Red Wine Scam?

The guess about this, that I like, is that red wine includes products of
fermentation, which include an unidentified nutrient.

Before the refrigerator, humans ate a lot of food that had done some
rotting.

"TJ" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Everyday we see messages somewhere in the various media that Red Wine
because of blah blah is good for your health. Prevents Heart Attacks
or helps to prevent Heart Attacks. Now, I drink my share of good
spirits in all forms but I have to wonder. Is this not a marketing
strategy from all of the very rich and powerful Wine Making
conglomerates of North America and Europe that has gotten out of hand
and so ridiculous........ that even some health professionals are now
making it seem that if you don't drink one or two glasses of Red Wine
a day you are at risk or greater risk of heart problems than if you
had? I don't need the motivation of its medecine to get a good buzz
on. There is something inherant about that, lord knows, that betrays
logic.

Please correct me if I am wrong. Is it not possible to get the full
heart benefits of the red grape by eating red grapes, drinking grape
juice made from red ( or is it deep blue or purple?)grapes and not
concentrates and maybe even drinking red (purple) grape juice made
from concentrates.........without having to buy Red Wine?

TJ

The red wine scam was a result of someone pointing out the so-called
"French paradox". It was pointed out that in France they eat copious
amounts of high-fat foods and are less obese and have less heart
disease than in the US. It is a paradox because the US medical
mainstream has been pushing low-fat/high-carb as a fix for obesity and
heart disease.

The sensible thing to deduce from the French Paradox is that there may
be a possibility that a high-fat diet is not in itself conducive to
obesity and heart disease. And the converse deduction is that a diet
low in fat and high in refined carbs (as in the US) may lead to obesity
and heart disease.

Rather than entertain such heretical possibilities, the food industry
backed "scientists" in the US proposed many possible alternative
explanations to deflect attention on the matter. One of these
distracting hypothesi was that there is some magical heretofor unknown
quality within France's national drink (wine) that somehow miraculously
saves the poor ignorant French people from their dangerous and
apparently obesity and heart-disease promoting dietary habits.

And, of course, some scientist-slash-marketers got funded to explore
this exciting new possibility and try to show that it is more than the
extremely remote and minor factor that it actually is. And, surprise,
surprise, that is what these scientists-slash-marketers found in their
"studies".

Now I am sure that a bit of alcohol in one form or another can have
some small positive effect on our physiology and I am sure that wine
may have some as well, but it hardly is the elixir of life that
protects us from all apparent dietary and lifestyle evil that we
encounter.

My recomendations is to eat copious amounts of healthy fats from
healthy animals raised in healthy environments with the minimum of
medication. Consume copious amounts fo healthy fats from fresh olives
and fresh fish. Eat copious amounts of fresh garden produce. And, more
importantaly, cut out the fake fats like margarine and shortening, as
well as refined carbs like high fructose corn syrup, sugars, refined
white flour etc.

And, of course, enjoy a few sips of wine or other low-sugar alcoholic
beverage. Everything in moderation, including moderation.

Avoiding refined carbs and fake fats in your diet will do far more for
your general health than drinking any amount of red wine.

TC

TJ said:

Everyday we see messages somewhere in the various media that Red Wine
because of blah blah is good for your health. Prevents Heart Attacks
or helps to prevent Heart Attacks. Now, I drink my share of good
spirits in all forms but I have to wonder. Is this not a marketing
strategy from all of the very rich and powerful Wine Making
conglomerates of North America and Europe that has gotten out of hand
and so ridiculous........ that even some health professionals are now
making it seem that if you don't drink one or two glasses of Red Wine
a day you are at risk or greater risk of heart problems than if you
had? I don't need the motivation of its medecine to get a good buzz
on. There is something inherant about that, lord knows, that

betrays

Quoted message said:

logic.

Please correct me if I am wrong. Is it not possible to get the full
heart benefits of the red grape by eating red grapes, drinking grape
juice made from red ( or is it deep blue or purple?)grapes and not
concentrates and maybe even drinking red (purple) grape juice made
from concentrates.........without having to buy Red Wine?

TJ

"TC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Now I am sure that a bit of alcohol in one form or another can have
some small positive effect on our physiology ...

How about a quote from a physiology text to that effect??
Strange, PubMed, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi
comes up empty on a search for [alcohol "positve effect on physiology"]

Quoted message said:

My recomendations is to eat copious amounts of healthy fats from
healthy animals ...

So, you are willfully ignoring the fact that we are frugivorous,
tropical apes, and are making believe, due to your cultural conditioning
that you never examined, that our species is 'omnivorous', and that cooking
is somehow beneficial??

Quoted message said:

And, of course, enjoy a few sips of wine or other low-sugar alcoholic
beverage. Everything in moderation, including moderation.

So, you recommend consuming a drug that results in more human misery
than any other, this, in the name of "health"?

Quoted message said:

Avoiding refined carbs ...

Alcohos(s) can be thought of as refined carbs.

Laurie

Laurie said:

"TC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Now I am sure that a bit of alcohol in one form or another can have
some small positive effect on our physiology ...

How about a quote from a physiology text to that effect??
Strange, PubMed, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi
comes up empty on a search for [alcohol "positve effect on

physiology"]

Quoted message said:

I am not pretending to be an authority on the physiological effects of
alcohol, but there have been quite a few studies that indicate some
positive effects. Feel free to spend your own time figuring out how to
*effectively* use pubmeds search. If you can't find it, that, my dear,
is your problem.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My recomendations is to eat copious amounts of healthy fats from
healthy animals ...

So, you are willfully ignoring the fact that we are frugivorous,
tropical apes, and are making believe, due to your cultural

conditioning

Quoted message said:

that you never examined, that our species is 'omnivorous', and that

cooking

Quoted message said:

is somehow beneficial??

Frugivorous!!!! Bwah Ha ha ha ha.....

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And, of course, enjoy a few sips of wine or other low-sugar

alcoholic

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

beverage. Everything in moderation, including moderation.

So, you recommend consuming a drug that results in more human

misery

Quoted message said:

than any other, this, in the name of "health"?

I partake of it often. The trick is in not overdoing it. And I've been
not overdoing it for a good portion of my 40-some years. So far I'm
healthy, happy and content. So is my beautiful wife and my wonderful
children. If you, on the other hand, cannot manage a modicum of
imbibing without creating human misery, that again, is your problem.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Avoiding refined carbs ...

Alcohos(s) can be thought of as refined carbs.

Laurie

It certainly is. But again, every thing in *moderation* including
*moderation*.

Frugivorous!!!! Bwah Ha ha ha ha.....

too damned funny.... and idiotic... and *you* propose to lecture *us*.

TC

Laurie said:

Quoted message said:

My recomendations is to eat copious amounts of healthy fats from
healthy animals ...

So, you are willfully ignoring the fact that we are frugivorous,
tropical apes, and are making believe, due to your cultural conditioning
that you never examined, that our species is 'omnivorous', and that cooking
is somehow beneficial??

We are inbetween. We evolved from frugivores and have adapted to eat
meat. Our teeth show it.

A good bit on the subject:
http://radio.cbc.ca/programs/quirks/archives/04-05/feb26.html

Quoted message said:

So, you recommend consuming a drug that results in more human misery
than any other, this, in the name of "health"?

Not health. More because it tastes good and feels good and i can manage
to consume it without adding to human misery.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Avoiding refined carbs ...

Alcohos(s) can be thought of as refined carbs.

Not on my BG ometer and thank god too.

Quoted message said:

well as refined carbs like high fructose corn syrup, sugars, refined
white flour etc.

BTW, perhaps the culprit is that they are drinking wine INSTEAD of sugar
syrup sweetened beverages... 🙂.

Mirek

"TC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I am not pretending to be an authority on the physiological effects of
alcohol, ...

You said: "Now I am *sure* that a bit of alcohol in one form or another
can have some small positive effect on our physiology and I am *sure* that
wine may have some as well"
Is there any particular reason you avoided the issue and can not support
your claims?? Isn't "sure" and "may have" rather contradictory??

Quoted message said:

If you can't find it, that, my dear, is your problem.

And, if you can not support your claims made in public, it is not only
your personal problem, my dear, but everyone's. What if people actually
believed your unsupportable claims?

Quoted message said:

Frugivorous!!!! Bwah Ha ha ha ha.....

Is this really the best scientifically-valid rebuttal you can think of?
All education is self-education; try some.
Precisely the kind of idiotic, juvenile, evasive, non-response, rather
common to cultural-omnivores who are totally unfamiliar with their own
physiology.
http://www.ecologos.org/anatomy.htm
http://www.ecologos.org/omni.htm

But, why don't you prove that humans are carnivores, as you imply, and
offer some scientifically-credible physiological/biochemical support??
Because you can not!
Do you deny that you are a frugivorous, tropical ape??
Is not YOUR DNA 98+% identical to chimps? Or, are you really not
human??

Quoted message said:

I partake of [alcohol] often.

While you are writing these nonsensical posts, no doubt. Sober up and
crack a biochem book<G>.

Quoted message said:

The trick is in not overdoing it.

Well, guess what, biochemistry occurs on a molecule-by-molecule basis,
so there is no lower, "safe" limit for toxins, as you state, or for toxic
pollutants, as the EPA fantasizes.

Quoted message said:

too damned funny.... and idiotic... and *you* propose to lecture *us*.

I am not 'lecturing' to anyone, I present well-support arguments and
data to those who sincerely ARE interested in human diet.
You, clearly, are neither sincere (except in denigrating yourself with
juvenile personal insults) nor are you interested enough in human
physiology/biochemistry to learn enough to write a coherent, credible
article, nor can you present a logical critique or other concepts.

Laurie

You will have to somehow convince us that there exists even a shred of
scientific evidence of man's supposed frugivorous nature. Good luck
with that, you will need it.

Your statement that humans are frugivorous, by itself, completely
anihilates any intellectual integrity you may be pretending to possess.
It clearly shows your abject ignorance.

BTW, I have read a significant number of bio-chem texts and I strongly
recommend that you do so as well before you further embarass yourself.

TC

Laurie said:

"TC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I am not pretending to be an authority on the physiological effects

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

alcohol, ...

You said: "Now I am *sure* that a bit of alcohol in one form or

another

Quoted message said:

can have some small positive effect on our physiology and I am *sure*

that

Quoted message said:

wine may have some as well"
Is there any particular reason you avoided the issue and can not

support

Quoted message said:

your claims?? Isn't "sure" and "may have" rather contradictory??

Quoted message said:

If you can't find it, that, my dear, is your problem.

And, if you can not support your claims made in public, it is not

only

Quoted message said:

your personal problem, my dear, but everyone's. What if people

actually

Quoted message said:

believed your unsupportable claims?

Quoted message said:

Frugivorous!!!! Bwah Ha ha ha ha.....

Is this really the best scientifically-valid rebuttal you can

think of?

Quoted message said:

All education is self-education; try some.
Precisely the kind of idiotic, juvenile, evasive, non-response,

rather

Quoted message said:

common to cultural-omnivores who are totally unfamiliar with their

own

Quoted message said:

physiology.
http://www.ecologos.org/anatomy.htm
http://www.ecologos.org/omni.htm

But, why don't you prove that humans are carnivores, as you

imply, and

Quoted message said:

offer some scientifically-credible physiological/biochemical

support??

Quoted message said:

Because you can not!
Do you deny that you are a frugivorous, tropical ape??
Is not YOUR DNA 98+% identical to chimps? Or, are you really not

Quoted message said:

human??

Quoted message said:

I partake of [alcohol] often.

While you are writing these nonsensical posts, no doubt. Sober

up and

Quoted message said:

crack a biochem book<G>.

Quoted message said:

The trick is in not overdoing it.

Well, guess what, biochemistry occurs on a molecule-by-molecule

basis,

Quoted message said:

so there is no lower, "safe" limit for toxins, as you state, or for

toxic

Quoted message said:

pollutants, as the EPA fantasizes.

Quoted message said:

too damned funny.... and idiotic... and *you* propose to lecture

*us*.

Quoted message said:

I am not 'lecturing' to anyone, I present well-support arguments

and

Quoted message said:

data to those who sincerely ARE interested in human diet.
You, clearly, are neither sincere (except in denigrating yourself

with

Quoted message said:

juvenile personal insults) nor are you interested enough in human
physiology/biochemistry to learn enough to write a coherent, credible

Quoted message said:

article, nor can you present a logical critique or other concepts.

Laurie

TC said:

You will have to somehow convince us that there exists even a shred of
scientific evidence of man's supposed frugivorous nature. Good luck
with that, you will need it.

There is a shred. We see it in the evolution of our teeth. But we are
more than that as well. That's why dentists are well employed.

"greg" [email hidden] wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

We evolved from frugivores and have adapted to eat meat. Our teeth show
it.

http://www.ecologos.org/omni.htm
http://www.ecologos.org/anatomy.htm
If you would look at contemporary evolutionary theory, you would
discover that there is no evolutionary mechanism whereby one species can
'adapt' to a diet chosen not to be its biologically-correct one. There is
no evidence of any "adaptation" to flesh eating; the fact that humans must
cook their flesh before eating it should be conclusive, since NO animal
species that HAS "adapted" to flesh-eating must cook it first. The human,
if really "adapted" to eat animal flesh would do so exactly as ALL other
species "adapted" to do so -- raw and with their native physiology.
You are confusing culture and Nature.

Quoted message said:

A good bit on the subject:
http://radio.cbc.ca/programs/quirks/archives/04-05/feb26.html

Anthro-apologists are not scientists, and they do not employ the
scientific method. They write fiction, not science.
Here are detailed critiques of some more brilliant anthro-apologists'
work, you will notice the complete lack of logic in their writings:
http://www.ecologos.org/meat-eating.htm
http://www.ecologos.org/fft.htm

Quoted message said:

Dr. Peter Ungar, a ...He's determined our diet changed somewhere before
1.5 million years ago, probably by adding meat.

No argument there, but there is no evidence that humans "adapted" to
flesh-eating. In fact the medical statistics link flesh-eating to the
current major "degenerative diseases".
http://www.ecologos.org/ttdd.html

Quoted message said:

Dr. Peter Lucas, ... thinks our modern teeth are a mess, thanks to the
introduction of cooking. It's caused the front and back teeth to shrink at
different rates over time, leading to our current need for orthodontics.

No argument in favor of cooking from me!! In fact, it is best to do
without it due to excess nutrient consumption allowed by same and the
pyrolytic effects of the high temperatures which produce thousands of toxic,
mutagenic, teratogenic, and carcinogenic chemicals.

Laurie

"TC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You will have to somehow convince us that there exists even a shred of
scientific evidence of man's supposed frugivorous nature. Good luck
with that, you will need it.

Your statement that humans are frugivorous, by itself, completely
anihilates any intellectual integrity you may be pretending to possess.
It clearly shows your abject ignorance.

BTW, I have read a significant number of bio-chem texts and I strongly
recommend that you do so as well before you further embarass yourself.

TC

As usual, TC can not answer simple questions, respond honestly to any
issues, nor present any credible data to support his claims.
He can not refute anything I have said with facts and logic.
He can however, avoid issues in an intellectually-dishonest manner and
generate juvenile insults, both to the detriment of his credibility and
sanity.
Merely a common carnitroll, suffering from cortisol damage...winner of
today's John-a-thug noBalls Award.

http://www.ecologos.org/anxiety.htm

PMID: 12915635
"the findings provide the first human evidence that an unbalanced
maternal diet during late pregnancy may program lifelong hypercortisolemia
in the offspring."

Laurie

Laurie said:

Quoted message said:

A good bit on the subject:
http://radio.cbc.ca/programs/quirks/archives/04-05/feb26.html

Anthro-apologists are not scientists, and they do not employ the
scientific method. They write fiction, not science.

I see. What experiments have been run to prove that we can't eat meat?

TJ said:

Please correct me if I am wrong. Is it not possible to get the full
heart benefits of the red grape by eating red grapes, drinking grape
juice made from red ( or is it deep blue or purple?)grapes and not
concentrates and maybe even drinking red (purple) grape juice made
from concentrates.........without having to buy Red Wine?

If you dissolve grapes in home made alcohol, you may perhaps extract
enough resveratrol to have an effect. And then you may evaporate the
alcohol. But I'm not sure just dissolving resveratrol in water will
give so much effects.

Laurie said:

without it due to excess nutrient consumption allowed by same and the
pyrolytic effects of the high temperatures which produce thousands of toxic,
mutagenic, teratogenic, and carcinogenic chemicals.

Why do you need to irradiate the food?? Most of the compounds you
mentioned is not formed in quatities enough to produce harm unless you
expose food for temperatures above 200-300 deg C.
Simply boiling is not producing much toxins, but protective stuff like
taurine may react with carbohydrates more or less quantitatively at
such temperatures (but not considered a health threat in humans, while
being so for cats because the carbohydrate-taurine matrix produced by
the heating make taurine more available for bacteria downgradation,
which transform taurine to alfa-ketoglutarate and SO2.
(May theoretically also be problem in humans, but I have never seen
any literature on studies on this matter)

DZ said:

Alf Christophersen said:

If you dissolve grapes in home made alcohol, you may perhaps extract
enough resveratrol to have an effect. And then you may evaporate the
alcohol. But I'm not sure just dissolving resveratrol in water will
give so much effects.

"The oral bioavailability of resveratrol is almost zero due to rapid
and extensive metabolism and the consequent formation of various
metabolites" - http://tinyurl.com/4ple7 also http://tinyurl.com/5kf5q

Says nothing about not being absorbed. Rapid turnover, yes. Most
antioxidants will have a fast turnover unless there are not any other
system around reactivating the products.

Taurine as antioxidant has maybe a turnover of a few hours.

Hi:

I'm the guy that started this thread and I would like to re-phrase my
original question of concern given the input so far.
As an aside I am not a nutrition professional I am a musician who is
concerned with the quality of the food that is available to me.

Apparently there is a component in red wine called Propenol or
something that sounds or looks like that and that is the
characteristic that is the healthy thing that reduces heart troubles.
Also evidently that component is found in red grapes, purple grapes,
blue grapes and in juices made from real grapes and from grape
concentrates. So if that is true why do I have to drink
alcohool-wine? Why can't I just drink grape juice made from real
grapes (with Soda Water) and not concentrates and feel that I am
getting for myself the full advantage of the red grape/wine thing?

Thanks

TJ

Let's not forget that the French also:

a) Get more exercise than we do and ...

b) Eat less food than we in the land of "Super size me" do.

rr

TC said:

The red wine scam was a result of someone pointing out the so-called
"French paradox". It was pointed out that in France they eat copious
amounts of high-fat foods and are less obese and have less heart
disease than in the US. It is a paradox because the US medical
mainstream has been pushing low-fat/high-carb as a fix for obesity and
heart disease.

The sensible thing to deduce from the French Paradox is that there may
be a possibility that a high-fat diet is not in itself conducive to
obesity and heart disease. And the converse deduction is that a diet
low in fat and high in refined carbs (as in the US) may lead to obesity
and heart disease.

Rather than entertain such heretical possibilities, the food industry
backed "scientists" in the US proposed many possible alternative
explanations to deflect attention on the matter. One of these
distracting hypothesi was that there is some magical heretofor unknown
quality within France's national drink (wine) that somehow miraculously
saves the poor ignorant French people from their dangerous and
apparently obesity and heart-disease promoting dietary habits.

And, of course, some scientist-slash-marketers got funded to explore
this exciting new possibility and try to show that it is more than the
extremely remote and minor factor that it actually is. And, surprise,
surprise, that is what these scientists-slash-marketers found in their
"studies".

Now I am sure that a bit of alcohol in one form or another can have
some small positive effect on our physiology and I am sure that wine
may have some as well, but it hardly is the elixir of life that
protects us from all apparent dietary and lifestyle evil that we
encounter.

My recomendations is to eat copious amounts of healthy fats from
healthy animals raised in healthy environments with the minimum of
medication. Consume copious amounts fo healthy fats from fresh olives
and fresh fish. Eat copious amounts of fresh garden produce. And, more
importantaly, cut out the fake fats like margarine and shortening, as
well as refined carbs like high fructose corn syrup, sugars, refined
white flour etc.

And, of course, enjoy a few sips of wine or other low-sugar alcoholic
beverage. Everything in moderation, including moderation.

Avoiding refined carbs and fake fats in your diet will do far more for
your general health than drinking any amount of red wine.

TC

TJ said:

Everyday we see messages somewhere in the various media that Red Wine
because of blah blah is good for your health. Prevents Heart Attacks
or helps to prevent Heart Attacks. Now, I drink my share of good
spirits in all forms but I have to wonder. Is this not a marketing
strategy from all of the very rich and powerful Wine Making
conglomerates of North America and Europe that has gotten out of hand
and so ridiculous........ that even some health professionals are now
making it seem that if you don't drink one or two glasses of Red Wine
a day you are at risk or greater risk of heart problems than if you
had? I don't need the motivation of its medecine to get a good buzz
on. There is something inherant about that, lord knows, that

betrays

Quoted message said:

logic.

Please correct me if I am wrong. Is it not possible to get the full
heart benefits of the red grape by eating red grapes, drinking grape
juice made from red ( or is it deep blue or purple?)grapes and not
concentrates and maybe even drinking red (purple) grape juice made
from concentrates.........without having to buy Red Wine?

TJ

Laurie said:

So, you are willfully ignoring the fact that we are frugivorous,
tropical apes, and are making believe, due to your cultural conditioning
that you never examined, that our species is 'omnivorous', and that cooking
is somehow beneficial??

Frugivorous, tropical apes? I'll be sure to pass on your message to
our native Inuit people next time I'm north of 60°. ;o)

You must be referring to those lemur-like mammals about 50 million
years ago.

rr

You're not one of those wacked out raw foodists by any chance? Please
say you aren't! :o.

rr

Laurie said:

"greg" [email hidden] wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

We evolved from frugivores and have adapted to eat meat. Our teeth show
it.

http://www.ecologos.org/omni.htm
http://www.ecologos.org/anatomy.htm
If you would look at contemporary evolutionary theory, you would
discover that there is no evolutionary mechanism whereby one species can
'adapt' to a diet chosen not to be its biologically-correct one. There is
no evidence of any "adaptation" to flesh eating; the fact that humans must
cook their flesh before eating it should be conclusive, since NO animal
species that HAS "adapted" to flesh-eating must cook it first. The human,
if really "adapted" to eat animal flesh would do so exactly as ALL other
species "adapted" to do so -- raw and with their native physiology.
You are confusing culture and Nature.

Quoted message said:

A good bit on the subject:
http://radio.cbc.ca/programs/quirks/archives/04-05/feb26.html

Anthro-apologists are not scientists, and they do not employ the
scientific method. They write fiction, not science.
Here are detailed critiques of some more brilliant anthro-apologists'
work, you will notice the complete lack of logic in their writings:
http://www.ecologos.org/meat-eating.htm
http://www.ecologos.org/fft.htm

Quoted message said:

Dr. Peter Ungar, a ...He's determined our diet changed somewhere before
1.5 million years ago, probably by adding meat.

No argument there, but there is no evidence that humans "adapted" to
flesh-eating. In fact the medical statistics link flesh-eating to the
current major "degenerative diseases".
http://www.ecologos.org/ttdd.html

Quoted message said:

Dr. Peter Lucas, ... thinks our modern teeth are a mess, thanks to the
introduction of cooking. It's caused the front and back teeth to shrink at
different rates over time, leading to our current need for orthodontics.

No argument in favor of cooking from me!! In fact, it is best to do
without it due to excess nutrient consumption allowed by same and the
pyrolytic effects of the high temperatures which produce thousands of toxic,
mutagenic, teratogenic, and carcinogenic chemicals.

Laurie