On 04/05/13 19:11, Peter Parry wrote:
On Sat, 04 May 2013 12:58:55 +0100, RayL12
wrote:


You can spend 6 - 7 years of your life learning nutrition and it will
all boil down to a simple formula; eat fresh veg' and fruit.
Ah yes, those nice phalloides fungi followed by some nutritious raw
Lima and castor oil beans in the salad. Cheerful Abrus precatorius
beans will add some colour, Bitter almonds will make a tasty dessert
to go with the fruit of the Cerbera odollam, Euonymus atropurpureus
and Bittersweet Nightshade for more colour.

Processed 'anything' is junk.
Absolutely, kidney beans are just so much nicer fresh and uncooked.
Just like with manioc and cashew nuts that silly heating and boiling
process plays hell with the flavours.

there are very few animals that are poisonous to eat but plants and
fungi - Phew. the list is endless.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Peter Parry wrote:
On Sat, 04 May 2013 12:58:55 +0100, RayL12
wrote:


You can spend 6 - 7 years of your life learning nutrition and it will
all boil down to a simple formula; eat fresh veg' and fruit.

Ah yes, those nice phalloides fungi followed by some nutritious raw
Lima and castor oil beans in the salad. Cheerful Abrus precatorius
beans will add some colour, Bitter almonds will make a tasty dessert
to go with the fruit of the Cerbera odollam, Euonymus atropurpureus
and Bittersweet Nightshade for more colour.

Processed 'anything' is junk.

Absolutely, kidney beans are just so much nicer fresh and uncooked.
Just like with manioc and cashew nuts that silly heating and boiling
process plays hell with the flavours.

What these raw food freaks don't seem to know or care about is that not
only does cooking and preparation/ processing make most food more
palatable, it makes it safer by killing pathogens, more nutritious by
denaturing indigestible proteins and destroying many natural toxins,
while making it easier to digest, letting us get more calories out of a
given portion size.

Apart from those, there are no real benefits...

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:


there are very few animals that are poisonous to eat but plants and
fungi - Phew. the list is endless.

Chemical warfare is nothing new. Even very early plants must have had
*some* chemical defenses as they didn't all have thorns. We're still
finding useful ones for killing animals that we can extract from
primitive plant types.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Sat, 04 May 2013 19:31:06 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

Chemical warfare is nothing new. Even very early plants must have had
*some* chemical defenses as they didn't all have thorns. We're still
finding useful ones for killing animals that we can extract from
primitive plant types.

To be fair to plants, the first recorded instances of chemical and
biological warfare consisted of the firing the rotten carcasses of
animals and the blankets of people who died of typhoid and cholera
into the besieged fortress. It seems the CBW experts were some way
ahead of the medical profession, and way ahead of assorted greenies in
understanding the mechanism of disease spread.

Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Nightjar
writes
On 03/05/2013 21:41, Tim Lamb wrote:
There was a lot of interest last time this was aired but I was left with
a few unanswered questions...

How significant is the fat in processed Pork slices as I find it a very
convenient source of sandwich filling?

How linear is the response to dose levels? A recent test found 4.2 total
(2.4 LDL) for a dose of 20mg. Pre-statins, I had levels of 6.8 and 7.2
total. I would like to drop the dose to 10mg.

If you are on Simvastatin, you could request a change to Atorvastatin,
which should be as effective at half the dose.

Yes. BTDT:-)

The current 20mg Atorvastatin would conveniently halve to 10 though.

It's still one tablet per dose of a convenient size for swallowing. The
fact that there is only half the amount of active ingredient is balanced
by the fact that the ingredient is roughly twice as effective per
milligramme.

The reaction to statin doses doesn't seem to be linear, either, with a
noticeable threshold in my case, at least. Half the normal dose does
nothing, the full dose brings on all the side effects and no apparent
benefits, with every statin and Fibrate I've tried. I didn't dare try a
larger dose.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Peter Parry wrote:
On Sat, 04 May 2013 19:31:06 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

Chemical warfare is nothing new. Even very early plants must have had
*some* chemical defenses as they didn't all have thorns. We're still
finding useful ones for killing animals that we can extract from
primitive plant types.

To be fair to plants, the first recorded instances of chemical and
biological warfare consisted of the firing the rotten carcasses of
animals and the blankets of people who died of typhoid and cholera
into the besieged fortress. It seems the CBW experts were some way
ahead of the medical profession, and way ahead of assorted greenies in
understanding the mechanism of disease spread.

The first recorded example of *humans* engaging in chemical and
biological warfare, I think you mean.

The first plants engaging in it appeared shortly after the first fungus
found them tasty. The battle escalated when the fungus created a defense
against the poison, and the war's been escalating ever since.

Then, after a while, the insects arrived, and physical defences, such as
silica in the plants' tissues, resin which could be exuded from wounds
to cover any insects daft enough to stay still long enough and intra-
and inter-plant communications were added to the chemical defenses. So
the insects found ways round the plants' defenses...

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 03/05/2013 21:41, Tim Lamb wrote:
There was a lot of interest last time this was aired but I was left with
a few unanswered questions...

How significant is the fat in processed Pork slices as I find it a very
convenient source of sandwich filling?

How linear is the response to dose levels? A recent test found 4.2 total
(2.4 LDL) for a dose of 20mg. Pre-statins, I had levels of 6.8 and 7.2
total. I would like to drop the dose to 10mg.

I asked how long it takes for the body to return to normal after
stopping medication and was told 2 weeks. I was also told to resume
treatment to double check any noted changes.

Surely this is something only your doctor or specialist nurse is qualified
to answer. Seeking advice on an Internet NG about this seems very unwise
to say the least.

That's mad. There is plenty of good info available on anything now.

Rod Speed wrote:
"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 03/05/2013 21:41, Tim Lamb wrote:
There was a lot of interest last time this was aired but I was left
with a few unanswered questions...

How significant is the fat in processed Pork slices as I find it a
very convenient source of sandwich filling?

How linear is the response to dose levels? A recent test found 4.2
total (2.4 LDL) for a dose of 20mg. Pre-statins, I had levels of
6.8 and 7.2 total. I would like to drop the dose to 10mg.

I asked how long it takes for the body to return to normal after
stopping medication and was told 2 weeks. I was also told to resume
treatment to double check any noted changes.

Surely this is something only your doctor or specialist nurse is
qualified to answer. Seeking advice on an Internet NG about this
seems very unwise to say the least.

That's mad. There is plenty of good info available on anything now.

Except when *you're* giving that 'info' - then it's about as trustworthy as
a live politician

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Nightjar
writes
On 03/05/2013 21:41, Tim Lamb wrote:
There was a lot of interest last time this was aired but I was left
with
a few unanswered questions...

How significant is the fat in processed Pork slices as I find it a very
convenient source of sandwich filling?

How linear is the response to dose levels? A recent test found 4.2
total
(2.4 LDL) for a dose of 20mg. Pre-statins, I had levels of 6.8 and 7.2
total. I would like to drop the dose to 10mg.

If you are on Simvastatin, you could request a change to Atorvastatin,
which should be as effective at half the dose.

Yes. BTDT:-)

The current 20mg Atorvastatin would conveniently halve to 10 though.

It's still one tablet per dose of a convenient size for swallowing. The
fact that there is only half the amount of active ingredient is balanced
by the fact that the ingredient is roughly twice as effective per
milligramme.

The reaction to statin doses doesn't seem to be linear, either, with a
noticeable threshold in my case, at least. Half the normal dose does
nothing, the full dose brings on all the side effects and no apparent
benefits, with every statin and Fibrate I've tried. I didn't dare try a
larger dose.

I can't say that I've noticed any side-effects, maybe I should quit for a
while and see.

bm wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
The reaction to statin doses doesn't seem to be linear, either, with a
noticeable threshold in my case, at least. Half the normal dose does
nothing, the full dose brings on all the side effects and no apparent
benefits, with every statin and Fibrate I've tried. I didn't dare try a
larger dose.

I can't say that I've noticed any side-effects, maybe I should quit for a
while and see.


Don't bother. Go with your doctor's recommendation as I did.

I'm a very rare case, apparently, my doctor said I was the first he'd
met who'd had *any* side effects. If you've not noticed any, then don't
worry, as 99+% of all patients don't suffer them.

They are a very effective medicine if you're on the right one for you,
and side effects, while possible, are rare.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 05/05/2013 06:45, John Williamson wrote:
bm wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
The reaction to statin doses doesn't seem to be linear, either, with
a noticeable threshold in my case, at least. Half the normal dose
does nothing, the full dose brings on all the side effects and no
apparent benefits, with every statin and Fibrate I've tried. I didn't
dare try a larger dose.

I can't say that I've noticed any side-effects, maybe I should quit
for a while and see.


Don't bother. Go with your doctor's recommendation as I did.

I'm a very rare case, apparently, my doctor said I was the first he'd
met who'd had *any* side effects. If you've not noticed any, then don't
worry, as 99+% of all patients don't suffer them.

They are a very effective medicine if you're on the right one for you,
and side effects, while possible, are rare.

The list of side effects and their frequencies (approx.) are in at least
some of the Summary of Product Characteristics documents. That for
Atorvastatin is he

http://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/medi...oated+tablets/

Below is an edited extract listing ONLY "common" side effects. Methinks
that, unless the same people who get one such side effect are the only
ones who get any of them, your doctor has seen a remarkably
unrepresentative sample of people. Or the side effects are more common
for atorvastatin than the others? Or something!

Estimated frequencies of reactions are ranked according to the following
convention: common (‰¥ 1/100, 1/10); uncommon (‰¥ 1/1,000, 1/100);
rare (‰¥ 1/10,000, 1/1,000); very rare ( 1/10,000).

Infections and infestations

Common: nasopharyngitis.

Blood and lymphatic system disorders

Immune system disorders

Common: allergic reactions.

Metabolism and nutrition disorders

Common: hyperglycaemia.

Nervous system disorders

Common: headache.

Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders

Common: pharyngolaryngeal pain, epistaxis.

Gastrointestinal disorders

Common: constipation, flatulence, dyspepsia, nausea, diarrhoea.

Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders

Common: myalgia, arthralgia, pain in extremity, muscle spasms, joint
swelling, back pain.

Investigations

Common: liver function test abnormal, blood creatine kinase increased.

--
Rod

On Sat, 04 May 2013 14:36:29 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:

On 04/05/2013 14:26, Terry Fields wrote:
On Sat, 04 May 2013 13:21:05 +0100, RayL12 wrote:

On 04/05/2013 1:06 PM, polygonum wrote:

Too much fruit can be a problem - all that fructose (and, indeed,
sucrose in some fruit).

Lots of vegetables can be problematical for some people - e.g those
which have goitrogenic effects.

And anyone with arthritis might like to try avoiding tomatoes and sweet
peppers.

Not heard that one before. Would you care to elaborate?

It started when I retired, quite a few years ago now. I resolved that my lunch was going to be a 'healthy' one.
SWMBO laid in every salad vegetable known to god and man, and every lunchtime I had a mountain of these,
with some tuna, peppered mackerel, hard-boiled egg, etc, but piled high with sweet peppers and tomatoes.

After three months I could hardly walk and my joints ached like there was no tomorrow.

After digging around, SWMBO came across a book on arthritis, which I had in a toe joint and finger joint but
which hadn't previously been a problem. Among other things it mentioned a connection between tomatoes,
sweet peppers, and arthritis, and so I stopped eating them. After some weeks things got better but not
completely so. I remember one time she made a super bolognese, but afterwards my toe and finger joints
tingled mightly and turned bright red. It turned out she'd used plenty of tomato puree...

Tomatoes belong to the Solanum family, which includes aubergines - these are known as 'nightshade' plants,
and one of these is 'deadly'. These contain solanine as a natural protection against insects, and in most of us
this is neutralised in the digestive system. However, it has been suggested that arthritis patients might lack this
digestive ability, and so solanine is absorbed with consequent negative affect on arthritic joints.

I don't have the book any longer and can't recall its title, so I'm unsure how sweet peppers got on the hit list, as
some research suggests these can help arthritis sufferers. If they do, then in my case they certainly didn't
overcome the effect of tomatoes.

If you know someone with arthritis, it might just be worth trying a tomato-free diet - a bit difficult in these salad
days. But the problem is deeper than that, as the digestion of red meats produces pro-inflammatory compounds
which might also antagonise compromised joints. Fish oils produce anti-inflammatories, which is why cod-liver
oil can help arthritis sufferers.

As a family we got in to foods and food additives when our very young daughter failed to thrive; it was only after
an extensive search - following being abandoned by the NHS - we were put in touch with a peadiatrician that
diagnosed a raft of food allergies. That focussed our minds on foods and their contents, which was useful later
when the arthritis showed up.

There's shedloads on the web about this, many sites seem cranky, but there's useful info out there too.

--
Terry Fields

In message , Martin Brown
writes
On 04/05/2013 14:26, Terry Fields wrote:
On Sat, 04 May 2013 13:21:05 +0100, RayL12 wrote:

On 04/05/2013 1:06 PM, polygonum wrote:

Too much fruit can be a problem - all that fructose (and, indeed,
sucrose in some fruit).

Lots of vegetables can be problematical for some people - e.g those
which have goitrogenic effects.

And anyone with arthritis might like to try avoiding tomatoes and
sweet peppers.

Not heard that one before. Would you care to elaborate?

But aren't tomatoes (especially when processed into tomato sauce)
supposed to ward off prostate cancer? I think I'd rather live with the
arthritis.
--
Ian

On Sun, 05 May 2013 06:45:35 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

bm wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
The reaction to statin doses doesn't seem to be linear, either, with a
noticeable threshold in my case, at least. Half the normal dose does
nothing, the full dose brings on all the side effects and no apparent
benefits, with every statin and Fibrate I've tried. I didn't dare try a
larger dose.

I can't say that I've noticed any side-effects, maybe I should quit for a
while and see.


Don't bother. Go with your doctor's recommendation as I did.

I'm a very rare case, apparently, my doctor said I was the first he'd
met who'd had *any* side effects. If you've not noticed any, then don't
worry, as 99+% of all patients don't suffer them.

They are a very effective medicine if you're on the right one for you,
and side effects, while possible, are rare.

Either there are quite a lot of these very rare cases or I live
amongst a statistical cluster. Every person I know, who takes statins,
has complained to me of their side-effects. Whether they only bother
to tell me they are on statins because they have the side effects, I
don't know but if they genuinely represent 1% then all the rest of my
friends must be on statins and I must have an awful lot of friends and
contacts I don't know about.

When my doctor wanted me to go on statins as a precautionary measure
(I didn't) I did a lot of research and came to the conclusion that, if
you have had a cardio-vascular "event" such as a heart attack or a
stroke then statins are enormously useful in reducing the possibility
of another one.

The problem for a normally-unhealthy person who hasn't had an event is
that not only are they at risk from heart attack etc but from liver
disease, kidney failure etc etc and nobody knows which one(s) are
going to strike and statins inevitably put additional strain on other
parts of the body. The meta-studies I read about suggested that there
was no overall decrease in morbidity amongst "normal" people who
hadn't yet had an event: it was just that they became ill from other
things instead.

Sorry for lack of references: it was several years ago when I looked
into this but I expect that a) it is all quite easy to find and b)
there are probably now even more studies which say completely the
opposite.

Nick

On 05/05/2013 08:47, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Martin Brown
writes
On 04/05/2013 14:26, Terry Fields wrote:
On Sat, 04 May 2013 13:21:05 +0100, RayL12 wrote:

On 04/05/2013 1:06 PM, polygonum wrote:

Too much fruit can be a problem - all that fructose (and, indeed,
sucrose in some fruit).

Lots of vegetables can be problematical for some people - e.g those
which have goitrogenic effects.

And anyone with arthritis might like to try avoiding tomatoes and
sweet peppers.

Not heard that one before. Would you care to elaborate?

But aren't tomatoes (especially when processed into tomato sauce)
supposed to ward off prostate cancer? I think I'd rather live with the
arthritis.

Most tomatoes taste disgusting to me, so I don't eat them. It's my
body's way of telling me they're not for me. Simple really. Eat what you
fancy and to hell with the theories

On 04/05/2013 19:18, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Nightjar
writes
On 03/05/2013 21:41, Tim Lamb wrote:
There was a lot of interest last time this was aired but I was left with
a few unanswered questions...

How significant is the fat in processed Pork slices as I find it a very
convenient source of sandwich filling?

How linear is the response to dose levels? A recent test found 4.2 total
(2.4 LDL) for a dose of 20mg. Pre-statins, I had levels of 6.8 and 7.2
total. I would like to drop the dose to 10mg.

If you are on Simvastatin, you could request a change to Atorvastatin,
which should be as effective at half the dose.

Yes. BTDT:-)

The current 20mg Atorvastatin would conveniently halve to 10 though.

Changing to Rosuvastatin should give you the same effect as Atorvastatin
at half the dose. NICE doesn't like that though, as it is the most
expensive option.

Colin Bignell

On 05/05/2013 06:45, John Williamson wrote:
bm wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
The reaction to statin doses doesn't seem to be linear, either, with
a noticeable threshold in my case, at least. Half the normal dose
does nothing, the full dose brings on all the side effects and no
apparent benefits, with every statin and Fibrate I've tried. I didn't
dare try a larger dose.

I can't say that I've noticed any side-effects, maybe I should quit
for a while and see.


Don't bother. Go with your doctor's recommendation as I did.

I'm a very rare case, apparently, my doctor said I was the first he'd
met who'd had *any* side effects. If you've not noticed any, then don't
worry, as 99+% of all patients don't suffer them.

Those figures are best taken with a very large pinch of salt (unless you
suffer from high blood pressure of course). When I first started on
blood pressure medication I started to experience an annoying, but mild
cough. According to the figures, this happened in 5% of cases. My GP
decided to ask his patients who were on the same medication and found
the figure was nearer 25%. It was simply that most of them had not made
a connection with the cough and starting the medication.

They are a very effective medicine if you're on the right one for you,
and side effects, while possible, are rare.

I gave up statins as a result of muscle pain, after a series of trials
with breaks in the medication and changes in the type prescribed.
However, they were only to keep my cholesterol reading below 3, which,
apparently is the magic number for no cholesterol relate heart problems.
Without them I have a level of 4.0, so I'm not too worried about not
taking them.

Colin Bignell

On 05/05/2013 11:00, Nightjar wrote:
On 04/05/2013 19:18, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Nightjar
writes
On 03/05/2013 21:41, Tim Lamb wrote:
There was a lot of interest last time this was aired but I was left
with
a few unanswered questions...

How significant is the fat in processed Pork slices as I find it a very
convenient source of sandwich filling?

How linear is the response to dose levels? A recent test found 4.2
total
(2.4 LDL) for a dose of 20mg. Pre-statins, I had levels of 6.8 and 7.2
total. I would like to drop the dose to 10mg.

If you are on Simvastatin, you could request a change to Atorvastatin,
which should be as effective at half the dose.

Yes. BTDT:-)

The current 20mg Atorvastatin would conveniently halve to 10 though.

Changing to Rosuvastatin should give you the same effect as Atorvastatin
at half the dose. NICE doesn't like that though, as it is the most
expensive option.

Colin Bignell

Don't think it is any mo

http://www.pharmafile.com/news/17249...ric-lipitor-uk

Have not checked NICE pronouncements since then.

--
Rod

On 05/05/2013 12:33, polygonum wrote:
On 05/05/2013 11:00, Nightjar wrote:
On 04/05/2013 19:18, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Nightjar
writes
On 03/05/2013 21:41, Tim Lamb wrote:
There was a lot of interest last time this was aired but I was left
with
a few unanswered questions...

How significant is the fat in processed Pork slices as I find it a
very
convenient source of sandwich filling?

How linear is the response to dose levels? A recent test found 4.2
total
(2.4 LDL) for a dose of 20mg. Pre-statins, I had levels of 6.8 and 7.2
total. I would like to drop the dose to 10mg.

If you are on Simvastatin, you could request a change to Atorvastatin,
which should be as effective at half the dose.

Yes. BTDT:-)

The current 20mg Atorvastatin would conveniently halve to 10 though.

Changing to Rosuvastatin should give you the same effect as Atorvastatin
at half the dose. NICE doesn't like that though, as it is the most
expensive option.

Colin Bignell

Don't think it is any mo

http://www.pharmafile.com/news/17249...ric-lipitor-uk


Have not checked NICE pronouncements since then.

Oops - comes of not reading properly - apologies - Rosuvastatin is still
much more expensive.

--
Rod

In message , Huge
writes
On 2013-05-05, John Williamson wrote:
bm wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
The reaction to statin doses doesn't seem to be linear, either, with a
noticeable threshold in my case, at least. Half the normal dose does
nothing, the full dose brings on all the side effects and no apparent
benefits, with every statin and Fibrate I've tried. I didn't dare try a
larger dose.

I can't say that I've noticed any side-effects, maybe I should quit for a
while and see.


Don't bother. Go with your doctor's recommendation as I did.

I'm a very rare case, apparently, my doctor said I was the first he'd
met who'd had *any* side effects. If you've not noticed any, then don't
worry, as 99+% of all patients don't suffer them.

They are a very effective medicine if you're on the right one for you,
and side effects, while possible, are rare.

What he said.

For a couple of weeks after starting them, I had very vivid dreams, but
since then, no side effects whatsoever.

Yes. I'd forgotten about dreams!

I have various issues with my spine and want to distinguish between
aches, lethargy, slight lack of muscular control caused by that and any
similar side effects from statins.

I have joined a Pilates class which may also be stirring up my spinal
bulges.



--
Tim Lamb

In message , Nightjar
writes
On 04/05/2013 19:18, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Nightjar
writes
On 03/05/2013 21:41, Tim Lamb wrote:
There was a lot of interest last time this was aired but I was left with
a few unanswered questions...

How significant is the fat in processed Pork slices as I find it a very
convenient source of sandwich filling?

How linear is the response to dose levels? A recent test found 4.2 total
(2.4 LDL) for a dose of 20mg. Pre-statins, I had levels of 6.8 and 7.2
total. I would like to drop the dose to 10mg.

If you are on Simvastatin, you could request a change to Atorvastatin,
which should be as effective at half the dose.

Yes. BTDT:-)

The current 20mg Atorvastatin would conveniently halve to 10 though.

Changing to Rosuvastatin should give you the same effect as
Atorvastatin at half the dose. NICE doesn't like that though, as it is
the most expensive option.

There's a surprise:-)

My doctor was very unreceptive when I suggested exploring the reasons my
liver is churning out the stuff. One site I found was expounding the
idea that copper deficiency could be a cause.

However, as Peter warns, better leave health decisions to the
professionals.

--
Tim Lamb

On 05/05/2013 19:17, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Nightjar
writes
On 04/05/2013 19:18, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Nightjar
writes
On 03/05/2013 21:41, Tim Lamb wrote:
There was a lot of interest last time this was aired but I was left
with
a few unanswered questions...

How significant is the fat in processed Pork slices as I find it a
very
convenient source of sandwich filling?

How linear is the response to dose levels? A recent test found 4.2
total
(2.4 LDL) for a dose of 20mg. Pre-statins, I had levels of 6.8 and 7.2
total. I would like to drop the dose to 10mg.

If you are on Simvastatin, you could request a change to Atorvastatin,
which should be as effective at half the dose.

Yes. BTDT:-)

The current 20mg Atorvastatin would conveniently halve to 10 though.

Changing to Rosuvastatin should give you the same effect as
Atorvastatin at half the dose. NICE doesn't like that though, as it is
the most expensive option.

There's a surprise:-)

My doctor was very unreceptive when I suggested exploring the reasons my
liver is churning out the stuff. One site I found was expounding the
idea that copper deficiency could be a cause.

However, as Peter warns, better leave health decisions to the
professionals.

I too have seen the copper suggestion - no idea if it has good evidence.

In my book, everyone with high cholesterol should have their thyroid
levels tested. It is a prime cause of high cholesterol levels. And
something like 3% of us do have thyroid issues. (Some argue much higher
numbers - that 3% is based on "currently treated with thyroid hormone".)

--
Rod

On 05/05/2013 10:22, stuart noble wrote:
On 05/05/2013 08:47, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Martin Brown
writes
On 04/05/2013 14:26, Terry Fields wrote:
On Sat, 04 May 2013 13:21:05 +0100, RayL12 wrote:

On 04/05/2013 1:06 PM, polygonum wrote:

Too much fruit can be a problem - all that fructose (and, indeed,
sucrose in some fruit).

Lots of vegetables can be problematical for some people - e.g those
which have goitrogenic effects.

And anyone with arthritis might like to try avoiding tomatoes and
sweet peppers.

Not heard that one before. Would you care to elaborate?

But aren't tomatoes (especially when processed into tomato sauce)
supposed to ward off prostate cancer? I think I'd rather live with the
arthritis.

Most tomatoes taste disgusting to me, so I don't eat them. It's my
body's way of telling me they're not for me. Simple really. Eat what you
fancy and to hell with the theories

Small problem with that is some of the absolutely lethal Amanita species
actually taste fantastic but are utterly deadly even in small doses.
This results in more fatalities than if they tasted unpleasant.

They also have the very nasty habit of allowing you to more or less
recover before causing total organ failure of liver and kidneys.

I have eaten some of the safe Amanita fungi with some trepidation and
they do taste really good. I still prefer morels. YMMV

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 04/05/2013 21:56, Peter Parry wrote:
On Sat, 04 May 2013 19:31:06 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

Chemical warfare is nothing new. Even very early plants must have had
*some* chemical defenses as they didn't all have thorns. We're still
finding useful ones for killing animals that we can extract from
primitive plant types.

To be fair to plants, the first recorded instances of chemical and
biological warfare consisted of the firing the rotten carcasses of
animals and the blankets of people who died of typhoid and cholera
into the besieged fortress. It seems the CBW experts were some way
ahead of the medical profession, and way ahead of assorted greenies in
understanding the mechanism of disease spread.

I think he means the plants carrying out the warfare, by making
themselves poisonous (or at least indigestible) to animals that want to
eat them.

Andy

On 04/05/2013 14:26, Terry Fields wrote:
But 'humankind' isn't a static object. I have a blood-group that did not arise in Africa, and group AB appeared in
the last 900 years or so somewhere in the Northern Hemispere.

ICBW but doesn't AB just mean you are heterozygous for A and B?

Andy

On 05/05/2013 10:22, stuart noble wrote:
On 05/05/2013 08:47, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Martin Brown
writes
On 04/05/2013 14:26, Terry Fields wrote:
On Sat, 04 May 2013 13:21:05 +0100, RayL12 wrote:

On 04/05/2013 1:06 PM, polygonum wrote:

Too much fruit can be a problem - all that fructose (and, indeed,
sucrose in some fruit).

Lots of vegetables can be problematical for some people - e.g those
which have goitrogenic effects.

And anyone with arthritis might like to try avoiding tomatoes and
sweet peppers.

Not heard that one before. Would you care to elaborate?

But aren't tomatoes (especially when processed into tomato sauce)
supposed to ward off prostate cancer? I think I'd rather live with the
arthritis.

Most tomatoes taste disgusting to me, so I don't eat them. It's my
body's way of telling me they're not for me. Simple really. Eat what you
fancy and to hell with the theories

Small problem with that is some of the absolutely lethal Amanita species
actually taste fantastic but are utterly deadly even in small doses.
This results in more fatalities than if they tasted unpleasant.

They also have the very nasty habit of allowing you to more or less
recover before causing total organ failure of liver and kidneys.

I have eaten some of the safe Amanita fungi with some trepidation and
they do taste really good. I still prefer morels. YMMV

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Sun, 05 May 2013 23:10:35 +0100, Andy Champ wrote:

On 04/05/2013 14:26, Terry Fields wrote:
But 'humankind' isn't a static object. I have a blood-group that did
not arise in Africa, and group AB appeared in the last 900 years or so
somewhere in the Northern Hemispere.

ICBW but doesn't AB just mean you are heterozygous for A and B?

Andy

I don't think so. Have a look at this:

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Blood-g...roduction.aspx

"The ABO system

Blood groups are defined by the ABO system.

Blood group A has A antigens on its red blood cells and anti-B antibodies in its plasma.
Blood group B has B antigens and anti-A antibodies in its plasma.
Blood group O has no antigens but both anti-A and anti-B antibodies. This means that group O red cells can
safely be given to anyone. It is the most common blood group in the UK.
Group AB has both A and B antigens but no antibodies, otherwise it would destroy itself.

Receiving blood from the wrong ABO group could be life-threatening because antibodies in a person with group
A blood will attack group B antigens and vice-versa."

--
Terry Fields

Most tomatoes taste disgusting to me, so I don't eat them. It's my
body's way of telling me they're not for me. Simple really. Eat what you
fancy and to hell with the theories

Small problem with that is some of the absolutely lethal Amanita species
actually taste fantastic but are utterly deadly even in small doses.
This results in more fatalities than if they tasted unpleasant.

They also have the very nasty habit of allowing you to more or less
recover before causing total organ failure of liver and kidneys.

I have eaten some of the safe Amanita fungi with some trepidation and
they do taste really good. I still prefer morels. YMMV


Apart from wild fruit I don't eat anything I can't buy from a supermarket

In message , Terry Fields
writes
On Sun, 05 May 2013 23:10:35 +0100, Andy Champ wrote:

On 04/05/2013 14:26, Terry Fields wrote:
But 'humankind' isn't a static object. I have a blood-group that did
not arise in Africa, and group AB appeared in the last 900 years or so
somewhere in the Northern Hemispere.

ICBW but doesn't AB just mean you are heterozygous for A and B?

Andy

I don't think so. Have a look at this:

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Blood-g...roduction.aspx

"The ABO system

Blood groups are defined by the ABO system.

Blood group A has A antigens on its red blood cells and anti-B
antibodies in its plasma.
Blood group B has B antigens and anti-A antibodies in its plasma.
Blood group O has no antigens but both anti-A and anti-B
antibodies. This means that group O red cells can
safely be given to anyone. It is the most common blood group in the UK.
Group AB has both A and B antigens but no antibodies, otherwise it
would destroy itself.

Receiving blood from the wrong ABO group could be life-threatening
because antibodies in a person with group
A blood will attack group B antigens and vice-versa."

I believe I'm a B+. What do the 'negatives' and 'positives' mean?
--
Ian

On Mon, 06 May 2013 10:44:23 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:

In message , Terry Fields
writes
On Sun, 05 May 2013 23:10:35 +0100, Andy Champ wrote:

On 04/05/2013 14:26, Terry Fields wrote:
But 'humankind' isn't a static object. I have a blood-group that did
not arise in Africa, and group AB appeared in the last 900 years or
so somewhere in the Northern Hemispere.

ICBW but doesn't AB just mean you are heterozygous for A and B?

Andy

I don't think so. Have a look at this:

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Blood-g...roduction.aspx

"The ABO system

Blood groups are defined by the ABO system.

Blood group A has A antigens on its red blood cells and anti-B
antibodies in its plasma.
Blood group B has B antigens and anti-A antibodies in its plasma.
Blood group O has no antigens but both anti-A and anti-B
antibodies. This means that group O red cells can safely be given to
anyone. It is the most common blood group in the UK.
Group AB has both A and B antigens but no antibodies, otherwise it
would destroy itself.

Receiving blood from the wrong ABO group could be life-threatening
because antibodies in a person with group A blood will attack group B
antigens and vice-versa."

I believe I'm a B+. What do the 'negatives' and 'positives' mean?

"Red blood cells sometimes have another antigen, a protein known as the RhD antigen. If this is present, your
blood group is RhD positive. If it is absent, you are RhD negative. This means that you can be one of eight blood
groups:

A RhD positive (A+)
A RhD negative (A-)
B RhD positive (B+)
B RhD negative (B-)
O RhD positive (O+)
O RhD negative (O-)
AB RhD positive (AB+)
AB RhD negative (AB-)

Around 85% of the UK population is RhD positive."

"In immunology, an antigen is a substance that evokes the production of one or more antibodies. Each antibody
binds to a specific antigen by way of an interaction similar to the fit between a lock and a key. The substance
may be from the external environment or formed within the body. The immune system will try to destroy or
neutralize any antigen that is recognized as a foreign and potentially harmful invader. The term originally came
from antibody generator[1][2] and was a molecule that binds specifically to an antibody, but the term now also
refers to any molecule or molecular fragment that can be bound by a major histocompatibility complex (MHC)
and presented to a T-cell receptor.[3] "Self" antigens are usually tolerated by the immune system, whereas "non-
self" antigens can be identified".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigen

--
Terry Fields

On 05/05/2013 08:47 Ian Jackson wrote:

But aren't tomatoes (especially when processed into tomato sauce)
supposed to ward off prostate cancer?

Yes. Lycopene appears to be the 'active ingredient'.

--
F

On 4 May, 14:34, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 04/05/2013 13:09, RayL12 wrote:

On 04/05/2013 *7:57 AM, John Williamson wrote:

I am not a medical expert, but I've read that only about 10% of the
cholesterol in your blood is directly due to your diet, the rest is
internally generated. I could be wrong, of course.

Some is certainly generated, but how much varies with the individual.



* I too have read such. One such 'theory' is for the body to re-balance
excess salt content by wrapping it in cholesterol.

That is pure bovine excrement. If excess salt gets wrapped in anything
it is additional water retention leading to raised blood pressure.

Excess salt is excreted.

MBQ

On 05/05/13 21:13, Martin Brown wrote:
On 05/05/2013 10:22, stuart noble wrote:
On 05/05/2013 08:47, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Martin Brown
writes
On 04/05/2013 14:26, Terry Fields wrote:
On Sat, 04 May 2013 13:21:05 +0100, RayL12 wrote:

On 04/05/2013 1:06 PM, polygonum wrote:

Too much fruit can be a problem - all that fructose (and, indeed,
sucrose in some fruit).

Lots of vegetables can be problematical for some people - e.g those
which have goitrogenic effects.

And anyone with arthritis might like to try avoiding tomatoes and
sweet peppers.

Not heard that one before. Would you care to elaborate?

But aren't tomatoes (especially when processed into tomato sauce)
supposed to ward off prostate cancer? I think I'd rather live with the
arthritis.

Most tomatoes taste disgusting to me, so I don't eat them. It's my
body's way of telling me they're not for me. Simple really. Eat what you
fancy and to hell with the theories

Small problem with that is some of the absolutely lethal Amanita
species actually taste fantastic but are utterly deadly even in small
doses. This results in more fatalities than if they tasted unpleasant.

They also have the very nasty habit of allowing you to more or less
recover before causing total organ failure of liver and kidneys.

I have eaten some of the safe Amanita fungi with some trepidation and
they do taste really good. I still prefer morels. YMMV

Morel definitely my favourite apart from Ceps.

Shaggy parasols ain't bad.
And any of the various agaricus.
But its amazing how many species of edible fungi there are that you try
and say 'OK, edible, but honestly wouldn't you rather buy some better
ones from Tesco?'


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 05/05/2013 21:13, Martin Brown wrote:
On 05/05/2013 10:22, stuart noble wrote:
On 05/05/2013 08:47, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Martin Brown
writes
On 04/05/2013 14:26, Terry Fields wrote:
On Sat, 04 May 2013 13:21:05 +0100, RayL12 wrote:

On 04/05/2013 1:06 PM, polygonum wrote:

Too much fruit can be a problem - all that fructose (and, indeed,
sucrose in some fruit).

Lots of vegetables can be problematical for some people - e.g those
which have goitrogenic effects.

And anyone with arthritis might like to try avoiding tomatoes and
sweet peppers.

Not heard that one before. Would you care to elaborate?

But aren't tomatoes (especially when processed into tomato sauce)
supposed to ward off prostate cancer? I think I'd rather live with the
arthritis.

Most tomatoes taste disgusting to me, so I don't eat them. It's my
body's way of telling me they're not for me. Simple really. Eat what you
fancy and to hell with the theories

Small problem with that is some of the absolutely lethal Amanita species
actually taste fantastic but are utterly deadly even in small doses.
This results in more fatalities than if they tasted unpleasant.

They also have the very nasty habit of allowing you to more or less
recover before causing total organ failure of liver and kidneys.

I have eaten some of the safe Amanita fungi with some trepidation and
they do taste really good. I still prefer morels. YMMV

And they keep having fun classifying the ways they poison us:

"Four new mushroom poisoning syndromes were classified including
accelerated nephrotoxicity (Amanita proxima, Amanita smithiana),
rhabdomyolysis (Tricholoma equestre, Russula subnigricans),
erythromelalgia (Clitocybe amoenolens, Clitocybe acromelalgia), and
delayed neurotoxicity (Hapalopilus rutilans)."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15699849

--
Rod

On 04/05/2013 2:34 PM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 04/05/2013 13:09, RayL12 wrote:
On 04/05/2013 7:57 AM, John Williamson wrote:

I am not a medical expert, but I've read that only about 10% of the
cholesterol in your blood is directly due to your diet, the rest is
internally generated. I could be wrong, of course.


Some is certainly generated, but how much varies with the individual.


I too have read such. One such 'theory' is for the body to re-balance
excess salt content by wrapping it in cholesterol.

That is pure bovine excrement. If excess salt gets wrapped in anything
it is additional water retention leading to raised blood pressure.
(also a potentially life shortening condition)

I suggest you discount anything you have read on that website.
The net is full of kooks and nutters expounding crazy "THEORIES".

If you are lucky all in capitals is a good marker for a crazy KOOK.

I cannot argue with your knowledge. However, I don't believe the body
only ever developed that one method to reduce salt content. Odd that my
sister, all 7 stone of her, was advised to take water retention pills
for her cholesterol condition.

--
One click voting to change the world.
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/
Join Now! Be a part of people power.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/
Biting the hand that feeds IT

On 04/05/2013 5:29 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/05/13 13:59, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 04/05/13 13:21, RayL12 wrote:
On 04/05/2013 1:06 PM, polygonum wrote:
On 04/05/2013 12:58, RayL12 wrote:
On 03/05/2013 9:41 PM, Tim Lamb wrote:
There was a lot of interest last time this was aired but I was
left with
a few unanswered questions...

How significant is the fat in processed Pork slices as I find it
a very
convenient source of sandwich filling?

How linear is the response to dose levels? A recent test found
4.2 total
(2.4 LDL) for a dose of 20mg. Pre-statins, I had levels of 6.8
and 7.2
total. I would like to drop the dose to 10mg.

I asked how long it takes for the body to return to normal after
stopping medication and was told 2 weeks. I was also told to resume
treatment to double check any noted changes.


You can spend 6 - 7 years of your life learning nutrition and it
will
all boil down to a simple formula; eat fresh veg' and fruit.

Processed 'anything' is junk.

Too much fruit can be a problem - all that fructose (and, indeed,
sucrose in some fruit).

Lots of vegetables can be problematical for some people - e.g those
which have goitrogenic effects.

I have no doubt that that is true. Though, I struggle to accept it
as a condition considering that humankind evolved from eating just
those things.

I am not sure that is correct. Man probably evolved eating fruit,
nuts and meat/fish.

vegetables came later.

Don't bother, chaps; we have another nutter in our midst.

no, a soothsayer

http://tolweb.org/treehouses/?treehouse_id=4446

humans only became vegetarian under extreme population pressure.
Although some vegeable matter has always been a part of the diet.



The first forms of life on the planet were considered vegetation. What
did it eat?

--
One click voting to change the world.
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/
Join Now! Be a part of people power.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/
Biting the hand that feeds IT

On 04/05/2013 2:26 PM, Terry Fields wrote:
On Sat, 04 May 2013 13:21:05 +0100, RayL12 wrote:

On 04/05/2013 1:06 PM, polygonum wrote:

Too much fruit can be a problem - all that fructose (and, indeed,
sucrose in some fruit).

Lots of vegetables can be problematical for some people - e.g those
which have goitrogenic effects.

And anyone with arthritis might like to try avoiding tomatoes and sweet peppers.

I have no doubt that that is true. Though, I struggle to accept it as
a condition considering that humankind evolved from eating just those
things.

But 'humankind' isn't a static object. I have a blood-group that did not arise in Africa, and group AB appeared in
the last 900 years or so somewhere in the Northern Hemispere.


Hmm, recent reports suggest life as humankind began in Africa? I won't
argue with that considering winters of the Great Years. What did make me
laugh when they showed what they thought was the actually cave.

--
One click voting to change the world.
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/
Join Now! Be a part of people power.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/
Biting the hand that feeds IT

On 04/05/2013 3:47 PM, Huge wrote:
On 2013-05-04, wrote:
On 03/05/2013 9:41 PM, Tim Lamb wrote:
There was a lot of interest last time this was aired but I was left with
a few unanswered questions...

How significant is the fat in processed Pork slices as I find it a very
convenient source of sandwich filling?

How linear is the response to dose levels? A recent test found 4.2 total
(2.4 LDL) for a dose of 20mg. Pre-statins, I had levels of 6.8 and 7.2
total. I would like to drop the dose to 10mg.

I asked how long it takes for the body to return to normal after
stopping medication and was told 2 weeks. I was also told to resume
treatment to double check any noted changes.


You can spend 6 - 7 years of your life learning nutrition and it will
all boil down to a simple formula; eat fresh veg' and fruit.

Processed 'anything' is junk.

I suggest you go and eat unprocessed cassava, then.




So it has to be processed?

--
One click voting to change the world.
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/
Join Now! Be a part of people power.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/
Biting the hand that feeds IT

On 07/05/2013 18:35, RayL12 wrote:
On 04/05/2013 5:29 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/05/13 13:59, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 04/05/13 13:21, RayL12 wrote:
On 04/05/2013 1:06 PM, polygonum wrote:
On 04/05/2013 12:58, RayL12 wrote:
On 03/05/2013 9:41 PM, Tim Lamb wrote:
There was a lot of interest last time this was aired but I was
left with
a few unanswered questions...

How significant is the fat in processed Pork slices as I find it
a very
convenient source of sandwich filling?

How linear is the response to dose levels? A recent test found
4.2 total
(2.4 LDL) for a dose of 20mg. Pre-statins, I had levels of 6.8
and 7.2
total. I would like to drop the dose to 10mg.

I asked how long it takes for the body to return to normal after
stopping medication and was told 2 weeks. I was also told to
resume
treatment to double check any noted changes.


You can spend 6 - 7 years of your life learning nutrition and it
will
all boil down to a simple formula; eat fresh veg' and fruit.

Processed 'anything' is junk.

Too much fruit can be a problem - all that fructose (and, indeed,
sucrose in some fruit).

Lots of vegetables can be problematical for some people - e.g those
which have goitrogenic effects.

I have no doubt that that is true. Though, I struggle to accept it
as a condition considering that humankind evolved from eating just
those things.

I am not sure that is correct. Man probably evolved eating fruit,
nuts and meat/fish.

vegetables came later.

Don't bother, chaps; we have another nutter in our midst.

no, a soothsayer

http://tolweb.org/treehouses/?treehouse_id=4446

humans only became vegetarian under extreme population pressure.
Although some vegeable matter has always been a part of the diet.



The first forms of life on the planet were considered vegetation. What
did it eat?

What did the considering?

--
Rod

On 04/05/2013 11:14 PM, Huge wrote:
On 2013-05-04, Peter wrote:
On Sat, 04 May 2013 12:58:55 +0100,
wrote:


You can spend 6 - 7 years of your life learning nutrition and it will
all boil down to a simple formula; eat fresh veg' and fruit.

Ah yes, those nice phalloides fungi followed by some nutritious raw
Lima and castor oil beans in the salad. Cheerful Abrus precatorius
beans will add some colour, Bitter almonds will make a tasty dessert
to go with the fruit of the Cerbera odollam, Euonymus atropurpureus
and Bittersweet Nightshade for more colour.

Processed 'anything' is junk.

Absolutely, kidney beans are just so much nicer fresh and uncooked.
Just like with manioc and cashew nuts that silly heating and boiling
process plays hell with the flavours.

*applause*


Once again I will ask, ..it has to be processed??

--
One click voting to change the world.
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/
Join Now! Be a part of people power.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/
Biting the hand that feeds IT