Re: Fructose (was Sugar Consumption Post-Workout - Any Benefit?)

[Guest guest]

On 9/29/05, miffytiramisu <miffytiramisu@...> wrote:

> The whole fructose pathway is made up of multiple pathways that result

> in glucose, glycogen, VLDL, and Acetyl-CoA. The pathway I described

> before results in glucose->ATP. I do not know of the percentages of

> each end product. However, because fructose is converted to F6P, it

> bypasses the rate-controlling step 6-phosphofructokinase (which

> inhibits glucose metabolism). Because fructose metabolism is not

> inhibited (keep in mind that metabolism does not necessarily mean

> " burning for energy " , rather " processing for usage by the body " ),

> there is much more Acetyl-CoA production from glycolysis. Since

> Acetyl-CoA is a precursor for de novo lipogenesis, it would be wise to

> assume that high fructose consumption will result in a greater fat

> gain than an equal amount of glucose.

Thanks Nina. I'll take a look at my biochem book and also the

fructose reviews I have tomorrow and let you know what I think about

this. I can't think right now-- I just finally put the finishing

touches on my dioxin article and it's 4:24 am and I'm a bit loopy...

LOL...

So what's your background? Are you a grad student or a researcher or

do you just like looking things up?

Chris

--

Statin Drugs Kill Your Brain

And Cause Transient Global Amnesia:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Statin-Drugs-Side-Effects.html

[Guest guest]

> Thanks Nina. I'll take a look at my biochem book and also the

> fructose reviews I have tomorrow and let you know what I think about

> this. I can't think right now-- I just finally put the finishing

> touches on my dioxin article and it's 4:24 am and I'm a bit loopy...

> LOL...

Pulling all-nighters will do that to you, haha.

> So what's your background? Are you a grad student or a researcher or

> do you just like looking things up?

*chuckles* Oh, nothing that lofty! I'm a nutritional sciences major

with some college-level biology and supplemental nutritional classes.

The biology gives me enough background to understand PubMed/research

articles, and I really enjoy learning more about certain subjects, so

I guess I just like looking things up.

> Chris

>

> --

> Statin Drugs Kill Your Brain

> And Cause Transient Global Amnesia:

> http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Statin-Drugs-Side-Effects.html

[Guest guest]

> *chuckles* Oh, nothing that lofty! I'm a nutritional sciences major

> with some college-level biology and supplemental nutritional classes.

> The biology gives me enough background to understand PubMed/research

> articles, and I really enjoy learning more about certain subjects, so

> I guess I just like looking things up.

So what will a nutritional sciences give you? A B.S.? Does it

certify you for any type of counseling, or is it a pre-req to, or

helpful to attain, that type of certification? Or... what will you

end up doing with it?

I have a B.A. in History (yeah, that was dumb), but I also have a

separate 43 credits in lab sciences including cellular biology and lab

training roughly equivalent to a biology B.S. I think. I'll reply to

the fructose soon.

Chris

--

Statin Drugs Kill Your Brain

And Cause Transient Global Amnesia:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Statin-Drugs-Side-Effects.html

[Guest guest]

> So what will a nutritional sciences give you? A B.S.? Does it

> certify you for any type of counseling, or is it a pre-req to, or

> helpful to attain, that type of certification?

I don't know about this specifically, but generally states control

which services are in need of license, registration or

certification. Nutrition has always been a tricky area, as in some

states it could be considered practicing without a license to give

nutritional advice to clients receiving other care (like personal

training, massage, etc.).

I only interject here because it is for this very reason that I

finally decided once and for all that I could not lead a WAPF

chapter. TX is an in between state legally, but I am just not

interested in the science of nutrition in a teaching capacity -

liability could factor in theoretically in such a role. Eating is

fun and sharing is great. But there is a line that can be crossed,

methinks, in terms of diagnosing and prescribing. I have often

wondered why WAPF doesn't have more in the way of dieticians, MDs

and nutritionists on hand. I mean, if the message is reasonable,

why aren't there more people with the proper background touting it?

I only know fitness myself, else I don't care much for biology

beyond my family's need. Hats off to those who choose this career

path, though. A different voice is definitely needed.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

On 9/29/05, yoginidd <hl@...> wrote:

> I have often

> wondered why WAPF doesn't have more in the way of dieticians, MDs

> and nutritionists on hand. I mean, if the message is reasonable,

> why aren't there more people with the proper background touting it?

I'm not sure what you mean. There seems to be lots of doc's at the

WAPF conference. I have no way of knowing how many doc's know about

the WAPF or are affiliated in some way, but I've encountered a few

around here, which I think is impressive considering the stage of the

game WAPF is at. The doctor who practices directly across the street

from me is WAPF, and there are WAPish dentists about 50 minutes from

me.

That said, there is legal issues even if you're licensed. It might

depend on the state, but I'm pretty sure in some cases you could get

your licensed yanked if you counseled people to eat high-cholesterol

diets, for example.

Chris

--

Statin Drugs Kill Your Brain

And Cause Transient Global Amnesia:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Statin-Drugs-Side-Effects.html

[Guest guest]

> I'm not sure what you mean. There seems to be lots of doc's at the

> WAPF conference. I have no way of knowing how many doc's know about

> the WAPF or are affiliated in some way, but I've encountered a few

> around here, which I think is impressive considering the stage of

the game WAPF is at.

What I mean is by way of writing articles and such. Some articles are

written by NDs or whathaveyou, and certainly laypeople can research

and present things. There are health practitioners with WAPF or

espousing their views, yes, but I have not seen anything in the way of

registered dieticians. I could be wrong, of course. I am just

rambling on about perceptions of the foundation and its

representatives, considering it covers nutrition mainly in its

mission. Certainly it would help to have people with nutritional

backgrounds around when advocating a diet or dietary standards to the

masses. That's all.

> That said, there is legal issues even if you're licensed. It might

> depend on the state, but I'm pretty sure in some cases you could get

> your licensed yanked if you counseled people to eat high-cholesterol

> diets, for example.

Yes, I think you could have problems at least by way of warnings if

you advocate against orthodoxy. I think if the reasons are sound and

you can back up claims, then it might not be such a horrible thing.

But practicing without a license can be a no no as well. I have no

idea whether profit and/or injury to a client would have to occur

before action against a 'nutrition counselor' would ensue. Could a

chapter leader or even the WAPF be liable for practicing without a

license? I don't know. I used to be a personal trainer and I do know

that people can and have been slapped on the wrist for giving dietary

advice, which is seen as beyond the realm of mere mortals <g>. Right

wrong or indifferent, I am wondering about this seriously as state

regulations DO exist.

WAPF has been trying to get access to a lab going, correct? I wonder

if they will hire researchers in this event. Presently - and I

realize the foundation is in its toddlerhood - funding for WAPF mainly

comes from member dues and mainly goes into the conference.

Deanna, realizing fructose isn't a proper subject anymore

[Guest guest]

On 9/30/05, yoginidd <hl@...> wrote:

> What I mean is by way of writing articles and such. Some articles are

> written by NDs or whathaveyou, and certainly laypeople can research

> and present things. There are health practitioners with WAPF or

> espousing their views, yes, but I have not seen anything in the way of

> registered dieticians. I could be wrong, of course. I am just

> rambling on about perceptions of the foundation and its

> representatives, considering it covers nutrition mainly in its

> mission. Certainly it would help to have people with nutritional

> backgrounds around when advocating a diet or dietary standards to the

> masses. That's all.

Umm, ok, but how about Enig? A certified nutritonist has no

credibility whatsoever in my view, because their work concerns

counseling people, and not researching. But Enig IS a certified

nutritional consultant, even at state and Federal governmet levels,

and she's the vice-president, science editor, and a major contributor.

> WAPF has been trying to get access to a lab going, correct? I wonder

> if they will hire researchers in this event. Presently - and I

> realize the foundation is in its toddlerhood - funding for WAPF mainly

> comes from member dues and mainly goes into the conference.

I don't know how their funding is broken up, but it seems pretty clear

that the conference is the wisest place to put the bulk of the money

right now. And that's ESPECIALLY true for causing the growth of

doctors, researchers, and nutritional consultants in the Foundation.

The conference brings in LOTS of non-members, from advertising, and

from nutritional consultants who want credit for attending lectures

and whatever else. The WAPF does not have the resources to start a

lab, and the conference is by far the best investment at the present

when considering long-term goals.

Chris

--

Statin Drugs Kill Your Brain

And Cause Transient Global Amnesia:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Statin-Drugs-Side-Effects.html

[Guest guest]

Oh cool-- Langsjoen has actually done some published research on CoQ10

I've seen cited a few times. And I have to go to the root canal

thing. I wonder if he'll discuss fixing root canals with laser at

all-- I have one left, and I'd really rather not have it taken out.

Chris

--

Statin Drugs Kill Your Brain

And Cause Transient Global Amnesia:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Statin-Drugs-Side-Effects.html

[Guest guest]

> Umm, ok, but how about Enig? A certified nutritonist has no

> credibility whatsoever in my view, because their work concerns

> counseling people, and not researching. But Enig IS a certified

> nutritional consultant, even at state and Federal governmet levels,

> and she's the vice-president, science editor, and a major contributor.

Enig rocks! However, didn't Sally say recently that was

kind of bowing out of such an active role? RD is a more 'prestigious'

title than certified nutritionist, I do believe. Even MDs refer

patients to RDs, fwiw. But I think a biochemist like Dr. Enig is way

more qualified to tout nutrition than a RD. Where's the new

nutrition/biochemist folks at WAPF?

This discussion came up not so long ago when it was suggested that

write a book. He said something like Sally wrote NT with 's

Ph.D to give it the authority it needed, or something ( will

correct me if I am mincing his words, in which case, I'll have to

search the quote ;P). That is all I am getting at.

For a group so bent on good science-based nutrition, perhaps it would

help to at least get some of the MDs at the conference to write or

give permission to use their lectures in materials beyond this, like

in WT. No offense, but every group and their mother have conferences

for this and that, from Weil to Wolfe. It doesn't mean a

thing except a nice profit for the presenters and hopefully something

for the participants. I am sure WAPF will have meaty offerings, but

it should extend beyond one event, imho.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

,

> I didn't know about that, but it's depressing and unfortunate if

perfectly

> understandable and reasonable if true. The Foundation is definitely

going

> to need to replace her with someone every bit as respectable if

Enig's not

> going to be so visible and active anymore.

I think it was said that she was getting old. Bless her and her work,

she deserves to retire now, eh? I agree that they will need some more

umph when she does fade out.

> shouldn't matter. Both professions are responsible for planning

such atrocities as hospital food.

I hear ya. And it is funny how they kind of change their tune with

the prevailing winds and trends du jour. MSNBC's nutrition 'expert'

is going more and more pro veg every article. I guess that's a step

up from Mc 's a hop skip and jump from intensive care ... or

maybe that's the ticket: more need for care after the Big Mac and fries.

> That's about the size of it. It's not that I couldn't write a book

(and I

> got yet another suggestion to do exactly that just today, and from just

> about the strangest imaginable quarter, too) but getting it

published and

> taken seriously would be something else entirely.

Gawd I hate writing on the web. Sorry for the funky quoting. So what

type of book have you been nudged to write?

> I agree, but where's the money going to come from?

Well, they have last year's stats on the web:

http://www.westonaprice.org/funding.html

As you can see, membership is the big income for WAPF. If you look at

the conference by itself (different colors for income v. expense), it

seems as though the conference actually cost more than it brought in

last year. So, if this is any indication of the viability of the

conference, why have it? Answer: income for presenters/host. And

that is fine, and so is PR. I would only hope that there will be a

shift in time in the black for the conference, otherwise, they should

maybe try lower key regional ones. Just my frugal $.02.

Deanna, now awaiting the AMD64 processor, 250 GB HD and other goodies

PS. Linux rocks! OSS all the way!

[Guest guest]

On 9/30/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> They very well could, and they very well might if the organization gets

> bigger and starts to look like a threat to industry.

By the way, the WAPF is already on the government's radar. Sally was

just saying that her and did a radio intervew back when WAPF was

small, and two weeks later the radio station had the *President* of

the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute come in to refute what

they said.

Last year at the conference, Sally said the FDA had a meeting where

how to deal with the WAPF's advocation of raw milk was apparently a

major item on the agenda!

> Hell, as list-owner, *I* could be in for a lawsuit someday.

I suppose that doesn't put me in a good position either. Oh well...

Chris

--

Statin Drugs Kill Your Brain

And Cause Transient Global Amnesia:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Statin-Drugs-Side-Effects.html

[Guest guest]

On 9/30/05, yoginidd <hl@...> wrote:

> For a group so bent on good science-based nutrition, perhaps it would

> help to at least get some of the MDs at the conference to write or

> give permission to use their lectures in materials beyond this, like

> in WT. No offense, but every group and their mother have conferences

> for this and that, from Weil to Wolfe. It doesn't mean a

> thing except a nice profit for the presenters and hopefully something

> for the participants. I am sure WAPF will have meaty offerings, but

> it should extend beyond one event, imho.

Of course it should, but WAPF is growing at tremendous speeds, and the

conference is a MAJOR part of that growth. WAPF is centered around he

activity of its local chapters, so I hardly can see how its activity

could in any way be seen as limited to the conference. Most of the

WAPF activities are low-cost monetarily, so that's not a good way of

viewing how the activity is distributed. The conference at the

present time IS the best place to put the money, considering the

impact is has on the growth of the Foundation.

Chris

--

Statin Drugs Kill Your Brain

And Cause Transient Global Amnesia:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Statin-Drugs-Side-Effects.html

[Guest guest]

On 9/30/05, yoginidd <hl@...> wrote:

> As you can see, membership is the big income for WAPF. If you look at

> the conference by itself (different colors for income v. expense), it

> seems as though the conference actually cost more than it brought in

> last year. So, if this is any indication of the viability of the

> conference, why have it? Answer: income for presenters/host. And

> that is fine, and so is PR.

I think that view is totally, totally wrong. The fact that it costs

more than it brings in (a least last year) just means that it's an

investment. That is a definition, and not an endpoint. What makes it

a useless or useful investment is not determined by the criteria that

make it an investment per se. Even if it costs some money, the

benefit of the conference is enormous. This is a driving force behind

the growth of the Foundation, and, as YOU have been saying, the

primary area of growth needed is in MDs and nutritionists and

researchers, and the conference is *the* way to build those

affiliations.

Chris

--

Statin Drugs Kill Your Brain

And Cause Transient Global Amnesia:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Statin-Drugs-Side-Effects.html

[Guest guest]

>

> > As you can see, membership is the big income for WAPF. If you look at

> > the conference by itself (different colors for income v. expense), it

> > seems as though the conference actually cost more than it brought in

> > last year. So, if this is any indication of the viability of the

> > conference, why have it? Answer: income for presenters/host. And

> > that is fine, and so is PR.

>

> I think that view is totally, totally wrong. The fact that it costs

> more than it brings in (a least last year) just means that it's an

> investment. That is a definition, and not an endpoint. What makes it

> a useless or useful investment is not determined by the criteria that

> make it an investment per se. Even if it costs some money, the

> benefit of the conference is enormous. This is a driving force behind

> the growth of the Foundation, and, as YOU have been saying, the

> primary area of growth needed is in MDs and nutritionists and

> researchers, and the conference is *the* way to build those

> affiliations.

Yes! And remember the time when Sally told us the hidden WAPF agenda?

1. start foundation touting health/nutrition advice

2. host annual conference

3. ?????

4. Profit!

B.

[Guest guest]

On 9/30/05, <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

> Sounds to me like you ought to get that knowledge validated with a

> second bachelors degree. I would suggest you check out Bears Guide:

> http://www.degree.net/index.html. Fascinating info on getting

> accredited degrees in non-traditional ways.

Great idea! I'll check it out. It's my intention to round off my

undergrad sciences through distance learning and/or challenge tests.

My cell bio teacher told me I shouldn't need a BS to get into a PhD

program, but I'm sure it couldn't hurt.

> I just don't think it makes economic or academic sense to pack up and

> become a full time student at the expense of income or real world

> experience anymore. Especially if you disagree with most of what you

> are being taught.

Well I never really had a problem with that in chemistry or cell

biology. In cell biology, a lot of what we learned was critical

thinking, how to write a journal article, how to test for things, etc.

We'd read journal articles together but my teacher would use a

critical eye and point out when the picture didn't quite show the type

of pattern being claimed, etc. It wa a very open-ended class, half

setting us up with knowledge, but half setting us up with the ability

to do research.

I would guess that that's mostly what it's like at the graduate level.

Maybe not for something like " public health and nutrition policy, "

but for something like " molecular biology " I think it is.

> IMO, the opportunity costs are just too high. I think I sent it to you

> long ago but if you have North's article, " Advice to a would be

> Scholar " I would suggest reading that again.

Oh yeah. Not sure what I did with that but I'll track it down.

Thanks!

Chris

--

Statin Drugs Kill Your Brain

And Cause Transient Global Amnesia:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Statin-Drugs-Side-Effects.html