Re: Significant identifiable risk factor for heart attacks

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

markd@toad-net.com - 27 Nov 2003 19:52 GMT

There is data and there is interpretation. For this and all the iron
articles you post one must consider if it is not the case that storing of
iron is an effect of problems in other parts of the bodies systems, not
the cause; it is a marker not the reason something happens; . Heart
disease victums often have high levels of plaque stored in blood vessals,
the effect of other problems not the cause of the basic disorder.

>http://tinyurl.com/wrxj
>
>University of Kuopio in Finland: Large-scale study (nearly 2,000 men, for up to
>five years; next to smoking, excess stored iron is the most significant
>identifiable risk factor for heart attacks. It is a stronger risk factor for
>heart attack than high blood pressure and cholesterol
>
>Who loves ya.
>Tom
>Jesus Was A Vegetarian! http://jesuswasavegetarian.7h.com
>Man Is A Herbivore! http://pages.ivillage.com/ironjustice/manisaherbivore
>DEAD PEOPLE WALKING http://pages.ivillage.com/ironjustice/deadpeoplewalking

Reply to this Message

Robert - 27 Nov 2003 22:46 GMT

> There is data and there is interpretation.

There are a couple of fanatics on this ng that posts. Most people in
general are quite cynical about nutritional research and there are reasons
for that. One day it says this and the next it says the complete opposite.
In reality it is only those zealots who over interpret and over reach an
articles implications that are doing that.
Doe and his friend Nick are good examples of them trying to spin
interpretations on us. Iron is an essential for humans. Oxidation as in the
gaining of oxygen or the loss of hydrogen, is essential for humans. To say
that they are evil is just stupid simply because they can be involved in
disease processes.
There are many independent risk factors for heart disease and to look for
the biggest one is stupid. Quite the opposite as you want to find as many
risk factors as possible to find your overall personal risk. It's like the
guy who gets an EKG one week and the next week he dies of a heart attack.
Ooops, I guess he should have done other testing.

Reply to this Message

Mike V - 28 Nov 2003 15:22 GMT

> > There is data and there is interpretation.
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> guy who gets an EKG one week and the next week he dies of a heart attack.
> Ooops, I guess he should have done other testing.

Be fair. doe reports in a narrow fashion. He does not interpret for you.

His conclusions are usually unstated. You are inferring them.
Sorry, but that's *your* problem. Nick is different. Very different.
Regards

Mike V

Reply to this Message

Robert - 28 Nov 2003 19:37 GMT

> > > There is data and there is interpretation.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
> Be fair. doe reports in a narrow fashion. He does not interpret for you.

There is nothing narrow in fashion. ANYTHING with iron in the topic he
reports on. Everybody agrees with the fact that high iron levels are bad
and hemochromatosis is bad. He then jumps to the next step and constantly
posts pertaining to his position that EVERBODY must get rid of all iron in
your body and anybody reading here knows that. If you want to pretend that
is not the case then more power to you.

> His conclusions are usually unstated. You are inferring them.
> Sorry, but that's *your* problem.

No, that's this ngs problem with his constant irrelevent posts. What does
chelation use in malaria have to do with nutrition?

Nick is different. Very different.

> Regards
>
> Mike V

Lets see, somebody asks about Dizzy spells for 11 years and Nick states that
they have to eat boiled eggs and it's OK to eat coconut oil. This is just a
wild guess here but any question you ask him will result in the same answer.
Here's an example.
"Butter is good too, just cut the yellowish skin
off the sides first - that's going rancid."
Rancid means "oxidation" and it happens even without cooking. When you apply
heat in the form of energy chemical reactions will occur with the food.
Oxidation reduction occur as bonds are broken and reformed to release
energy. Any form of cooking will do this so saying that butter is good but
the oxidized form is not is bizarre as it is unavoidable if you cook with
it. Some foods have more fat than others and placing more fat as in frying
is never good. There's no need to go out on a fad limb.

Reply to this Message

John 'the Man' - 29 Nov 2003 05:15 GMT

Once upon a time, our fellow Mike V
rambled on about "Re: Significant identifiable risk factor for
heart attacks."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>Nick is different. Very different.

Yes, indeed. A little bit too different, I would say. :(

Nick has my condolences.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

Reply to this Message