Can Hertel be taken seriously?

[Guest guest]

Alon,

Outside of typical scientific analysis, you've always had the

'wine-taster's methodology', i.e. tasting batches of wine, soil and

grapes, refining wine-making techniques as part of producing superior

wines. Also, local climate, altitude wind directions, temperature

range effect the outcome. In superior cuisine, cooking techniques are

very carefully refined, from the choice of vegetable to seasoning to

cooking pots to strength of the flame. Preparation of herbs is not

that much different qualitatively. There is qualitative and

quantitative analysis. I can taste the difference between wood, gas

and electric stove cooking methods with food, for example.

 

 

On Jun 26, 2008, at 10:51 AM, alon marcus wrote:

 

> Steve

> All cooking alter proteins, look at a boiled egg. The question is what

> do we know about the affects on humans. Bob is correct in saying that

> a general world view can bias ones assessment of the same evidence.

> Techofobes dont need much evidence to believe technology is harmful.

> But for example is a BBK steak better for you that microwaved steak?

>

>

>

> 400 29th St. Suite 419

> Oakland Ca 94609

>

>

>

> alonmarcus

>

>

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

 

 

I think Steve's point is well made. Your response about a " boiled egg " is

unclear. If you have counter evidence please present it.

 

 

 

-Jason

 

_____

 

 

On Behalf Of alon marcus

Thursday, June 26, 2008 11:51 AM

 

Re: Can Hertel be taken seriously?

 

 

 

Steve

All cooking alter proteins, look at a boiled egg. The question is what

do we know about the affects on humans. Bob is correct in saying that

a general world view can bias ones assessment of the same evidence.

Techofobes dont need much evidence to believe technology is harmful.

But for example is a BBK steak better for you that microwaved steak?

 

 

 

400 29th St. Suite 419

Oakland Ca 94609

 

 

 

alonmarcus (AT) wans (DOT) <alonmarcus%40wans.net> net

 

 

[Guest guest]

I agree with Tim. The recent trend here on the CHA is to reject anything

that hints of personal experience, even when a practitioner has 25-50+ years

of experience in the topic. When someone presents evidence, the response is

" it is not good enough, it can't be proven " or " it is just biased. " I would

like to know, what is not biased?

 

 

 

Surely any MD that speaks of Western medicine has the bias that Flaws speaks

of. Should we write all of these people off? Any person interested in (and

has researched any topic) (i.e. CM or microwaves) has this bias - Should we

ignore them? It seems that anything we write about, because of our interest,

will have this bias. Maybe we should just listen to people who have no

interest or experience in a given topic, so as to avoid any type of bias.

 

 

 

Alon says we can't know anything unless it is well researched and therefore

should not trust anyone's clinical experience.

 

Bob wants to write of expert's opinions in the field because they have

interest in the topic they are talking about.. hmmm hen qiguai.

 

 

 

What is left? double blind placebo?

 

 

 

The fact is CM will never be well researched. If something as big as hormone

replacement can't even be researched adequately there is no chance for CM

and the 10,000s of permutations it holds.

 

 

 

I think it is completely ridiculous to think that scientific analysis is the

only way to come up with valid clinical information (history supports this

nicely). This method when evaluating CM not only has inherent deficiencies

within its basic structure (i.e. impossible to test individual treatments)

but also the corruption within the research system as a whole in China and

the Western world is enough to drastically reduce the systems credibility.

 

 

 

There is no perfect way of knowing. The struggle for " facts " is IMO a

completely futile endeavor. Reductionistic medical facts (even if there were

such a thing) do not solve our healthcare needs. They may help in certain

situations, but they have produced so many errors and continue to do so that

placing all of one's eggs in this basket is unintelligent.

 

 

 

Chinese medicine has done pretty well for itself over the years without this

" gold " standard that everyone is crying for. The reality is, there is no

gold standard and the more this method gets applied to modern CM the more

inferior CM becomes.

 

 

 

I think we need to stop whining about " proof " and get on with clinical

reality. Of course people's experiences and opinions should be evaluated. I

will still ask, " where did this come from " and still encourage all ranges of

personal experience in the clinic.

 

 

 

But because of this domineering trend to distrust everything, I have had

many people email (personal) responses to questions because they are too

afraid to speak up publically, all because they " do not have proof. "

Therefore this nit picking semantic / scientific rigor BS is getting a bit

old, especially when it seems to be the card played when someone wants to

save face and prove their point.

 

 

 

I will end with there is NO PROOF that Western scientific method / double

blind studies produce anymore or better clinical tools than the other

methods out there. I will put my classic " non proven " CM against double

blind medicine for most all chronic diseases. Others/ thoughts?

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_____

 

 

On Behalf Of Tim Sharpe

Thursday, June 26, 2008 12:07 PM

 

RE: Re: Can Hertel be taken seriously?

 

 

 

I think we're taking things a bit far at this point. I have Bob ON TAPE. I

listened to it to confirm as I posted. The audio and printed info is

available for sale through Crayhon Research, which is where I purchased only

the audio. I provided the name of the speech and when and where it

occurred. I even provided the source journal of Bob's comment. The only

issue at this point is what does that research actually say? Without a more

specific citation we are at a standstill.

 

As so often happens on this list, we become mired in semantics and clinical

reality gets tossed in the can. Let's look at what we know. We have

rumored evidence of flavonoid alterations. We are able to witness

ourselves, as mentioned in Bill's post, the structural changes in bread that

is microwaved. Many of us, myself included, have read research indicating

differing nutrient loss rates pending cooking method (boiled, steamed,

fried, grilled, etc) Those studies are reported via regular media outlets.

We have at the very least reason to suspect that microwaved foodstuffs may

be different in some way than boiled foodstuffs. This in all likelihood

will to varying degrees change the balance of herb formulas as discussed in

my earlier post. Using herbs in a non-traditional way IMHO equates to

experimenting on our patients. Many of us do this all the time when we

combine Wx and Chinese herbs, or supplements with herbs. I myself do it,

but let's call a spade a spade. It is understood in those instances that we

are varying from the millennia of herbal knowledge that is our training.

Can we for a moment consider whether we might need to be concerned with the

clinical realities of using microwaves. Then progress to the nature and

extent of that concern. I don't want to completely rehash my earlier post

on this topic relating to raw herb powders, let me just say that this may be

a big deal for some herbs, especially flavonoid rich citrus varieties.

 

-Tim Sharpe

 

 

 

bill_schoenbart

 

Thursday, June 26, 2008 11:23 AM

 

@ <%40>

 

 

Re: Can Hertel be taken seriously?

 

I was unable to confirm the flavonoid info attributed to him (if in fact

 

he actually said those things!).

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hhmm.. sounds like qi to me..

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_____

 

 

On Behalf Of Steve Sterling

Have you ever noticed what happens when you put a piece of fresh french

bread in the microwave oven. If you put it in

there for more than a few seconds it gets hard and doesn't taste good.

Obviously, it has undergone some sort of transformation presumably chemical

to achieve an altered state. Try it for yourself if you don't believe me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jason,

I think there are degrees of experience that we need to grade in

order to trust. Bob Flaws in his recent podcasts has spoken about the

historical record of Chinese medicine being 'evidence-based', and that

certainly works for me. We have the clinical records and theoretical

works of generations of physicians to work with, along with present

clinical practices of scores of physicians. At the other extreme are

books which contain interesting material and opinions of the authors,

but have not been adequately examined clinically to be accepted as

mainstream Chinese medicine practice. There needs to be a way to take

such innovative, idiosyncratic texts and test them for reliability,

otherwise unsuspecting practitioners may take the information in texts

such as these as gospel. One example is the classification and

grading of Western herbs according to Chinese criteria, another is the

John Shen pulse diagnostic system.

 

I agree that it will be a very long time, if ever, before Chinese

medical practice meets the criteria of so-called 'evidence-based

medicine'. 70% of biomedical practices don't even meet these

criteria. These criteria need to be more flexible when applied to

such systems as Chinese medicine, which are largely influenced by

practitioner-patient interactions. But all medicine is. There are

few examples that I am aware of truly unbiased studies, where there

are no financial, clinical or turf influences on researchers or

participants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Jun 26, 2008, at 12:59 PM, wrote:

 

> I agree with Tim. The recent trend here on the CHA is to reject

> anything

> that hints of personal experience, even when a practitioner has

> 25-50+ years

> of experience in the topic. When someone presents evidence, the

> response is

> " it is not good enough, it can't be proven " or " it is just biased. "

> I would

> like to know, what is not biased?

>

> Surely any MD that speaks of Western medicine has the bias that

> Flaws speaks

> of. Should we write all of these people off? Any person interested

> in (and

> has researched any topic) (i.e. CM or microwaves) has this bias -

> Should we

> ignore them? It seems that anything we write about, because of our

> interest,

> will have this bias. Maybe we should just listen to people who have no

> interest or experience in a given topic, so as to avoid any type of

> bias.

>

> Alon says we can't know anything unless it is well researched and

> therefore

> should not trust anyone's clinical experience.

>

> Bob wants to write of expert's opinions in the field because they have

> interest in the topic they are talking about.. hmmm hen qiguai.

>

> What is left? double blind placebo?

>

> The fact is CM will never be well researched. If something as big as

> hormone

> replacement can't even be researched adequately there is no chance

> for CM

> and the 10,000s of permutations it holds.

>

> I think it is completely ridiculous to think that scientific

> analysis is the

> only way to come up with valid clinical information (history

> supports this

> nicely). This method when evaluating CM not only has inherent

> deficiencies

> within its basic structure (i.e. impossible to test individual

> treatments)

> but also the corruption within the research system as a whole in

> China and

> the Western world is enough to drastically reduce the systems

> credibility.

>

> There is no perfect way of knowing. The struggle for " facts " is IMO a

> completely futile endeavor. Reductionistic medical facts (even if

> there were

> such a thing) do not solve our healthcare needs. They may help in

> certain

> situations, but they have produced so many errors and continue to do

> so that

> placing all of one's eggs in this basket is unintelligent.

>

> Chinese medicine has done pretty well for itself over the years

> without this

> " gold " standard that everyone is crying for. The reality is, there

> is no

> gold standard and the more this method gets applied to modern CM the

> more

> inferior CM becomes.

>

> I think we need to stop whining about " proof " and get on with clinical

> reality. Of course people's experiences and opinions should be

> evaluated. I

> will still ask, " where did this come from " and still encourage all

> ranges of

> personal experience in the clinic.

>

> But because of this domineering trend to distrust everything, I have

> had

> many people email (personal) responses to questions because they are

> too

> afraid to speak up publically, all because they " do not have proof. "

> Therefore this nit picking semantic / scientific rigor BS is getting

> a bit

> old, especially when it seems to be the card played when someone

> wants to

> save face and prove their point.

>

> I will end with there is NO PROOF that Western scientific method /

> double

> blind studies produce anymore or better clinical tools than the other

> methods out there. I will put my classic " non proven " CM against

> double

> blind medicine for most all chronic diseases. Others/ thoughts?

>

> -Jason

>

> _____

>

>

> On Behalf Of Tim Sharpe

> Thursday, June 26, 2008 12:07 PM

>

> RE: Re: Can Hertel be taken seriously?

>

> I think we're taking things a bit far at this point. I have Bob ON

> TAPE. I

> listened to it to confirm as I posted. The audio and printed info is

> available for sale through Crayhon Research, which is where I

> purchased only

> the audio. I provided the name of the speech and when and where it

> occurred. I even provided the source journal of Bob's comment. The

> only

> issue at this point is what does that research actually say? Without

> a more

> specific citation we are at a standstill.

>

> As so often happens on this list, we become mired in semantics and

> clinical

> reality gets tossed in the can. Let's look at what we know. We have

> rumored evidence of flavonoid alterations. We are able to witness

> ourselves, as mentioned in Bill's post, the structural changes in

> bread that

> is microwaved. Many of us, myself included, have read research

> indicating

> differing nutrient loss rates pending cooking method (boiled, steamed,

> fried, grilled, etc) Those studies are reported via regular media

> outlets.

> We have at the very least reason to suspect that microwaved

> foodstuffs may

> be different in some way than boiled foodstuffs. This in all

> likelihood

> will to varying degrees change the balance of herb formulas as

> discussed in

> my earlier post. Using herbs in a non-traditional way IMHO equates to

> experimenting on our patients. Many of us do this all the time when we

> combine Wx and Chinese herbs, or supplements with herbs. I myself do

> it,

> but let's call a spade a spade. It is understood in those instances

> that we

> are varying from the millennia of herbal knowledge that is our

> training.

> Can we for a moment consider whether we might need to be concerned

> with the

> clinical realities of using microwaves. Then progress to the nature

> and

> extent of that concern. I don't want to completely rehash my earlier

> post

> on this topic relating to raw herb powders, let me just say that

> this may be

> a big deal for some herbs, especially flavonoid rich citrus varieties.

>

> -Tim Sharpe

>

>

>

> bill_schoenbart

>

> Thursday, June 26, 2008 11:23 AM

>

> @ <%40>

>

>

> Re: Can Hertel be taken seriously?

>

> I was unable to confirm the flavonoid info attributed to him (if in

> fact

>

> he actually said those things!).

>

>

[Guest guest]

Zev I agree but again is it harmful? can we tell by taste? Is

different bed? this is were our world view comes in were the

assessment of evidence becomes more subjective. When the evidence is

clearer the questions decrease.

 

 

 

400 29th St. Suite 419

Oakland Ca 94609

 

 

 

alonmarcus

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jason

Here are some questions, how much of the d-form of the proteins it

takes to do harm? Do we really know that food truly creates harm or do

we quickly assume so because we like one kind of evidence more than

others. Do you want to tell me there are no studies saying microwaved

food is safe? Where is the weight of the evidence? do you care about

the weight of the evidence or a small amount of evidence is ok since

its fits with your world view, ie bias. These are all questions one

need to ask himself/herself when looking at any issue before making a

rational opinion, otherwise its a self reinforcing belief.

 

 

 

400 29th St. Suite 419

Oakland Ca 94609

 

 

 

alonmarcus

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Alon, you ask " is different bad? " Different is different. How do you gauge

how to dose " different " ? What's your source material? What are the

properties of Bu Zhong Yi Qi Tang cooked in the microwave? How can you

argue for research and continue to ignore clinical applications? If some

can " taste " the difference with different cooking methods, that should be a

screaming red flag for our medical use. Is flavor not a key quality of an

herb? Even if no one can " taste " the difference, it's still different, and

we don't know how.

 

 

 

-Tim Sharpe

 

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of alon marcus

Thursday, June 26, 2008 7:10 PM

 

Re: Can Hertel be taken seriously?

 

 

 

Zev I agree but again is it harmful? can we tell by taste? Is

 

different bed? this is were our world view comes in were the

 

assessment of evidence becomes more subjective. When the evidence is

 

clearer the questions decrease.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

400 29th St. Suite 419

 

Oakland Ca 94609

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

alonmarcus

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

 

 

This has nothing to do with my biases. I have just asked you to present the

evidence that counters what has already been presented. You have just asked

questions and not presented anything. Show us the money.

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

_____

 

 

On Behalf Of alon marcus

Thursday, June 26, 2008 6:24 PM

 

Re: Can Hertel be taken seriously?

 

 

 

Jason

Here are some questions, how much of the d-form of the proteins it

takes to do harm? Do we really know that food truly creates harm or do

we quickly assume so because we like one kind of evidence more than

others. Do you want to tell me there are no studies saying microwaved

food is safe? Where is the weight of the evidence? do you care about

the weight of the evidence or a small amount of evidence is ok since

its fits with your world view, ie bias. These are all questions one

need to ask himself/herself when looking at any issue before making a

rational opinion, otherwise its a self reinforcing belief.

 

 

 

400 29th St. Suite 419

Oakland Ca 94609

 

 

 

alonmarcus (AT) wans (DOT) <alonmarcus%40wans.net> net

 

 

[Guest guest]

Z'ev,

 

 

 

I could not agree more and we still need to critically evaluate the sources.

The question is, what is the criteria that we choose to do this. Some would

suggest that the human is too flawed to accurately conclude anything (i.e.

Alon or Bob). I disagree. But I will admit that I personally would only

trust a small percentage of the population in their critically thinking

skills and evaluations. But as you state this small percent does exist, both

in the present and the past as documented in CM records.

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_____

 

 

On Behalf Of

Thursday, June 26, 2008 4:40 PM

 

Re: Re: Can Hertel be taken seriously?

 

 

 

Jason,

I think there are degrees of experience that we need to grade in

order to trust. Bob Flaws in his recent podcasts has spoken about the

historical record of Chinese medicine being 'evidence-based', and that

certainly works for me. We have the clinical records and theoretical

works of generations of physicians to work with, along with present

clinical practices of scores of physicians. At the other extreme are

books which contain interesting material and opinions of the authors,

but have not been adequately examined clinically to be accepted as

mainstream Chinese medicine practice. There needs to be a way to take

such innovative, idiosyncratic texts and test them for reliability,

otherwise unsuspecting practitioners may take the information in texts

such as these as gospel. One example is the classification and

grading of Western herbs according to Chinese criteria, another is the

John Shen pulse diagnostic system.

 

I agree that it will be a very long time, if ever, before Chinese

medical practice meets the criteria of so-called 'evidence-based

medicine'. 70% of biomedical practices don't even meet these

criteria. These criteria need to be more flexible when applied to

such systems as Chinese medicine, which are largely influenced by

practitioner-patient interactions. But all medicine is. There are

few examples that I am aware of truly unbiased studies, where there

are no financial, clinical or turf influences on researchers or

participants.

 

 

 

On Jun 26, 2008, at 12:59 PM, wrote:

 

> I agree with Tim. The recent trend here on the CHA is to reject

> anything

> that hints of personal experience, even when a practitioner has

> 25-50+ years

> of experience in the topic. When someone presents evidence, the

> response is

> " it is not good enough, it can't be proven " or " it is just biased. "

> I would

> like to know, what is not biased?

>

> Surely any MD that speaks of Western medicine has the bias that

> Flaws speaks

> of. Should we write all of these people off? Any person interested

> in (and

> has researched any topic) (i.e. CM or microwaves) has this bias -

> Should we

> ignore them? It seems that anything we write about, because of our

> interest,

> will have this bias. Maybe we should just listen to people who have no

> interest or experience in a given topic, so as to avoid any type of

> bias.

>

> Alon says we can't know anything unless it is well researched and

> therefore

> should not trust anyone's clinical experience.

>

> Bob wants to write of expert's opinions in the field because they have

> interest in the topic they are talking about.. hmmm hen qiguai.

>

> What is left? double blind placebo?

>

> The fact is CM will never be well researched. If something as big as

> hormone

> replacement can't even be researched adequately there is no chance

> for CM

> and the 10,000s of permutations it holds.

>

> I think it is completely ridiculous to think that scientific

> analysis is the

> only way to come up with valid clinical information (history

> supports this

> nicely). This method when evaluating CM not only has inherent

> deficiencies

> within its basic structure (i.e. impossible to test individual

> treatments)

> but also the corruption within the research system as a whole in

> China and

> the Western world is enough to drastically reduce the systems

> credibility.

>

> There is no perfect way of knowing. The struggle for " facts " is IMO a

> completely futile endeavor. Reductionistic medical facts (even if

> there were

> such a thing) do not solve our healthcare needs. They may help in

> certain

> situations, but they have produced so many errors and continue to do

> so that

> placing all of one's eggs in this basket is unintelligent.

>

> Chinese medicine has done pretty well for itself over the years

> without this

> " gold " standard that everyone is crying for. The reality is, there

> is no

> gold standard and the more this method gets applied to modern CM the

> more

> inferior CM becomes.

>

> I think we need to stop whining about " proof " and get on with clinical

> reality. Of course people's experiences and opinions should be

> evaluated. I

> will still ask, " where did this come from " and still encourage all

> ranges of

> personal experience in the clinic.

>

> But because of this domineering trend to distrust everything, I have

> had

> many people email (personal) responses to questions because they are

> too

> afraid to speak up publically, all because they " do not have proof. "

> Therefore this nit picking semantic / scientific rigor BS is getting

> a bit

> old, especially when it seems to be the card played when someone

> wants to

> save face and prove their point.

>

> I will end with there is NO PROOF that Western scientific method /

> double

> blind studies produce anymore or better clinical tools than the other

> methods out there. I will put my classic " non proven " CM against

> double

> blind medicine for most all chronic diseases. Others/ thoughts?

>

> -Jason

>

> _____

>

> @ <%40>

 

> [@ <%40>

] On Behalf Of Tim Sharpe

> Thursday, June 26, 2008 12:07 PM

> @ <%40>

 

> RE: Re: Can Hertel be taken seriously?

>

> I think we're taking things a bit far at this point. I have Bob ON

> TAPE. I

> listened to it to confirm as I posted. The audio and printed info is

> available for sale through Crayhon Research, which is where I

> purchased only

> the audio. I provided the name of the speech and when and where it

> occurred. I even provided the source journal of Bob's comment. The

> only

> issue at this point is what does that research actually say? Without

> a more

> specific citation we are at a standstill.

>

> As so often happens on this list, we become mired in semantics and

> clinical

> reality gets tossed in the can. Let's look at what we know. We have

> rumored evidence of flavonoid alterations. We are able to witness

> ourselves, as mentioned in Bill's post, the structural changes in

> bread that

> is microwaved. Many of us, myself included, have read research

> indicating

> differing nutrient loss rates pending cooking method (boiled, steamed,

> fried, grilled, etc) Those studies are reported via regular media

> outlets.

> We have at the very least reason to suspect that microwaved

> foodstuffs may

> be different in some way than boiled foodstuffs. This in all

> likelihood

> will to varying degrees change the balance of herb formulas as

> discussed in

> my earlier post. Using herbs in a non-traditional way IMHO equates to

> experimenting on our patients. Many of us do this all the time when we

> combine Wx and Chinese herbs, or supplements with herbs. I myself do

> it,

> but let's call a spade a spade. It is understood in those instances

> that we

> are varying from the millennia of herbal knowledge that is our

> training.

> Can we for a moment consider whether we might need to be concerned

> with the

> clinical realities of using microwaves. Then progress to the nature

> and

> extent of that concern. I don't want to completely rehash my earlier

> post

> on this topic relating to raw herb powders, let me just say that

> this may be

> a big deal for some herbs, especially flavonoid rich citrus varieties.

>

> -Tim Sharpe

>

>

>

> bill_schoenbart

>

> Thursday, June 26, 2008 11:23 AM

>

> @ <%40>

>

>

> Re: Can Hertel be taken seriously?

>

> I was unable to confirm the flavonoid info attributed to him (if in

> fact

>

> he actually said those things!).

>

>

[Guest guest]

Tim has hit the nail on the head. The crux of this issue is that Microwaves

damages and/or changes qi. This impacts our clinic if we like it not. All

these smoke and mirrors about evidence based medicine and the sources not

being " un-biased " and are a complete red herring.

 

 

 

As Tim clearly points out we don't know what these changes are but they

exist. The qi is different. This should be clear to anyone that doesn't have

a test tube stuck in their ear). If qi is different than the action on the

body is different. These issues are similar to why many Chinese dislike

granulars, they are just one more unknown. Although with microwaves there is

at least some evidence that it causes harm. It is a no brainer in my book.

But to each their own.

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_____

 

 

On Behalf Of Tim Sharpe

Thursday, June 26, 2008 6:33 PM

 

RE: Re: Can Hertel be taken seriously?

 

 

 

Alon, you ask " is different bad? " Different is different. How do you gauge

how to dose " different " ? What's your source material? What are the

properties of Bu Zhong Yi Qi Tang cooked in the microwave? How can you

argue for research and continue to ignore clinical applications? If some

can " taste " the difference with different cooking methods, that should be a

screaming red flag for our medical use. Is flavor not a key quality of an

herb? Even if no one can " taste " the difference, it's still different, and

we don't know how.

 

-Tim Sharpe

 

 

@ <%40>

 

[@ <%40>

] On Behalf Of alon marcus

Thursday, June 26, 2008 7:10 PM

@ <%40>

 

Re: Can Hertel be taken seriously?

 

Zev I agree but again is it harmful? can we tell by taste? Is

 

different bed? this is were our world view comes in were the

 

assessment of evidence becomes more subjective. When the evidence is

 

clearer the questions decrease.

 

 

 

400 29th St. Suite 419

 

Oakland Ca 94609

 

 

 

 

 

alonmarcus (AT) wans (DOT) <alonmarcus%40wans.net> net

 

 

[Guest guest]

Z'ev,

 

 

 

One of the reasons I am so involved in this topic is the profound impact I

feel it has on our profession. I am completely unimpressed with the results

of the current trends of CM to try to adopt the research methodology of the

west. I do think that aspects of the West may be effectively adopted, to

completely throw out a system that has evolved so effectively is incorrect.

 

 

 

Double blind studies are only one type of evaluation. However since they

were originally designed to treat antibiotics they fail in most instances

when evaluating CM.

 

 

 

Z'ev, I completely agree that CM has a history of rigor and 'evidence-based'

medicine. It is clearly not a bunch of random ideas thrown together, as some

would like to suggest. Since, I have not heard Bob's podcast, could you

explain a little bit about what you feel are the differences between

historical CM and modern Western medicine approaches in finding clinical

truth.

 

 

 

On the top of my head, it seems to me that CM methodology is less concerned

with eliminating biases, which BTW can only be eliminated by randomized

controlled studies that are not funded by interested parties. It also seems

to care little about just isolating a single element and is content on

relying on past theory and doctors conclusions to understand their present

findings. It is an evolving machine, with its own checks and balances that

advance over time.

 

 

 

I think this topic is too important to let a couple of bullies intimidate

everyone. Others thoughts?

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_____

 

 

On Behalf Of

Thursday, June 26, 2008 4:40 PM

 

Re: Re: Can Hertel be taken seriously?

 

 

 

Jason,

I think there are degrees of experience that we need to grade in

order to trust. Bob Flaws in his recent podcasts has spoken about the

historical record of Chinese medicine being 'evidence-based', and that

certainly works for me. We have the clinical records and theoretical

works of generations of physicians to work with, along with present

clinical practices of scores of physicians. At the other extreme are

books which contain interesting material and opinions of the authors,

but have not been adequately examined clinically to be accepted as

mainstream Chinese medicine practice. There needs to be a way to take

such innovative, idiosyncratic texts and test them for reliability,

otherwise unsuspecting practitioners may take the information in texts

such as these as gospel. One example is the classification and

grading of Western herbs according to Chinese criteria, another is the

John Shen pulse diagnostic system.

 

I agree that it will be a very long time, if ever, before Chinese

medical practice meets the criteria of so-called 'evidence-based

medicine'. 70% of biomedical practices don't even meet these

criteria. These criteria need to be more flexible when applied to

such systems as Chinese medicine, which are largely influenced by

practitioner-patient interactions. But all medicine is. There are

few examples that I am aware of truly unbiased studies, where there

are no financial, clinical or turf influences on researchers or

participants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jason

You are thinking in black and white, i am not saying its all or nothing. What i

am saying is that unless you are truly aware of the weakness in any opinion

including your own you are not assessing experience you are excepting

experience. Nothing more nothing less

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Tim

you ask good questions and the question is again what do we really know? What

about the change in taste from year to year of raw herbs?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

No Jason

I asked to evaluate the meaning of the data, that is part of the process

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jason,

A few years ago, a team of practitioners including two physicians

and an acupuncturist from University of California at Irvine spoke on

integrated, evidence-based medicine at the Pacific Symposium. UCI has

a large program and clinic at its medical school, and has been given a

very large private grant to carry this out. I've lectured twice to

students who take part in this program.

 

They really turned off a lot of the audience, because of the

insistence that only documented studies according to evidence-based

criteria had any validity as a basis for clinical treatment. They

completed dismissed historical record, classical and modern case

studies, and Chinese medical theory.

 

So in order to practice by these standards, you really are

reinventing the wheel.

 

To answer your question, I think that the criteria of Chinese

medicine are different than biomedicine in fundamental ways. In

Chinese medicine, there are a number of possible ways to diagnose and

treat the same condition, whether it is treated as a disease or a

pattern complex. Also, in many cases we treat the patient with the

disease rather than the disease itself. This isn't possible in

biomedicine, and it is more difficult to produce studies. Also the

variables in Chinese medical treatments are much greater; with herbs,

growing conditions, season picked, preparation methods, dosages,

combinations are much more complex than giving a standardized drug to

a patient population for a clearly defined biomedical disease. In

acupuncture/moxabustion, you have the issues of depth of needling,

number of points used, stimulus, combination of points, and so on. In

addition, there is definitely a 'placebo response' at work, although

animals also respond to Chinese medical treatments. What I interpret

as placebo response is the role of consciousness in influencing

treatment, and I think it is impossible to eliminate this factor

unless we use robots to diagnose and treat patients.

 

I think that we need some way to engage the complexity of Chinese

medical encounters if we want to do studies. These must include the

practitioner/patient interactions and rate them qualitatively, as

well as the factors I've mentioned above. I personally find the kind

of case histories recorded in such journals as The Lantern journal to

be very useful, they are along the lines of how I'd like to see case

reporting in the West. For example, the cases from Chip and you vis a

vis lurking qi warm disease. .

 

 

 

On Jun 27, 2008, at 5:52 AM, wrote:

 

> Z'ev,

>

> One of the reasons I am so involved in this topic is the profound

> impact I

> feel it has on our profession. I am completely unimpressed with the

> results

> of the current trends of CM to try to adopt the research methodology

> of the

> west. I do think that aspects of the West may be effectively

> adopted, to

> completely throw out a system that has evolved so effectively is

> incorrect.

>

> Double blind studies are only one type of evaluation. However since

> they

> were originally designed to treat antibiotics they fail in most

> instances

> when evaluating CM.

>

> Z'ev, I completely agree that CM has a history of rigor and

> 'evidence-based'

> medicine. It is clearly not a bunch of random ideas thrown together,

> as some

> would like to suggest. Since, I have not heard Bob's podcast, could

> you

> explain a little bit about what you feel are the differences between

> historical CM and modern Western medicine approaches in finding

> clinical

> truth.

>

> On the top of my head, it seems to me that CM methodology is less

> concerned

> with eliminating biases, which BTW can only be eliminated by

> randomized

> controlled studies that are not funded by interested parties. It

> also seems

> to care little about just isolating a single element and is content on

> relying on past theory and doctors conclusions to understand their

> present

> findings. It is an evolving machine, with its own checks and

> balances that

> advance over time.

>

> I think this topic is too important to let a couple of bullies

> intimidate

> everyone. Others thoughts?

>

> -Jason

>

> _____

>

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jason,

 

I am in agreement with you about how we build knowledge in this field.

It seems to me that a good portion of our profession are running head

long into an area of evidence that really doesn't capture the rich

body of experience present within this field.

 

As a community, I believe that we are barking up the wrong tree by

pursuing the quantitative solution to our AOM evidence problems, and

it has been used against us at all levels of decision making.

 

What is needed is a paradigm shift. But we are part of the problem. It

was not until the most recent meeting of the Society of Acupuncture

Research that acknowledgment was received that the RCT is likely not

the best method of understanding what, why and how acupuncture works.

 

Qualitative inquiry is an area where AOM may find solutions. Within

qualitative inquiry itself, evidence is defined differently in

different discourses such as law, medicine, history and culture. The

process of creating evidential criteria for qualitative work is

emergent. But that voice needs to be at the table. To date, the NCCAM

has funded one qualitative study using what is called Grounded Theory.

 

We need not only AOM practitioners at the NCCAM table with research

background. We need people with qualitative research background at the

table. If we fail on this point, we will be saddled with increasing

levels of evidence that continue to be ambiguous because it fails to

capture the richness of what we do. The significant good we portend

for our culture will continue unnoticed: due in part to the politics

of evidence.

 

I would love to see a case database, one that logs the cases over the

last 2,000 years into a sortable fields that could then be quantified

for all the post- positivists out there. This would provide some rich

historical data.

 

Warmly,

 

Will

 

 

 

 

William R. Morris, PhD©, DAOM, LAc

http://theccrt.com/

http://www.aoma.edu/

http://www.pulsediagnosis.com

 

 

 

 

, " "

wrote:

>

> I agree with Tim. The recent trend here on the CHA is to reject anything

> that hints of personal experience, even when a practitioner has

25-50+ years

> of experience in the topic. When someone presents evidence, the

response is

> " it is not good enough, it can't be proven " or " it is just biased. "

I would

> like to know, what is not biased?

>

>

>

> Surely any MD that speaks of Western medicine has the bias that

Flaws speaks

> of. Should we write all of these people off? Any person interested

in (and

> has researched any topic) (i.e. CM or microwaves) has this bias -

Should we

> ignore them? It seems that anything we write about, because of our

interest,

> will have this bias. Maybe we should just listen to people who have no

> interest or experience in a given topic, so as to avoid any type of

bias.

>

>

>

> Alon says we can't know anything unless it is well researched and

therefore

> should not trust anyone's clinical experience.

>

> Bob wants to write of expert's opinions in the field because they have

> interest in the topic they are talking about.. hmmm hen qiguai.

>

>

>

> What is left? double blind placebo?

>

>

>

> The fact is CM will never be well researched. If something as big as

hormone

> replacement can't even be researched adequately there is no chance

for CM

> and the 10,000s of permutations it holds.

>

>

>

> I think it is completely ridiculous to think that scientific

analysis is the

> only way to come up with valid clinical information (history

supports this

> nicely). This method when evaluating CM not only has inherent

deficiencies

> within its basic structure (i.e. impossible to test individual

treatments)

> but also the corruption within the research system as a whole in

China and

> the Western world is enough to drastically reduce the systems

credibility.

>

>

>

> There is no perfect way of knowing. The struggle for " facts " is IMO a

> completely futile endeavor. Reductionistic medical facts (even if

there were

> such a thing) do not solve our healthcare needs. They may help in

certain

> situations, but they have produced so many errors and continue to do

so that

> placing all of one's eggs in this basket is unintelligent.

>

>

>

> Chinese medicine has done pretty well for itself over the years

without this

> " gold " standard that everyone is crying for. The reality is, there is no

> gold standard and the more this method gets applied to modern CM the

more

> inferior CM becomes.

>

>

>

> I think we need to stop whining about " proof " and get on with clinical

> reality. Of course people's experiences and opinions should be

evaluated. I

> will still ask, " where did this come from " and still encourage all

ranges of

> personal experience in the clinic.

>

>

>

> But because of this domineering trend to distrust everything, I have had

> many people email (personal) responses to questions because they are too

> afraid to speak up publically, all because they " do not have proof. "

> Therefore this nit picking semantic / scientific rigor BS is getting

a bit

> old, especially when it seems to be the card played when someone

wants to

> save face and prove their point.

>

>

>

> I will end with there is NO PROOF that Western scientific method /

double

> blind studies produce anymore or better clinical tools than the other

> methods out there. I will put my classic " non proven " CM against double

> blind medicine for most all chronic diseases. Others/ thoughts?

>

>

>

> -Jason

>

>

>

>

>

_____

>

>

> On Behalf Of Tim Sharpe

> Thursday, June 26, 2008 12:07 PM

>

> RE: Re: Can Hertel be taken seriously?

>

>

>

> I think we're taking things a bit far at this point. I have Bob ON

TAPE. I

> listened to it to confirm as I posted. The audio and printed info is

> available for sale through Crayhon Research, which is where I

purchased only

> the audio. I provided the name of the speech and when and where it

> occurred. I even provided the source journal of Bob's comment. The only

> issue at this point is what does that research actually say? Without

a more

> specific citation we are at a standstill.

>

> As so often happens on this list, we become mired in semantics and

clinical

> reality gets tossed in the can. Let's look at what we know. We have

> rumored evidence of flavonoid alterations. We are able to witness

> ourselves, as mentioned in Bill's post, the structural changes in

bread that

> is microwaved. Many of us, myself included, have read research

indicating

> differing nutrient loss rates pending cooking method (boiled, steamed,

> fried, grilled, etc) Those studies are reported via regular media

outlets.

> We have at the very least reason to suspect that microwaved

foodstuffs may

> be different in some way than boiled foodstuffs. This in all likelihood

> will to varying degrees change the balance of herb formulas as

discussed in

> my earlier post. Using herbs in a non-traditional way IMHO equates to

> experimenting on our patients. Many of us do this all the time when we

> combine Wx and Chinese herbs, or supplements with herbs. I myself do it,

> but let's call a spade a spade. It is understood in those instances

that we

> are varying from the millennia of herbal knowledge that is our training.

> Can we for a moment consider whether we might need to be concerned

with the

> clinical realities of using microwaves. Then progress to the nature and

> extent of that concern. I don't want to completely rehash my earlier

post

> on this topic relating to raw herb powders, let me just say that

this may be

> a big deal for some herbs, especially flavonoid rich citrus varieties.

>

> -Tim Sharpe

>

>

>

> bill_schoenbart

>

> Thursday, June 26, 2008 11:23 AM

>

> @ <%40>

>

>

> Re: Can Hertel be taken seriously?

>

> I was unable to confirm the flavonoid info attributed to him (if in fact

>

> he actually said those things!).

>

>

[Guest guest]

Alon,

I completely disagree, I feel you are thinking in black and white. You have on

multiple occasions dismissed people who not only have years of experience but

who specialize in a subject because it comes from a human experience. Your

comments about " weakness in opinion " are too vague to comment on. It is IMO just

another way to discount others opinions. Please be specific.

 

 

-Jason

 

 

Alon Marcus

Friday, June 27, 2008 12:22 PM

 

Re: Can Hertel be taken seriously?

 

 

Jason

You are thinking in black and white, i am not saying its all or nothing. What i

am saying is that unless you are truly aware of the weakness in any opinion

including your own you are not assessing experience you are excepting

experience. Nothing more nothing less

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

Please be specific, I have no idea what you are talking about... " evaluating

data " has all sorts of implications and meanings.

 

-Jason

 

 

 

Alon Marcus

Friday, June 27, 2008 12:29 PM

 

Re: Can Hertel be taken seriously?

 

 

No Jason

I asked to evaluate the meaning of the data, that is part of the process

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jason

OK here are a few of 9640 ref. Not that i am saying microwave cooking is good or

bad, i dont know but i dont think the issue is clear cut

 

Food Science and Technology Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Menofiya

University, 32516- Shibin El-Kom, Egypt

 

 

Abstract The effects of cooking treatments (boiling, autoclaving and

microwavecooking) and germination on the nutritional composition and

antinutritionalfactors of chickpeas were studied. Cooking treatments and/or

germinationcaused significant (p < 0.05) decreases in fat, total ash,

carbohydratefractions, antinutritional factors, minerals and B-vitamins.

Germination wasless effective than cooking treatments in reducing trypsin

inhibitor,hemagglutinin activity, tannins and saponins; it was more effective

inreducing phytic acid, stachyose and raffinose. Cooking treatments

andgermination decreased the concentrations of lysine, tryptophan, totalaromatic

and sulfur-containing amino acids. However, cooked andgerminated chickpeas were

still higher in lysine, isoleucine and totalaromatic amino acid contents than

the FAO/WHO reference. The lossesin B-vitamins and minerals in chickpeas cooked

by microwaving weresmaller than in those cooked by boiling and autoclaving.

Germination resultedin greater retention of all minerals and B-vitamins compared

to cookingtreatments. In vitro protein digestibility, protein efficiency ratio

andessential amino acid index were improved by all treatments. The chemicalscore

and limiting amino acid of chickpeas subjected to the varioustreatments varied

considerably, depending on the type of treatment. Basedon these results,

microwave cooking appears to be the best alternative forlegume preparation in

households and restaurants.

 

Abstract

Proximate composition and fatty acid profiles, conjugated linoleic acid (CLA)

isomers included, were determined in separable lean of raw and cooked lamb

rib-loins with their subcutaneous and intermuscular fat, prepared as roasts or

steaks. Two combinations " cooking method × type of cut " were selected: one is a

traditional method for this meat (broiling of steaks), while the other

(microwaving followed by final grilling of roasts) is far less widely used. The

two methods, similar as regards the short preparation time involved, were also

evaluated for cooking yields and true nutrient retention values. The cooking

yield in microwaving was markedly higher than in broiling. Significant

differences between the two methods were also found in the true retention values

of moisture, protein and several fatty acids, again to the advantage of

microwaving. On the basis of the retention values obtained, with microwaving

there was a minimum migration of lipids into the separable lean, consisting

almost exclusively of saturated and monounsaturated fatty acids, while there

were small losses of lipids in broiling, almost equally divided between

saturated, monounsaturated and ?6 polyunsaturated fatty acids. On the whole, the

response to cooking of the class of CLA isomers (including the nutritionally

most important isomer cis-9,trans-11) was more similar to that of the

monounsaturated than the polyunsaturated fatty acids.

 

 

 

Effects of Four Cooking Methods on the Proximate, Mineral and Fatty Acid

Composition of Fish Fillets

a.. K. L. GALL11Authors Gall, Otwell, Koburger, and Appledorf are affiliated

with the Food Science & Human Nutrition Dept., Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, FL

32611.,

b.. W. S. OTWELL11Authors Gall, Otwell, Koburger, and Appledorf are affiliated

with the Food Science & Human Nutrition Dept., Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, FL

32611.,

c.. J. A. KOBURGIER, 11Authors Gall, Otwell, Koburger, and Appledorf are

affiliated with the Food Science & Human Nutrition Dept., Univ. of Florida,

Gainesville, FL 32611. and

d.. H. APPLEDORF11Authors Gall, Otwell, Koburger, and Appledorf are affiliated

with the Food Science & Human Nutrition Dept., Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, FL

32611.

a.. 1Authors Gall, Otwell, Koburger, and Appledorf are affiliated with the

Food Science & Human Nutrition Dept., Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611.

ABSTRACT

 

The effects of baking, broiling, deep frying and cooking in a microwave oven on

the proximate, mineral and fatty acid composition of grouper (Epinephelus

morio), red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus), Florida pompano (Trachinotus

carolinus) and Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus maculatus) were determined. The

lipid content of low fat species was not significantly changed by cooking, but

lipid was lost from fatty fillets during cooking. The fatty acid composition of

all fillets was not significantly changed by baking, broiling or microwave

cooking. Deep fried fillets absorbed the major fatty acids in the cooking

medium, and as the fillet lipid content increased the extent of absorption of

fatty acids from the cooking medium decreased. Sodium, potassium and magnesium

levels were decreased when low fat species were cooked, but these minerals were

not lost when raw fillets containing higher lipid levels were cooked. Cooking

did not significantly affect the concentration of the microelements, zinc,

copper, iron and manganese.

 

Abstract

The unsoaked, soaked and soaked-dehulled seeds of some newly released high

yielding cultivars of moth bean (Jwala, RMO 225 and RMO 257) and one local

variety commonly used by the farmers, were cooked till soft in the microwave

oven for different standardized time periods and analysed for starch

digestibility and protein digestibility. The starch digestibility of unprocessed

moth bean varieties differed significantly (P<0.05) from 25.35 to 28.18 mg

maltose released/g flour. The protein digestibility also differed significantly

from 70.29 to 74.65% among all the four varieties. Soaking (12 h) and

soaking-dehulling of seeds prior to cooking reduced the cooking time

considerably. Microwave cooking appreciably improved the starch and protein

digestibility of unsoaked, soaked and soaked-dehulled samples. However, maximum

improvement in starch digestibility (from 27.28 to 62.57 mg maltose released/g

flour) was noticed in soaked-dehulled and microwave cooked samples of Jwala

variety and similarly, maximum improvement in protein digestibility (from 72.29

to 87.56%) was noticed in soaked-dehulled microwave cooked sample of RMO 225

variety.

 

Abstract:

Several studies have shown that microwave cooking, if properly used, does not

change the nutrient content of foods to a larger extent than conventional

heating. In fact, suggests that there is a tendency towards greater retention of

many micronutrients with microwaving, probably due to the shorter preparation

time. Does not describe non-thermal effects. The main problem with microwaving

is the uneven heating of the food, which has raised concern regarding

microbiological safety. Microwaving infant formula and breast milk has become

increasingly popular. The content of nutrients and antibacterial factors in milk

are maintained unchanged provided the final temperature does not exceed 60°C.

 

 

Abstract:

 

Raw and parboiled white and brown rice from three Australian cultivars (Calrose,

Doongara and Waxy) were analysed for total and enzymically resistant starch

(RS), and for water-soluble and water-insoluble non-starch polysaccharides

(NSP). Raw white and brown rice from these cultivars were also analysed for

starch and RS after cooking in a microwave oven or rice cooker and cooling or

freezing of the cooked rice. Generally, starch was higher in white rice samples

than in the corresponding brown rice and was higher in parboiled white and brown

Calrose but not Doongara or Waxy. The starch content of white and brown rice was

maintained or increased by cooking in a microwave oven or rice cooker except

with Waxy. In extruded and drum-dried rice flour, rice-pop and rice cakes,

starch content was the same as in the corresponding raw material. RS was higher

in rice products and in brown and parboiled rice than in white rice and was

often increased by cooling or freezing cooked rice but it never exceeded 1.5% of

total starch. Total NSP were lower in white (1.8-2.3%) than brown rice

(3.1-3.5%) and were increased slightly by parboiling. The ratio

soluble/insoluble NSP was higher in white rice than in brown rice. NSP sugar

composition varied between the three cultivars and, in products made from

Calrose, was also affected by procesing.Copyright 1993, 1999 Academic Press

 

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine the changes which occur under the

influence of different heating methods in the compositions of fatty acids and

selected fat quality indicators in fillets of herring. The results that are

compared herein were obtained via conventional culinary techniques and using

microwave radiation. Culinary processes like boiling, grilling and frying,

whether done conventionally or with a microwave oven, did not lead to a

reduction in the n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) fraction of the total

fatty acids, indicating that these fatty acids have a high durability and a low

susceptibility to thermal oxidative processes. The culinary processes used in

this study also had an insignificant influence on the fat quality indicators -

the peroxide and anisidine value. The fat quality indicators in herring, both

after conventional and microwave heating, differ little, and indicate a low

content of primary and secondary products of oxidation.

 

 

 

--

 

Received: 20 December 2001; Revised: 19 July 2002

 

 

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

 

 

 

 

Sensory characteristics and retention of vitamin C, vitamin B6, calcium, and

magnesium were determined in vegetables cooked by conventional and microwave

methods. Fresh broccoli, cauliflower, and potatoes and frozen corn and peas were

cooked by boiling, steaming, microwave boiling and microwave steaming to

equivalent tenderness as measured by a shear press. The sensory analysis of the

vegetables cooked by the four methods indicated that some differences existed in

color, flavor, texture, and moistness of the vegetables. No one method resulted

in vegetables with optimum sensory characteristics. The nutrient retention was

highest in foods cooked by microwave steaming, followed by microwave boiling,

followed by steaming, and then by boiling. Generally vegetables cooked by

microwave techniques retained higher percentages of the U. S. Recommended Daily

Allowances for the nutrients than those cooked by conventional methods.

 

Abstract

Vacuum microwave drying of carrot slices was compared to air drying and freeze

drying on the basis of rehydration potential, color, density, nutritional value,

and textural properties. Vacuum microwave dried (VMD) carrot slices had higher

rehydration potential, higher -carotene and vitamin C content, lower density,

and softer texture than those prepared by air drying. Carrot slices that were

air dried (AD) were darker, and had less red and yellow hues. Less color

deterioration occurred when vacuum-microwave drying was applied. Although freeze

drying of carrot slices yielded a product with improved rehydration potential,

appearance, and nutrient retention, the VMD carrot slices were rated as equal to

or better than freeze dried (FD) samples by a sensory panel for color, texture,

flavor and overall preference, in both the dry and rehydrated state.

 

Author Keywords: vacuum microwave; dehydration; carrot slices; nutritional

properties; color; texture

 

 

 

Green beans (cv. Mustang) obtained from the University of Illinois at

Urbana-Campaign Horticulture plots were assayed within 3 h of harvest. Beans

were blanched in covered containers: conventional boiling water (1900 ml, 3 min)

(BW), steam (300 ml water, 3 min) (ST), microwave heated in 1 L glass containers

(60 ml water, 3 or 5 min, 700 W) (MW-3, MW-5), and microwave heated in 1 L

Seal-a-MealTM bags (45 ml water, 3 min) (MW-Bag). Baseline data were collected

immediately after blanching. Aliquots were frozen at - 18C for 4 weeks.

Unblanched beans had 82 units of peroxidase activity/min; activity was zero

immediately after all blanching treatments. Reduced ascorbic acid (RAA) content

was highest for unblanched, ST and MW-5 beans and lowest for BW and MW-Bag beans

immediately after blanching. ST beans retained 100% of original RAA. Instron

shear force (kg) was highest for unblanched beans and lowest for BW and MW-Bag

beans immediately after blanching. After frozen storage, ST and BW beans had the

lowest shear values. Visual color was poorest for MW-5; other treatments were

not different. Microwave blanching green beans for 3 min in a covered container

or bag prior to 4 weeks frozen storage resulted in a product that was not

different in RAA content, retention or color from BW blanched beans; however,

these samples differed in tenderness and crispness from boiling water blanched

beans.

 

Market samples of frozen peas were cooked with and without water in a domestic

microwave oven (115V, 550 watts cooking power) and in an institutional microwave

oven (220V, 1150 watts cooking power). Total ascorbic acid, as determined by the

2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine method, was higher in peas cooked without water

regardless of cooking appliance. Microwave cooked peas tend to have greater

retention of total ascorbic acid than those cooked conventionally.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

 

 

First I want to say that I fully respect well articulated criticisms and

welcome them. However, I do think that there must be some bit of wiggle room

when assessing data. Otherwise we end up with sterile double blind studies

that never represent clinical reality. First, here are my issues with your

post:

 

 

 

1) Your below statement is quite black and white. Our argument did not start

with nor has it been lately if microwaves are “good or bad.” It is about the

change and or damage to qi. To evaluate such an issue we need to critically

evaluate the current material (both research and personal experience), and

this requires much more than a mere Boolean outlook.

 

 

 

2) You are presenting material which I can guess you have haven’t even read

yourself. You just cut and pasted a bunch of random extracts. Have you read

and evaluated these articles? How is the research methodology for these

articles? You seem to be doing exactly what you are arguing against.

Meaning, you are not even evaluating these sources critically.

 

 

 

With a quick glance I see that these sources do not refute nor even discuss

the criticisms of microwave cooking that were presented on the list. IMO,

This list of abstracts is completely useless and adds nothing to the

conversation. If you can make some point with the data then feel free. Many

people already have spent hours articulating their synthesized material

(with references) why they feel microwaves change the qi and actually cause

harm. To enter into such a discussion it is only responsible to spend some

time and also articulate a well-formed argument with the data that you have

gathered, read, evaluated, and synthesized. One can always find some article

or website to support there belief, that does not help us. It seems that we

should use our brain to assess the data. If you do not have the time, nor

the brain power to do this, then please stop with the one line criticisms.

The mere fact that there is 9460 references shows that it is not a black and

white issue and requires critical thinking to see if it impacts our clinical

population.

 

 

 

3) More important is our recent transitional thread about how to evaluate

CM.

 

 

 

To evaluate this issue we must be open to multiple avenues of research and

approaches. I find such a flexible approach far from black and white and the

most comprehensive and accurate. Z’ev, myself and others have presented

views on how to evaluate medicine ranging from research to classical texts

to modern case studies. I would like to hear some actual details from people

like Alon (or others) who seem to find fault in non-research based

approaches.

 

 

 

I have asked Alon multiple times to present some method in evaluating data

that can be used for Chinese medicine. As to date, the responses seem to

only criticize the other approaches and not add any help in finding useful

ways to understand clinical reality.

 

 

 

The only thing I have heard is that “we need large scale studies to evaluate

these issues.” Is this true?

 

 

 

We must ask:

 

Where does clinical experience fit it? Where do classical texts? Where do

Classical case studies?

 

Where does modern texts? Where does modern case studies? Where does modern

research?

 

… fit in?

 

 

 

How do you, Alon, use this data?

 

 

 

I think all of the above have a place and we need some criteria to evaluate

it. This is no black and white endeavor. As far as large scale studies,

there are multiple kinds. IMO, Chinese medicine history is one just large

scale study. Furthermore, personal clinical practice over many years also

brings in enough data to make conclusions, IMO. This is proven with Chinese

historical record. These conclusions can be discussed with others that are

observing similar disease states. Writing and publishing ones findings is

helpful. Hypothesis’s can be confirmed or disproven. I do agree that CM and

Western medicine has information that is not correct. But how do we parse

this out? For me, clinical reality is a great place to start.

 

 

 

Actually, IMHO, this is a process that should be discussed in more detail.

If one thinks that they can just remember the data of 1000’s of patients and

somehow come to a correct conclusion, then I think this is false. This is

probably the crux of Alon’s point, which BTW should be better articulated.

 

 

 

However, something helpful that I do, specifically for this reason, is to

keep a clinical journal that I meticulously detail such experiences so that

I may have at my fingertips strange / interesting cases, strange reactions,

difficult cases, home runs etc. I think that we may never know the process

in which others come to their conclusions (again one reason why Alon is

probably so resistant to accepting conclusions based on clinical experience)

but we can make sure that we ourselves take proper measures to properly

document and critically evaluate cases / instances correctly. Each

individual needs to be evaluated to see if their data is worthy. There

methodology should also be exposed.

 

 

 

I do not think that the average acupuncturist’s charts are that accurate.

Follow-ups are rarely done, something Alon has also has made a big deal

about. For example, for the case that I published in the Lantern, I called

the patient 6 months after our last visit to double check that the result

had truly lasted. One should do this with any case that is in one’s clinical

journal.

 

 

 

So I would like to hear what kind of assessment is needed (for CM) to make

conclusions. Since we all have some biases and I think this is important to

expose, I think it plays far less a role than Bob Flaws has suggested. We

cannot discount others conclusions based on years of research because they

have interest in the very topic that they research… But to each their own…

 

 

 

Sorry for the long post, I had to “say it all” because I will be out of the

country for a bit of time. I look forward to the responses when I have

internet access…

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

 

 

-

 

 

 

_____

 

 

On Behalf Of Alon Marcus

Friday, June 27, 2008 2:37 PM

 

Re: Can Hertel be taken seriously?

 

 

 

Jason

OK here are a few of 9640 ref. Not that i am saying microwave cooking is

good or bad, i dont know but i dont think the issue is clear cut

 

Food Science and Technology Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Menofiya

University, 32516- Shibin El-Kom, Egypt

 

Abstract The effects of cooking treatments (boiling, autoclaving and

microwavecooking) and germination on the nutritional composition and

antinutritionalfactors of chickpeas were studied. Cooking treatments and/or

germinationcaused significant (p < 0.05) decreases in fat, total ash,

carbohydratefractions, antinutritional factors, minerals and B-vitamins.

Germination wasless effective than cooking treatments in reducing trypsin

inhibitor,hemagglutinin activity, tannins and saponins; it was more

effective inreducing phytic acid, stachyose and raffinose. Cooking

treatments andgermination decreased the concentrations of lysine,

tryptophan, totalaromatic and sulfur-containing amino acids. However, cooked

andgerminated chickpeas were still higher in lysine, isoleucine and

totalaromatic amino acid contents than the FAO/WHO reference. The lossesin

B-vitamins and minerals in chickpeas cooked by microwaving weresmaller than

in those cooked by boiling and autoclaving. Germination resultedin greater

retention of all minerals and B-vitamins compared to cookingtreatments. In

vitro protein digestibility, protein efficiency ratio andessential amino

acid index were improved by all treatments. The chemicalscore and limiting

amino acid of chickpeas subjected to the varioustreatments varied

considerably, depending on the type of treatment. Basedon these results,

microwave cooking appears to be the best alternative forlegume preparation

in households and restaurants.

 

Abstract

Proximate composition and fatty acid profiles, conjugated linoleic acid

(CLA) isomers included, were determined in separable lean of raw and cooked

lamb rib-loins with their subcutaneous and intermuscular fat, prepared as

roasts or steaks. Two combinations " cooking method × type of cut " were

selected: one is a traditional method for this meat (broiling of steaks),

while the other (microwaving followed by final grilling of roasts) is far

less widely used. The two methods, similar as regards the short preparation

time involved, were also evaluated for cooking yields and true nutrient

retention values. The cooking yield in microwaving was markedly higher than

in broiling. Significant differences between the two methods were also found

in the true retention values of moisture, protein and several fatty acids,

again to the advantage of microwaving. On the basis of the retention values

obtained, with microwaving there was a minimum migration of lipids into the

separable lean, consisting almost exclusively of saturated and

monounsaturated fatty acids, while there were small losses of lipids in

broiling, almost equally divided between saturated, monounsaturated and ?6

polyunsaturated fatty acids. On the whole, the response to cooking of the

class of CLA isomers (including the nutritionally most important isomer

cis-9,trans-11) was more similar to that of the monounsaturated than the

polyunsaturated fatty acids.

 

Effects of Four Cooking Methods on the Proximate, Mineral and Fatty Acid

Composition of Fish Fillets

a.. K. L. GALL11Authors Gall, Otwell, Koburger, and Appledorf are affiliated

with the Food Science & Human Nutrition Dept., Univ. of Florida,

Gainesville, FL 32611.,

b.. W. S. OTWELL11Authors Gall, Otwell, Koburger, and Appledorf are

affiliated with the Food Science & Human Nutrition Dept., Univ. of Florida,

Gainesville, FL 32611.,

c.. J. A. KOBURGIER, 11Authors Gall, Otwell, Koburger, and Appledorf are

affiliated with the Food Science & Human Nutrition Dept., Univ. of Florida,

Gainesville, FL 32611. and

d.. H. APPLEDORF11Authors Gall, Otwell, Koburger, and Appledorf are

affiliated with the Food Science & Human Nutrition Dept., Univ. of Florida,

Gainesville, FL 32611.

a.. 1Authors Gall, Otwell, Koburger, and Appledorf are affiliated with the

Food Science & Human Nutrition Dept., Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, FL

32611.

ABSTRACT

 

The effects of baking, broiling, deep frying and cooking in a microwave oven

on the proximate, mineral and fatty acid composition of grouper (Epinephelus

morio), red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus), Florida pompano (Trachinotus

carolinus) and Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus maculatus) were determined.

The lipid content of low fat species was not significantly changed by

cooking, but lipid was lost from fatty fillets during cooking. The fatty

acid composition of all fillets was not significantly changed by baking,

broiling or microwave cooking. Deep fried fillets absorbed the major fatty

acids in the cooking medium, and as the fillet lipid content increased the

extent of absorption of fatty acids from the cooking medium decreased.

Sodium, potassium and magnesium levels were decreased when low fat species

were cooked, but these minerals were not lost when raw fillets containing

higher lipid levels were cooked. Cooking did not significantly affect the

concentration of the microelements, zinc, copper, iron and manganese.

 

Abstract

The unsoaked, soaked and soaked-dehulled seeds of some newly released high

yielding cultivars of moth bean (Jwala, RMO 225 and RMO 257) and one local

variety commonly used by the farmers, were cooked till soft in the microwave

oven for different standardized time periods and analysed for starch

digestibility and protein digestibility. The starch digestibility of

unprocessed moth bean varieties differed significantly (P<0.05) from 25.35

to 28.18 mg maltose released/g flour. The protein digestibility also

differed significantly from 70.29 to 74.65% among all the four varieties.

Soaking (12 h) and soaking-dehulling of seeds prior to cooking reduced the

cooking time considerably. Microwave cooking appreciably improved the starch

and protein digestibility of unsoaked, soaked and soaked-dehulled samples.

However, maximum improvement in starch digestibility (from 27.28 to 62.57 mg

maltose released/g flour) was noticed in soaked-dehulled and microwave

cooked samples of Jwala variety and similarly, maximum improvement in

protein digestibility (from 72.29 to 87.56%) was noticed in soaked-dehulled

microwave cooked sample of RMO 225 variety.

 

Abstract:

Several studies have shown that microwave cooking, if properly used, does

not change the nutrient content of foods to a larger extent than

conventional heating. In fact, suggests that there is a tendency towards

greater retention of many micronutrients with microwaving, probably due to

the shorter preparation time. Does not describe non-thermal effects. The

main problem with microwaving is the uneven heating of the food, which has

raised concern regarding microbiological safety. Microwaving infant formula

and breast milk has become increasingly popular. The content of nutrients

and antibacterial factors in milk are maintained unchanged provided the

final temperature does not exceed 60°C.

 

Abstract:

 

Raw and parboiled white and brown rice from three Australian cultivars

(Calrose, Doongara and Waxy) were analysed for total and enzymically

resistant starch (RS), and for water-soluble and water-insoluble non-starch

polysaccharides (NSP). Raw white and brown rice from these cultivars were

also analysed for starch and RS after cooking in a microwave oven or rice

cooker and cooling or freezing of the cooked rice. Generally, starch was

higher in white rice samples than in the corresponding brown rice and was

higher in parboiled white and brown Calrose but not Doongara or Waxy. The

starch content of white and brown rice was maintained or increased by

cooking in a microwave oven or rice cooker except with Waxy. In extruded and

drum-dried rice flour, rice-pop and rice cakes, starch content was the same

as in the corresponding raw material. RS was higher in rice products and in

brown and parboiled rice than in white rice and was often increased by

cooling or freezing cooked rice but it never exceeded 1.5% of total starch.

Total NSP were lower in white (1.8-2.3%) than brown rice (3.1-3.5%) and were

increased slightly by parboiling. The ratio soluble/insoluble NSP was higher

in white rice than in brown rice. NSP sugar composition varied between the

three cultivars and, in products made from Calrose, was also affected by

procesing.Copyright 1993, 1999 Academic Press

 

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine the changes which occur under the

influence of different heating methods in the compositions of fatty acids

and selected fat quality indicators in fillets of herring. The results that

are compared herein were obtained via conventional culinary techniques and

using microwave radiation. Culinary processes like boiling, grilling and

frying, whether done conventionally or with a microwave oven, did not lead

to a reduction in the n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) fraction of

the total fatty acids, indicating that these fatty acids have a high

durability and a low susceptibility to thermal oxidative processes. The

culinary processes used in this study also had an insignificant influence on

the fat quality indicators - the peroxide and anisidine value. The fat

quality indicators in herring, both after conventional and microwave

heating, differ little, and indicate a low content of primary and secondary

products of oxidation.

 

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

 

Received: 20 December 2001; Revised: 19 July 2002

 

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

 

Sensory characteristics and retention of vitamin C, vitamin B6, calcium, and

magnesium were determined in vegetables cooked by conventional and microwave

methods. Fresh broccoli, cauliflower, and potatoes and frozen corn and peas

were cooked by boiling, steaming, microwave boiling and microwave steaming

to equivalent tenderness as measured by a shear press. The sensory analysis

of the vegetables cooked by the four methods indicated that some differences

existed in color, flavor, texture, and moistness of the vegetables. No one

method resulted in vegetables with optimum sensory characteristics. The

nutrient retention was highest in foods cooked by microwave steaming,

followed by microwave boiling, followed by steaming, and then by boiling.

Generally vegetables cooked by microwave techniques retained higher

percentages of the U. S. Recommended Daily Allowances for the nutrients than

those cooked by conventional methods.

 

Abstract

Vacuum microwave drying of carrot slices was compared to air drying and

freeze drying on the basis of rehydration potential, color, density,

nutritional value, and textural properties. Vacuum microwave dried (VMD)

carrot slices had higher rehydration potential, higher -carotene and vitamin

C content, lower density, and softer texture than those prepared by air

drying. Carrot slices that were air dried (AD) were darker, and had less red

and yellow hues. Less color deterioration occurred when vacuum-microwave

drying was applied. Although freeze drying of carrot slices yielded a

product with improved rehydration potential, appearance, and nutrient

retention, the VMD carrot slices were rated as equal to or better than

freeze dried (FD) samples by a sensory panel for color, texture, flavor and

overall preference, in both the dry and rehydrated state.

 

Author Keywords: vacuum microwave; dehydration; carrot slices; nutritional

properties; color; texture

 

Green beans (cv. Mustang) obtained from the University of Illinois at

Urbana-Campaign Horticulture plots were assayed within 3 h of harvest. Beans

were blanched in covered containers: conventional boiling water (1900 ml, 3

min) (BW), steam (300 ml water, 3 min) (ST), microwave heated in 1 L glass

containers (60 ml water, 3 or 5 min, 700 W) (MW-3, MW-5), and microwave

heated in 1 L Seal-a-MealTM bags (45 ml water, 3 min) (MW-Bag). Baseline

data were collected immediately after blanching. Aliquots were frozen at -

18C for 4 weeks. Unblanched beans had 82 units of peroxidase activity/min;

activity was zero immediately after all blanching treatments. Reduced

ascorbic acid (RAA) content was highest for unblanched, ST and MW-5 beans

and lowest for BW and MW-Bag beans immediately after blanching. ST beans

retained 100% of original RAA. Instron shear force (kg) was highest for

unblanched beans and lowest for BW and MW-Bag beans immediately after

blanching. After frozen storage, ST and BW beans had the lowest shear

values. Visual color was poorest for MW-5; other treatments were not

different. Microwave blanching green beans for 3 min in a covered container

or bag prior to 4 weeks frozen storage resulted in a product that was not

different in RAA content, retention or color from BW blanched beans;

however, these samples differed in tenderness and crispness from boiling

water blanched beans.

 

Market samples of frozen peas were cooked with and without water in a

domestic microwave oven (115V, 550 watts cooking power) and in an

institutional microwave oven (220V, 1150 watts cooking power). Total

ascorbic acid, as determined by the 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine method, was

higher in peas cooked without water regardless of cooking appliance.

Microwave cooked peas tend to have greater retention of total ascorbic acid

than those cooked conventionally.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

OK, Tim....but the flavonoids that Bensky lists are not going to make into your

decoction either, nor are they particularly important as to how they relate, or

rather don't relate, to the function of chen pi....sorry, but flavonoids do not

regulate qi, and i will stick to that statement in spite of having absolutely no

evidence based, double blind, etc, etc. research to support it.

 

Thomas

 

 

 

Beijing, China

 

Author of Western Herbs According to Traditional : A

Practitioners Guide

 

 

 

www.sourcepointherbs.org

 

Sorry this site is in desperate need of remodeling, but I can not view it from

here, so I have not been able to up-date it.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jason

As far as the microwave issue, i do not think you will see anything in

the literature as affects on Qi. So we are left with does it alter

food negatively. As i said i have no idea, i never truly studied the

issue it would probably take a few months to do so. My comments only

pertain to how easily people will except negative information on

issues such as microwave, i think making the same point bob did saying

that one's world view does influence how one sees evidence.

 

As far as assessing evidence for CM i think the process is similar to

WM. There are different levels of evidence. Some are more valid than

others. For example, if you say using wu wei zi causes retention of

evil that leads to nasal atrophy using your experience, then the first

i need to know is based on how many cases? What was similar about

their condition etc. This is the first and lowest level of evidence

and as you say this kind of evidence depend largely on who presents

it. Next comes collective experience of others observations. We then

need to know more detail to make sure we are talking about the same

thing, much more difficult that may seem. Next comes the replication

of these observations, am i going to see the same thing as you? (and

this is were clear terminology and record keeping is critical) Next

come actual studies when you try to control for the population

treated, variables, etc., do you still see higher rates as compared to

those n knowledge ot treated or treated with other ways. Cases that

assess objectively have more weight than those that relay on patient

reporting. Then the gold standard come in, truly controlled studies

were you add a placebo, and in CM it must be the kind of placebo that

gives lots of attention to the patient. Do you still see the same

affects. While these all lead to evidence they do not all have the

same weight. We may think that historical processes has already sorted

these out, i for one question this more than some in our profession

even though i do believe that CM has more valuable collective

information than any other traditional medicine. I just do not think

they had the same tools and new about diseases we do today. The

concept of placebo not part of the medicine as is the concept of

homeostasis. Therefor i think we cannot play by other rules than the

rest of medicine. That being said, i think we have to do studies were

CM is put in a black box and allowed to be practiced on its own terms.

Another group or the placebo needs to receive all the same attention

and similar interventions by " unqualified " (trained) practitioners. If

the study is on acupuncture then we must show significant and large

enough improved outcomes over the control group or the profession of

acupuncture is not needed. CM medicine must be allowed to be practiced

on its own terms but must prove it self.

 

 

 

400 29th St. Suite 419

Oakland Ca 94609

 

 

 

alonmarcus

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

This is a wonderful idea that I'd love to see happen. However, it

would need to be funded to the tune of a few million dollars. Paul

Unschuld's Su Wen project took over 3 million in funding.

 

 

 

On Jun 27, 2008, at 12:22 PM, Will Morris wrote:

 

> I would love to see a case database, one that logs the cases over the

> last 2,000 years into a sortable fields that could then be quantified

> for all the post- positivists out there. This would provide some rich

> historical data.

 

 

Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

San Diego, Ca. 92122

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " "

wrote:

 

> exist. The qi is different. This should be clear to anyone that

doesn't have

> a test tube stuck in their ear). If qi is different than the action

on the

> body is different. These issues are similar to why many Chinese

dislike

 

Jason,

 

I see your point and I am not arguing with in in theory.

 

But, look at what you are saying. Based on the " mode " of this

thread, even if we allow the statement that the " qi is different " to

pass, you have made a conclusion based on that idea.

 

Are your really saying that different " qi " s cannot have the same

action on the body.

 

You have said that because the qi is different that the action will

be different. That is yet another unknown and should not just be

taken for granted.

 

We are not talking about the classical flavors and qi as attributed

to medicinals as listed in standardized materia medica. We are

talking about slight (or more) nuances in " perceived taste

sensations " that come about from different cooking methods. And, I

don't even want to explore the idea that perceptions themselves can

be biased.

 

Brian C. Allen, MSTOM

Oriental Medicine and Health Services

http://omhs.biz