhoover on June 16, 2011, at 20:17:07
Lar the infection control doc said he thinks it was the biaxin xl for the lymes still positive 6 bands not treating. Working hard? Phillipa
Posted by Questionmark on June 17, 2011, at 17:10:10
In reply to Re: Fish oil brands. Re: Going back to .. » Questionmark, posted by larryhoover on June 16, 2011, at 19:56:32
But even though our bodies are equipped to neutralize/reduce free radicals and make many free radicals themselves, does not of course mean that we cannot help or hurt our bodies in this area by what we ingest. So could the intake of oxidizing molecules from eating rancid fats contribute in any significant way to increased cellular oxidation? Or is the amount ingested from rancid fats so negligible compared to other "pro-oxidative" behaviors that it's not really worth considering?
Also... But what do you think the biologically beneficial reasons are for why we've evolved to not want rancid food?
Is it because it indicates a greater likelihood of bacterial contamination as well? Or is it merely because fresh fats have more biologically useful fatty acids compared to rancid fats? Or something else?"The bottom line is, we're well protected, even from rancid fats. I think people get too caught up in the details."
Well, no one in the world is more guilty of that than i am. ... It's a problem.
Thanks again.
> > Oh, but so do fats that are oxidized produce free radicals? I thought that most molecules that are oxidized become pro-oxidants themselves.
>
> Yes, but. The buts do matter.
>
> Usually, you can plot the reactants and products on a reactivity chart such that what goes in is more reactive than what comes out. So, that's a general trend, entropy.
>
> In a petri dish, or a test tube, you can get long-standing chain reactions. A candle flame burning sheep fat or whale oil is a chain reaction. In our bodies, we have protective mechanisms to break those chains. Antioxidants such as superoxide dismustase, glutathione, vitamins E and C, and a variety of supporting cast members such as CoQ10 or melatonin or heme-type structures quench the reactivity of the oxidizers.
>
> Your own mitochondria are virtual free-radical machines, churning out massive numbers/types of oxidizers. Somehow, we keep ourselves from catching fire, and only maintain a temperature of 37C/98.6F.
>
> The bottom line is, we're well protected, even from rancid fats. I think people get too caught up in the details.
>
> > Why have we evolved to not want rancid food?
>
> I think of it as a "lack of freshness" detection system. Given a choice, we choose the fresher food. I don't know about you, but when I'm cleaning out the fridge, the process is as much one of smelling the materials as it is about reading best before dates.
>
> As I've become more mature, I find that I've trained my nose, also. Certain aromas from cheese I now find inviting, whereas before I'd have thought they indicated spoilage. But in contrast, I'm exquisitely sensitive to rancidity in nutmeats. I just can't bear nuts that aren't fresh, and it has nothing to do with what I think about the situation. When it comes to rancidity, I lean towards nature, rather than nurture.
>
> > And thank you for that other info. Interesting. And helpful.
>
> My pleasure. Truly.
>
> Lar
Posted by larryhoover on June 18, 2011, at 18:29:14
In reply to Re: Fish oil brands. Re: Going back to .. » larryhoover, posted by Questionmark on June 17, 2011, at 17:10:10
> But even though our bodies are equipped to neutralize/reduce free radicals and make many free radicals themselves, does not of course mean that we cannot help or hurt our bodies in this area by what we ingest. So could the intake of oxidizing molecules from eating rancid fats contribute in any significant way to increased cellular oxidation?
Oxygen gas, the stuff we breathe, is an incredibly corrosive molecule. Rancid fats are far less active as oxidizers. Hemoglobin delivers the real deal, oxygen itself. Oxygen gas is a free radical, barely stable, in a relative sense. Ozone, even moreso. Truly, an oxidized fatty acid is of little concern.
> Or is the amount ingested from rancid fats so negligible compared to other "pro-oxidative" behaviors that it's not really worth considering?
I absolutely believe that to be the case. I tried to find some background information, but nobody has ever tried to measure the uptake from the gut of fatty acid oxidation products. For all I know, they don't even enter the bloodstream. But if they do, they are indistinguishable from the intermediates encountered from oxidation of fatty acids for energy. They are not a novel risk factor.
> Also... But what do you think the biologically beneficial reasons are for why we've evolved to not want rancid food?
We're stepping into philosophical/rationalization realms now. I believe, with no evidence to support it, that we evolved to discrimate fresh foods from those less fresh. How much would hunger weigh into the determination of whether you'd ingest the food anyway? I don't know. I'm personally much more sensitive to "off" tastes in dairy than others are, but I know sooner when milk might best be poured down the drain than my family would determine. Are they at greater risk because of that, or am I missing out on nutrition?
> Is it because it indicates a greater likelihood of bacterial contamination as well?
I absolutely believe that. Yes, rancidity or putrefacation scents are indicative of bacterial degradation.
Some protein breakdown products are named putrescine and cadaverine. Need I say more about those?
> Or is it merely because fresh fats have more biologically useful fatty acids compared to rancid fats? Or something else?
Taking that to a simple logical conclusion, then, freshness detection is beneficial. That's all I assume.
> "The bottom line is, we're well protected, even from rancid fats. I think people get too caught up in the details."
>
> Well, no one in the world is more guilty of that than i am. ... It's a problem.
>
> Thanks again.Selected details are used to influence people. There is a politics/science interface. For example, there has been a huge hoo-haa made of the toxic effects of PCBs and dioxins, especially insofar as they are carcinogens. But, did you know that modest exposure to these chemicals protects you from cancer? No, of course not, because it does not fit the political message that these man-made chemicals are toxic at all concentrations. They are not.
Lar
Posted by larryhoover on June 18, 2011, at 18:48:16
In reply to Re: Fish oil brands. Re: Going back to .. » larryhoover, posted by Questionmark on June 17, 2011, at 17:10:10
I wanted to give this subject a little bit of separation from the subject of fish oil oxidation.
If you read the literature on dioxins/PCBs, you'll find that the most toxic structure is known as TCDD, and that other similar structures are given TCDD-equivalent doses related to their own toxicity when compared to TCDD.
But when we actually look at human exposures to TCDD and equivalents, moderate exposure is protective against cancer. And when we look at people exposed to dioxins/equivalents via fish intake, their all-risk and specific risk mortalities are better than "normal" people.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18648613
When they mention a J-shaped dose-response curve, the incidence of cancer falls below zero (no exposure to dioxin), and only rises back to zero at some undefined higher exposure.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18579573
If you open this second link, you can get full-text access to all of the data, and further interpretations, including: "In the present study, the fishermen had decreased mortality from all-causes, ischaemic heart diseases, cerebrovascular diseases, cancers, diabetes, dementia and Alzheimer's disease, diseases of the respiratory system, alcohol-related diseases and accidental poisonings by alcohol and suicide compared with the general male population. Further, they had almost 2-fold fish consumption, 1.6-fold fish-derived omega-3 PUFA intake, 1.4-fold serum vitamin D concentration and 2-fold serum EPA, DHA (those are the good fish oils: Lar), dioxin and PCB concentrations compared with the males of the general population sub-sample."
So, despite twice the PCB and dioxin concentrations, they are much "healthier".
Lar
Posted by Questionmark on June 20, 2011, at 2:57:48
In reply to Re: dioxins and hormesis » Questionmark, posted by larryhoover on June 18, 2011, at 18:48:16
Very interesting. But now i'm even more confused. So why all the concern about PCBs and dioxins?
And what about heavy metals?... Aughhhhh. I swear, sometimes, w health, and politics, and damn near everything, the absolute truth just seems unattainable.
Posted by larryhoover on June 20, 2011, at 11:26:02
In reply to Re: dioxins and hormesis » larryhoover, posted by Questionmark on June 20, 2011, at 2:57:48
> Very interesting. But now i'm even more confused. So why all the concern about PCBs and dioxins?
There are a lot of factors at play. Some chemicals get a lot of attention, while others with more significant impact are ignored completely.
Remember Alar in apple juice? Alar is a chemical that was sprayed onto the apples early in the season so that they'd tend to ripen at the same time, making picking easier. It was detected in apple juice, and panic ensued. Nearly the entire crop year of apple juice was simply poured down the drain. And it was replaced by Chinese apple juice, that was never tested. But I did an analysis based on the concentration of Alar detected in the apple juice, and I determined that someone would have to drink 180,000 litres (over 40,000 gallons) of a/j per day, to reach an intake level that would potentially cause health concerns. If you drank 180 litres of apple juice, I bet the water content would kill you. Should they have banned water?
The whole environmental/pollution realm is a very political game. The "leaders" are driven by sound bites, and media exposure, to an alarming degree. I worked for the World Wildlife Fund in the '90s. They hired me to give the scientific lowdown on a number of chemicals of concern. And I worked very hard to determine what was known, what was suspected, and what needed to be determined about these chemicals. And then they ignored everything I found, because it was inconsistent with their policy at the time.
You may have heard about bisphenol A leaching out of polycarbonate plastics, once commonly used for water bottles. I did the full background work on that in 1997. It only took 12 or 13 years to make it to the public's attention. :-/
Sorry....I do get distracted. About PCBs and dioxins.....
Early work with rodents determined that some of these PCBs (there are around 200 different chemical structures under that umbrella) and a few of the dioxins were potent mutagens/carcinogens. Standard practise is to find the lowest dose at which the rodents appear to be affected, and then apply a 1000-fold reduction in that amount, as a sort of a safety factor. Well, when you do that for PCBs/dioxins, you're down in the low parts per billion, even parts per trillion range.
Another assumption is that the dose/response curve is linear. You start at zero dose/zero effect, and as you increase the dose, you tend to increase the effect. They worked backwards from that assumption, when they interpolated the human safe dose of TCDD/PCBs based on the rodent work. What we didn't know was that the dose/response curve is not linear.
In fact, with the dioxins and PCBs, what seems to happen is that as you move up from zero dose, the effect actually falls below zero (i.e. cancer rates fall, compared to unexposed people). I'm going to make an educated guess that our livers detect the trivial amounts that we are exposed to, and that protective enzymes are induced. And those enzymes protect us from other toxicants in our diets or environment. (Broccoli contains a carcinogen. You just never know what will get you.) Anyway, at some undefined higher dose, dixoins/PCBs will begin to act as carcinogens, and the dose/response curve will rise above zero (that's what is meant by hormesis.....inverse response depending on dose range). Based on the link I provided, those at the higher exposures of PCBs/dioxins were still not at the undefined level.
> And what about heavy metals?
Oh, we're much clearer on those. You do need to manage your heavy metal exposure. But, few doctors will tell you that selenium is protective against mercury.
> ... Aughhhhh. I swear, sometimes, w health, and politics, and damn near everything, the absolute truth just seems unattainable.It's so true. Remember butter bad/margarine good? I had some very serious arguments about that one, early on. Steady yourself, but red meat just got a clean bill of health. (I have had some serious arguments about that, too. Being ahead of the curve is sometimes a challenge, but I am a stubborn lad.)
Lar
Posted by Questionmark on June 21, 2011, at 22:43:20
In reply to Re: dioxins and hormesis » Questionmark, posted by larryhoover on June 20, 2011, at 11:26:02
Your knowledge is amazing!!!
And you're very good at explaining in layman's terms.Too many questions/comments; too little time. (Oh isn't it always that answers just bring more questions?)
Nevertheless...Even with the political nature of a lot of laws, it amazes me that dioxins and PCBs managed to garner such criticism (and regulation?) then, yet bisphenol A managed to avoid it for so long (and I think still largely has avoided regulation in the States[?].
That is fascinating stuff though.Great point about broccoli. I had forgotten about that.
Great points all around really.Interesting about red meat. I've actually been wondering if meat in general was going to start being considered reasonably healthy, with all this "protein good; carbs bad" philosophy going around (not without *some* merit it seems). I also think red meat being healthy seems a little naive-- though admittedly I'm mostly going by mere intuition.
Wait you were saying you were arguing against margarine right? Or butter, now?
If the former - awesome. If the latter - interesting.
> > Very interesting. But now i'm even more confused. So why all the concern about PCBs and dioxins?
>
> There are a lot of factors at play. Some chemicals get a lot of attention, while others with more significant impact are ignored completely.
>
> Remember Alar in apple juice? Alar is a chemical that was sprayed onto the apples early in the season so that they'd tend to ripen at the same time, making picking easier. It was detected in apple juice, and panic ensued. Nearly the entire crop year of apple juice was simply poured down the drain. And it was replaced by Chinese apple juice, that was never tested. But I did an analysis based on the concentration of Alar detected in the apple juice, and I determined that someone would have to drink 180,000 litres (over 40,000 gallons) of a/j per day, to reach an intake level that would potentially cause health concerns. If you drank 180 litres of apple juice, I bet the water content would kill you. Should they have banned water?
>
> The whole environmental/pollution realm is a very political game. The "leaders" are driven by sound bites, and media exposure, to an alarming degree. I worked for the World Wildlife Fund in the '90s. They hired me to give the scientific lowdown on a number of chemicals of concern. And I worked very hard to determine what was known, what was suspected, and what needed to be determined about these chemicals. And then they ignored everything I found, because it was inconsistent with their policy at the time.
>
> You may have heard about bisphenol A leaching out of polycarbonate plastics, once commonly used for water bottles. I did the full background work on that in 1997. It only took 12 or 13 years to make it to the public's attention. :-/
>
> Sorry....I do get distracted. About PCBs and dioxins.....
>
> Early work with rodents determined that some of these PCBs (there are around 200 different chemical structures under that umbrella) and a few of the dioxins were potent mutagens/carcinogens. Standard practise is to find the lowest dose at which the rodents appear to be affected, and then apply a 1000-fold reduction in that amount, as a sort of a safety factor. Well, when you do that for PCBs/dioxins, you're down in the low parts per billion, even parts per trillion range.
>
> Another assumption is that the dose/response curve is linear. You start at zero dose/zero effect, and as you increase the dose, you tend to increase the effect. They worked backwards from that assumption, when they interpolated the human safe dose of TCDD/PCBs based on the rodent work. What we didn't know was that the dose/response curve is not linear.
>
> In fact, with the dioxins and PCBs, what seems to happen is that as you move up from zero dose, the effect actually falls below zero (i.e. cancer rates fall, compared to unexposed people). I'm going to make an educated guess that our livers detect the trivial amounts that we are exposed to, and that protective enzymes are induced. And those enzymes protect us from other toxicants in our diets or environment. (Broccoli contains a carcinogen. You just never know what will get you.) Anyway, at some undefined higher dose, dixoins/PCBs will begin to act as carcinogens, and the dose/response curve will rise above zero (that's what is meant by hormesis.....inverse response depending on dose range). Based on the link I provided, those at the higher exposures of PCBs/dioxins were still not at the undefined level.
>
> > And what about heavy metals?
>
> Oh, we're much clearer on those. You do need to manage your heavy metal exposure. But, few doctors will tell you that selenium is protective against mercury.
>
> > ... Aughhhhh. I swear, sometimes, w health, and politics, and damn near everything, the absolute truth just seems unattainable.
>
> It's so true. Remember butter bad/margarine good? I had some very serious arguments about that one, early on. Steady yourself, but red meat just got a clean bill of health. (I have had some serious arguments about that, too. Being ahead of the curve is sometimes a challenge, but I am a stubborn lad.)
>
> Lar
Posted by Phillipa on June 22, 2011, at 19:33:35
In reply to Re: dioxins and hormesis » larryhoover, posted by Questionmark on June 21, 2011, at 22:43:20
Butter is healthier. Phillipa ps and eggs also okay.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.