Mooshie peas writes

Some killfiled moron:
I note a paper on athletes getting not-totally-explained
delayed-muscle-soreness at the beginning of the season. That is of course
at the end of winter when the beasts they may be eating have been
grain-fed. Could be worth some investigation.

You are apparently a good example of why raw medical research papers
should be kept from the great unwashed.

Sheesh. Anyone who does sport knows about this. Whole rafts of
schoolkids back from (every) holiday get this the day after their first
training session.

Very likely killfiled has never done any significant physical activity
in his life.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 18:17:31 +0200, Alf Christophersen
posted:

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 17:40:34 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:

What about lamb and eating it at different times of year?

Lamb are mainly slaughtered at autumn over here, and thus hs rather
high omega-3 to omega-6 ratio, (or low omega-6 to omega-3 ratio)

At Iceland where sheep always, more or less, are range feed (grazing
in mountains all days during year), they have one of the lowest
mortality rates from CVD, even having genes common with Norwegians and
other Northern Scandinavians, which has amongst the highest incidents
of these diseases. (but also high intake of meat from farmed animals,
except sheep nd lambs in autumn because they are fed in mountain
during spring/summer/autumn season. Rheumatic people seldom complains
about pain after eating lamb in autumn, while eating spring
slaughtered animals give them pain and eating pork meat always give
pain.
(Pigs are mostly fed omega-6 rich diet)


Has all this conjecture (?) been subject to test with double blind
placebo controlled studies?

Mooshie peas wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 18:17:31 +0200, Alf Christophersen
posted:

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 17:40:34 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:

What about lamb and eating it at different times of year?

Lamb are mainly slaughtered at autumn over here, and thus hs rather
high omega-3 to omega-6 ratio, (or low omega-6 to omega-3 ratio)

At Iceland where sheep always, more or less, are range feed (grazing
in mountains all days during year), they have one of the lowest
mortality rates from CVD, even having genes common with Norwegians and
other Northern Scandinavians, which has amongst the highest incidents
of these diseases. (but also high intake of meat from farmed animals,
except sheep nd lambs in autumn because they are fed in mountain
during spring/summer/autumn season. Rheumatic people seldom complains
about pain after eating lamb in autumn, while eating spring
slaughtered animals give them pain and eating pork meat always give
pain.
(Pigs are mostly fed omega-6 rich diet)


Has all this conjecture (?) been subject to test with double blind
placebo controlled studies?

Mooshie peas wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 18:17:31 +0200, Alf Christophersen
posted:

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 17:40:34 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:

What about lamb and eating it at different times of year?

Lamb are mainly slaughtered at autumn over here, and thus hs rather
high omega-3 to omega-6 ratio, (or low omega-6 to omega-3 ratio)

At Iceland where sheep always, more or less, are range feed (grazing
in mountains all days during year), they have one of the lowest
mortality rates from CVD, even having genes common with Norwegians and
other Northern Scandinavians, which has amongst the highest incidents
of these diseases. (but also high intake of meat from farmed animals,
except sheep nd lambs in autumn because they are fed in mountain
during spring/summer/autumn season. Rheumatic people seldom complains
about pain after eating lamb in autumn, while eating spring
slaughtered animals give them pain and eating pork meat always give
pain.
(Pigs are mostly fed omega-6 rich diet)


Has all this conjecture (?) been subject to test with double blind
placebo controlled studies?

Who would it pay to do the studies?

I note peer-reviewed journals are going to start pointing out to readers
when authors fail to declare their research-funding sources. A lot of
biotech studies and reviewers have failed to note their funding
connections to biotech industry, against the agreed convention.

Studies on omega-6 - arachidonic acid - inflammation, if proved
positive, might benefit persons who were hoping to be paying less for
medical treatment. So it looks as if any researchers interested would have
to compete for funds of the type which are not
govt-money-in-partnership-with-business. The current approach is to
encourage partnership with business, so non-partnership research-money is
rather hard to get.

As I said to Jim the connection of omega-6 to arachidonic to inflammation
is a bit obvious, like rain to being wet. We don't do a study on it
because it is rather obvious when money is short? Or is it that business
has investment in the health system, too, and guides it away from such
studies, since it would remove a lot of profit?

Mooshie peas wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 18:17:31 +0200, Alf Christophersen
posted:

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 17:40:34 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:

What about lamb and eating it at different times of year?

Lamb are mainly slaughtered at autumn over here, and thus hs rather
high omega-3 to omega-6 ratio, (or low omega-6 to omega-3 ratio)

At Iceland where sheep always, more or less, are range feed (grazing
in mountains all days during year), they have one of the lowest
mortality rates from CVD, even having genes common with Norwegians and
other Northern Scandinavians, which has amongst the highest incidents
of these diseases. (but also high intake of meat from farmed animals,
except sheep nd lambs in autumn because they are fed in mountain
during spring/summer/autumn season. Rheumatic people seldom complains
about pain after eating lamb in autumn, while eating spring
slaughtered animals give them pain and eating pork meat always give
pain.
(Pigs are mostly fed omega-6 rich diet)


Has all this conjecture (?) been subject to test with double blind
placebo controlled studies?

Who would it pay to do the studies?

I note peer-reviewed journals are going to start pointing out to readers
when authors fail to declare their research-funding sources. A lot of
biotech studies and reviewers have failed to note their funding
connections to biotech industry, against the agreed convention.

Studies on omega-6 - arachidonic acid - inflammation, if proved
positive, might benefit persons who were hoping to be paying less for
medical treatment. So it looks as if any researchers interested would have
to compete for funds of the type which are not
govt-money-in-partnership-with-business. The current approach is to
encourage partnership with business, so non-partnership research-money is
rather hard to get.

As I said to Jim the connection of omega-6 to arachidonic to inflammation
is a bit obvious, like rain to being wet. We don't do a study on it
because it is rather obvious when money is short? Or is it that business
has investment in the health system, too, and guides it away from such
studies, since it would remove a lot of profit?

In sci.med.nutrition Mooshie peas wrote:
On 18 Aug 2003 10:49:56 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Jim Webster wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message

Then how about milk differences between grass-silage and corn-silage fed
cows? Taste and keeping/nutritional qualities?

by the time milk has been pasturised, homogenised, standardised, you haven't
a cat in hells chance of telling.
Bigger difference between grass and silage, spring and winter than there is
between various winter feeds. Remember that the nutrition of a high
yielding dairy cow is a serious matter and carefully monitored.


Linkname: Rapport-skabelon
URL: http://www.agrsci.dk/ark/ARK-arsberetning2002_uk.shtml
size: 213 lines

[...]
Over the last couple of years maize has become increasingly popular in
the Danish silage production at the expense of grass because of a
better profitability. Therefore studies have been initiated to
investigate what consequences it has on different quality parameters
of milk to feed dairy cows maize silage instead of grass silage.

Milk from cows in an experiment with two groups of cows fed maize and
grass silage, respectively, in a cross-over experimental design for 2
x 4 weeks was subsequently analysed for:
* fatty acid composition
* content of carotenoids
* content of vitamin E

Furthermore, we have analysed sensory characteristics in fresh and
stored milk from the cows fed maize and grass silage, respectively.

The results of these investigations show, that feeding with maize
silage reduces the amount of the polyunsaturated fatty acid linolenic
acid in the milk, and at the same time the content of vitamin E and
beta-carotene is reduced with approximately 50% and 62%, respectively,
compared to milk from cows fed grass silage. Both vitamin E and
beta-carotene are important antioxidants that preserve the freshness
of milk, and therefore it should be assumed that a great reduction of
these antioxidants will reduce the shelf-life of milk as well as other
dairy products considerably.

The sensory analyses of the milk showed a significant difference
between the taste of milk from cows fed maize silage compared with the
milk from cows fed grass silage. Thus, the sensory panel described the
milk from cows fed maize silage as creamy, sweet and tasting like corn
flakes, which are all perceived as positive descriptors, whereas the
panel used descriptors about the milk from cows fed grass silage that
usually associate with negative tastes.
[...]

And other studies give grass-silage-fed cows as giving milk higher in the
cancer-protective conjugated linolenic acid, and other matters.

This is in many many foods.

Are you confusing linolenic acid with conjugated linolenic acid?

Linkname: Conjugated linolenic acid abstracts
URL: http://www.integratedhealth.com/infoabstract/claab.html
size: 641 lines

Brodie AE, Manning VA, Ferguson KR, Jewell DE, Hu CY

Department of Animal Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis OR
97331, USA.

Conjugated linoleic acid (CLA; 18:2) is a group of isomers (mainly
9-cis, 11-trans and 10-trans, 12-cis) of linoleic acid. CLA is the
product of rumen fermentation and can be found in the milk and muscle
of ruminants.
[...]

Am J Clin Nutr 1998 Feb;67(2):332-7

Safflower oil consumption does not increase plasma conjugated linoleic
acid concentrations in humans.

Herbel BK, McGuire MK, McGuire MA, Shultz TD

Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Washington State
University, Pullman 99164-6376, USA.

Conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) is a mixture of positional and
geometric isomers of linoleic acid (LA) with conjugated double bonds.
CLA has anticarcinogenic properties and has been identified in human
tissues, dairy products, meats, and certain vegetable oils. A variety
of animal products are good sources of CLA, but plant oils contain
much less. However, plant oils are a rich source of LA, which may be
isomerized to CLA by intestinal microorganisms in humans.

[...]

I used to notice the varying tastes in milk when I used it (pasteurised).

Blindfolded?

Why?

A few years ago I noted that full cream non-homogenised bottled milk had
started to have its top milk turned to butter by the time it was
delivered. In earlier years it was possible to pour off the top milk.
Perhaps corn feeding was increasing here?

And perhaps the bottles were jiggled more in transport.
Or a different breed of cow.

Except that a few years ago there was a big change from almost never
having the top milk as butter to almost always. And I have consumed lots
of full-cream non-homogenised milk over the years.

But my point is that if you don't notice any of those differences then
perhaps your perceptivity might not be trusted as to differences between
cows reactions to GM vs non-GM feed.

Hooley Dooley. Show us the scientific evidence.

To do that I would have to persuade someone. In the past I think research
has follwed my messages on Usenet, and I cannot rule out influence by me.

In sci.med.nutrition Mooshie peas wrote:
On 18 Aug 2003 07:04:58 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:
Then how about milk differences between grass-silage and corn-silage fed
cows? Taste and keeping/nutritional qualities?

Is this relevant to GM?

If you don't notice variations then you cannot be trusted to notice
any difference between GM and non-GM feedstuffs affects on animals.

On 5 Sep 2003 05:41:12 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Mooshie peas wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 18:17:31 +0200, Alf Christophersen
posted:

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 17:40:34 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:

What about lamb and eating it at different times of year?

Lamb are mainly slaughtered at autumn over here, and thus hs rather
high omega-3 to omega-6 ratio, (or low omega-6 to omega-3 ratio)

At Iceland where sheep always, more or less, are range feed (grazing
in mountains all days during year), they have one of the lowest
mortality rates from CVD, even having genes common with Norwegians and
other Northern Scandinavians, which has amongst the highest incidents
of these diseases. (but also high intake of meat from farmed animals,
except sheep nd lambs in autumn because they are fed in mountain
during spring/summer/autumn season. Rheumatic people seldom complains
about pain after eating lamb in autumn, while eating spring
slaughtered animals give them pain and eating pork meat always give
pain.
(Pigs are mostly fed omega-6 rich diet)


Has all this conjecture (?) been subject to test with double blind
placebo controlled studies?

Who would it pay to do the studies?

Science, public health, health insurance organisations, rich folk....

I note peer-reviewed journals are going to start pointing out to readers
when authors fail to declare their research-funding sources.

They usually do, don't they.

A lot of
biotech studies and reviewers have failed to note their funding
connections to biotech industry, against the agreed convention.

But it's not worth trying to hide something that will come out and
cause embarrassment later.

Studies on omega-6 - arachidonic acid - inflammation, if proved
positive, might benefit persons who were hoping to be paying less for
medical treatment.

About 6 billion of them about, I believe

So it looks as if any researchers interested would have
to compete for funds of the type which are not
govt-money-in-partnership-with-business.

Huh? Isn't Mrs Clark interested in your well-being?

The current approach is to
encourage partnership with business, so non-partnership research-money is
rather hard to get.

So how come there is so much research done on all of this?
I want to know what the concensus is.

As I said to Jim the connection of omega-6 to arachidonic to inflammation
is a bit obvious, like rain to being wet. We don't do a study on it
because it is rather obvious when money is short? Or is it that business
has investment in the health system, too, and guides it away from such
studies, since it would remove a lot of profit?

You seem so full of conspiracy theories that you can't see the wood
for the trees. Where is this concensus that linoleic acid causes
arachidonic acid causes inflammation causes CHD causes premature
disease and death? Perhaps obesity has a role in this?

On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 13:41:43 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:

Studies on omega-6 - arachidonic acid - inflammation, if proved
positive, might benefit persons who were hoping to be paying less for
medical treatment.

About 6 billion of them about, I believe

If pharmaceutical industry cannot prosper richly on the results, they
would do whatever possible to stop the research :-(

Mooshie peas wrote:
On 5 Sep 2003 05:41:12 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Mooshie peas wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 18:17:31 +0200, Alf Christophersen
posted:

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 17:40:34 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:

What about lamb and eating it at different times of year?

Lamb are mainly slaughtered at autumn over here, and thus hs rather
high omega-3 to omega-6 ratio, (or low omega-6 to omega-3 ratio)

At Iceland where sheep always, more or less, are range feed (grazing
in mountains all days during year), they have one of the lowest
mortality rates from CVD, even having genes common with Norwegians and
other Northern Scandinavians, which has amongst the highest incidents
of these diseases. (but also high intake of meat from farmed animals,
except sheep nd lambs in autumn because they are fed in mountain
during spring/summer/autumn season. Rheumatic people seldom complains
about pain after eating lamb in autumn, while eating spring
slaughtered animals give them pain and eating pork meat always give
pain.
(Pigs are mostly fed omega-6 rich diet)


Has all this conjecture (?) been subject to test with double blind
placebo controlled studies?

Who would it pay to do the studies?

Science, public health, health insurance organisations, rich folk....

And what do you do when the university accepts funding from a
tobacco company?

When public health spend money, i.e. tax, people grumble.

I note peer-reviewed journals are going to start pointing out to readers
when authors fail to declare their research-funding sources.

They usually do, don't they.

They give where they work, but if it's at a university &c. they
should also say who may be funding them.

A lot of
biotech studies and reviewers have failed to note their funding
connections to biotech industry, against the agreed convention.

But it's not worth trying to hide something that will come out and
cause embarrassment later.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20010823/04/

`Though the subject is now in the public eye, it is not new. As long
ago as 1998, Richard Smith, editor of the British Medical Journal
(BMJ), wrote in an editorial that, "Those who argue against concerns
about conflict of interest say that science is science, methods are
transparent, data either support the conclusions or do not? [But]
this argument is becoming steadily less tenable as evidence
accumulates on the influence of conflict of interest."'

Studies on omega-6 - arachidonic acid - inflammation, if proved
positive, might benefit persons who were hoping to be paying less for
medical treatment.

About 6 billion of them about, I believe

So it looks as if any researchers interested would have
to compete for funds of the type which are not
govt-money-in-partnership-with-business.

Huh? Isn't Mrs Clark interested in your well-being?

I think the govt is interested in being the govt, dancing to the
tune of the financial and world powers that be.

The current approach is to
encourage partnership with business, so non-partnership research-money is
rather hard to get.

So how come there is so much research done on all of this?

There is a lot of competition for public good funding, but there is
some. I suppose it's thought important and drug companies want to
know about inflammation, too.

I want to know what the concensus is.

Searching Pubmed for
linolenic arachidonic cox inflammation
gives me only two results.

The work is going into mecahnism rather than proof of epidemiology.

As I said to Jim the connection of omega-6 to arachidonic to inflammation
is a bit obvious, like rain to being wet. We don't do a study on it
because it is rather obvious when money is short? Or is it that business
has investment in the health system, too, and guides it away from such
studies, since it would remove a lot of profit?

You seem so full of conspiracy theory

??

that you can't see the wood
for the trees.

What is the wood?

Where is this concensus that linoleic acid causes
arachidonic acid causes inflammation causes CHD causes premature
disease and death?

Search as above, taking it one step further back to linolenic acid.

Perhaps obesity has a role in this?

Result or cause?