Fish Oil Processing

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Preferences

Forum index » Medicine forums » nutrition

Fish Oil Processing

Page 8 of 12 [176 Posts]

View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, ..., 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 Next

Author

Message

Curt James
medicine forum beginner

Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Posts: 42

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 7:13 am Post subject: Note

Re: Fish Oil Processing

Will Brink <willbrink@comcast.net> wrote:

[...]

Quote:

Cite please.

Is "Will Brink" an autoresponder bot-type thing?

Cite, cite, cite, cite. Cite, please. Cite? Cite?

Will, save yourself some time this week. Rather than posting your
in-depth replies just trust that I'll tack a "Cite please." onto
everything I read in Usenet until Saturday at midnight, okay?

--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/

Just Cocky
medicine forum Guru Wannabe

Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 297

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:04 pm Post subject: Note

Re: Fish Oil Processing

On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 03:32:12 +0000 (UTC), DZ
<15539@112566302.1396425987.22195.29458.1600> wrote:

Quote:

Predictability for animal models to humans is on average about 70%
for toxicity and kinetics and about 60% for efficacy.

By animals you are probably including primates as well, no? I'd like
to see numbers just for rats.

Quote:

Such numbers can be found in the literature on attrition.

Do you have any links? Thanks!

--
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are
cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt"
-- Bertrand Russell

DZ
medicine forum addict

Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 91

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 6:29 pm Post subject: Note

Re: Fish Oil Processing

Just Cocky <just@cocky.com> wrote:

Quote:

DZ wrote:
Predictability for animal models to humans is on average about 70%
for toxicity and kinetics and about 60% for efficacy.

By animals you are probably including primates as well, no? I'd like
to see numbers just for rats.

Yes, but these averages are computed in the following manner: given an
animal model of whatever type, what is the predicted toxicity? Since
rodent models are a lot more prevalent, the number is not going to
drop substantially. In other words, these are averages weighted by the
prevalence of a particular animal type during drug development.

Blind Frank the Dancing M
medicine forum beginner

Joined: 13 Jun 2006
Posts: 1

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 6:53 pm Post subject: Note

Re: Fish Oil Processing

Quote:

Just Cocky < > By animals you are probably including primates as well,
no?

I hope that's not true, I surely don't want to be tested.

Just Cocky
medicine forum Guru Wannabe

Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 297

Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 2:08 am Post subject: Note

Re: Fish Oil Processing

On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 18:29:08 +0000 (UTC), DZ
<29029@2530824056.2780625557.28716.32108.6395> wrote:

Quote:

Just Cocky <just@cocky.com> wrote:
DZ wrote:
Predictability for animal models to humans is on average about 70%
for toxicity and kinetics and about 60% for efficacy.

By animals you are probably including primates as well, no? I'd like
to see numbers just for rats.

Yes, but these averages are computed in the following manner: given an
animal model of whatever type, what is the predicted toxicity? Since
rodent models are a lot more prevalent, the number is not going to
drop substantially. In other words, these are averages weighted by the
prevalence of a particular animal type during drug development.

So, at best we have a 60% correlation for eficacy between rats and
humans. It's not that much better than a flip of a coin, is it?

--
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are
cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt"
-- Bertrand Russell

DZ
medicine forum addict

Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 91

Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:19 pm Post subject: Note

Re: Fish Oil Processing

Just Cocky <just@cocky.com> wrote:

Quote:

DZ wrote:
Just Cocky <just@cocky.com> wrote:
DZ wrote:
Predictability for animal models to humans is on average about 70%
for toxicity and kinetics and about 60% for efficacy.

By animals you are probably including primates as well, no? I'd like
to see numbers just for rats.

Yes, but these averages are computed in the following manner: given an
animal model of whatever type, what is the predicted toxicity? Since
rodent models are a lot more prevalent, the number is not going to
drop substantially. In other words, these are averages weighted by the
prevalence of a particular animal type during drug development.

So, at best we have a 60% correlation for eficacy between rats and
humans. It's not that much better than a flip of a coin, is it?

Depends on what the baseline expectation is. But it is very low, not
anywhere close to a 50:50 flip coin. If you consider that around 100
in 100,000 compounds in early screening become viable candidates, 10
of those become leads, and then most of what remained drop due to
safety and lack of potency, a flip of a coin is a lot better than pure
chance.

Will Brink
medicine forum addict

Joined: 11 Mar 2005
Posts: 83

Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 9:32 pm Post subject: Note

Re: Fish Oil Processing

In article <1149977844.302687.137720@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"msamson11975@yahoo.ca" <msamson11975@yahoo.ca> wrote:

Quote:

Eating mackerel
and herring (and probably also fish powder FPC type B, a byproduct by
fish oil production when using fresh caught fish not conservated by
formaldehyde and produced under sterile conditions) contain other
compounds than just fat, protein and carbohydrate and minerals. Many
of these compounds are preventive against bad side effects of fish oil

This is where Mr. Dink comes along and cries "Supporting Structures!"

No moron, it's where you claim the "supportive structures." I was only
quoting your stupid ass.

--
Will Brink @ www.BrinkZone.com

msamson11975@yahoo.ca
medicine forum addict

Joined: 03 Jun 2006
Posts: 97

Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 2:46 am Post subject: Note

Re: Fish Oil Processing

Will Brink wrote:

Quote:

In article <1149977844.302687.137720@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"msamson11975@yahoo.ca" <msamson11975@yahoo.ca> wrote:

Eating mackerel
and herring (and probably also fish powder FPC type B, a byproduct by
fish oil production when using fresh caught fish not conservated by
formaldehyde and produced under sterile conditions) contain other
compounds than just fat, protein and carbohydrate and minerals. Many
of these compounds are preventive against bad side effects of fish oil

This is where Mr. Dink comes along and cries "Supporting Structures!"

No moron, it's where you claim the "supportive structures." I was only
quoting your stupid ass.

--
Will Brink @ www.BrinkZone.com

Willy wanna cracker? Cite Cite!!! CITE!! CITE!!!!

Dude, I was checking out your cite...do you have a gut?

italiangm
medicine forum beginner

Joined: 31 May 2006
Posts: 31

Posted: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:35 pm Post subject: Note

Re: Fish Oil Processing

JMW wrote:

Quote:

"italiangm" <italiangm@yahoo.com> wrote:
And finally, whey appears in all kinds of products. Cottage cheese ...

Cottage cheese is casein, Sparky. When the cottage cheese curdles,
the liquid whey is drained away. That's why it was a somewhat
worthless by-product of cheese production until its advantage as a
protein supplement was developed.

Right. That's why whey is number 3 in this (and most) product
ingredient lists:

http://kraftfoods.com/main.aspx?s=product&m=product/Product_display&Site=1&Product=2100012283

Quote:

The residual whey is not significant enough to be highly insulinogenic
when mixed with the casein.

"Not significant" is speculative at best and dangerous at worst. Find
scientific proof that whey contained in diary products and supplements
in support of your assertion that whey in those products is "not
significant" and is not "highly insulinogenic". We'll wait.

Non insulin-dependent diabetics are at risk for escalating effects of
hyperinsulinemia. It is vital they understand whey's ability to spike
insulin, especially when they are unable/unwilling to exercise.

Most of your "information" applies to folks who are bodybuilding. While
NIDDM folk can be bodybuilders, it's the exception, not the rule.

Curt James
medicine forum beginner

Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Posts: 42

Posted: Sat Jun 17, 2006 3:26 pm Post subject: Note

Re: Fish Oil Processing

italiangm <italiangm@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:

JMW wrote:
"italiangm" <italiangm@yahoo.com> wrote:
And finally, whey appears in all kinds of products. Cottage cheese ...

Cottage cheese is casein, Sparky. When the cottage cheese curdles,
the liquid whey is drained away. That's why it was a somewhat
worthless by-product of cheese production until its advantage as a
protein supplement was developed.

Right. That's why whey is number 3 in this (and most) product
ingredient lists:

http://kraftfoods.com/main.aspx?s=product&m=product/Product_display&Site=1&Product=2100012283

The residual whey is not significant enough to be highly insulinogenic
when mixed with the casein.

"Not significant" is speculative at best and dangerous at worst. Find
scientific proof that whey contained in diary products and supplements
in support of your assertion that whey in those products is "not
significant" and is not "highly insulinogenic". We'll wait.

Jeopardy theme wafts through the newsgroups...

Quote:

Non insulin-dependent diabetics are at risk for escalating effects of
hyperinsulinemia. It is vital they understand whey's ability to spike
insulin, especially when they are unable/unwilling to exercise.

Most of your "information" applies to folks who are bodybuilding. While
NIDDM folk can be bodybuilders, it's the exception, not the rule.

GET SOME, ITALIA! GET SOME!

Surprised

)

--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/

JMW
medicine forum addict

Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 56

Posted: Sat Jun 17, 2006 6:13 pm Post subject: Note

Re: Fish Oil Processing

"italiangm" <italiangm@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:

Uh-huh. Right before the "CONTAINS LESS THAN 2% OF" ingredients.
That proves nothing, and either your know that, or you're a moron.

Quote:

http://kraftfoods.com/main.aspx?s=product&m=product/Product_display&Site=1&Product=2100012283

(and most) product
ingredient lists:

Uh-oh! There goes the part where you throw in the gratuitous
parenthetical "and most" because you know you don't have evidence to
support that claim.

Quote:

The residual whey is not significant enough to be highly insulinogenic
when mixed with the casein.

"Not significant" is speculative at best and dangerous at worst. Find
scientific proof that whey contained in diary products and supplements
in support of your assertion that whey in those products is "not
significant" and is not "highly insulinogenic". We'll wait.

Non insulin-dependent diabetics are at risk for escalating effects of
hyperinsulinemia. It is vital they understand whey's ability to spike
insulin, especially when they are unable/unwilling to exercise.

Most of your "information" applies to folks who are bodybuilding. While
NIDDM folk can be bodybuilders, it's the exception, not the rule.

Bullshit. Let's consider Type II diabetics. We all know glucose is
highly insulinogenic. It's been well established that amino acids are
less insulinogenic, but there's still a significant effect. Most of
that depends on how fast proteins are broken down into constituent
amino acids and absorbed through the gut. In one study published
nearly 15 years ago, glucose had a significant hourly insulinogenic
response of 732 pmol/L, while cottage cheese had 309 pmol/L, and egg
whites had 86 pmol/L. Add glucose to either cottage cheese or egg
whites, and it jumps synergistically: glucose with cottage cheese,
1,637 pmol/L, and glucose with egg white, 1,213 pmol/L. [1]

It's about the insulinogenic capacity of amino acids and their
synergistic combination with simple sugars. There is no evil magic in
whey; it's simply broken down and absorbed faster, thus leading to a
faster increase in the amino acid pool. That effect is blunted by
mixing it with less insulinogenic ingredients, and you have yet to
establish (even with the link you provided) that foods, other than
those intended for people involved in substantial exercise, contain a
significant percentage of whey, anyway.

[1] Gannon MC, Nuttall FQ, Lane JT, Burmeister LA. Metabolic response
to cottage cheese or egg white protein, with or without glucose, in
type II diabetic subjects. Metabolism. 1992 Oct;41(10):1137-45.

italiangm
medicine forum beginner

Joined: 31 May 2006
Posts: 31

Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 12:37 am Post subject: Note

Re: Fish Oil Processing

JMW wrote:

Quote:

That proves nothing, and either your know that, or you're a moron.

Do you really think resorting to ad hominems is going to improve your
stature, accuracy, or authenticity?

It's the sign of a weak (and obviously closed) mind.

Surely you could find a cite more current than 1992... The etiology
and sequelae of type 2 diabetes has come a long way since then. More
has been discovered in the last three years than in the previous three
decades (like the original cite used).

Your case is weak and unconvincing. Since you can't support your
assertions, I'll wait until larger studies are performed. Until then,
whey remains a hyperinsulinemia suspect, especially in folks with
impaired glucose tolerance, impaired fasting glucose, and type 2
diabetes. At risk folks should consume whey with caution.

italiangm
medicine forum beginner

Joined: 31 May 2006
Posts: 31

Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:03 am Post subject: Note

Re: Fish Oil Processing

JMW wrote:

Quote:

"italiangm" <italiangm@yahoo.com> wrote:
Most of your "information" applies to folks who are bodybuilding. While
NIDDM folk can be bodybuilders, it's the exception, not the rule.

Bullshit. Let's consider Type II diabetics. We all know glucose is
highly insulinogenic. It's been well established that amino acids are
less insulinogenic, but there's still a significant effect. Most of
that depends on how fast proteins are broken down into constituent
amino acids and absorbed through the gut. In one study published
nearly 15 years ago, glucose had a significant hourly insulinogenic
response of 732 pmol/L, while cottage cheese had 309 pmol/L, and egg
whites had 86 pmol/L. Add glucose to either cottage cheese or egg
whites, and it jumps synergistically: glucose with cottage cheese,
1,637 pmol/L, and glucose with egg white, 1,213 pmol/L. [1]

[1] Gannon MC, Nuttall FQ, Lane JT, Burmeister LA. Metabolic response
to cottage cheese or egg white protein, with or without glucose, in
type II diabetic subjects. Metabolism. 1992 Oct;41(10):1137-45.

Lo and behold, Frank Q Nuttall and Mary C Gannon expanded the
experiment 12 years later as described in "Metabolic response of people
with type 2 diabetes to a high protein diet"; Nutrition & Metabolism
2004, 1:6 doi:10.1186/1743-7075-1-6 using beef, turkey, gelatin, egg
white, cottage cheese, fish and soy that also contained glucose...

"....When any of the proteins was added to the ingested glucose, the
insulin area response was greatly increased. The smallest response was
obtained with egg white, which was 190% or 1.9 fold over the response
to glucose ingested alone. The greatest increase was with cottage
cheese, which was 360% or 3.6 fold...."

Curt James
medicine forum beginner

Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Posts: 42

Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:18 am Post subject: Note

Re: Fish Oil Processing

italiangm <italiangm@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:

JMW wrote:
"italiangm" <italiangm@yahoo.com> wrote:
Most of your "information" applies to folks who are bodybuilding. While
NIDDM folk can be bodybuilders, it's the exception, not the rule.

Bullshit. Let's consider Type II diabetics. We all know glucose is
highly insulinogenic. It's been well established that amino acids are
less insulinogenic, but there's still a significant effect. Most of
that depends on how fast proteins are broken down into constituent
amino acids and absorbed through the gut. In one study published
nearly 15 years ago, glucose had a significant hourly insulinogenic
response of 732 pmol/L, while cottage cheese had 309 pmol/L, and egg
whites had 86 pmol/L. Add glucose to either cottage cheese or egg
whites, and it jumps synergistically: glucose with cottage cheese,
1,637 pmol/L, and glucose with egg white, 1,213 pmol/L. [1]

[1] Gannon MC, Nuttall FQ, Lane JT, Burmeister LA. Metabolic response
to cottage cheese or egg white protein, with or without glucose, in
type II diabetic subjects. Metabolism. 1992 Oct;41(10):1137-45.

Lo and behold, Frank Q Nuttall and Mary C Gannon expanded the
experiment 12 years later as described in "Metabolic response of people
with type 2 diabetes to a high protein diet"; Nutrition & Metabolism
2004, 1:6 doi:10.1186/1743-7075-1-6 using beef, turkey, gelatin, egg
white, cottage cheese, fish and soy that also contained glucose...

"....When any of the proteins was added to the ingested glucose, the
insulin area response was greatly increased. The smallest response was
obtained with egg white, which was 190% or 1.9 fold over the response
to glucose ingested alone. The greatest increase was with cottage
cheese, which was 360% or 3.6 fold...."

Yeah, lo and behold, Emmy. Whatcha got to say about THAT?

Uh, just peeking in on the PhD set. (And wrt JMW, you were spot-on so
far as the closed-minded assessment is concerned, imo. Thanks!)

--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/

JMW
medicine forum addict

Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 56

Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 3:01 am Post subject: Note

Re: Fish Oil Processing

"italiangm" <italiangm@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:

Uh-huh. And added protein with reduced carbohydrate was found to be
effective at reducing plasma glucose levels. And cottage cheese, in
combination with glucose, was as good as, or better than, any of the
other proteins (combined with glucose) at doing that. [See Figure 3
for 5-hour levels] And what was the conclusion of that study?

"From these data we conclude that increasing the protein content of
the diet at the expense of carbohydrate can reduce the 24-hour
integrated plasma glucose concentration, at least over a 5-week period
of time. The reduction was similar to that of oral agents and renal
function was not affected significantly. Thus, increasing the protein
content of the diet with a corresponding decrease in the carbohydrate
content potentially is a patient empowering way of reducing the
hyperglycemia present in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus,
independent of the use of pharmaceutical agents."

And, once again, cottage cheese was one of the most effective proteins
for that purpose. Did you miss that part? Should I repeat it one
more time?

Google

Display posts from previous:

Page 8 of 12 [176 Posts]

Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, ..., 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic

The time now is Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:07 pm | All times are GMT

Forum index » Medicine forums » nutrition

Topic		Author	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Similar Topics
	All the Same: Costco Wild Salmon and ...	Miso	nutrition	12	Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:26 am
	Fish Oil May Help Save Your Sight	Roman Bystrianyk	vision	8	Tue Jul 11, 2006 2:31 am
	Fish oils may lead to irregular heart...	listener	cardiology	2	Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:18 pm
	Study shows taste for meat and fish i...	Just Cocky	nutrition	2	Wed Jun 14, 2006 2:32 am
	"I need more than rumors to attack," ...	Newsgroup Leader Katheen	lyme	0	Mon Jun 05, 2006 2:11 am

Art visionaries | Ugg Boots | Mortgages | Credit Card | Ringtones

Other DeniX Solutions sites: electronics forum, Science forum Unix/Linux blog Unix/Linux documentation Unix/Linux forums

[ Time: 4.9542s ][ Queries: 16 (0.3516s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]