Linus Pauling: Scientist, Quack or Both?

reply to post by Rawhemp


True, but not all sugars are equal. It's like with fats as well. There are "good" and "bad" fats. The main difference between glucose and fructose is that nearly none of glucose is converted into fat because it's metabolized by the brain mostly. Fructose is metabolized by the liver and 30% is converted directly to fat. This is the main reason for obesity in America. HFCS. Watch the video. I'm sure you're very health conscious. I try to be as well. This video enlightened me.

[edit on 3-1-2010 by unityemissions]

reply to post by unityemissions


Watched a similar video(might be the same) and I'm aware of what happens. Neglected to see that post. Labeling fructose as the main culprit of anything tho is pretty naive imo, you have to look at the whole picture. Americans don't eat nothing but fructose :p


I think the main problem is sugar consumption mixed with fat consumption. Fat can take anywhere between 12-24 hrs to be processed and leave your blood stream, when your constantly eating it as most Americans do you usually have a good supply floating around your blood. Then you go to eat sugar, it causes massive insulin responses and makes your pancreas go into overdrive. Good fats and bad fats don't really make a difference in this scenario. The mixture of fat and sugars(most junk foods are about 50/50 fat/sugar) cause the sugars to ferment inside your gut and this lead to a whole host of other problems.

This theory makes the most sense imo as the typical American eats about 42% fat/16% prot/42% carbs

reply to post by Rawhemp


I truly doubt that ratio. I bet we eat more protein than that! It's not so simple as what we consume as far as those three categories, man. That's what I was trying to say. Video explains. The fructose gets converted into fat, so carb = fat in this scenario. The extra caloric intake over the last 30 years is correlated with HFCS introduction. It's the sugar (fructose, 30%) which becomes fat.

Originally posted by unityemissions

I truly doubt that ratio. I bet we eat more protein than that!

We don't, its extremely hard to eat 20%+ protien without using lots of protien powders

The median intake of protein on a percentage of calories basis ranged from 13.4% in children aged 4–8 y to 16.0% in men aged 51–70 y

www.ajcn.org...

Originally posted by unityemissions It's not so simple as what we consume as far as those three categories, man. That's what I was trying to say. Video explains. The fructose gets converted into fat, so carb = fat in this scenario. The extra caloric intake over the last 30 years is correlated with HFCS introduction. It's the sugar (fructose, 30%) which becomes fat.

So fats the problem not sugar?

Originally posted by unityemissions
Agreed. Sugar is the culprit

Your original quote

Again fructose is not the culprit, refined fructose along with our other dietary shortcomings are the culprit lets clarify that please! Last thing we need is people to think one of the most nutritious substances on earth(fruit) is dangerous

You're twisting, fool.

I have nothing else to say to you.

I am in college to become a Naturopathic Physician.

Linus Pauling is referenced numerous times in our required reading, books, and media.

Although I have seen much information on the internet trying to discredit him, I see much evidence in my studies and in my own experience that supports his findings.

Since starting high doses of Vitamin C in my household, with myself, my husband, children, brother and sister in law, and parents, we have seen much less illness and when we have gotten ill, it has been relatively short in duration.
My middle child had an intolerance to wheat and after we started him (age 6) on 500mg of Vit C daily, his allergy has mysteriously disappeared and he can miraculously eat wheat products again.

According to what I am being taught (and corroborated by Dr. Andrew Saul www.doctoryourself.com), the more ill a person is, the more Vitamin C their body can handle to bowel tolerance. When you are well (and we have shown this in our own family), you don't need more than a few thousand mg a day, whereas if you are sick, you may can get up to 20,000-30,000mg of Vit C a day before reaching bowel tolerance.

The problem with doctors and researchers claims that when they attempted to recreate the same results, that his research was flawed seems unfounded as they did not use the same amounts of Vit C that he did, so they claimed no effect and attempted to discredit him.

Having just completed my section on Orthomolecular Nutrition, eating well itself is no longer sufficient in keeping your body healthy because we are dealing with over worked and nutrient deficient soil. Supplements are almost a necessity unless you are growing the food yourself and know the vitamin/nutrient content of the soil you are growing your food in (as organically as possible of course).

One cannot just say "multi vitamins do no good..." or "Vitamin C doesn't help" all is short sightedness. If your diet is SAD (Standard American Diet) a multi vitamin is not going to keep you from becoming ill nor will it "cure" you of anything. If you eat a mainly organic plant based diet (and no I am not a Vegetarian or Vegan), limit bad fats, meat, dairy, processed foods, sugars) and supplement your diet with extra vitamins that are necessary for good health, the likely hood of becoming terribly ill with a debilitating disease is not nearly as great.

No one is going to stay well all of the time. But "modern medicine" has achieved epic failure in the every day diseases that plague people: colds, viruses, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, etc. And the drugs they've come up with to "help" people are a multi billion dollar industry that would rather the public at large not realize that simple nutritional and dietary changes can prevent much of their problems.

Oh...before I wrap up this lengthy post (didn't mean for it to be this long), someone mentioned Dr. Pauling's findings regarding atherosclerosis being a form of scurvy...one of our "required readings" is "Health Wars" by Philip Day that expands on this concept. You should look into it.

I usually don't post, but I felt it was necessary.

reply to post by jenmckin


Everything you say is entirely true. It's nice to see someone else who understands Pauling's Genius, and the many ways which ascorbic acid is beneficial. You may be interested in a thread I started back when the swine flu was first starting. It's a bit all over the place. I was somewhat panicked initially, and still a bit ill (ortho has cured me over the last several months from chronic illness ) .

ascorbic acid's role in Containment of the Avian Flu Pandemic

reply to post by jenmckin


Good post.

I disagree with the need to supplement tho. I personally think the supplements can do more harm then good and some of these supplements have been proven to do pretty much nothing[the fat soluble ones such as vitamin E). The only supplement i would personally advocate is Vitamin D if you live in a climate where manufacture from the sun isn't possible, even in this case tho i would probably use a tanning bed or sun lamp instead.

reply to post by Rawhemp


It's not that it does nothing. The type of vitamin E used in most supplements is synthetic. It only contains 12.5% of d-alpha tocopherol. The dl-alpha tocopherol form (synthetic) contains the lowest vitamin E equivalence of any common vitamin E preparation. Natural vitamin E is produced from vegetable oil; synthetic E comes from coal tar.

If the studies used natural E, and in the right doses for the particular ailment, results would be astounding. Natural vitamin E is known to improve the immune system, help epileptics, diabetics, cancer patients, burn victims, Alzheimer's disease, hypertension, etc, etc..

Even the best diets can't provide more than 100 iu of E. This is much less than needed for optimal restoration of health, once disease sets in.

[edit on 6-1-2010 by unityemissions]

reply to post by Rawhemp


I think it depends on the supplements you buy. If you are simply going to Wal-Mart and buying Centrum, then no, you aren't getting a good quality multi vitamin. And most of the multi's on the standard market follow RDA...

Interesting subject...RDA was meant to stop things like scurvy, beriberi, rickets, etc in the population. In other words, the RDA is just enough to keep you alive and keep you from getting those diseases. Optimum nutrition to maintain good health is much higher.

I personally take Dr. Mercola's multi vitamins, 4000 IU of Vit D (Carlson's), 3000 Vit C a day (from natural sources & rosehips), 400IU of Vit E (from natural sources)...and after starting school, have learned about CoQ10 and how necessary it is. Something else we have started doing is crushing apricot seeds and eating them in honey since the FDA banned B17.
We rarely see a physician unless something major occurs like someone twists and ankle or something. My children have not needed the care of an MD for any colds/flu/infections in at least 4 years. They have never suffered an ear infection (there are 5 of them) and only get sick about once a year.

I agree that the unnatural sources of Vitamin E are the non beneficial ones. Upwards of 1600IU of natural source Vit E a day has been known to stop angina. It is an antioxidant, maintains the circulatory system, & protects cell membranes and tissues. Not to mention good for the skin.

reply to post by jenmckin



I agree the rda's are pretty low for somethings but there also rediculous high for others, I.e. calcium and sodium. Lucky for me i live in sunny socal and get high quality organic fruit, I usually am surpassing the rda's by 400%+

Originally posted by Rawhemp

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
(heart disease, obesity, diabetes, etc.) are almost undoubtedly caused by easily digestible carbohydrates, specifically sugar.

You realize the average american diet contains 40%+ fat??

Actually, it's now closer to 30%. It was above, or around 40% and then came along Ancel Keys who decided that dietary fat is causing heart disease, obesity and diabetes. Now we've lowered our fat consumption and have watched all three of the aforementioned diseases come to epidemic proportions.

www.cdc.gov...

During 1971--2000....The percentage of kcals from total fat decreased from 36.9% to 32.8% (p

As someone pointed out earlier in this thread: Dietary fats are not the problem. It's the lipids (blood fat) produced by dietary fructose (in combination with the effects that glucose has on insulin and insulin has on other metabolic pathways). Anybody who's ever taken biochemistry knows that fructose can only be metabolised in the liver. Get too much and your body produces VLDL and, eventually, triglycerides from it.

So, in essense, the low-fat diet that has been prescribed to us by health authorities is actually a high fat diet.

Glucose can be used as fuel by every cell in the body. But the key word is CAN. Cancer cells, and other cells that need quick acting fuel (brain, nervous system) prefer glucose; however, most others, including skeletal muscles prefer fatty acids when resting or performing light exercise.

Trans fats that are found in nature are NOT harmful. Not only do they have the Trans configuration but also the Cis. Manufactured trans fats are only Trans, which is exactly why they are dangerous.

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
Actually, it's now closer to 30%.

Not for the typical person getting diabetes, look at the food choices i linked most if not all of them are over 50% fat by calories.

Also check out this, findarticles.com...

Total fat consumption expressed as a percent of caloric intake has steadily decreased since 1965. However, in the past 5 years, the decrease in percent of calories from fat is a result of increased total caloric intake and not necessarily due to decreased fat consumption. The daily fat intake in grams has, in fact, increased in many cases, reversing the trend of Americans consuming less fat in their diet as was reported earlier

Looks like the only thing that changed is how many calories we consumed, I can see how sugary drinks have skewed the statistics. Lets also remember refined fructose is metabolized to 30% fat according to you guys, increasing the fat percentage even more

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd

The observed effects from consuming the diets prescribed by those three can very easily be attributed to the removal of easily digestible carbohydrates from the diet.

The diet i prescribe too follows the same nutrient profiles as these but with fruit, one of the easiest to digest carbs, in the other thread i linked to a fellow who has type 1 diabetes and this is the only diet that makes him able to function.

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
That's actually pretty funny statement; especially considering that high fat diets reverse diabetes.

A pretty much 100% fat diet will cure diabetes because it takes away the combination of sugar and fat. This is basic science. You could cure diabetes on a 100% protien diet or a primarily carbohydrate diet. Diabetes is only caused when excess sugar and fat are mixed, which is evident by the foods that cause it,

www.nutritiondata.com...
www.nutritiondata.com...
www.nutritiondata.com...
www.nutritiondata.com...

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvdI'm not really sure how the link you provided "proves" that a high fat diet in humans causes diabetes. The only thing it proves is that genetically modified mice being fed a high fat diet tend to show signs of type 2 diabetes mellitus development.

I mean, honestly, read some of the comments from that article:

"Incredible considering that there is a higher rate of diabetes type 2 in asian people who do not eat a western style diet. They do however indulge in sugars (which incidentally is also abundant in western diets)"

Asian society's eat sugar?? People always wanna separate carbohydrates in starchs or fruits from refined sugar but neglect to realize they are exactly the same.

I'm sure you may realize how diabetes works? Its caused when excess fat is consumed in the presence of sugar and traps the sugar in the blood leading to insulin resistance and a fatigued pancreas. Which eventually leads to diabetes.

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd

It's absolutely supported by countless observations, epidemiological studies and controlled lab studies that have been conducted over the past century.

I should have been more clear, all sugar except fructose. Care to share these studies? most likely based on refined fructose? Fructose is meant to be consumed with fiber aka fruit, bastardizing it is the only way it becomes harmful.

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd

Didn't you just agree with everything I said in my original post in another thread?

Here's the link to refresh your memory. www.abovetopsecret.com...

-Dev

I definitely agree'd with some points you made but not everything

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd

So, in essense, the low-fat diet that has been prescribed to us by health authorities is actually a high fat diet.

Since when did they recommend you get the majority of your calories from refined fructose?

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
Glucose can be used as fuel by every cell in the body. But the key word is CAN. Cancer cells, and other cells that need quick acting fuel (brain, nervous system) prefer glucose; however, most others, including skeletal muscles prefer fatty acids when resting or performing light exercise.

According to you. I rather give my body the preferred fuel, if you give cells fat and glucose at the same tie there gonna use the glucose this should tell you something?

Its evident by long lived cultures that high carb, low fat, low protien diets are the way to health and active life up into the 90-100s. Only few cultures live on high fat unprocessed diets and while they may have very little disease they aren't particularly long lived like the high carb consuming ones.

Originally posted by Rawhemp


According to you.

Ok. It's not according to me. It's according to biochemistry. Uncontroversial.

I'll ignore all the other points because I've provided the information, and answers, and we seem to be going in circles. But I will address this question:

I rather give my body the preferred fuel, if you give cells fat and glucose at the same tie there gonna use the glucose this should tell you something?

This tells me that the accumulation of glucose in the blood is absolutely dangerous and that it should be burned, stored or converted to fat ASAP.

Here's the process:

1) Glucose is consumed.
2) Insulin is released BEFORE the glucose reaches the blood stream.
3) The positive stimulus of insulin locks fat in the fat cells, switches the muscles from fat burning mode to sugar burning mode, and ultimately prepares the body for the coming onslaught of glucose.
4) Glucose is digested and absorbed into the blood stream.
5) Insulin is released again, and this time in higher amounts (normally overcompensating). Glucose is shuttled to cells to be burned as fuel and the liver/muscles to be stored as glycogen. Excess glucose is shuttled to the liver and the liver then synthesizes fatty acids, which are bonded by a glycerol molecules and transported to the adipose tissue for storage.
6) Glucose is burned or stored
7) Insulin lowers, and glucagon raises causing the muscles to switch back to fat burning mode and stimulating the release of fatty acids from the adipose tissue to be burned as fuel by the body.

This process is VERY stressful on the cardiovascular system and creates an inflammatory response (oxidative stress). The pancreas typically overcompensates and releases too much insulin, as if to suggest that it's an emergency response and that it's not evolutionarily adapted to dealing with glucose in large amounts.

And fructose is metabolized through completely different methods. In fact, fructose is considered by most researchers to be the cause of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD). It's as if the liver, which is the only site that can metabolize fructose, wasn't adapted to consuming so much of it, evolutionarily speaking.

And this doesn't even bring to light the amazing consequences that occur when the body burns glucose. Reactive Oxygen Species? You know them as free radicals.....causing oxidation. Or how 'bout Protein Glycation? And, of course, these lead to Advanced Glycation End-products (AGE's). They're called AGE's because many cells in the body have Receptor sites for AGE's, these are called RAGE's, and they contribute directly to chronic inflammatory diseases (like diabetes and even AGING).

-Dev

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd

This process is VERY stressful on the cardiovascular system and creates an inflammatory response (oxidative stress). The pancreas typically overcompensates and releases too much insulin, as if to suggest that it's an emergency response and that it's not evolutionarily adapted to dealing with glucose in large amounts.

According to you all digestion of glucose/carbohydrates "is VERY stressful on the cardiovascular system"? If this is true why do the hunza's, vilcambas, okiniwans, Seven Day Adventist all prescribe to a high carb (70%+) and other long lived cultures never experience cardiovascular diseases or heart attacks??

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
Advanced Glycation End-products (AGE's). They're called AGE's because many cells in the body have Receptor sites for AGE's, these are called RAGE's, and they contribute directly to chronic inflammatory diseases (like diabetes and even AGING).

-Dev

Ages are mostly the result of heating carbohydrates with fats or protiens but some do form in the body naturally. If AGES were such a bad thing why do these long lived cultures i named in the paragraph above live up into the 100s and never experience diabetes?

Show me one centarian culture that consumes primarily fat, I can show you 5 off the top of my head that all prescribe to a high carb low fat diet. I prefer to go by living proven sources rather then what biochemistry or a unhealthy scientist tell me should happen

Professor Pauling was a complete credit to his field and thats just for starters.

www.consumerhealth.org...

Do you know anyone with Angina (TAKING NITRO PILLS) and or heart probems due to clogged arteries and taking (LIPITOR) ?

PAULING THERAPY
Agent 1= Vitamin C (3-6 gm)
Agent 2 = L-Lysine (3-6 gm)

Above is from Vibrant Life's website, my research group supports them fully.

www.oralchelation.net...

The following link is pretty interesting as well.

cancertutor.com...

Vitamin C is not even close to the most powerful anti-oxident lol, anyone ever heard of Dr. Patrick Flanagan ? This guy is "NO JOKE" when it comes to brains. "GooD GrieF!" I had the pleasure of meeting him 11 years ago and that guy is smart, sure he is a little out there and a wee bit eccentric and some may even say that he's a total fruit cake, try and find a true genius that isn't though.

"THIS GUY IS FOR REAL AND QUITE POSSIBLY FROM HeLL" You take his stuff you WILL age regress and end up a puddle of sperm. LOL!!!!!
This stuff does so much it sic and you can take it until it comes out your ears.
www.megahydrate.com...

www.phisciences.com...

www.phisciences.com...

www.worldtrans.org...

www.consumerhealth.org...

Remember that if "QUACKWATCH" has nothing bad to say about you, chances are you truly are a BLEED'IN QUACK !

[edit on 7-7-2010 by alpha68]

[edit on 7-7-2010 by alpha68]:

[edit on 7-7-2010 by alpha68]

[edit on 7-7-2010 by alpha68]

Ohh...
I forgot to mention that as far as Dr. Flanagans Neurophone is concerned
you may not want to run right out and purchase one due to the fact that just like an automatic weapon that has been modified to only be able to fire in semi-automatic simply to cause people to loose their ability to take out as many co-workers, neighbors and relatives they get the hankering to while in postal mode as long as they keep holding down the trigger, so it goes for the Neurophone.

Just like the machine gun needing to have the "PIN" removed in-order to be able to fire as the fully automatic rump wrecker in was meant to be you would also have to make a few slight modifications to actally make the Neurophone work the way Dr. Flanagan originally intended it to. lol
You see that when you invent a device that allows the deaf to hear through their freak'in skin (AS WELL AS A FEW OTHER THINGS) and the "United States Goverment" gets wind of it you better understand that it ain't gonna be allowed to be sold to the generasl public "AS IS" my friends ! Everthings there...its just not all in the mix.
"If you get my meaning"

"IF YOUR DEAF YOU MAY JUST WANT TO PICK ONE UP, BUT JUST BE SURE TO GIVE FLANAGAN A JINGLE BEFORE YOU DO"

Hmmm...i wonder if anyone ever asked him what his take on the Israli/Palistinian confict is ? ? ?


[edit on 8-7-2010 by alpha68]