B Vitamins Cause Obesity

[tankasnowgod]

http://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/en/ida_assessment_prevention_control.pdf suggests that anemia is what they mean by iron deficiency, that is, insufficient red blood cell production.

Oh, Anemia? Well, there are several Anemias. Let me list some for you-

Iron-Defiency Anemia
Pyridoxine Defiecincy Anemia
Pernicious Anemia
Beta-Thalassemia
Sickle Cell Anemia
Sideroblastic Anemia
Anemia of Chronic Disease

All of the anemias (other than the first one) can and do happen in even when body iron stores are high. In Sickle Cell and Thalassemia, high ferritn (a measure of iron stores) is even an INDICATOR of that type of anemia.

The above list is precisely why Iron Fortification Programs will never work to end anemia.... which criminal organizations like the WHO like to call "Iron Deficiency." All Iron Fortification Programs should be ended immediately, before they harm another individual.

 

[Jack Roe]

Nutrition is complicated. What disproves these fringe academic theories about things is that too many people are perfectly healthy eating these salad oils and fortified breakfast cereals. So, if there are people who are healthy who do these things, why is that? Do they have genetic polymorphisms? Do they have better gut bacteria? It would have to be something that made them able to contend with it while others do not. It's not that -everyone- ends up with iron overload and shot kidneys.

You seem to want to conflate people with hereditary disorders of iron metabolism with the general population, or you want to say that because there are people with hereditary disorders, fortification is a bad idea. Maybe this is true, but in every society that practices fortification, there are people who have poor health, who avoid these foods, and people who have good health who eat these foods. So what is the issue?

Doing nutritional research is hard, because you either work from a healthy population and you look at what N weeks of supplementation or restriction of a single nutrient does, or you work from a morbid population and look at what N weeks of supplementation or restriction does to a morbid population. Why are they morbid? Lots of possible reasons.

If diet is a solved problem, it's pretty much a diet consisting of what the IOM/WHO recommend. If it's not, then really nobody knows what you should eat. Telling someone to eat less iron isn't really determining how much iron a person needs. The amounts I cited were those eaten by free-living workers, who consumed more iron than the contemporary DRI, simply by working and eating ad lib---the contemporary DRI is similar to that enjoyed by impoverished urban people in the 1930s. So perhaps impoverished urban dwellers are good eaters, or perhaps rural farm labor from prior to fortification are good eaters.

There is also very little explanation offered as to why fortification was instituted if it wasn't beneficial, was it to sell iron filings?

 

[tankasnowgod]

So far, in all of your responses, you have failed to even discuss the issues or studies that I put forward. You have NOT acknowledged that there are forms of anemia can occur, even when body iron stores are normal or high. You have NOT discussed the study that I posted from Dr. Fachinni. Furthermore, in this response, you directly insult my position without engaging in any of the facts or issues that I put forward. Personally, I suspect that you may be getting paid to post talking points on this forum, and am curious if @raypeatclips and @charlie have a similar opinion.

I will ask you directly- Do you, the user that posts under the name Jack Roe, have any potential financial conflicts of interest? Do you work for a Medical Organization (such as the WHO or AMA), Nutrition Organization (such as the USDA), a food manufacturer (such as General Mills), or an organization that pays you to post on forums (like Think Progress or Media Matters)? Please state any conflicts of interest in your response, or declare "I do not have any financial conflicts of interest in regards to the issue I am discussing."

Nutrition is complicated. What disproves these fringe academic theories about things is that too many people are perfectly healthy eating these salad oils and fortified breakfast cereals. So, if there are people who are healthy who do these things, why is that? Do they have genetic polymorphisms? Do they have better gut bacteria? It would have to be something that made them able to contend with it while others do not. It's not that -everyone- ends up with iron overload and shot kidneys.

In this paragraph, you engage in an ad hominem attack, in order to avoid engaging in facts. The rest is all speculation and talking points where you offer no specific examples or studies that can be discussed and proven or disproven.

You seem to want to conflate people with hereditary disorders of iron metabolism with the general population, or you want to say that because there are people with hereditary disorders, fortification is a bad idea. Maybe this is true, but in every society that practices fortification, there are people who have poor health, who avoid these foods, and people who have good health who eat these foods. So what is the issue?

You seem to think that only people with "Hereditary Disorders of Iron Metabolism" can have issues with high iron. First off...... what percentage of the population have these disorders? 1%? 20%? 70%? If it's over 50%, then the "General Population" would have these disorders. Again, you offer no data whatsoever as to how many people would be harmed by iron fortification. (As a side note, I noticed you have given up on claiming that iron fortification helps anyone, and, at best, suggest that people can be healthy despite this practice).

By the way, one "Hereditary Disorder" that can lead to accumulating excess iron is...... being male. In the Framingham Heart Study, it was discovered that males had significantly higher Serum Ferritin levels than Females. On average, Ferritin was about 100 ng/ml higher in males than in females, until menopausal years, when the gap starts to narrow (mainly due to the fact that women start accumulating iron at a faster rate after menopause). This lead to the Iron Hypothesis of Heart Disease in 1981, proposed by Jerome Sullivan, which suggested that Premenopausal Women had a lower risk of heart disease than men due to lower levels of iron stores.

When this hypothesis was tested, the results were very positive. In the experimental group, Ferritin was successfully lowered from 125 mcg/l to 52 mcg/l, and far fewer people in the experimental group had fewer adverse cardiovascular events than the control group did.

The iron (Fe) and atherosclerosis study (FeAST): A pilot study of reduction of body iron stores in atherosclerotic peripheral vascular disease - ScienceDirect

Also, Chris Kresser gives an excellent presentation about how levels or body iron stores that would be considered "high normal" could actually be quite dangerous.

Doing nutritional research is hard, because you either work from a healthy population and you look at what N weeks of supplementation or restriction of a single nutrient does, or you work from a morbid population and look at what N weeks of supplementation or restriction does to a morbid population. Why are they morbid? Lots of possible reasons.

Well, just because something is "hard" does not mean that studies can't be done. I refer you again to the work of Zacharsky, Fachinni, and Weinberg. Also, the studies that Kresser discusses in his presentation

If diet is a solved problem, it's pretty much a diet consisting of what the IOM/WHO recommend. If it's not, then really nobody knows what you should eat. Telling someone to eat less iron isn't really determining how much iron a person needs. The amounts I cited were those eaten by free-living workers, who consumed more iron than the contemporary DRI, simply by working and eating ad lib---the contemporary DRI is similar to that enjoyed by impoverished urban people in the 1930s. So perhaps impoverished urban dwellers are good eaters, or perhaps rural farm labor from prior to fortification are good eaters.

Why would an agenda driven organization like the WHO know what's better for an individual to eat than the individual itself? Does the WHO dictate to birds or wolves or deer or elephants what they should eat? What about insects or snakes? Lizards and crocodiles? Are humans the only species that are stupid enough not to know what to eat without some bureaucratic organization telling them? And that same organization altering their food with "fortification" programs, based on poorly collected data from 80 years ago?

By the way, according to USDA data, Iron consumption is at the highest point in the past 100 years.

Since the increase from the 70's onward is due largely to fortification and supplementation, we, as a collective population, are likely eating more iron currently than at any point in human history. This is a crazy, uncontrolled, poorly monitored experiment with a proven dangerous mineral, run on hundreds of millions of people without their knowledge or consent. This is why I call fortification "criminal."

It's silly, too, that they only data you have ever cited is Nutrition Data collected over 80 years ago. Even if fortification was warranted back in the 30's, 40's, and 50's ( a very dubious claim), would it still be warranted in the 2000's and 2010's? The only data that you have ever even mentioned (Nutrition Statistics tracking Iron Intake) suggest that fortification programs should be ended.

There is also very little explanation offered as to why fortification was instituted if it wasn't beneficial, was it to sell iron filings?

I am a fierce critic of all Iron Fortification Programs. Therefore, it is not my responsibility to come up with reasons for why such a program was implemented. That burden lies with the people who implemented the program, and defenders of Iron Fortification, such as yourself. If (passive voice) such a reason hasn't been offered, then, that means that instigators and defenders of Iron Fortification never had a basis to implemented in the first place, nor should it be continued today.

If you would like to discuss any of the evidence or studies or specifics I have mentioned, I would be happy to. If, instead, you continue with ad hominem attacks, logical fallacies, and abstract examples, then this is my final comment.

 

[smith]

Just putting this here.

 

[Ella]

There is also very little explanation offered as to why fortification was instituted if it wasn't beneficial, was it to sell iron filings?

To provide fodder for the industrial medical complex.

 

[tankasnowgod]

To provide fodder for the industrial medical complex.

Ella, I agree with you. Especially, since in the 70's, Iron Researchers testified that Iron Fortification should be ended, as it would not help those with anemia, and harm many others. Since the response from the government was to DOUBLE the level of iron added...... I would have to assume poor health was the desired outcome.

 

[dbh25]

Iron, Food Enrichment and The Theory of Everything