Barker Hypothesis

Too many factors to properly control for. If you've got a citation
that appears to control for all possibilites, I'd like to see it.

Interestingly, the people who claim that omega 3 and 6 PUFAs are
essential might argue that the amount and "balance" of these is the
most important factor. They (or many of them) claim that without ample
dietary omega 3s and 6s, a miscarriage will occur. If you can get them
to explain exactly what the hypothesis is, you deserve the $10,000
reward I posted about in another thread.

Many "hypotheses" are just claims based on flawed assumptions, and some
are just too complicated, given the kinds of experiments being
conducted these days.

If you want to further discuss this, however, I advise you explain the
BH in more detail. Most people here have probably never heard of it.

Too many factors to properly control for. If you've got a citation
that appears to control for all possibilites, I'd like to see it.

Interestingly, the people who claim that omega 3 and 6 PUFAs are
essential might argue that the amount and "balance" of these is the
most important factor. They (or many of them) claim that without ample
dietary omega 3s and 6s, a miscarriage will occur. If you can get them
to explain exactly what the hypothesis is, you deserve the $10,000
reward I posted about in another thread.

Many "hypotheses" are just claims based on flawed assumptions, and some
are just too complicated, given the kinds of experiments being
conducted these days.

If you want to further discuss this, however, I advise you explain the
BH in more detail. Most people here have probably never heard of it.

On 16 Oct 2005 23:33:03 -0700, "montygram" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

If you want to further discuss this, however, I advise you explain the
BH in more detail. Most people here have probably never heard of it.

Then why the name of this group is sci.med.nutrition.
One google search is enough.
And BH is very well known among scientific society dealing with
nutritional matters.
I am impressed that in this group I am asked to explain it in more
details.

"VP" <[email hidden]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 16 Oct 2005 23:33:03 -0700, "montygram" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

If you want to further discuss this, however, I advise you explain the
BH in more detail. Most people here have probably never heard of it.

Then why the name of this group is sci.med.nutrition.
One google search is enough.
And BH is very well known among scientific society dealing with
nutritional matters.
I am impressed that in this group I am asked to explain it in more
details.

1) the attitude of your original post might be the key to the lack of
replies (most of the people here are not information vending-machines nor
like to be treated as such).

2) most of the members of this newsgroup are not scientists; those who are
are probably not interested in the barker hypothesis since it has very
little relevance to their actual work.

3) montygram is not representative.
look at the recent threads started by montygram and make your own picture
about who replied.

"VP" <[email hidden]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

week points of this theory?
Has this theory been confirmed through many studies?
Is nutritional programming true?

Relevant links that evaluate this concept?
Links against this concept?

a short pubmed search will show that there is some evidence for the barker
hypothesis..

for instance
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004 Jul 1;115 Suppl 1:S72-6.

"Several studies have demonstrated that adverse culture conditions have
effects on gene expression and imprinting. Studies have also demonstrated
that singleton human IVF babies have lower birth weight and higher incidence
of congenital anomalies than natural conception babies. All of these factors
need to be considered in relation to long term viability of IVF babies and
the Barker hypothesis."

and some information supporting nutritional programming as well:

International Journal of Obesity (2005) 29, 1192?1198. doi:
10.1038/sj.ijo.0803054
"CONCLUSIONS: Early rapid weight gain increased the risk of later obesity,
but not through a direct effect on fatness. Childhood weight gain remained
the dominant risk factor for later obesity. The reported link between early
growth and later obesity may be due partly to hormonal programming, and
partly to the contribution of LM to obesity indices based on weight and
height. Whether our findings apply to other populations requires further
research."

those were pretty easy to find, I am sure you will find everything to answer
your questions in pubmed.

forgot this one:
criticism on the barker hypothesis, especially the thrifty phenotype part:

-to: Hales CN, Barker DJP (1992) Type 2 (non-insulin-dependent) diabetes
mellitus: the thrifty phenotype hypothesis. Diabetologia 35:595-601

T. D. R. Hockaday and C. S. Yajnik
A1 , The Mulberries, East Hanney, Wantage, OX12 0JF, Oxon, England

... under the original article by Hales and Barker (1992).

VF:

The underlying mechanism of "disease" is related to biochemical
activity, especially the effects of free radicals in particular
contexts. The other way of getting a disease is to be exposed to a
massive amount of a particularly nasy pathogen, which happens very
rarely. Even in the "old days," how many people, living in the
conditions of the time, died of something like small pox?

Anyway, if you think you can control for all the variables in this BH,
I'd like you to explain how. And you would also need to demonstrate
that it is not epiphenomenal, by citing some on point molecular-level
evidence.

MMu is correct about me, that is, I insist that one state a specific
hypothesis that can be tested using the scientific method, or else
evidence should be available already. With the "essential fatty acid"
claim, nobody is willing to state a hypothesis for it. Why don't you
do us a favor, since you want us to do you one, and tell us what you
think of people who advise others to consume substances that have been
demonstrated to be very dangerous (cancer, oxidation of cholesterol,
etc.) and yet will not tell us exactly what the hypothesis is that
underlines it?

If you think that they are correct, and that I am wrong in making this
simple, obvious request, then we have nothing to talk about, since you
yourself made the same point that I have many times, that is, this is
supposed to be a scientific newsgroup, and so if one can't even put
forth a hypothesis and explain how the existing evdience supports it,
he or she should be ignored until this is done. I have even proposed
on point experiments to demonstrate the correctness of my position, and
I'm willing to pay for all expenses if I am wrong. So far, not one
person is in negotiations to take me up on any of my offers, even the
ones that would simply repeat the experiments that are citing as
evidence of their claim. Thus, don't expect too much from this crowd.

montygram said:

VF:

The underlying mechanism of "disease" is related to biochemical
activity,

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah!

MMu said:

1) the attitude of your original post might be the key to the lack of
replies (most of the people here are not information vending-machines nor
like to be treated as such).

attitude? I think I have been missunderstood.

Quoted message said:

2) most of the members of this newsgroup are not scientists;

I see...

those who are

Quoted message said:

are probably not interested in the barker hypothesis since it has very
little relevance to their actual work.

Has it?

Quoted message said:

3) montygram is not representative.
look at the recent threads started by montygram and make your own picture
about who replied.

Got it. Thanks.

MMu said:

a short pubmed search will show that there is some evidence for the barker
hypothesis..

I thought I would find someone specialised in BH and talk about it in
personal level. The links were of secondary importance.

Quoted message said:

those were pretty easy to find, I am sure you will find everything to answer
your questions in pubmed.

I was under chronical pressure.

VP said:

I thought I would find someone specialised in BH and talk about it in
personal level. The links were of secondary importance.

There are at least 10 threads on the barker hypothesist in Google
Groups.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22barker+hypothesis%22&start=0&scoring=d&hl=en&

Mr-Natural-Health said:

There are at least 10 threads on the barker hypothesist in Google
Groups.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22barker+hypothesis%22&start=0&scoring=d&hl=en&

Thanks for the help. I will make a better search next time.