No benefit of veg and fruit consumption in t2 diabetes!

.

 Fig 4 Hazard ratios for incidence in diabetes type 2 for highest versus lowest intake of fruit and vegetables combined. Weights are from random effects analysis

Newly published meta-study in BMJ:

Fruit and vegetable intake and incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis

Quote:

Results Six studies met the inclusion criteria; four of these studies also provided separate information on the consumption of green leafy vegetables. Summary estimates showed that greater intake of green leafy vegetables was associated with a 14% (hazard ratio 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.77 to 0.97) reduction in risk of type 2 diabetes (P=0.01). The summary estimates showed no significant benefits of increasing the consumption of vegetables, fruit, or fruit and vegetables combined.

I have to add a comment:
   There is only one supposedly significant, positive correlation found in this study - the one with green veg (hazard ratio 0.86).  It is possible [but see also (*)] that the significancy results from pooling four separate studies together. When you look at the individual studies on FIG5 : three are only marginally positive, that is their error estimates touch 1.0, while one large study [39] (Women’s Health Study) shows the hazard ratio of 1.0 which indicates no effect.

This paper  [37] (Nurses' Health Study data) is also interesting because it is one of the largest and longest of its kind. Again, no benefit overall from vegetable consumption and miniscule benefit from greens alone. It also shows this interesting graph:

Note (*): There is a discrepancy in the data. The resulting hazard ratio may also turn out to be not statistically significant for green vegetables, since the overall P=0.18 as per FIG.5 while at the same time it is written as P=0.01 in the abstract for the same result. Given the wide spread 0.77-0.97, my guess is that the abstract figure of 0.01 may be a typo, but I am not 100% sure.

China Study says wheat is associated with vascular disease

.
... but probably not with cancer!

The following graphs are based on the Raw China Study data  , using 1989 part of the study, total M+F, 3-rd "xiang".  My original spreadsheet is here in OpenOffice 3.2 Calc format.  The following graphs represent raw scatter plots for specific disease mortality (all vascular or all cancer)  against each of the independent variables, with no data processing of any kind.

--------------------------

I have to add a paper I found quoted by Denise Minger in her laterst response, that is definitely worth a note:

Nunes and Silva, 2009, "Systemic Correlates of Angiographic Coronary Artery Disease"

Quote:

Significant correlation values versus CADB [coronary artery disease burden] were seen with age (r 0.19, p 0.04), uric acid (r 0.18, p 0.048) and fasting plasma glucose (r 0.33, p<0.001).  

Interestingly, in addition to plasma glucose, uric acid correlates with fructose consumption. Both point to metabolic syndrome and pre-diabetes as the main causative factor behind atherosclerosis in this particular study. How is Chinese wheat consumption fitting in here? Since rice does not correlate with vascular risk while wheat does, it may indicate a presence of another factor associated with wheat that correlates positively and perhaps causuatively with the metabolic syndrome and thus with the vascular disease. I am going to come back to this issue in the future posts.

Updated 7-Aug-2010

The situation is very confusing, since some studies done in the West such as those reviewed in this compilation or the Nurses' Study  tend to indicate that consumption of the whole grain wheat correlates with lower heart disease. I can't think of any obvious explanation of that contradiciton.   Perhaps one of the following possibilities may be playing a role:
(a) China Study is wrong or is showing a spurious correlation (albeit a very strong one M059 over D038 is +56%, see page 215); (b) Western medical studies are wrong or showing a spurious (weak -17% to -29%) correlation masking some other underlying factor such as an overal carbohydrate intake? (overall carbs intake also correlated with vasc disease in China Study!); (c) It may depend on what wheat consumption is compared against - either wheat compared against rice or whole wheat consumption compared against refined wheat and sugar? In the latter case the problem is what toxic factor playes the role in the refined wheat but not in the whole wheat? Logic would dictate that it should be the other way around, for example wheat germ agglutins (ref) should be more aboundand in the whole wheat products than in the refine flour products.

China Study says animal fat is healthy!

.
The following graphs are based on the Raw China Study data  , using 1989 part of the study, total M+F, 3-rd "xiang".  My original spreadsheet is here in OpenOffice 3.2 Calc format.  The following graphs represent raw scatter plots for specific disease mortality (all vascular or all cancer)  against each of the independent variables, with no data processing of any kind.

The China Study corroborates Kwasniewski's diet

.
The data seem to corroborate Dr. Kwasniewski's Optimal Diet, to some extent, in terms of the trend.  That is, a higher fat shows a trend towards better health, where as the more protein and more carbs tend towards higher mortalities. At the same time the raw data I have seen so far do not seem to support an idea that plant based very low fat nutrition is healthier!

Dr. Kwasniewski's diet is high in animal fat, low in protein (unlike Atkins) and low in carbohydrates. Similar to Atkins but puts a restriction on protein (1g/kg of ideal body weight, per day) and does not advocate an "induction" stage followed by an increase in carbohydrates.

The following graphs are based on the Raw China Study data  , using 1989 part of the study, total M+F, 3-rd "xiang".  My original spreadsheet is here in OpenOffice 3.2 Calc format.  (Sorry, no Excel, got tired of loosing data).  The following graphs represent raw scatter plots for specific disease mortality (all vascular or all cancer)  against each of the independent variables, with no data processing of any kind.  You be the judge!   :)

_________________________________________

VASCULAR DISEASE MORTALITY VERSUS MACRONUTRIENTS AND TOTAL BLOOD CHOLESTEROL

_________________________________________

ALL CANCER MORTALITY VERSUS MACRONUTRIENTS AND TOTAL BLOOD CHOLESTEROL

"..The ‘Grand Prix’...the most comprehensive large study ever undertaken of the relationship between diet and the risk of developing disease....tantalizing findings"
The New York Times

Atkins revisited

.
The reason I decided to post this note today is the following discussion
thread: Atkins Meat and Millet Diet . Start reading with Dolores' posts.

My Cholesterol Bomba

I started experimenting with the high animal fat low carb nutrition in July 1999. It worked so well for me that it became my lifestyle ever since. Since it never caused me any trouble, I could never understand why were some people, especially diabetics, opting out after just a few months with lots of complains. Yet those were exactly the people for whom a high fat low carb diet was best suited (*) and could have been the most benefitial had they been able to persist. Why couldn't they?

I think I can probably answer this question now:

The most likely reason behind diabeitc's failures to follow Atkins lies in the induction stage being too short and Dr. Atkins unfortunate recommendation to increase carbohydrates beyond the ketogenic limit (about 20g) following the short induction stage, as well as the lack of restriction on the amount of protein! Diabetics need probably about 2 years to adapt, before they can add more carbohydrates and protein back to their HIGH FAT diet.   I needed 1.5 years before I could tolerate the average beyond 20g carbs a day!

Quote:

----------------

Fat does not cause permanent insulin resistance. Under normal circumstance, it only does it while you eat it, not a few hors afterwards. Even if I eat lots of fat, I can have 100g of carbs on the next day (though I rarely do).

My body WAS insulin resistant intitially on the high fat diet, but I was able to increase my occasional consumption of carbs way above my initial 50g level [NOTE: this is an error, should be 25], gradually over time.

In the first year I could not exceed 25g of carbs (1 beer) without suffering a massive headache. Gradually after a couple of years my body recovered its usual flexibility and I am able to eat occasionally up to about 100g of carbs as vegetable, fruit and my two favored "truly essential macronutrients" - ice cream and chocolate.

For me a high fat low carb diet wasn't a road from bad to worse, it was from bad to normal!

I suspect that the reason behind Atkins diet #1 delayed (not immediate) blood glucose deterioration among some patient was his allowance to up the carbs after his initial induction stage. Some patients probably took it too liberaly and coupled with the then much stronger fatophobia than nowadays, may have resulted in overconsumtion of lean protein and carbs.

In my experience on the high fat, which is probably representative to many middle-aged adults ( 43 at that time) , my hormonal imbalance involving insulin resistance, with hypoglycemia and poor glucose regulation persisted throughout the first 1.5 year! Atkins induction period (6m ?) was probably not long enough for people with metabolic syndrome and with diabetes! It certainly was not long enough for me. In the first 1.5 years I could only tolerate 25g of carbs! Which was not a huge problem but I just had to remember to be strict. Whenever I ate more, even 50g would cause me a headache especially if I simultaneously exceeded protein as well! For example, I remember a massive headache I got from a plate full of salmon with potatoes!

Technically my capacity to consume carbs became in that initial period much reduced than before on the high carb diet, therefore technically you could argue that I had "deteriorated" from being insulin resistant to being virtually a diabetic! However, that is purely of academic interest (i.e of useless value) because I RARELY exceeded those 25g of carbs/day, and when I did stuck to those 25g I had absolutely no problem and my health continued improving. That 25g limit didn't bother or worry me at all! For example my intestinal sensitivities and dry eyes syndrome went away with weeks. My mild angina begun gradually abate and I was feeling stronger and more energetic with every passing months. That was the story of the first 1.5 years. Most Atkins patients I guess - would probably bail out during that stage, not understanding why they suddenly feel much worse the moment they add "little" bit more carbs after Atkins unfortunate recommendation!

The second stage of my adaptation to my high fat nutrition occured after 1.5 years. My mild angina completely disappeared, and I discovered that I am no longer carbohydrate intolerant!

I remember how surprized I was when after eating two full bowls of strawberries I did not get any sensations! I no longer would get a headache after drinking wine and especially beer.
...

-----------------

I recommend also to look back at this post Can ketogenic diet cure cancer?, please notice the two papers referenced:


Ketosis leads to increased methylglyoxal production on the Atkins diet.

A brief critical overview of the biological effects of methylglyoxal and further evaluation of a methylglyoxal-based anticancer formulation in treating cancer patients.

____________________________________
References:

*) For example, see the following comments and papers:

1.  Beware of the carbs!

However, at least 22 experiments have documented the benefits of reducing the dietary intake of carbohydrates in type 2 diabetics.^2-23 Most of them were controlled studies where a low- carbohydrate diet was compared with a low-fat diet, and almost all of them found that the former was better than the latter as regards weight reduction and glycemic control. In several of the low- carbohydrate groups patients were even able to reduce or stop their antidiabetic treatment.

Most of these studies were ignored by the Cochrane authors because their length was shorter than six months. However, to-day four studies with a length of six months or longer have been published and with similar benefits as in the short-term experiments.^{14, 15, 19, 23}

2.  Control of blood glucose in type 2 diabetes without weight loss by modification of diet composition

... A 30:20:50 [P:C:F] ratio diet resulted in a 38% decrease in 24-hour glucose area, a reduction in fasting glucose to near normal and a decrease in %tGHb from 9.8% to 7.6%. The response to a 30:30:40 ratio diet was similar.

Conclusion

Altering the diet composition could be a patient-empowering method of improving the hyperglycemia of type 2 diabetes without weight loss or pharmacologic intervention.

3. Dietary carbohydrate restriction in type 2 diabetes mellitus and metabolic syndrome: time for a critical appraisal

Current nutritional approaches to metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes generally rely on reductions in dietary fat. The success of such approaches has been limited and therapy more generally relies on pharmacology. The argument is made that a re-evaluation of the role of carbohydrate restriction, the historical and intuitive approach to the problem, may provide an alternative and possibly superior dietary strategy. The rationale is that carbohydrate restriction improves glycemic control and reduces insulin fluctuations which are primary targets. Experiments are summarized showing that carbohydrate-restricted diets are at least as effective for weight loss as low-fat diets and that substitution of fat for carbohydrate is generally beneficial for risk of cardiovascular disease. These beneficial effects of carbohydrate restriction do not require weight loss. Finally, the point is reiterated that carbohydrate restriction improves all of the features of metabolic syndrome.

.

China Study - Raw Data - more plant food = more heart disease!

.
At last! Finally the Raw Data behind the infamous "The China Study..." book by Dr. TC Campbell from Cornell University has emmerged out of some obscure "unobtainium" publication and became available on-line on the Clinical Trial Service Unit at Oxford University web site!

http://www.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/~china/monograph/chdata.htm

Below are the links to blogs and sources.

#1. Denise Minger on China Study - long and in depth analysis of the raw data with graphs. See also her article on Tuoli county the only county in the China Study that consumed a high fat medium carb diet:

http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/

http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/06/23/tuoli-chinas-mysterious-milk-drinkers/

According to our prominent vegan theorists such as Drs Campbel, Ornish, McDougall, Esselstyne et al, the Tuoli people ought to have been very sick or dead. As you can read from Denise analysis nothing is farthest from truth. Tuoli seems to be healthier than in most other China counties!

#2. Fantastic comment by Richard Kroeker on Amazon forum,
- giving his own analyzis of the raw date similar to and corroborationg an analysis by Denise Minger.  Note: you should start reading from that post and then move on to #1 above, since Kroeker's article is much shorter.

http://www.amazon.com/Analyzing-the-China-Study-Dataset/forum/Fx1YJPR95OHW08P/TxY4S5EZD8Y2XE/1/ref=cm_cd_dp_ef_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&s=books&asin=1932100660&store=books

Quote:

... This is not at all what Campbell's book implied the data said. As I said above, I am an engineer (with a PhD) with heart disease simply trying to find out what to eat. You do the math...

My day-job is analyzing hard drive failure statistics that result from usage and stress testing; I get paid to make the problems being studied "go away". I have also recently had a triple bypass, ...

For instance, the people who ate the most animal protein had 68.9% less heart disease (at 95% confidence) than those people who ate the least animal protein. The people who ate the most plant protein had 64.9% more heart disease (at 89% confidence) than those people who ate the least plant protein.

I am quoting here some interesting correlation (actually the risk ratio between the extreme sample bins for a given variable, '-' means improvement, '+' means harm) from Kroeker's post, the first column numbers are univariate (single-variable, uncorrected against possible confounders) risk ratios in %, the most negative numbers (blue) = low mortality, the most positive numbers (red) = high mortality. The second number in brackets are the "confidence" estimates in % as per Kroeker's definition (see here in his methodology document). This is for mortality of all vascular disease age 35-69.



RISK% (CONFIDENCE%) - INDEPENDENT VARIABLE

-70.7% (93%) - PERCENTAGE OF CALORIC INTAKE FROM FAT
-68.9% (95%) - PERCENTAGE ANIMAL PROTEIN INTAKE
-60.8% (92%) - HDLCHOL plasma HIGH DENSITY LIPOPROTEIN CHOLESTEROL (mg/dL)
-57.0% (89%) - PERCENTAGE OF CALORIC INTAKE FROM ANIMAL
-55.6% (90%) - ANIMAL FOOD INTAKE (g/day/ref)
-55.1% (94%) - FOLATE plasma FOLATE (ng/mL)
-54.8% (89%) - ANIMAL PROTEIN INTAKE (g/day/ref)
-54.1% (90%) - FISH INTAKE (g/day/ref)

-49.5% (84%) - TOTAL LIPID INTAKE (g/day/reference man)
-49.1% (87%) - PERCENTAGE ANIMAL FOOD INTAKE (for refere
-48.4% (83%) - MEAT INTAKE (red meat and poultry) (g/day
-48.0% (83%) - CHOLESTEROL INTAKE (mg/day/reference man)
-46.6% (81%) - RED MEAT (pork, beef, mutton) INTAKE (g/d
-42.2% (82%) - SATURATED FATTY ACID INTAKE (g/day/ref)
-40.7% (89%) - RICE INTAKE (g/day/reference man, air-dry
-38.0% (84%) - TOTAL CAROTENOID INTAKE (retinol equivale
-36.0% (84%) - POULTRY INTAKE (g/day/reference man, as-c
-42.9% (82%) - Se plasma SELENIUM (ug/dL)
-42.8% (85%) - TOTPROT plasma 1989 TOTAL PROTEIN (g/dL)
-42.6% (86%) - APOA1 plasma APOLIPOPROTEIN A1 (mg/dL) (non-pooled analysis
-40.7% (88%) - Zn plasma ZINC (mg/dL)
-38.7% (76%) - B-CAROT plasma BETA CAROTENE (ug/dL)
-38.0% (82%) - ANHYDLUT plasma ANHYDRO LUTEIN (ug/dL)
-34.6% (81%) - TOTCHOL plasma TOTAL CHOLESTEROL (mg/dL)
-34.1% (79%) - NON-HDL plasma CHOLEST.(mg/dL)[=LDL+Trig/5]

...

32.4% (79%) - plasma LDL to HDL ratio
35.6% (75%) - PLANT FOOD INTAKE (g/day/reference man)
37.5% (82%) - POTASSIUM INTAKE (mg/day/ref)
39.3% (76%) - SPICE INTAKE (g/day/ref)
39.6% (84%) - TOTAL NEUTRAL DETERGENT FIBRE INTAKE (g/d/ref)
40.0% (84%) - MAGNESIUM INTAKE (mg/day/ref)
42.2% (80%) - MANGANESE INTAKE (mg/day/ref)
43.0% (90%) - OTHER CEREAL INTAKE (g/day/ref)
46.4% (93%) - TOTAL PROTEIN INTAKE (g/day/ref)
47.7% (91%) - COPPER INTAKE (mg/day/ref)

50.5% (87%) - IRON INTAKE (mg/day/ref)
54.3% (91%) - PERCENTAGE OF CALORIC INTAKE FROM CARBOHYDRATES
56.0% (87%) - PERCENTAGE PLANT FOOD INTAKE
58.9% (95%) - PLANT PROTEIN INTAKE (g/day/reference man)
62.4% (97%) - WHEAT FLOUR INTAKE (g/day/reference man)
64.9% (89%) - PERCENTAGE PLANT PROTEIN INTAKE (for ref)
65.7% (95%) - PERCENTAGE OF CALORIC INTAKE FROM PLANT PROTEIN

#3. Richard Nikoley's blog where I found the original links (thanks):

http://freetheanimal.com/2010/07/t-colin-campbells-the-china-study-finally-exhaustively-discredited.html

Stan (Heretic)

-----------------------------------

Update 13-July-2010


HILLARIOUS response (and also the comment #505 here (*) that is  http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/#comment-505   ) by Dr. TC Campbell of Cornell University to Denise Minger!

No discussion of the data, instead plenty of ad-hominem attacks, pointing out her age, questioning her character integrity and weaving some conspiracy theory implying backing by some lobbying organization having "untold financial resources" such as Weston A. Price Foundation!   :)

Dr. TC Campbell of Cornell U. (probably) wrote:

"I find it very puzzling that someone with virtually no training in this science can do such a lengthy and detailed analysis in their supposedly spare time. I know how agricultural lobbying organizations do it–like the Weston A Price Foundation with many chapters around the country and untold amounts of financial resources. Someone takes the lead in doing a draft of an article, then has access to a large number of commentators to check out the details, technical and literal, of the drafts as they are produced. I have no proof, of course, whether this young girl is anything other than who she says she is, but I find it very difficult to accept her statement that this was her innocent and objective reasoning, and hers alone. If she did this alone, based on her personal experiences from age 7 (as she describes it), I am more than impressed."

- I am not!
H.

----------

*) If someone figured it out how to link to a comment by its number, on wordpress blog please let me know. Nothing obvious such as ?comment=505 etc seems to work.

Update 17-July-2010

Reordering and reformatting. It is interesting to notice that in China Study the higher total cholesterol, and the higher LDL+Triglycerides correlated with LOWER cardiovascular mortality; while higher HDL level correlated very strongly with lower cardiovascular mortality!

Update 29-July-2010

Added confidence levels in brackets (%) and a link to Rich Kroeker's methodology document.

.

Butter and cream twice as effective as statin

.

Relative risk reduction by 49%!

Conjugated linoleic acid in adipose tissue and risk of myocardial infarction

Quote:

Results: Adipose tissue 9c,11t-CLA was associated with a lower risk of MI in basic and multivariate models. Compared with the lowest quintile, odds ratios and 95% CIs were 0.80 (0.61, 1.04) for the second, 0.86 (0.64, 1.14) for the third, 0.62 (0.46, 0.84) for the fourth, and 0.51 (0.36, 0.71) for the fifth quintiles (P for trend <0.0001). Dairy intake was not associated with risk of MI, despite a strong risk associated with saturated fat intake [*].

--------------
*) The last sentence is a bul..t of course.  There is no extra cardiac risk associated with saturated fat as many other studies such as this  this or this have shown.

(JC - thanks for the link)
.

Why does Canadian gov...

.
... steal less?  Less than other governments! Hope you will enjoy this refreshing point of view, and appologies for straying away from the main blog topics.  (feel free to click that box on the right, it's OK.  8-:) )

This discussion begun with Gavin Hewitt's BBC article

------------------------

Stan "Dozent" P. wrote:

You were right, the British papers are much more interesting and honest then North American, BUT...

Quote:

"That is one of the key conclusions of the paper. Since adopting the euro Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain have become increasingly uncompetitive. That and the slowdown in productivity is the heart of the crisis in the eurozone, rather than debt. Debt is a symptom."

No, It is not, pure and simple. Uncompetitiveness is a symptom. Debt is the result of the disease. The Euro is a facilitator, not the root cause. The cause of the cancer is rooted deeper, much deeper. It is true that without the conversion to Euro the massive theft ( or misallocation of capital  8-)  ) in Greece and Ireland would not have happened.  But a similar story has happened in USA and it is hard to blame it on adopting a dollar. Iceland is in the worse situation then Greece or Ireland yet it does NOT use the Euro! One can not blame it on the Mediterranean culture either. Iceland is a country of tough, hard working people yet it is screwed up just as well.

The root cause is that western elites and governments are indolent and corrupt to the bone. Give the mouse a piece of cheese, he will ask for a glass of milk.

20 years ago Argentina and Brasil went bankrupt. Their liabilities were about 100 Billion. Their popolation 100 million Who the heck lent 120 Billion to Iceland, a country of 300,000 people? Who lent 600 billion to Ireland, the country of 3 million? Greeks did what Bernie Madoff would do if he was a state! Cheated, falsified numbers, and paid bills with new phony money. Who the heck packaged all these Alabama Ninja mortgages into "AAA" securities. Who sold this crap to Icelandic banks? Where did they got the money to pay for it? When you look at it closely, Iceland was used to launder money and they got a commission for doing it.

The establishment, the governments and their paid journalists will invent one reason after another why this crisis happened and continues.  This will change nothing Thanks God our Canadian Prime Minister took a bribe of $300,000.  He thought it is BIG MONEY.  Thanks God another Prime Minister got involved in his friend Golf Course.  It cost taxpayers 0.5 million.  Thanks to these crooks, our government was paralyzed for 20 years and missed the greatest thieving opportunity of their lives.  Thank to them, we can calmly wait until this economic bomb explodes SOMEWHERE ELSE.  Explode it will! A few hundred crooks cannot stop 6 billion people who want to live decent lives.  Someone, somewhere, sometimes will default on their "obligations" and this whole house of cards will fall apart.

Stan P.

.

Working notes on cholesterol and diet

.

The following "features/benefits" matrix, represents qualitative risk estimate of heart disease versus total blood cholesterol level (vertically), and versus diet (horizontal). In each cell a value 0(no risk) to 5(very high), would represent a qualitalive heart disease risk based on a subjective estimate. It would probably look like this:

TotChol	V.low fat vegan	med.fat low sugar	med-hi fat hi sugar	hi fat lo carb
high	2	3	5	1
med	1	1	3	0
low	2	3	not happen	1

Disclaimer Note:

This is my conjecture/guesswork based on my my medical literature study. This was constructed as an aid in a discussion with my forum friends. This is not a scientific data, PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE THIS! The numbers are subjective reflecting my belief in the reality rather than the reality itself. They are intended only to illustrate a trend rather than to quantify it.

Please note that I do not believe that the cholesterol level is a causual factor (i.e. causing disease), I believe that it is just a marker thus too high or too low a level may indicate that something else is wrong with the endocrine system, and that "something else" may be contributing to a heart disease.

I do not separate medium fat low sugar from medium fat vegetarian low sugar because I do not believe that vegetarianism per se matters. Rather, I focus on the dietary sugar contents. In my table, the Standard American (and European) Diet would be in the medium-high fat (35-45% calories) high sugar (>10% calories) column. I follow a convention where "very low fat" means about 10%, "low fat" 20% and "medium fat " 30%, High cholesterol is about 250mg/dl or higher, low cholesterol is about 150mg/dl or lower.

I think that rather than asking ourselves "How much fat?", "What fat?", or "what cholesterol?" we should be asking ourselves how much sugar is still safe to eat?.
.

Synergistic effect of vitamins A and D

.
Very important article by Chris Masterjohn.   Based on the recent Chinese paper using human stem cells in-vitro.  The paper demonstrated that vitamin A acts synergistically in triggering expression of neurogenin-3.  Neurogenin-3 is necessary for activation of stem cells development, in that case - for replacing the damaged insulin-producing islet cells such as in diabetes type 1.

I think that study is important for several reasons:

- Adequate intake of both A and D3 is one of the critcial factors in tissue regeneration, propably not only limited to pancreatic islets but generally to all other organs,

- Supplementation of only one of the vitamins is inadequate because both act synergistically.

- I suspect (speculating) that beta carotene might not be adequate if vitamin D3 level is low, and vice versa - supplementation of D3 might not be effective in the absence of A.  We shall keep in mind that beta carotene (pro-vitamin A)  from plants is NOT the true vitamin A!   This may explain a curious fact of difficult to treat vitamin A or vitamin D3 depletions frequently reported by vegans.

Argument that MMR vaccines may be harmful ...

.
... has been recently strengthened by the suspiciously poor quality of the debunking against it!  An ongoing controversy about the possible link between measles, mumps and rubella vaccines and autism, has been brought recently to a peak by the disbarrment of Dr. Andrew Wakefield by Britain's General Medical Council announced on Monday.    Nowhere in the criticism of his paper, his detractors have openly argued against the merit, logic and science of the actual research.  I could not find any statement that would said something like "the paper is wrong because this or that".  Instead, Dr. Wakefield's character is being criticized and the conclulsions condemning his study have been reached by the committee, based apparently on some of his procedural and administrative "transgressions".     What exactly are Dr. Wakefield's "crimes"?

- ordered research on nine children without his hospital's ethics committee approval. Three of them had invasive procedures they did not need, the statement said. [took blood samples?]

 - failed to disclose that the research was being done to test a theory that there was a link between the vaccine and "a new syndrome."

- mislead readers about how children were chosen for the study,...

- ordered investigations on five children while he was at London's Royal Free Hospital, although he was not a pediatrician and his terms of employment said he should have no involvement in the clinical management of patients,...

- accepted 50,000 pounds (currently $72,000) to act as an expert witness in an MMR court case, misled authorities about the payment, and misused half of it, the GMC found.

 - had blood samples taken from children at a birthday party - which the panel found "an inappropriate social setting" - without ethics committee approval, paid the children 5 pounds each, and later joked about it in a public presentation, the GMC said.

- Subsequent research has been unable to duplicate Wakefield's findings.

- "Since Wakefield's study came out, some 20 other studies [I am impressed! S.B.] have come out, and each one of these studies, done by different researchers, in different populations and in different countries, has denied the associations between vaccines and autism," he said. "Scientifically, this story is over."

----------- update (24/05/2010) ------

An interview with Dr. Wakefield can be heard on BBC - 1h47m to 1h57m into this programme .
and here is a short video interview.   Thanks Lee.


---------------------------------------------------

It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. Jiddu Krishnamurti

Gamma radiation protects against cancer, in low doses?

.
Cancer mortality reduction by 97% - huge!  Is it true?  Hormesis?

Paper:
  "Effects of Cobalt-60 Exposure on Health of Taiwan Residents Suggest New Approach Needed in Radiation Protection",   W.L. Chen et al.,   Dose Response. 2007; 5(1): 63–75, 

Quote:

... serendipitous contamination of 1700 apartments in Taiwan with cobalt-60 (T_1/2 = 5.3 y). This experience indicates that chronic exposure of the whole body to low-dose-rate radiation, even accumulated to a high annual dose, may be beneficial to human health. Approximately 10,000 people occupied these buildings and received an average radiation dose of 0.4 Sv, unknowingly, during a 9-20 year period. They did not suffer a higher incidence of cancer mortality, as the LNT theory would predict. On the contrary, the incidence of cancer deaths in this population was greatly reduced-to about 3 per cent of the incidence of spontaneous cancer death in the general Taiwan public. In addition, the incidence of congenital malformations was also reduced - to about 7 per cent of the incidence in the general public. These observations appear to be compatible with the radiation hormesis model.

   Figure 1 from the same paper.  Click to magnify and hires.

More readings:

1. by D.W.Miller, MD:  Afraid of Radiation

2.  Keeping the Lights On

3. by William R. Ware, Ph.D.:  Low-Dose Radiation Exposure and Risk of Cancer

4. Caroline Hadley: "What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger", Nature, EMBO reports   VOL 4 | NO 10 | 2003

5. Bernard L. Cohen: "Test of linear no threshold theory of radiation carcinogenesis for inhaled radon decay products", University of Pittsburgh 1994

Fig 1a from Cohen's paper 

To annoy anti-nuclear environuts:    Letter... 

More refs added (02-Mar-2011):

6.  Rheumatology 2000;39:894–902;
"Long-term efficacy of radon spa therapy in rheumatoid arthritis—a randomized, sham-controlled study and follow-up"

7. Int.J.Low Radiation,Vol.1,No.4,2005; "Nuclear shipyard worker study (1980–1988): a large cohort exposed to low-dose-rate gamma radiation"

see also John Cameron's (one of the study author) write-up here

Quote:

In 1980, the US Department of Energy (DOE) gave a contract to the School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University to study radiation risks to nuclear shipyard workers. This study, which extended for more than a decade, cost the taxpayers $10 million. This was the World's best epidemiological study of nuclear workers. The study has yet to be published more than 12 years after its completion in early 1988.
...
The reader may think that the nuclear shipyard study is contradicted by other human studies. I know of no contradictory studies. One other radiation worker study--the British radiologists study. (Smith and Doll 1981)-- also looked at the death rate from all causes. It gives results consistent with NSWS. (Table 2.)

.

Eating less processed meat and more poultry, fish reduces cancer

.
New cancer-diet study, just being published in AJCN:

"Meat, fish, and ovarian cancer risk: results from 2 Australian case-control studies, a systematic review, and meta-analysis."

Results from 2 case-controlled studies were combined and presented (see blue numbers below), and separately, a combined meta-analysis from 7 additional studies was also presented (red numbers).  Bulleted conclusions are as follows:

• No association (within statistical significance) of red meat consumption with ovarian cancer.
• Women with the highest intake of processed meats had +18% and +20%  more ovarian cancer.
• Women with the highest intake of poultry had -17% and -10% less ovarian cancer (statistically borderline).
• Women with the highest intake of fish had -24% and -16% less ovarian cancer.

-------

As I am with this topic, here is some more nutritional heresy.  Enjoy.

"Health Benefits of a Low-Carbohydrate, High-Saturated-Fat Diet"

written by cardiologist
Dr. Donald W. Miller, Jr.

I could not help noticing how similar, no - virtually identical are mine and his interests and views, except that he has been enjoying his life assignment 15 years earlier, before me.  I strongly urge readers to read all Dr. Miller's articles on his website!
.

Refined Carbohydrates, not Fats, Threaten the Heart - Official!!

.

(From Wikipedia)

Spot the junk bits!

Scientific American Magazine - April 27, 2010

Title: "Carbs against Cardio: More Evidence that Refined Carbohydrates, not Fats, Threaten the Heart"

Quotes:

...compared the reported daily food intake of nearly 350,000 people against their risk of developing cardiovascular disease over a period of five to 23 years. The analysis, overseen by Ronald M. Krauss, director of atherosclerosis research at the Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute, found no association between the amount of saturated fat consumed and the risk of heart disease.

... Stampfer’s findings do not merely suggest that saturated fats are not so bad; they indicate that carbohydrates could be worse. A 1997 study he co-authored in the Journal of the American Medical Association evaluated 65,000 women and found that the quintile of women who ate the most easily digestible and readily absorbed carbohydrates—that is, those with the highest glycemic index—were 47 percent more likely to acquire type 2 diabetes than those in the quintile with the lowest average glycemic-index score. (The amount of fat the women ate did not affect diabetes risk.)  And a 2007 Dutch study of 15,000 women ... who were overweight and in the quartile that consumed meals with the highest average glycemic load, a metric that incorporates portion size, were 79 percent more likely to develop coronary vascular disease ...

Another issue facing regulatory agencies, notes Harvard’s Stampfer, is that “the sugared beverage industry   [and vegetarians, my comment - H.]  is lobbying very hard and trying to cast doubt on all these studies.”

... Some monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats, such as those found in fish and olive oil, can protect against heart disease. What is more, some high-fiber carbohydrates are unquestionably good for the body. But saturated fats may ultimately be neutral compared with processed carbs and sugars such as those found in cereals, breads, pasta and cookies.


“If you reduce saturated fat and replace it with high glycemic-index carbohydrates, you may not only not get benefits—you might actually produce harm,” Ludwig argues. The next time you eat a piece of buttered toast, he says, consider that “butter is actually the more healthful component.”

Stan (not-so-Heretic)

.

Cheese - reduced risk of incident and fatal cancer

.
New European  EPIC study ,  just published.

24 thousand participants, over 10 years, 28% reduction in cancer mortality, mostly associated with prostate and lung cancers. Only dairy (not vegetable) source of vitamin K had any effect.

Quote:

24,340 participants aged 35–64 y and free of cancer at enrollment (1994–1998) were actively followed up for cancer incidence and mortality through 2008. Dietary vitamin K intake was estimated from food-frequency questionnaires completed at baseline by using HPLC-based food-composition data.


Results: During a median follow-up time of >10 y, 1755 incident cancer cases occurred, of which 458 were fatal. Dietary intake of menaquinones was nonsignificantly inversely associated with overall cancer incidence (HR for the highest compared with the lowest quartile: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.73, 1.01; P for trend = 0.08[*]), and the association was stronger for cancer mortality (HR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.53, 0.98; P for trend = 0.03). Cancer risk reduction with increasing intake of menaquinones was more pronounced in men than in women, mainly driven by significant inverse associations with prostate (P for trend = 0.03) and lung (P for trend = 0.002) cancer. We found no association with phylloquinone intake[**].


Conclusion: These findings suggest that dietary intake of menaquinones[**], which is highly determined by the consumption of cheese, is associated with a reduced risk of incident and fatal cancer.

My comments:

*) Accepted threshold for "significance" is P<=0.05 that is probability of the result being by chance are less or equal than 5%. P=0.08 means that the total cancer incidence results were also close to being significant, with the probability of being false of 8%.

**) Phylloquinone is the form of vitamin K (K1) that is present in plants. Menaquinones are forms of K2 present in non-plant food sources such as meat, organ meat and dairy (MK-4) or some types of yeasts (MK-7, MK-9).

It is interesting to reflect at this stage at the infamous "The China Study" book by Dr. T.C. Cambpell from Cornell University. For many years Campbell has been claiming that cheese (specifically caseine) supposedly caused cancer in his experimental mice and it was also presumed to be certain, according to him, to cause cancer in humans. Countless of vegans must have used Campbell's book to justify avoiding all dairy products.

Now it turnes out that the China Study must have been a mistake.  Some people like Chris Masterjohn, have been pointing that out in the past, to no avail probably due to high academic credibility of the book author.  (*)

False knowledge seems to be more harmful than no knowledge.

Heretic

_______________________________

References:

Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 May;91(5):1348-58. Epub 2010 Mar 24.
"Dietary vitamin K intake in relation to cancer incidence and mortality: results from the Heidelberg cohort of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC-Heidelberg)."
Nimptsch K, Rohrmann S, Kaaks R, Linseisen J.


http://www.westonaprice.org/1799-Cure-for-Cancer-Activator-X-May-Be-the-Missing-Link-1799.html

http://blog.cholesterol-and-health.com/2010/01/weston-prices-activator-x-cure-for.html

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/index.html

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/03/are-mk-4-and-mk-7-forms-of-vitamin-k2.html

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/06/vitamin-k2-menatetrenone-mk-4.html

-------------------------------------

*) Updated 12-July-2010 - see also this post .

.

Running causes heart attacks

.

12% of marathon runners were found in a German study to have suffered heart atacks versus only 4% among  the age-matched control subjects.

This is important!  You have to read more about it on Kurt's blog here   and there . (Thanks for bringing this subject!).

It turns out that marathon runners not only carried more frequent traces of  past myocardiac infarction events, than the average age-matched population, but also had 62% more atherosclerotic plaque as showed in this research.  The true extent of atherosclerosis among runners is likely to be even higher than that, because the control group in that study wasn't random.  It was selected from among patients undergoing the same scan for symptomatic or suspected heart abnormalities.

Has there ever been a study on marathon runners using a diet other than high carb?

.

Carbohydrates increase women's heart risk

.


New large Italian study published in Archives of Internal Medicine is described on the BBC Health web site.

A study of over 47,000 Italian adults found that women alone whose diets contained a lot of bread, pizza and rice doubled their heart disease risk.

After seven years, 463 participants had developed coronary heart disease.

The researchers found that the women whose diet had the highest glycaemic load had more than double the risk of heart disease compared with those women with the lowest glycaemic load. 

The authors concluded: "Thus, a high consumption of carbohydrates from high-glycaemic index foods, rather than the overall quantity of carbohydrates consumed, appears to influence the risk of developing coronary heart disease."

  This is somewhat contradictory since the GlycemicLoad concept being a product of Glycemic Index times daily intake in grams, does include all types of carbohydrates not just those of the highest glycemic index.   Also, the fact that the correlation showed up among women but not men is a bit suspicious.

Last but not least, there is no mention of "artery-clogging" fat!  I wonder why?

.

Money matters

I am glad to present another interesting essay written by Dozent (Stan P.), this is a continuation on the subject of Baby Boomers culture (that we fondly refer to as "Monkeys"), this time discussed in the context of economy and money.  I hope you will enjoy it.

-------------

Stan (Heretic) wrote Re:

I found that being too "business"-obsessed in the sense of seeing monetary rewards in everything is also a sign of a "monkey".   The reverse is probably also true. Real people want to be paid real money but they (we) are not too obsessed with it. Playing games with monetary reward, that is withholding it when due and rewarding arbitrarily when it is not warranted, is _their_ signature.

Stan,


I always knew it and I have acted upon it.


What is money (I mean real-money) ? It is equivalent of work or in other terms a rechargeable work-battery   :-)


I like to work. It is normal. Why should I be obsessed with WORK.  If you can not make money then you do work nobody wants.  But the problem is: you NEVER KNOW what will sell.


A few years ago I found your "marketing research.on your sensors a little funny, but "harmless" so I said nothing.  Simply estimating the potential size of the market is a good thing.  But that as far as I would go.


I know "if the product WORKS for me then it will most likely work for others".   I veered off topic. "Monkeys" are obsessed with money because they can not do any useful work. For them money is NOT an equivalent of work. No wonder they print it - they can not not see the equivalence. They either "hustle" money or receive it for being loyal to the boss.  They can not earn it on the open work market because they have no marketable skills.  They can not make things other people need.  They are obsessed wit it because it is their constant problem.

Mind you, this definition automatically defines who is a "human" [in our sense] and who is a "monkey" [figuratively, not literally, in a cultural sense, S.B.].    The critical words are "what people need".


It means that a singer like lady Gaga is a human being because she creates something "people need" and are willing to pay for.   It means she is working for her money. It is a kind of work you and me do not understand, but we can not be Astronauts either.


The definition of "useful work" is that is has a "monetary value" on the market. Loyalty and arse kissing does not have a monetary value on the market though it does have value to the Top Monkey and is rewarded accordingly. However, nothing has been created neither by loyal followers nor the boss.  The money, being an equivalent of work must be stolen by a form of "taxation" or simple extortion.

This defines instantly the role of the government.   What government creates ?   Services ?   What services ? No, the only "product" government "creates" is SECURITY.   Mind you, it is a marketable product and people are willing to pay for it.   Providing security is a full time job.
Now what is a value of a well equipped army.  That depends.  If you are facing Hitler or Genghis Khan, nothing else matters.   The problem is a professional army could not stop Hitler.  If fact, it was wiped out and proved completely useless.   In the end a few million of regular folks had to leave their stores, their factories, their fields, they had to learn to fight and they kicked ass.


So the security it is not worth 50% of MY EARNINGS.   If it is, it is time to make weapons and go to war.

There is a reason why the "monkeys" do not understand the connection between work and money.   For them, there isn't any. No matter how hard they "work" ie talk, go to meetings, make noise and other efforts nothing happens.


There is no product, no buyer, no sale and no money.

Now we can go back and create some definitions.  

[Goods and Services]

To state the obvious: people need things.  In order to survive people need goods and services like food, shelter, clothing, tools etc...     These goods have to be made. For the sake of efficiency and quality work specialization is required so most of the goods we need is made by other people.  By definition services are provided by other people.  Primeval societies "found" things they needed. There was a very high "intrinsic" component in goods.  We hunted land animals and fish, collected nuts, dug roots, used wood, bone, native gold, obsidian and flint.  With few exceptions like fish we have exhausted the available supply of  things we could find.  Now ALL the goods have to be made by human labor.

[Trade and Economy]

The second factor is an economy of scale. It was difficult to kill an animal to catch a fish or to make a bow. It was even more difficult to produce "high tech" product like a bronze axe or a gold ear-rings. It required a skill and a know how.  Once the smith made first good axe, it was easy to make 10 or 20 more.  Then one could trade them for some beautiful sea shells    :-)      You know I am serious there. Trade is as old as humankind.   What was the first trade?   Well, the Bible is probably right: a woman exchanging sex for food though a Snake had nothing to do with it!

[Money, Value, Currency and Fake Value ]

Trade started as barter. Money was invented later to facilitate the exchange.   Money is a concept. It is a measure of "value" humans attach to goods and services.   Value is the desire of humans to "own" or "consume" goods and services.   However, money has an weakness. It needs a medium to be implement in practice.  A medium like sea shells, iron bars or gold and silver.   The medium has to be convenient to carry, indestructible, difficult and expensive to produce,  impossible to fake, easily recognizable and uniform (that is why diamonds are not money).    It has to have value to humans but it can not have any utility value so it will not be destroyed.    It has to be rare and expensive but not too rare nor too expensive.


The only medium of exchange that survived the centuries is gold and silver.   Over time, gold and silver has become money though it does not have any use and little utilitarian value.

Gold and silver money has serious flaw - the supply is limited by the availability of metal.  However, this is alleviated by increasing the velocity of money and creating credit.   Velocity of money is a fancy name for reuse.   A buys from B, B buys from C etc...  the same money facilitated multiple transactions.


Credit is a legal note created by a creditor, and backed by his tangible assets.   It is an obligation to buy back the note after the prescribed time for the principal plus interest.  This obligation must be enforced by law.   Money is an equivalent of labor.   It works like a rechargeable battery.   It "stores" human labor in a convenient form for later consumption.   However, people rarely need a pure human labor like the "professional" services of a doctor or lawyer.   In most cases we need "goods" ie. things which have been made by labor. The labor itself is hidden from consumer  in the "value" of these goods.   The value of the "product" is a measure of a desire of people to consume it.   Thus, "money" is an equivalent of goods and labor and a store of value ie. desire to consume.  


Credit is equivalent of work to be done in the future by the debtor in exchange for money borrowed from the creditor.   To account for the risk to the creditor the borrower has to pay interest.


Currency is a credit note issued by the government as a legal means of exchange.   In theory, the government promises to buy it back at any time for money.  The government is a debtor, the saver is the creditor.  It is a cheap credit as the government does not pay interest [or very little of it].   Money can not be easily created.   It has to be saved and pooled to create capital.  

Money is an asset and will hold value for as long as people desire gold and other rare objects.


Currency is a piece of paper. It has value as long as the government says it does. This "value" can be wiped out with one stroke of a pen. Currency is someone's liability. It holds value only as long as the issuer is credit-worthy and can pay back its debt..


Gold Rubles and gold Krugerrands are money . The Reichsmarks were currency. It lost all real value on 9-May-1945.


In the mid 20 century something curious had happened - currency had become "money".   The liability has become an asset.  The piece of paper acquired value backed by the creditworthiness of entire nations.  It is not the first time it has been tried.  The kings of France tried this.  The kings of England tried this.  The results were rather sorry - the kings lost their heads.  The current massive experiment lasted 70 years for over 3 generations.  One could think it was successful, but the fraud was just so big it took a very long time for the results to first appear.  Now the cows are coming home.  The currency will go to zero again, but that is a subject for another essay.

This simple definition of  "money" and  "currency"  has a very far reaching consequences.  First, it provides a clear distinction between human producers and parasitic consumers.  Second, it provides a clear distinction between money and currency.  Third, it clearly defines the role of the "government".

There are many people who have no skills or no desire to produce anything. Yet they need the manufactured goods and services in order to survive.   I call them "Monkeys" because just like the monkeys they tend to congregate into troupes and many are actually destructive.  The critical statement is this: since Monkeys do not make anything they can not "earn" money.  They have to steal it or extort it.  They congregate in groups of alike individuals and use agression to hustle a living.
The Currency is NOT money. It is a piece of paper. It obfuscates the role and the very nature of money as a deferred labor.  It enables the incompetent, destructive "monkeys" to pretend they also create "value".


However, currency is designed and promoted as the equivalent of money thus the equivalent of labor but unlike labor,  it can be printed at will.   It makes "credit" cheap.   After all, all it takes is to print a piece of paper.   It makes savings an oxymoron.   The banks do not need savings to issue credit.   Sooner or later credit printing gets out of control and the whole fraud unwinds.  We are witnessing it now.

The only products government can manufacture and sell is law and security.   Personal security.  It is a legitimate role and a legitimate products.   In fact, it is priceless.  Laws permit economies to function.  It enables property ownership and civility.   Personal security is the first step to political freedom which has been proven to promote wealth creation.

This has become a book. The real point can be made starting here with the "Monkeys" taking over the government in the times of prosperity and the replacement of  money with currency.  The system starts rotting from the top and the disaster is unavoidable.


I have no desire to write this book.  I know you know the end.  We both know the resulting cycle is very long.  In fact, this may well be the explanation of the Kondratiev's super-wave.  There has to be a longer cycle - about 3-4 generations.  In short, the cycle starts with competent people and real money and it ends with "Monkeys" in charge and worthless paper currency.

See you tomorrow.
Stan P.

(Text in brackets [] and quotes added by Heretic)
--------------------------------
Update 24-April-2010.
More comments posted on this subject, see under the previous article.

Veg prevent cancer bullxxxx exposed

.

European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition report by BBC

Professor Walter Willet of Harvard University said the research strongly confirmed the findings of other studies, showing "that any association of intake and fruits and vegetables with risk of cancer is weak at best".

and this:

The study of 500,000 Europeans joins a growing body of evidence undermining the high hopes that pushing "five-a-day" might slash Western cancer rates.

The international team of researchers estimates only around 2.5% of cancers could be averted by increasing intake.

Healthy vegetables?  Yeah right!

Human regression, anthropology

.

"Grok" the Neanderthal (drawn by Cecylia Bleszynski)

This is a continuation of the previous post on the subject of present day human regression, problem with "Baby Boomers" generation etc.

I have been thinking of expanding it into an essay but I am not quite sure how to attack it.   As far as I know it has never been postulated this way.  It has probably never been said that certain traits and attributes of the modern human culture such as social uniformity and an obedience towards authority in power and regulations, may in fact be the symptoms of regression into our distant evolutionary past. It is important to recognize it since it may harm our long term survival.

On the first sight that may sound like a pure anarchic heresy.  I need to explain.   During our relentless discussions and rants (me with Dozent), we realized that there is a behavioral pattern, namely people who tend to be the most willing followers of hierarchy of power, who like obeying all regulations spread by governments, corporations and churches, are the same who have unusually well developed group social skills, and at the same time tend to lack the skills that defined our humanity in the past. The same type of people also lack certain human skills that used to ensure our survival, that is:  innate creativity, ingenuity, ability to manipulate or adapt to changing environment, high mobility  and tendency to build strong bonds within the small teams of equals based on skill and usefullness rather than on some hierarchy of authority and power.      

I will describe some basic differences between the characteristic of nomadic humans the way I see it, in contrast to the opposite traits of the so-called "Baby Boomers". Please keep in mind that use the last term in a simplistic generalized way, to described a certain subculture.

"Nomadic" (Homo Sapiens)	"Boomers" (Simian Sapiens)
outwardly - individualists, inwardly - co-operative	outwardly - collectivists, inwardly - aggressive and competitive
introvert	extrovert
disobedient	followers
adaptive, flexible	static, rigid
racially blind	intolerant of strangers
value creativity	afraid of new
dislike static order	value stability
rely on individual work	work unconnected to wealth
authorities = problems	authorities = source of wealth
strong team bonds	strong social group bonds
manipulate environment	manipulate people
technical and science skills	lack of technical abilities
logic and math	verbal reasoning and rhetorics
observe what works	observe what others say
individual survival priority	group has priority
idealizes religions	uses religions
support commerce	consider it unfair profiteering
nomadic mentality	settled mentality
highly focused on 1 task	multitasker
"What I produce belongs to me"	"What you produce belongs to us"

-----------------
Update 24-April-2010
More comments by Dozent posted on this subject, see the comments section.
-----------------
Update 8-Feb-2011
Added last row in the table.
-------------------
Update 4-March-2012
Added introver/extrovert attribute.  Note - read this article about Susan Cain's book.
--------------------
Updated table 16-Jan-2014
---------------