NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/med/nutritio/1738

Text File | 1993-01-02 | 10.9 KB | 228 lines

Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!spdcc!dyer
From: [e-mail] (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: Calcium/Magnesium
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 18:57:09 GMT
Lines: 217

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ted Wayn Altar) writes:
    >With respect to "vitamin D" being an ANABOLIC SECO-STEROID
    >HORMONE or simply a SECO-STEROID HORMONE, this is really a
    >silly quibble.

It's not a silly quibble, because the word "anabolic" is being used as
propaganda.

    >That it is a seco-steroid hormone is not in doubt.

Tell me Ted, what's a "seco-steroid"?  No fair looking at your textbooks.

    >The important point forwarded by Professor Moon, and conveyed by
    >yourself, is that it is indeed a steroid hormone that has some
    >associated risks and which is being implicated as possibly
    >playing a key role in some major diseases like osteoporsis and
    >atherosclerosis.

Duh!  This is moronic.  Even if vitamin D could be implicated in the
etiology of osteoporosis or atherosclerosis, it's not because it's
a steroid.

Let me explain Moon's sleight of hand here (it can't be Ted's because
it's beyond his knowledge):  Corticosteroids can cause osteoporosis
when used in therapeutic doses.  Anabolic steroids (male sex hormones)
affect blood lipids adversely, and long term use (or being a male) is
associated with atherosclerosis.  Therefore, we must be wary of
calciferol, which is also a steroid.  Needless to say, Moon doesn't really
believe this, because it's faulty logic based on a faulty understanding
of the actions of steroids.  However, to people who do not know that
different steroids have wildly different physiological effects, this
can be persuasive.  It persuaded Ted, didn't it?  Think of him as your
typical ignorant individual who is easily swayed by propaganda.

    >Still, someone interested in hasty conclusions might insist that
    >the use of the word "anabolic" is completely wrong and therefore
    >completely discredits Dr. Moon.  I most people would agree that
    >this is really quite rash, since even if it were the case that
    >Moon happens to be wrong in classifying califerol as having
    >anabolic effects and therefore an anabolic steroid, it still
    >doesn't follow that he is also completely wrong on everything
    >else he has said.

It means he's being lazy.  This does not bode well for his statements
on other matters.  What else might we find?

    >We might more modestly argue and say that Moon's use of the term
    >shows him to at least be fallible and this could cast suspicion
    >on the rest of his work.  Well, maybe so, but maybe Moon has good
    >reason to use the term as he sees fit.  After all, we ALL here
    >are just lay persons but Professor Moon is an accomplished expert
    >in the area of vitamin D.  Did someone say "No"?  Ok, may I then
    >ask that ALL those with published papers in a scientific medical
    >journal on the subject of vitamin D, please stand up!  I suspect
    >that nobody is standing; oops, sit down Steve!  ;-)

More stupid arguments from authority.

    >Now, I'm no expert on vitamin D but as far as I can understand
    >the term "anabolic" is not as univocal or rigidly defined in
    >meaning one might think.

It most definitely is.  Only someone ignorant of the literature (stand up,
Ted) would think otherwise.

    >For example, in de Gruyter's  "Concise Encyclopedia of
    >Biochemistry, 2nd ed., 1985", the following:
    >     ANABOLIC STEROIDS:  a group of synthetic steroids which
    >      stimulate the production of body protein.
    >This is referred to as the "anabolic effect" and no mention is
    >made that the kinds of protein have to be only those involved in
    >muscle tissue, although for the gonadal steroid hormones it is,
    >or at least that is how their anabolic effect is measured (the
    >so-called Hershberg test).

Amazing how it's possible to rehash this same stuff over and over again.
Ted's approach is to just keep repeating his argument again and again
until people wear down from exhaustion.  However, he seems impervious
to correction.  His inability to understand what he reads due to his
limited background hasn't changed at all.

What's the "Hershberg test", Ted?  Don't look at your textbooks, now.
The point is that the term "anabolic" has always referred to gains in
lean tissue (muscle), and when this encyclopedia entry refers to "body
protein", this is what they're referring to.  But someone who doesn't
know that, like Ted, would try to use this as an argument that calciferol
is an "anabolic steroid".

People should always be wary of "argument from dictionary definitions".
It usually means that the person opening the dictionary doesn't know what
he's talking about.

    >I had posted elsewhere the following from Anthony Norman (chpt. 6
    >of "Vitamin D Molecular Biology & Clinical Nutrition, edited by
    >Anthony Norman, 1980), who is leading expert on the biochemistry
    >of vitamin D.  Norman tells us that 1,25-(OH)2-vitamin D:
    >      has specific cells in target
    >      organs with specific receptor proteins; the receptor-ligand
    >      complex moves to the nucleus where it binds to the chromatin
    >      and stimulates the transcription of particular genes to
    >      produce specific RNAs which code for the synthesis of
    >      specific proteins.
    >What we have, then is the hormone stimulated production of
    >calcium binding protein, which then can result in macro skeletal
    >changes.  So by de Gruyter's definition as it stands, it would
    >seem that vitamin D can be considered as a steroid hormone having
    >anabolic effects, hence a anabolic steroid hormone.

Wrong.  He's not claiming that it's an anabolic steroid.  All steroid
hormones behave this way.  The "proteins" so synthesized come from
steroid-promoted gene expression, and are enzymes and other co-factors
which ultimately produce the physiological effects of the particular
steroid.  Different steroids promote the expression of very different genes,
which is why vitamin D does not grow hair on your chest.  The proteins
produced by this expression are not lean tissue (muscle).

By your useless definition, hydrocortisone or prednisone are "anabolic
steroids", since they behave in exactly this way.  In fact, they cause
nitrogen excretion and loss of lean tissue; they are "catabolic".

    >In some biochemical dictionaries, the definition is even less
    >well-circumcribed, as in J. Stenesh, "Dictionary of
    >Biochemistry", 1975, where the term "anabolic" is simply defined
    >as "pertaining to anabolism" which in turn is defined as:
    >     1.  the phase of intermediary metabolism that encompasses
    >      the biosynthetic and energy-requiring reactions whereby cell
    >      components are produced.  2.  The cellular assimilation of
    >      macromolecules and complex substances from low-molecular
    >      weight precursors.
    >Given Norman's passage above, we again have something that
    >qualifies under this definition as "anabolic".  Also, there there
    >are dozens of articles on the stimulation of cell growth and
    >differentiation under the influence of calciferol.

So what?  This is not what the term "anabolic steroid" means.

    >Indeed, it seems that Anthony Norman takes it for granted that
    >all steroid hormones are "anabolic", with one exception:
    >
    >     "there is an ever-increasing body of inferential evidence
    >      that suggests that ALL steroids, including 2,15-IOH)2-D3,
    >      act by a similar pathway to produce a similar set of general
    >      effects.  With the exception of the glucocorticoids, which
    >      produce both ANABOLIC and catabolic effects, tissue
    >      responses to all steroid hormones are characterized by a
    >      general increase in metabolism that includes RNA, DNA, and
    >      protein synthesis." (emphasis mine)
    >           (Anthony Norman, 1980 p. 210)

Note that he didn't say that all steroids are anabolic steroids.  To claim
at the cellular level that a steroid has anabolic effects does not make a
steroid an anabolic steroid.

    >Now, what is this anabolic effect but none other than "a general
    >increase in metabolism that includes RNA, DNA, and protein
    >synthesis"?  The glucocortoicoids are then distinguished by their
    >catabolic effects, not their anabolic effects.

The "anabolic effect" is an increase in lean tissue mass.  Not all steroids
effect this.  Calciferol most definitely does not.

    >Now if the only argument given here on the net is merely one that
    >amounts to simply saying "I say so", then the expert I choose is
    >Professor J. Moon over that of someone, say, who has not
    >published anything in a scientific journal on vitamin D and only
    >has a BSc in biology.  Some such criterion has to be employed if
    >we are to decided between differing views with the information at hand.

Snort.  When you're ignorant, everything sounds equally authoritative.

    >Also, I think we should modestly observe that scientific terms
    >are not rigid entities written in stone, but are evolving
    >concepts which are not always used in exactly the same manner by
    >every expert. While most if not all endrocrinologists may use the
    >term anabolic to refer in their practice only to the male gonadal
    >hormones, this does not preclude a wider usage by other experts
    >in other fields.

Snort.  It most certainly does.  "Anabolic steroid" is a very precise term.
To use it in other contexts, specifically in the context of vitamin D toxicity,
indicates an intention to deceive and to mislead.

    >Frankly, I think this quibble is best left to the experts proper.

But not before you get the last word, Ted?  How many times are you going
to repeat yourself?

    >Our task on this conference, I think, is the more humble one
    >where we sincerely seek to find, understand (as best we can), and
    >share and report upon some interesting findings and implications
    >about things pertaining to nutrition.

Pardon me while I puke.  Ted, you're a pompous ass, and your fatuous
claim of humility is simply disingenuousness.  It's nauseating.

    >To this end, Craig, you
    >properly and generously reported what you knew firsthand from
    >what Dr. Moon said about vitamin D in his class on nutrition.  I
    >did the very much the same, but my sources are different; namely,
    >his 2 special presentations at colloquia at SFU, 2 of his
    >published papers, a one page news brief in "Simon Fraser Week",
    >plus some direct conversations and e-mail with Dr. Moon directly.

OK, so Moon did in fact make these claims, meaning that Ted's isn't solely
responsible for destroying his reputation on the net.

    >Again, I don't presume to be infallible in my reportage, but the
    >kinds of criticisms we've seen so far directed to what I thought
    >would be an interesting report, have for the most part been
    >either simply unseemly personal attacks or unreferenced counter-
    >claims.

The man can't read, either.

--
Steve Dyer
[e-mail] aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer