Asthma & Fats
Question:
Thought some of you might like to read the following. http://mercola.com/2002/aug/17/asthma.htm. — Cher "My mission is nutrition".
Response:
>Thought some of you might like to read the following. >http://mercola.com/2002/aug/17/asthma.htm.
Just more of that ‘Omega-3′ oil scam. I just love the way the site fails to mention that if you use the product in an attempt to treat disease – the product becomes a drug. So in effect they want us to stop using drugs that have been demonstrated to be safe and reliable in favor of a drug which has been demonstrated to be worthless for the treatment of asthma. "It’s not American foreign policy, or the plight of the Palestinians, or America’s longstanding support for Israel. A group of people with money and weaponry have simply decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and want, eventally, to exterminate us." ‘Christian Century’ magazine
Response:
>>Thought some of you might like to read the following. >http://mercola.com/2002/aug/17/asthma.htm. >Just more of that ‘Omega-3′ oil scam. >I just love the way the site fails to mention that if you use the >product in an attempt to treat disease – the product becomes a drug. >So in effect they want us to stop using drugs that have been >demonstrated to be safe and reliable in favor of a drug which has been >demonstrated to be worthless for the treatment of asthma.
When Omega-3’s become mainstream, how are you going to resolve your attitude about scams? Is everything actually a "scam" to you until proven otherwise? Why not just say that there isn’t enough evidence yet, like you often do, and leave it at that?
Response:
>When Omega-3’s become mainstream, how are you going to resolve your >attitude about scams? Is everything actually a "scam" to you until >proven otherwise? Why not just say that there isn’t enough evidence >yet, like you often do, and leave it at that?
What do you mean: ‘when?’ BTW, you are aware that this stuff has been tested for its effects on asthma in clinical trials? And it failed? "It’s not American foreign policy, or the plight of the Palestinians, or America’s longstanding support for Israel. A group of people with money and weaponry have simply decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and want, eventally, to exterminate us." ‘Christian Century’ magazine
Response:
>What do you mean: ‘when?’ >BTW, you are aware that this stuff has been tested for its effects on >asthma in clinical trials? And it failed?
Would you be so kind as to post those trials? Let’s see the dosages they used for this determination.
Response:
> Just more of that ‘Omega-3′ oil scam.
Actually, Omega-3 oil is one of the few *essential* fatty acids. Essential because we need them and the human body cannot manufacture them. It is also the one most frequently deficient in the North American diet. If you would like some good info on fats, check out "Fats that Heal, Fats that Kill", Udo Erasmus ISBN 0-920470-38-6 There’s clearly some political bias and some commercial interest but the bio- and organic- chemistry is accurate and well researched. This is the best book we have found on the subject. He does mention asthma in several places but nowhere does he claim a direct cure. He discusses much on the effects of essential fatty acids on general health and certain specific degenerative diseases. He also gives numerous tables of the fat contents of many foods. Anicdotally, the condition and elasticity of my skin has very much improved since I started using some flax seed in my morning cereal. Note that our digestive system can’t get through the shell of the flax seed – you must attack them with a cofee grinder or pestle and mortar before adding them to your food. Ted
Response:
>>BTW, you are aware that this stuff has been tested for its effects on >asthma in clinical trials? And it failed? >Would you be so kind as to post those trials? Let’s see the dosages >they used for this determination.
Eur Respir J 1998 Feb;11(2):361-5 Effect of dietary intake of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids on severity of asthma in children. Hodge L, Salome CM, Hughes JM, Liu-Brennan D, Rimmer J, Allman M, Pang D, Armour C, Woolcock AJ. "It’s not American foreign policy, or the plight of the Palestinians, or America’s longstanding support for Israel. A group of people with money and weaponry have simply decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and want, eventally, to exterminate us." ‘Christian Century’ magazine
Response:
>>>BTW, you are aware that this stuff has been tested for its effects on >>asthma in clinical trials? And it failed? >Would you be so kind as to post those trials? Let’s see the dosages >they used for this determination. >Eur Respir J 1998 Feb;11(2):361-5 >Effect of dietary intake of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids on >severity of asthma in children. >Hodge L, Salome CM, Hughes JM, Liu-Brennan D, Rimmer J, Allman M, Pang >D, Armour C, Woolcock AJ.
We are not told the dosages in this abstract you listed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&… However, here is a study which did list the dosages, which are still small, and they did see positive results: The present results suggest that dietary supplementation with fish oil rich in the omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid is beneficial for children with bronchial asthma in a strictly controlled environment in terms of inhalant allergens and diet. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&… Here’s a study on improved pulmonary function and Omega-3’s: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&… There is much more work to do with Omega-3’s. Don’t count them out just yet.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>>BTW, you are aware that this stuff has been tested for its effects on >>>asthma in clinical trials? And it failed? >>Would you be so kind as to post those trials? Let’s see the dosages >>they used for this determination. >Eur Respir J 1998 Feb;11(2):361-5 >Effect of dietary intake of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids on >severity of asthma in children. >Hodge L, Salome CM, Hughes JM, Liu-Brennan D, Rimmer J, Allman M, Pang >D, Armour C, Woolcock AJ. >We are not told the dosages in this abstract you listed: >http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&…
If you want the full article, you can buy it. >However, here is a study which did list the dosages, which are still >small, and they did see positive results: >The present results suggest that dietary supplementation with fish oil >rich in the omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids eicosapentaenoic acid >and docosahexaenoic acid is beneficial for children with bronchial >asthma in a strictly controlled environment in terms of inhalant >allergens and diet. >http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&… >Here’s a study on improved pulmonary function and Omega-3’s: >http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&… >There is much more work to do with Omega-3’s. Don’t count them out
But, until somebody states that they are "a safe and effective treatment for . . ." It _should_ be counted out. "It’s not American foreign policy, or the plight of the Palestinians, or America’s longstanding support for Israel. A group of people with money and weaponry have simply decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and want, eventally, to exterminate us." ‘Christian Century’ magazine
Response:
>>There is much more work to do with Omega-3’s. Don’t count them out >But, until somebody states that they are "a safe and effective >treatment for . . ." It _should_ be counted out.
I suspect that you don’t take any Omega-3’s, do you. You do have allergic triggers to your asthma, right? These are nutrients Colin, not synthetic drugs with powerful effects that require the necessary safety testing you are suggesting.
Response:
>I suspect that you don’t take any Omega-3’s, do you. >You do have allergic triggers to your asthma, right? >These are nutrients Colin, not synthetic drugs with powerful effects >that require the necessary safety testing you are suggesting.
The moment I use it in an attempt to treat or prevent any specific disease – it becomes a drug. I am surprised that you seem to be unaware that a ‘drug’ is _anything_ that is ingested or applied as a treatment or prophylactic for a disease. And since I eat a sensible diet – nutritional supplementation is not necessary. "It’s not American foreign policy, or the plight of the Palestinians, or America’s longstanding support for Israel. A group of people with money and weaponry have simply decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and want, eventally, to exterminate us." ‘Christian Century’ magazine
Response:
>The moment I use it in an attempt to treat or prevent any specific >disease – it becomes a drug.
The moment you use it, your body benefits. Omega-3’s are essential nutrients. Let’s talk reality here. >I am surprised that you seem to be unaware that a ‘drug’ is _anything_ >that is ingested or applied as a treatment or prophylactic for a >disease.
I am very aware of that semantic confusion that exists regarding the definition of "drug." It’s a lawyer’s fight. Your body knows the difference between a nutrient and a drug. It doesn’t need the FDA to tell it that. I am speaking specifically of Omega-3’s now, not all alternative products. >And since I eat a sensible diet – nutritional supplementation is not >necessary.
Uh huh. If you were asymptomatic, I’d be more inclined to agree with you. . It seems to me that you are arguing for your limitations with this unbrella statement. Your diet may be sensible, but is it adequate for your particular health needs? Only you can determine that; not some study of (n=29) subjects that can be referenced as proof or disproof. The anti-inflammatory effects of Omega-3’s are known. There are studies that show that they help with asthma symptoms. Nothing about a cure is mentioned here. If you could reduce your symptoms with taking Omega-3’s, which have been shown to have no adverse side-effects, why wouldn’t you explore this safe avenue of approach? You might even be able to get by on less meds as well. Is that not desirable?
Response:
>I suspect that you don’t take any Omega-3’s, do you. >You do have allergic triggers to your asthma, right? >These are nutrients Colin, not synthetic drugs with powerful effects >that require the necessary safety testing you are suggesting. > The moment I use it in an attempt to treat or prevent any specific > disease – it becomes a drug.
Now that’s just about one of the silliest things I’ve ever heard.. You don’t REALLY believe that, do you? Surely not! Nutrition (food) IS the original medicine. That would make everything we eat including Mom’s chicken soup a drug! Wasn’t it Hippocrates (the Father of Medicine) who said, "Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food"? > I am surprised that you seem to be unaware that a ‘drug’ is _anything_ > that is ingested or applied as a treatment or prophylactic for a > disease. > And since I eat a sensible diet – nutritional supplementation is not > necessary.
Is this a joke? Where’s the hidden camera? — Cher "My mission is nutrition". To hear discussion on health issues/alt. treatment. http://www.royaltonganlimu.com/english/content.asp?page_id=13 7/22 and 7/29
Response:
>Claptrap Colin is the joke. Colin is essentially a megalomaniacal imbecile, >with an ego as big as all outdoors, who provides nothing to this Newsgroup of >any redeeming value whatsoever… he’s like a friggin’ broken record, with the >same old-same old inane claptrap over and over.
I disagree. Colin’s views are representative of the "Doubting Thomas," and the distinctions he makes regarding "proven" and "unproven" agents, nutrients, etc. are valid in the scientific sense and the legal sense; just not always in common sense. You Sheldon, on the other hand, defy explanation.
Response:
>>The moment I use it in an attempt to treat or prevent any specific >disease – it becomes a drug. >The moment you use it, your body benefits. Omega-3’s are essential >nutrients. Let’s talk reality here.
This is onl;y possible if my diet were deficient. If that were the case, it would make more sense to fix the diet than take a pill. >I am surprised that you seem to be unaware that a ‘drug’ is _anything_ >that is ingested or applied as a treatment or prophylactic for a >disease. >I am very aware of that semantic confusion that exists regarding the >definition of "drug." It’s a lawyer’s fight. Your body knows the >difference between a nutrient and a drug. It doesn’t need the FDA to >tell it that. I am speaking specifically of Omega-3’s now, not all >alternative products.
How does my body ‘know the difference?’ Does the liver process the chemicals differently? The kidneys? >And since I eat a sensible diet – nutritional supplementation is not >necessary. >Uh huh. If you were asymptomatic, I’d be more inclined to agree with >you.
This is a surprising comment. For all the time you have hung around this newsgroup you still think that asthma is caused by nutritional deficiency? >. >It seems to me that you are arguing for your limitations with this >unbrella statement. Your diet may be sensible, but is it adequate for >your particular health needs? Only you can determine that; not some >study of (n=29) subjects that can be referenced as proof or disproof.
It is adequate. It may not be adequately transferring the contents of my wallet to the alt med people – but that is their problem, not mine. >The anti-inflammatory effects of Omega-3’s are known. There are >studies that show that they help with asthma symptoms. Nothing about >a cure is mentioned here. If you could reduce your symptoms with >taking Omega-3’s, which have been shown to have no adverse >side-effects, why wouldn’t you explore this safe avenue of approach?
First of all, the anti-inflammitory effects are not ‘well known.’ The next issue is that you cannot reduce inflammation without the risk of side effects. Inflammation is an immune response that is designed to protect the body from infection. Thus, anything that reduces inflammation is going to reduce the effectiveness of this protective mechanism. >You might even be able to get by on less meds as well. Is that not >desirable?
Not ‘less meds’ simply different meds. Again, anything I use for the purpose of treating disease is a medication. "It’s not American foreign policy, or the plight of the Palestinians, or America’s longstanding support for Israel. A group of people with money and weaponry have simply decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and want, eventally, to exterminate us." ‘Christian Century’ magazine
Response:
>> The moment I use it in an attempt to treat or prevent any specific > disease – it becomes a drug. >Now that’s just about one of the silliest things I’ve ever heard.. You don’t >REALLY believe that, do you? Surely not! > Nutrition (food) IS the original medicine. That would make everything we >eat including Mom’s chicken soup a drug! > Wasn’t it Hippocrates (the Father of Medicine) who said, "Let food be thy >medicine and medicine be thy food"?
Do you eat the chicken soup to treat a disease? Or do you eat it as _food_? This is where the dividing line exists. If you eat it for general nutrition and not as a treatment for any specific disease, then it is a food. > And since I eat a sensible diet – nutritional supplementation is not > necessary. >Is this a joke? Where’s the hidden camera?
No, not a joke. It really is a fact that (for people without a doctor-diagnosed medical condition that dictates otherwise) you get all the nutrition you need from a balanced diet. Everything else is simply hype from the people trying to sell supplements. "It’s not American foreign policy, or the plight of the Palestinians, or America’s longstanding support for Israel. A group of people with money and weaponry have simply decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and want, eventally, to exterminate us." ‘Christian Century’ magazine
Response:
>I disagree. Colin’s views are representative of the "Doubting >Thomas," and the distinctions he makes regarding "proven" and >"unproven" agents, nutrients, etc. are valid in the scientific sense >and the legal sense; just not always in common sense.
‘Common sense?’ If ‘common sense’ thinks that you can have an anti-inflammitory drug without side effects – then I will stick to actual knowledge, thank you. "It’s not American foreign policy, or the plight of the Palestinians, or America’s longstanding support for Israel. A group of people with money and weaponry have simply decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and want, eventally, to exterminate us." ‘Christian Century’ magazine
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> The moment I use it in an attempt to treat or prevent any specific >> disease – it becomes a drug. >Now that’s just about one of the silliest things I’ve ever heard.. You don’t >REALLY believe that, do you? Surely not! > Nutrition (food) IS the original medicine. That would make everything we >eat including Mom’s chicken soup a drug! > Wasn’t it Hippocrates (the Father of Medicine) who said, "Let food be thy >medicine and medicine be thy food"? > Do you eat the chicken soup to treat a disease? Or do you eat it as > _food_? > This is where the dividing line exists. If you eat it for general > nutrition and not as a treatment for any specific disease, then it is > a food.
Chicken soup is chicken soup, regardless of why I’m taking it. It’s not a drug…at least not in my opinion. >> And since I eat a sensible diet – nutritional supplementation is not >> necessary. >Is this a joke? Where’s the hidden camera? > No, not a joke. It really is a fact that (for people without a > doctor-diagnosed medical condition that dictates otherwise) you get > all the nutrition you need from a balanced diet. Everything else is > simply hype from the people trying to sell supplements.
I know many folks believe this…but I’m of another opinion. By the way…do you eat 5 servings of fresh veggies and 5 servings of fresh fruit everyday? Just curious. — Cher "My mission is nutrition". To hear discussion on health issues/alt. treatment. http://www.royaltonganlimu.com/english/content.asp?page_id=13 7/22 and 7/29
Response:
>>The moment you use it, your body benefits. Omega-3’s are essential >nutrients. Let’s talk reality here. >This is onl;y possible if my diet were deficient. If that were the >case, it would make more sense to fix the diet than take a pill.
You are thinking of nutrients as drugs. Nutrients are needed on an ongoing basis to sustain your life’s physiology. Omega-3’s are essential; you must ingest them on a regular basis. If you are eating Salmon or other Omega-3-containing substances on a daily basis, you might approach the effectiveness of using good quality Omega-3 capsules. Salmon costs about $8.00/lb. That’s expensive if you are going to eat it 3-4 days per week, which of course, no one does. >How does my body ‘know the difference?’ Does the liver process the >chemicals differently? The kidneys?
Give your body a little credit for crying out loud! Whatever you ingest your body assimilates, utilizes and excretes based on the biochemical pathways that are mapped in the genes and mediated by the nervous system. >And since I eat a sensible diet – nutritional supplementation is not >>necessary. >Uh huh. If you were asymptomatic, I’d be more inclined to agree with >you. >This is a surprising comment. For all the time you have hung around >this newsgroup you still think that asthma is caused by nutritional >deficiency?
Absolutely not! You like to believe I think that nutritional deficiency causes asthma, but you have not read that from any of my posts. Increasing the nutritional titer of many substances helps the body to better adapt; thereby helping many conditions. Not treating, but helping the body to better heal itself. This is a huge distinction. >The anti-inflammatory effects of Omega-3’s are known. There are >studies that show that they help with asthma symptoms. Nothing about >a cure is mentioned here. If you could reduce your symptoms with >taking Omega-3’s, which have been shown to have no adverse >side-effects, why wouldn’t you explore this safe avenue of approach? >First of all, the anti-inflammitory effects are not ‘well known.’ The >next issue is that you cannot reduce inflammation without the risk of >side effects. Inflammation is an immune response that is designed to >protect the body from infection. Thus, anything that reduces >inflammation is going to reduce the effectiveness of this protective >mechanism.
I didn’t say that the anti-inflammatory effects were ‘well known.’ I said they were known. And I also said that we need much more research to better determine the beneficial effects of Omega-3’s. When you aid the body through nutritional means to better enable it to adapt to its environment, it is not the same as artificially inducing an anti-inflammatory effect with a foreign chemical substance, ie. a drug. Please realize that there is a distinction between these two avenues of approach. They are not mutually exclusive as methods of managing health. >You might even be able to get by on less meds as well. Is that not >desirable? >Not ‘less meds’ simply different meds. Again, anything I use for the >purpose of treating disease is a medication.
OK, so if you somehow get trapped in your tank on a deserted island, and all you have to eat is fish, you will be gettting your Omega-3’s, but soon you will develop scurvy. So when I paddle up on my surfboard and offer you an orange, am I now giving you a drug, or a nutrient? Or both? P.S. "Don’t shoot!"
Response:
>>I disagree. Colin’s views are representative of the "Doubting >Thomas," and the distinctions he makes regarding "proven" and >"unproven" agents, nutrients, etc. are valid in the scientific sense >and the legal sense; just not always in common sense. >’Common sense?’ If ‘common sense’ thinks that you can have an >anti-inflammitory drug without side effects – then I will stick to >actual knowledge, thank you.
Stick to your guns you mean. The knowledge is there that true health only comes from within the body. We may not be ill striclty due to various nutrient deficiencies, but one thing is for sure; we are not ill because we have various drug deficiencies.
Response:
>> Do you eat the chicken soup to treat a disease? Or do you eat it as > _food_? > This is where the dividing line exists. If you eat it for general > nutrition and not as a treatment for any specific disease, then it is > a food. >Chicken soup is chicken soup, regardless of why I’m taking it. It’s not a >drug…at least not in my opinion.
Then anything is and drug – and nothing is a drug? > No, not a joke. It really is a fact that (for people without a > doctor-diagnosed medical condition that dictates otherwise) you get > all the nutrition you need from a balanced diet. Everything else is > simply hype from the people trying to sell supplements. >I know many folks believe this…but I’m of another opinion. By the >way…do you eat 5 servings of fresh veggies and 5 servings of fresh fruit >everyday? Just curious.
Not ‘belief’ – simple fact. Talk to a Registered Dietitian. Why yes I get the number of servings (generally multiple ’servings’ at once since the ’serving’ size is kind of small). It really is not that hard to do. "It’s not American foreign policy, or the plight of the Palestinians, or America’s longstanding support for Israel. A group of people with money and weaponry have simply decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and want, eventally, to exterminate us." ‘Christian Century’ magazine
Response:
>You are thinking of nutrients as drugs. Nutrients are needed on an >ongoing basis to sustain your life’s physiology. Omega-3’s are >essential; you must ingest them on a regular basis. If you are eating >Salmon or other Omega-3-containing substances on a daily basis, you >might approach the effectiveness of using good quality Omega-3 >capsules. Salmon costs about $8.00/lb. That’s expensive if you are >going to eat it 3-4 days per week, which of course, no one does.
What is the RDA for Omega-3? How was this determined? Or is it just marketing hype? >How does my body ‘know the difference?’ Does the liver process the >chemicals differently? The kidneys? >Give your body a little credit for crying out loud! Whatever you >ingest your body assimilates, utilizes and excretes based on the >biochemical pathways that are mapped in the genes and mediated by the >nervous system.
Please answer the question. >This is a surprising comment. For all the time you have hung around >this newsgroup you still think that asthma is caused by nutritional >deficiency? >Absolutely not! You like to believe I think that nutritional >deficiency causes asthma, but you have not read that from any of my >posts. Increasing the nutritional titer of many substances helps the >body to better adapt; thereby helping many conditions. Not treating, >but helping the body to better heal itself. This is a huge >distinction.
In that case I suggest that you learn something about asthma. >When you aid the body through nutritional means to better enable it to >adapt to its environment, it is not the same as artificially inducing >an anti-inflammatory effect with a foreign chemical substance, ie. a >drug.
Really? Has anybody ever tested this hypothesis? >Please realize that there is a distinction between these two avenues >of approach. They are not mutually exclusive as methods of managing >health.
We have one approach that is based on careful research and study and we have another that is based on folklore, psuedoscience and advertising hype. "It’s not American foreign policy, or the plight of the Palestinians, or America’s longstanding support for Israel. A group of people with money and weaponry have simply decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and want, eventally, to exterminate us." ‘Christian Century’ magazine
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>I disagree. Colin’s views are representative of the "Doubting >>Thomas," and the distinctions he makes regarding "proven" and >>"unproven" agents, nutrients, etc. are valid in the scientific sense >>and the legal sense; just not always in common sense. >’Common sense?’ If ‘common sense’ thinks that you can have an >anti-inflammitory drug without side effects – then I will stick to >actual knowledge, thank you. > Stick to your guns you mean. The knowledge is there that true health > only comes from within the body. We may not be ill striclty due to > various nutrient deficiencies, but one thing is for sure; we are not > ill because we have various drug deficiencies.
AMEN to that! Cher
Response:
Related Posts