Angelwing, protein levels, and processed food - Can this be a sticky?
- Thread starter Duck Keeper
- Start date
- Status
- Mar 21, 2009
- 2,229
- 52
- 349
There is certainly good reason to question what is out there about nutrition. I am sure you know more, Wifezilla, than the average doctor on the subject. They learn next to nothing about nutrition. Not to mention, look how much dietary recommendations have changed over the years.
Quote:
YES!!! We would all be advised to do this! And don't forget advice regarding medical conditions too!!! Look at what's happening with people's fertility problems, or cancer rates, or heart disease, autoimmune disease, autism . . . .
Something is very wrong!!!!
YES!!! We would all be advised to do this! And don't forget advice regarding medical conditions too!!! Look at what's happening with people's fertility problems, or cancer rates, or heart disease, autoimmune disease, autism . . . .
Something is very wrong!!!!
Whats wrong is the AMA is in bed with the drug companies.
Yes, that's part of it.
Speaking of autism, the theory that makes the most sense is the vitamin D theory.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=vitamin-d-and-autism
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health/autism/
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/health/17auti.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2
Fertility is also linked to vitamin D levels.
Then you have obesity, type 2 diabetes and heart disease...more than enough evidence to show grains and starches in the diet in ever increasing amounts are behind that.
Cancer? It's a combination of vitamin D deficiency and a high carbohydrate diet.
So the government's advice to stay out of the sun and eat plenty of grains (government subsidized no less) has given us a 40% obesity rate, higher heart disease rates and more cancer than ever along with an explosion in the number of autistic children.
Speaking of autism, the theory that makes the most sense is the vitamin D theory.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=vitamin-d-and-autism
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health/autism/
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/health/17auti.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2
Fertility is also linked to vitamin D levels.
Then you have obesity, type 2 diabetes and heart disease...more than enough evidence to show grains and starches in the diet in ever increasing amounts are behind that.
Cancer? It's a combination of vitamin D deficiency and a high carbohydrate diet.
So the government's advice to stay out of the sun and eat plenty of grains (government subsidized no less) has given us a 40% obesity rate, higher heart disease rates and more cancer than ever along with an explosion in the number of autistic children.
Couple winters ago we went to Mexico and I went to the tanner before we left. I usually get every cold and flu that comes down the pike but that winter I didn't.
I even survived the flu that everybody but me got where I work that winter.
I was amazed! I kept waiting to get sick and didn't!
I was like...awesome!!!!
I believe it was because I got the extra Vit D from the tanner and sunshine in Mexico.
This winter I went to the tanner once a week or so and took Vit D3. I did get 1 cold but not a bad one and nothing else. Also the last 2 winters I didn't feel crappy/bla like I usually do so I'm a believer.
BTW flu shots are evil as far as I'm concerned and don't believe all that bull about the swine and bird flu. Total propaganda!
How the heck did we go from angel wing to vitamin D??? LMBO!
I even survived the flu that everybody but me got where I work that winter.
I was amazed! I kept waiting to get sick and didn't!
I was like...awesome!!!!
I believe it was because I got the extra Vit D from the tanner and sunshine in Mexico.
This winter I went to the tanner once a week or so and took Vit D3. I did get 1 cold but not a bad one and nothing else. Also the last 2 winters I didn't feel crappy/bla like I usually do so I'm a believer.
BTW flu shots are evil as far as I'm concerned and don't believe all that bull about the swine and bird flu. Total propaganda!
How the heck did we go from angel wing to vitamin D??? LMBO!
Last edited:
Well, vitamin D can be an anti-oxidant, and deficits certainly have reprocussions, but the fact is you probably didn't get the virus because you already had some form of it before and had antibodies. That's just how it works.
While I'd agree that DOCTORS don't know very much about nutrition, especially how things are metabolized, I'd have to disagree that real nutritionists, those that have biochemsitry PhD's, absolutely know a thing or two. Ditto for toxicologists.
Since there are no angel wing studies, I guess we'll never know, but if I knew that I was getting high prices ducks or goslings that came from an angle wing line, I'd be ticked.
And the cancer thing - no, sorry. Cancer is a factor of age and or mutation. It is a natural product of the cell cycle that has broken down due to carcinogens or metabolism changes as one ages.
Casuality is not that easily drawn. And staying out of the sun, while it too has its reprocussions, does save you from skin cancer. Which is a factor of UV rays, which is radiation, which is a carcinogen.
It isn't the diet per se - it is all the combining factors that lead to disease. Grains don't cause cancer. Grains contain starch which is broken down into sugars. Your whole body runs on sugar - ATP remember? That is basic nutrition 101.
While I'd agree that DOCTORS don't know very much about nutrition, especially how things are metabolized, I'd have to disagree that real nutritionists, those that have biochemsitry PhD's, absolutely know a thing or two. Ditto for toxicologists.
Since there are no angel wing studies, I guess we'll never know, but if I knew that I was getting high prices ducks or goslings that came from an angle wing line, I'd be ticked.
And the cancer thing - no, sorry. Cancer is a factor of age and or mutation. It is a natural product of the cell cycle that has broken down due to carcinogens or metabolism changes as one ages.
Casuality is not that easily drawn. And staying out of the sun, while it too has its reprocussions, does save you from skin cancer. Which is a factor of UV rays, which is radiation, which is a carcinogen.
It isn't the diet per se - it is all the combining factors that lead to disease. Grains don't cause cancer. Grains contain starch which is broken down into sugars. Your whole body runs on sugar - ATP remember? That is basic nutrition 101.
And the cancer thing - no, sorry. Cancer is a factor of age and or mutation. It is a natural product of the cell cycle that has broken down due to carcinogens or metabolism changes as one ages.
A LARGE cause of metabolism change is a high carbohydrate diet.
"The absence of malignant cancer in isolated population prompted question about why cancer did develop elsewhere. One early hypothesis was that meat-eating was the problem, and that the primitive populations were protected from cancer by eating mostly vegetarian diets But this failed to explain why malignancies were prevalent among Hindus i India - "to whom the fleshpot is an abomination" - and rare to absent in the Inuit, Masai, and other decidedly carnivorous populations. (This hypothesis "hardly holds good in regards to the [American] Indians," as Isaac Levin wrote in 1910. "They consume a great deal of food [rich in nitrogen-i.e. meat], frequently to excess.")" - Gary Taubes GCBC, page 95
"Richard Doll and Bruce Armstrong had found sugar intake in international comparisons to be "positively correlated with both the incidence of and mortality from" colon, rectal, breast, ovarian, prostate, kidney, nervous-system, and testicular cancer, and that "other investigators have produced similar finding."
The apptern of cancer incidence, for many cancers, are similar to those of heart disease, diabetes, and obesity, which alone suggest an association between these diseases that is more than coincidental. This was the basis of Cleave's speculation, of Dennis Burkitt's and of those cancer epidemiologists who argued that dietary fat caused breast cancer. But if dietary fat, red meat, man-made chemicals, or even the absence of fiber cannot explain the "strikingly similar" patterns of disease distribution, as the Harvard epidemiologist Edward Giovannucci remarked about colon cancer and type 2 diabetes in 2001, then someone else most likely does.
Those cancers apparently caused by lifestyle and are not related to tobacco use are either cancers of the gastrointestinal tract, including colon and rectal cancers, or cancers of what are technically known as endocrine-dependent organs - breasts, uterus, ovaries, and prostate - the functions of which are regulated by hormones." - Gary Taubes GCBC page 212
"A new report from Duke University ads further evidence to the theory that carbohydrates fuel cancer growth. While previous studies showed that carbohydrate restriction could slow prostate cancer in an animal study, they were not sure if it was the weight loss these animals experienced that was slowing the tumors, or if was the carbohydrate restriction that was responsible.
This new study was designed to keep the weight of the test subjects the same. When mice on a no-carbohydrate/very high fat diet were compared to mice on a low fat/high carb diet or a high fat/high carb diet, the no-carb mice fared much better."
http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=91960642308&h=D_Q9g&u=YBFIF&ref=nf
"Cases of esophageal cancer (adenocarcinoma) in the U.S. have risen in recent decades from 300,000 cases in 1973 to 2.1 million in 2001 at age-adjusted rates. A new study shows that these rates in the U.S. closely mirrored trends of increased carbohydrate intake and obesity from 1973-2001."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080225112604.htm
"In a case-control study of 1,866 women in Mexico, those who derived 57 or more percent of their total energy intake from carbohydrates incurred a risk of breast cancer 2.2 times higher than women with more balanced diets. Dietary patterns in Mexico are characterized by higher consumption of carbohydrates and lower intake of fat and animal protein than those in more affluent western countries."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/08/040806094822.htm
"We have all been brainwashed into believing that eating foods with any type of fat is a heart attack on a plate, despite the fact that saturated and mono-unsaturated fats have never been shown to cause heart disease, but have been shown to protect against this and many other serious diseases...
Before the twentieth century, most of the fatty acids in the diet were either saturated or monounsaturated, primarily from animal fats such as butter, lard and beef and mutton dripping. In those days, fewer than one in twenty-seven people got cancer and heart disease was so rare that very few doctors had even heard of it, let alone seen a case. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, most of the fats in the diet are polyunsaturated from vegetable oils, and cancer now affects one person in two and heart disease is a major killer." - Barry Groves, "Eat Fat Get Thin"
"Jonathan Coloff, a graduate student in Assistant Professor Jeffrey Rathmell's laboratory in the Duke Department of Pharmacology and Cancer Biology, has found that the tumor cells use glucose sugar as a way to avoid programmed cell death. They make use of a protein called Akt, which promotes glucose metabolism, which in turn regulates a family of proteins critical for cell survival, the researchers shared during an April 15 presentation at the American Association of Cancer Research Annual Meeting in San Diego."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080415194236.htm
A LARGE cause of metabolism change is a high carbohydrate diet.
"The absence of malignant cancer in isolated population prompted question about why cancer did develop elsewhere. One early hypothesis was that meat-eating was the problem, and that the primitive populations were protected from cancer by eating mostly vegetarian diets But this failed to explain why malignancies were prevalent among Hindus i India - "to whom the fleshpot is an abomination" - and rare to absent in the Inuit, Masai, and other decidedly carnivorous populations. (This hypothesis "hardly holds good in regards to the [American] Indians," as Isaac Levin wrote in 1910. "They consume a great deal of food [rich in nitrogen-i.e. meat], frequently to excess.")" - Gary Taubes GCBC, page 95
"Richard Doll and Bruce Armstrong had found sugar intake in international comparisons to be "positively correlated with both the incidence of and mortality from" colon, rectal, breast, ovarian, prostate, kidney, nervous-system, and testicular cancer, and that "other investigators have produced similar finding."
The apptern of cancer incidence, for many cancers, are similar to those of heart disease, diabetes, and obesity, which alone suggest an association between these diseases that is more than coincidental. This was the basis of Cleave's speculation, of Dennis Burkitt's and of those cancer epidemiologists who argued that dietary fat caused breast cancer. But if dietary fat, red meat, man-made chemicals, or even the absence of fiber cannot explain the "strikingly similar" patterns of disease distribution, as the Harvard epidemiologist Edward Giovannucci remarked about colon cancer and type 2 diabetes in 2001, then someone else most likely does.
Those cancers apparently caused by lifestyle and are not related to tobacco use are either cancers of the gastrointestinal tract, including colon and rectal cancers, or cancers of what are technically known as endocrine-dependent organs - breasts, uterus, ovaries, and prostate - the functions of which are regulated by hormones." - Gary Taubes GCBC page 212
"A new report from Duke University ads further evidence to the theory that carbohydrates fuel cancer growth. While previous studies showed that carbohydrate restriction could slow prostate cancer in an animal study, they were not sure if it was the weight loss these animals experienced that was slowing the tumors, or if was the carbohydrate restriction that was responsible.
This new study was designed to keep the weight of the test subjects the same. When mice on a no-carbohydrate/very high fat diet were compared to mice on a low fat/high carb diet or a high fat/high carb diet, the no-carb mice fared much better."
http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=91960642308&h=D_Q9g&u=YBFIF&ref=nf
"Cases of esophageal cancer (adenocarcinoma) in the U.S. have risen in recent decades from 300,000 cases in 1973 to 2.1 million in 2001 at age-adjusted rates. A new study shows that these rates in the U.S. closely mirrored trends of increased carbohydrate intake and obesity from 1973-2001."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080225112604.htm
"In a case-control study of 1,866 women in Mexico, those who derived 57 or more percent of their total energy intake from carbohydrates incurred a risk of breast cancer 2.2 times higher than women with more balanced diets. Dietary patterns in Mexico are characterized by higher consumption of carbohydrates and lower intake of fat and animal protein than those in more affluent western countries."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/08/040806094822.htm
"We have all been brainwashed into believing that eating foods with any type of fat is a heart attack on a plate, despite the fact that saturated and mono-unsaturated fats have never been shown to cause heart disease, but have been shown to protect against this and many other serious diseases...
Before the twentieth century, most of the fatty acids in the diet were either saturated or monounsaturated, primarily from animal fats such as butter, lard and beef and mutton dripping. In those days, fewer than one in twenty-seven people got cancer and heart disease was so rare that very few doctors had even heard of it, let alone seen a case. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, most of the fats in the diet are polyunsaturated from vegetable oils, and cancer now affects one person in two and heart disease is a major killer." - Barry Groves, "Eat Fat Get Thin"
"Jonathan Coloff, a graduate student in Assistant Professor Jeffrey Rathmell's laboratory in the Duke Department of Pharmacology and Cancer Biology, has found that the tumor cells use glucose sugar as a way to avoid programmed cell death. They make use of a protein called Akt, which promotes glucose metabolism, which in turn regulates a family of proteins critical for cell survival, the researchers shared during an April 15 presentation at the American Association of Cancer Research Annual Meeting in San Diego."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080415194236.htm
vitamin D can be an anti-oxidant, and deficits certainly have reprocussions, but the fact is you probably didn't get the virus because you already had some form of it before and had antibodies. That's just how it works.
"To gauge the specific relationship between vitamin D and respiratory risk, Ginde's team analyzed data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, collected from 1988 to 1994.
Participants were aged 12 and up -- with an average age of 38 -- and three-quarters were white. All completed nutritional and health surveys and had physical examinations. Blood samples were taken to measure levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D, considered to be the optimal measure of vitamin D status.
The researchers found that those with less than 10 nanograms of vitamin D per milliliter of blood, considered low, were nearly 40 percent more likely to have had a respiratory infection than those with vitamin D levels of 30 ng or higher. The finding was consistent across all races and ages.
In particular, people who had a history of asthma or some form of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were even more likely to suffer from vitamin D deficiencies.
Asthma patients with the lowest vitamin D levels had five times the risk for respiratory infection, and vitamin D-deficient COPD patients had twice the risk.
"We still need to do the clinical trials that we already have planned to definitely say whether supplementation with vitamin D would actually reduce the risk we found," Ginde cautioned. "But I think we can say that most Americans probably do need more vitamin D for its effects on bone health, as well as for its general benefits with respect to the immune system."
Lona Sandon, an assistant professor of clinical nutrition at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and a spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Association, said that evidence of a vitamin D-immune system connection seems "pretty strong."
"There does seem to be a link because, when we're not getting enough vitamin D, our immune system appears not to function at its best," she said."
http://health.usnews.com/articles/h...le-vitamin-d-may-mean-more-colds-and-flu.html
"Vitamin D may be an important way to arm the immune system against disorders like the common cold, report investigators from the University of Colorado Denver (UC Denver) School of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) and Children's Hospital Boston.
In the largest and most nationally representative study of the association between vitamin D and respiratory infections, people with the lowest blood vitamin D levels reported having significantly more recent colds or cases of the flu. The risks were even higher for those with chronic respiratory disorders, such as asthma and emphysema. The report appears in the February 23 Archives of Internal Medicine."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090223221242.htm
"To gauge the specific relationship between vitamin D and respiratory risk, Ginde's team analyzed data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, collected from 1988 to 1994.
Participants were aged 12 and up -- with an average age of 38 -- and three-quarters were white. All completed nutritional and health surveys and had physical examinations. Blood samples were taken to measure levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D, considered to be the optimal measure of vitamin D status.
The researchers found that those with less than 10 nanograms of vitamin D per milliliter of blood, considered low, were nearly 40 percent more likely to have had a respiratory infection than those with vitamin D levels of 30 ng or higher. The finding was consistent across all races and ages.
In particular, people who had a history of asthma or some form of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were even more likely to suffer from vitamin D deficiencies.
Asthma patients with the lowest vitamin D levels had five times the risk for respiratory infection, and vitamin D-deficient COPD patients had twice the risk.
"We still need to do the clinical trials that we already have planned to definitely say whether supplementation with vitamin D would actually reduce the risk we found," Ginde cautioned. "But I think we can say that most Americans probably do need more vitamin D for its effects on bone health, as well as for its general benefits with respect to the immune system."
Lona Sandon, an assistant professor of clinical nutrition at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and a spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Association, said that evidence of a vitamin D-immune system connection seems "pretty strong."
"There does seem to be a link because, when we're not getting enough vitamin D, our immune system appears not to function at its best," she said."
http://health.usnews.com/articles/h...le-vitamin-d-may-mean-more-colds-and-flu.html
"Vitamin D may be an important way to arm the immune system against disorders like the common cold, report investigators from the University of Colorado Denver (UC Denver) School of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) and Children's Hospital Boston.
In the largest and most nationally representative study of the association between vitamin D and respiratory infections, people with the lowest blood vitamin D levels reported having significantly more recent colds or cases of the flu. The risks were even higher for those with chronic respiratory disorders, such as asthma and emphysema. The report appears in the February 23 Archives of Internal Medicine."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090223221242.htm
The researchers found that those with less than 10 nanograms of vitamin D per milliliter of blood, considered low, were nearly 40 percent more likely to have had a respiratory infection than those with vitamin D levels of 30 ng or higher. The finding was consistent across all races and ages.
In particular, people who had a history of asthma or some form of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were even more likely to suffer from vitamin D deficiencies.
Asthma patients with the lowest vitamin D levels had five times the risk for respiratory infection, and vitamin D-deficient COPD patients had twice the risk.
I did not read the study itself.....but this seems to suggest that it is assumed that the low vitamin D is a cause and not just a symptom....when it could be either. MANY studies work this way in making assumptions that may or may not be true, and the assumption is never addressed. For example many say that tv causes violence b/c a some kids that watch violent shows become violent.........well who's to say they don't like watching violent shows because they are already considering doing something violent??? There are so many different ways to look at everything...most studies only go from one angle and ignore the others.
I know that vitamin D is very important.......i'm just pointing out a flaw in MANY scientific studies that few notice or are willing to point out. You can not assume that every scientific study is providing 100% completely valid results.
In particular, people who had a history of asthma or some form of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were even more likely to suffer from vitamin D deficiencies.
Asthma patients with the lowest vitamin D levels had five times the risk for respiratory infection, and vitamin D-deficient COPD patients had twice the risk.
I did not read the study itself.....but this seems to suggest that it is assumed that the low vitamin D is a cause and not just a symptom....when it could be either. MANY studies work this way in making assumptions that may or may not be true, and the assumption is never addressed. For example many say that tv causes violence b/c a some kids that watch violent shows become violent.........well who's to say they don't like watching violent shows because they are already considering doing something violent??? There are so many different ways to look at everything...most studies only go from one angle and ignore the others.
I know that vitamin D is very important.......i'm just pointing out a flaw in MANY scientific studies that few notice or are willing to point out. You can not assume that every scientific study is providing 100% completely valid results.
- Status
Similar threads
New posts New threads Active threads
-
Latest threads
-
Cochin bantam eyelid issue and hen or roo?- Started by BarbuDeWatermaelLover
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
-
-
Threads with more replies in the last 15 days
-
-
-
-
-
Prettiest chicken breeds and plumage color- Started by Beau plus penny
- Replies: 46
-
