MSN Home  |  My MSN  |  Hotmail
Sign in to Windows Live ID Web Search:   
go to MSNGroups 
Free Forum Hosting
 
Important Announcement Important Announcement
The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More
The Scientific Debate Forum.Contains "mature" content, but not necessarily adult.[email protected] 
  
What's New
  
  Disclaimer: Read this page first.  
  Links  
  Messages  
  General  
  Nutrition  
  "Mission Statement."  
  Why the "germ theory" is not science.  
  The Underlying Cause of "Disease."  
  The Scientific Method.  
  How dangerous are bacteria and viruses?  
  The Contributions of Hans Selye and others.  
  How direct effects are often ignored, and indirect markers used  
  Understanding "disease" at the molecular level.  
  Understanding disease at the molecular level, part II.  
  What the "common cold" can teach us about illness.  
  The AA connection to today's common "diseases."  
  How easy the key experiments would be to do.  
  The best practical diet and the explanation for it.  
  Fish oil quotes you might want to read  
  Where the "immune system" fits into this view of "disease."  
  How many 'scientific studies' violate the scientific method  
  Why you have to be careful with antioxidants.  
  Why Cancers today are more aggressive than those of the past.  
  The Latest Evidence.  
  Some studies worthy of note.  
  HSWC "in action."  
  How language can impede science.  
  How language impedes science, part II.  
  More on why "germs" don't cause "disease."  
  How a latent virus actually causes "disease."  
  A new report that "says it all."  
  The science "show" must go on?  
  Odds and ends  
  Some thoughts on a book by Robert Gallo.  
  Saturated fatty acids are the solution, not the problem.  
  It's stress, not "germs" that causes disease.  
  Epidemiology: Facts versus "factoids."  
  It's stress, not germs, part II.  
  The latest on "inflammation."  
  Why many nutritional claims make no sense  
  The use of hypotheticals in science.  
  What "viral infections" really do to the body.  
  What determines longevity?  
  An example of an anti-"saturated fat" study that is flawed.  
  A Rough Guide to a Gentle Diet.  
  A unified "AIDS" hypothsis without "HIV."  
  A unified "AIDS" hypothsis without "HIV." Part II.  
  Okay, so when is this diet going to kill me?  
  Scientific Debate Forum Pictures  
  The EFA Claim Was Refuted Long Ago  
    
  
  
  Tools  
 
Nutrition : Is Iron Dangerous?
Choose another message board
View All Messages
  Prev Message  Next Message       
Reply
 Message 3 of 7 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameHansSelyeWasCorrect  in response to Message 2Sent: 12/20/2007 3:50 AM
Bruce is at a point where future his future posts may be rejected, because what he is stating is not consistent with current notions, and he is not supplying us with evidence that supports his claims. Yes, it is true that lard is one thing, and a pork chop is something else, for example, but the effects of iron do not seem to be poorly understood at this time. Taka is right in that "ironjustice" has posted a huge number of "anti-iron" studies on the sci.med.nutrition newsgroup. I found this interesting bit of information:

QUOTE: Many substances can reduce the amount of non-heme iron we absorb; these substances include tannins in coffee or tea, dairy, phytates (fiber), eggs and some types of chocolate. Calcium can impair the absorption of both non-heme and heme iron. Therefore if a person needs more iron, he or she should avoid these items to improve the amount of iron absorbed. But if a person has a problem of too much iron, he or she should use these items to help lower the amount of iron absorbed... UNQUOTE.

I'm glad my diet appears to be an "anti-iron" absorption one, if this statement is accurate, but I've also seen the study of Asians that perplexed the researchers, because the people studied had very high iron levels, yet none of the "diseases" they expected would accompany such levels. My guess is that this has to do with the fatty acids in the diets of the peoples studied, but of course it would be nice to have some on-point studies to confirm this possibility. Who said lard had iron in it?

The claims against "white flour" also need to be supported by some piece of evidence. Keep in mind that most flour has added folic acid along with added iron, so unless a bunch of important factors are controlled, claims against "white flour" can't be taken seriously at this point. It's acceptable to disagree with another's interpretation of the evidence, but you need to either produce your own evidence, Bruce (if you are a research scientist), or else cite some studies, and then we can continue this thread in a reasonable way.

Source of passage cited:
http://www.irondisorders.org/Disorders/about.asp


Replies to This Message The number of members that recommended this message.    
     re: Is Iron Dangerous?   MSN Nicknamerensielk  12/26/2007 10:09 AM