# VO2 max and carbonated beverages



## BigPiece (May 18, 2004)

I had a buddy tell me today, while I was throwing down a diet pepsi, that I should lay off the carbonated beverages since it'll lower my VO2 max. I believe the theory was carbon binding to the hemoglobin lowering the O2 carrying capacity. Anyone know the truth or stay away for this reason????? They sure are tasty and at zero calories just what the doctor ordered.


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

BigPiece said:


> I had a buddy tell me today, while I was throwing down a diet pepsi, that I should lay off the carbonated beverages since it'll lower my VO2 max. I believe the theory was carbon binding to the hemoglobin lowering the O2 carrying capacity. Anyone know the truth or stay away for this reason????? They sure are tasty and at zero calories just what the doctor ordered.


I seriously doubt that there's significant CO2 transport across the stomach or intestine lining.

TF


----------



## Speedi Pig (Apr 18, 2004)

*I heard the same thing 14 years ago...*

Yeah, I heard that too. I was near my distance running peak at the time and heard a story that Sir (and Dr.) Roger Bannister, the first person to run a sub 4:00 mile, saw Joe Falcon (Univ. of Ark. grad and U.S. distance/mid-distance stand-out of that era) drinking a Coke while travelling the Euro track circuit. Bannister told Falcon essentially what you just said.

Well, relating the story to my own experience, I had lost a little discipline in my training, sleeping, and diet habits and was getting "back with the program." Well, in addition to eating, sleeping, and training better, I also decided to give up Coke (at least during the racing season); btw, this is heresy for an Atlanta, GA native. Of course, at the very least, it's not the best stuff in the world for you. 

Anyway, fast forward to the present, and I'd estimate that I've had maybe 12 to 15 carbonated beverages (not counting beer) since 1990. Ironically, I've had many of those in the last week...I've been fighting a cold all week, and the old southern remedy for whatever ails you is a Coke. I think the combination of caffeine for a headache, syrup for a scratchy throat, and carbonation to settle a stomach all made me feel better.

While I saw a BIG improvment at the time, I also made lots of other positive changes too (better diet, more rest, consistent training, lost ~ 10 lbs., more focus on specific races). One other thing to keep in mind, regardless of what physiological benefits may or may actually exist, if you believe that abstaining from carbonated beverages will make you faster, it will.

Here's one that is way off the deep end. When I related the story I had heard about the Bannister/Falcon exchange to another runner friend of mine, and he said that you could realize tremendous gains by mixing baking soda with water and drinking it immediately before a race; the baking soda would neutralize the lactic acid in you legs. BAH HAH!! Everyone has seen what baking soda and vinegar (another acid) do when mixed. I'm sure something similar would happen with the acid in your stomach. Imagine opening a 10K with a 4:45 to a 5:00 mile with THAT going on in your belly!!


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*A little knowldege can be dangerous*

The CO2 might cause a little bloating, but the pH of your stomach is much lower than what you can get from carbonic acid (CO2 in water) so it's not really going into solution to any significant extent, ESPECIALLY when you consider that the byproduct of metabolism is CO2 and your blood is already saturated with it. Now carbon MONoxide (CO) would do just as suggested, bind to the hemoglobin. And kill you in sufficient concentration. The idea of eating lots of Arm and Hammer has come and gone. Again, a nice sounding theory that never stood up in reality. It's a shame when that happens


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*Reminds me of...*



Kerry Irons said:


> The CO2 might cause a little bloating, but the pH of your stomach is much lower than what you can get from carbonic acid (CO2 in water) so it's not really going into solution to any significant extent, ESPECIALLY when you consider that the byproduct of metabolism is CO2 and your blood is already saturated with it. Now carbon MONoxide (CO) would do just as suggested, bind to the hemoglobin. And kill you in sufficient concentration. The idea of eating lots of Arm and Hammer has come and gone. Again, a nice sounding theory that never stood up in reality. It's a shame when that happens


Reminds me of a time when everyone said the Mikey kid from the Life cereal commercials died from eating pop rocks and Coke together. I think you can file the Coke causing your VO2 to be reduced to another Urban Legend.


----------



## ETfromQC (Sep 16, 2004)

Speedi Pig said:


> ...
> 
> While I saw a BIG improvment at the time, I also made lots of other positive changes too (better diet, more rest, consistent training, lost ~ 10 lbs., more focus on specific races). One other thing to keep in mind, regardless of what physiological benefits may or may actually exist, if you believe that abstaining from carbonated beverages will make you faster, it will.


... and as far as I have tested, it does, because of a simple rule : when you give up on carbonated beverages, it also usually means a change in your diet for something more positive. I had a friend of mine with whom I trained for a mtb informal race, and he used to bonk pretty quickly. He was in pretty good shape, but was eating junk all the time. Bloke used to have some cake before riding.

Of course, he never imagined food could be his problem, but having him lay down the junk meant dropping the sodas first. Being a sensible eater myself, I gave him a few pointers and he stated bonking less. 

In our society, you can easily associate sodas with junk food, and even tough it has it's downsides, that connection can be used to your advantage when you want someone to lay down the junk for good!


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Excellent point*

One thing that makes nutrition research so difficult is that when you change one food, you MUST change something else. If you quit drinking Coke, you get those calories from something else, and if it is from low glycemic index foods, then you will get a better sustained energy release. You didn't get it from eliminating Coke, you got it from adding a better food source, but it would be easy to assign the effect to the elimination of Coke rather than the addition of some other food.


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*What about?*



Kerry Irons said:


> One thing that makes nutrition research so difficult is that when you change one food, you MUST change something else. If you quit drinking Coke, you get those calories from something else, and if it is from low glycemic index foods, then you will get a better sustained energy release. You didn't get it from eliminating Coke, you got it from adding a better food source, but it would be easy to assign the effect to the elimination of Coke rather than the addition of some other food.


What about diet soda that has no caffeine, no calories, and no nutra-sweet? What harm would carbonation provide in there? I'm assuming 0. I consume some carbonated beverages, but they are always of the diet variety. My newest product has been Diet Rite tangerine. Tasty stuff, which nothing in it. I also must point out that my diet is pretty good, and that I tend to drink a lot more water than anything else. So if I took out my soda intake, it wouldn't really take away anything.


----------



## ETfromQC (Sep 16, 2004)

magnolialover said:


> What about diet soda that has no caffeine, no calories, and no nutra-sweet? What harm would carbonation provide in there? I'm assuming 0. I consume some carbonated beverages, but they are always of the diet variety. My newest product has been Diet Rite tangerine. Tasty stuff, which nothing in it. I also must point out that my diet is pretty good, and that I tend to drink a lot more water than anything else. So if I took out my soda intake, it wouldn't really take away anything.


Well, as they say, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Diet rite --> http://www.low-carb.com/diritaspsw6.html

Contains Splenda and Sunett to get that nice 0 cals:

Splenda nutritional info : http://www.holisticmed.com/splenda/

Sunett : http://www.holisticmed.com/acek/

As well as a nice bit on Aspartame : http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/,
from which they are mostly derived. The short? Heat it long enough and you get some nice formic acid and a bit of cancer-producing chemicals for that nice taste.

Me? I stick to water, and fruits.


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*Good links...*



ETfromQC said:


> Well, as they say, there is no such thing as a free lunch.
> 
> Diet rite --> http://www.low-carb.com/diritaspsw6.html
> 
> ...


I have read as much before, but I have to believe that the amounts of soda that I drink would not give me cancer. I'd think I'd have to ingest tons of that stuff in order to come down with some crazy disease, but then again, I could be wrong.

As mentioned before though, I drink a ton more water than anything else (on the order of 1-1.5 gallons per day easy). Got to keep the system flushed.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*Yuh, its a myth*



magnolialover said:


> I have read as much before, but I have to believe that the amounts of soda that I drink would not give me cancer. I'd think I'd have to ingest tons of that stuff in order to come down with some crazy disease, but then again, I could be wrong.
> 
> As mentioned before though, I drink a ton more water than anything else (on the order of 1-1.5 gallons per day easy). Got to keep the system flushed.


The aspertame and cancer link is pretty much [email protected] As far as soda pop and V02 max, I think we have another [email protected] winner as well. The carbon thing was a kicker. 

Can someone tell me how RBC would be transporting carbon in the fashion described. This has been a little curioso that I would love described.


----------



## WampaOne (May 28, 2004)

As much as I hate to do it I will support MagnoliaLover (After he ran into my car while riding his recumbant tandem with is "friend" Curtis and refused to pay for the repairs I hate to be on his side)

It should be rememberd that methanol is released from the metabolism of a number normal dietary sources. 
The studies which have been performed used rats at a dosage of 10mk/kg, most likly by injection not dietary absorption. At this level some effects were seen. In order for Magnolialover (at appx 100kg) to consume this much per day (assuming 100% dietary absorption) he would have to drink 150 diet cokes.
From a scientific standpoint, which I think I should know a little about, aspartame is not going to hurt you. There are exceptions being the rare few who have preexisting neurological disorders, but problems they experience are not limited to artifical sweets)

Or ask yourself how many people do you personally know who have developed any of the sysptoms of aspartame overdose?



magnolialover said:


> I have read as much before, but I have to believe that the amounts of soda that I drink would not give me cancer. I'd think I'd have to ingest tons of that stuff in order to come down with some crazy disease, but then again, I could be wrong.
> 
> As mentioned before though, I drink a ton more water than anything else (on the order of 1-1.5 gallons per day easy). Got to keep the system flushed.


----------



## El Guapo (Dec 10, 2002)

*Carbonation slows slows down gastric evacuation ...*

Simply put, it slows down the rate at which your stomach and digestive system will assimilate nutrients. This is what I got from a Gastroenterologist.


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

*Apply another theory.*

If you could drink a product with O2 then would that increase your VO2 max? I have seen some products with that claim. Not enough science to prove influence on your heart,lung, cardiosystem capababilites? No cardio effect but definitely a glycogen spiking issue.


----------



## ETfromQC (Sep 16, 2004)

WampaOne said:


> It should be rememberd that methanol is released from the metabolism of a number normal dietary sources.
> The studies which have been performed used rats at a dosage of 10mk/kg, most likly by injection not dietary absorption. At this level some effects were seen. In order for Magnolialover (at appx 100kg) to consume this much per day (assuming 100% dietary absorption) he would have to drink 150 diet cokes.
> From a scientific standpoint, which I think I should know a little about, aspartame is not going to hurt you. There are exceptions being the rare few who have preexisting neurological disorders, but problems they experience are not limited to artifical sweets)
> 
> Or ask yourself how many people do you personally know who have developed any of the sysptoms of aspartame overdose?



Hehe, thing is, I'm not saying that I believe that ANYONE will ever have problems with cancer and aspartame, the whole question is about how far from it's original form everything is described. It is my belief and eating philosophy to try and stay as far away from transformed products as possible, and it had been successful up to now. Aspartame is so far away from natural that I just won't touch it.

_Hold you horses, that was not fact, that was my philosophy, please do not flame me, this is purely opinion_ 

I was just pointing out what that drink cointained and added some links from a biology course a teacher once gave. He never said aspartame would kill you, just that it's contents were not from a naturally occuring source.


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

ETfromQC said:


> Hehe, thing is, I'm not saying that I believe that ANYONE will ever have problems with cancer and aspartame, the whole question is about how far from it's original form everything is described. It is my belief and eating philosophy to try and stay as far away from transformed products as possible, and it had been successful up to now. Aspartame is so far away from natural that I just won't touch it.
> 
> _Hold you horses, that was not fact, that was my philosophy, please do not flame me, this is purely opinion_
> 
> I was just pointing out what that drink cointained and added some links from a biology course a teacher once gave. He never said aspartame would kill you, just that it's contents were not from a naturally occuring source.


Right...a nice plate of nightshade mushrooms and hemlock...wash it down with tall glass of crude oil...all natural delights. - TF


----------



## Tom Ligon (Jul 1, 2003)

*Have you seen the exploding belly warning?*

Honest to gawd, I was working at a lab that got mixed up in this ... some fool stuffed themselves to the gills with food, got heartburn, took a large spoonful of baking soda, and their stomach exploded! So, of course, they sued the manufacturer! Now there's a warning on the label about it. I would have thought a good burp would have taken care of it.

Baking soda CAN actually produce enough gas in your belly to be significant.


----------



## ETfromQC (Sep 16, 2004)

TurboTurtle said:


> Right...a nice plate of nightshade mushrooms and hemlock...wash it down with tall glass of crude oil...all natural delights. - TF


Right, now if I only knew what half of that meant


----------



## Ken2 (Jan 30, 2004)

*A clue...*

Originally Posted by TurboTurtle:
_Right...a nice plate of nightshade mushrooms and hemlock...wash it down with tall glass of crude oil...all natural delights. - TF _ 


ETfromQC said:


> Right, now if I only knew what half of that meant


They're all naturally occurring substances, and they are all extremely toxic!


----------



## mdg_cycling (Sep 28, 2004)

WampaOne said:


> It should be rememberd that methanol is released from the metabolism of a number normal dietary sources. The studies which have been performed used rats at a dosage of 10mk/kg, most likly by injection not dietary absorption. At this level some effects were seen. In order for Magnolialover (at appx 100kg) to consume this much per day (assuming 100% dietary absorption) he would have to drink 150 diet cokes.


WampaOne, the methanol from natural sources comes with much larger amounts of ethanol. Ethanol prevents conversion of methanol into formaldehyde while it is release in the breath and urine. The web page mentioned above goes into this in detail at: www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/abuse/methanol.html . It is the only additive I've seen where formaldehyde is accumulation in the organs about ingestion. I believe cigarettes also cause formaldehyde adduct accumulation as well. They used ingestion of 10mg/kg for the rats. That is equivalent to approx. 1.2 liters of diet soda for a 70 kg person.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Hold on holistic*

I would be immediately suspiscious of any source that labeled itself holistic. Those folks are starting with the answer (artificial is not good) and then looking for theories to justify it. Exactly the opposite of the scientific method, and not to be trusted. At a bare minimum, I would want to see confirmation of these claims from more traditional sources, and I doubt you'd find it.


----------



## WampaOne (May 28, 2004)

If you would like I will be happy to go into the chemistry of this whole issue at a later time.
However, I tell people not to believe things read on websites so why should they believe me. If they believe that aspartame will harm them they shouldnt eat/drink it. in my opinion, a better choice would be to make an infromed decision on this by reading the relevant literature. This does not include website, news week, etc. Rather one should only uses sources which are per-reviewed journals. If the scientific journals are to complex individuals should discuss the topics with those who are experts in the field and will understand the concepts. This prevents getting false or misleading data. 

(this was jsut the 1st article I looked at, however, it is actually a letter to the editor) for instance the reference "Sturtevant, F., 1985. "Does Aspartame Cause Methanol Toxicity" (Letter To The Editor), Food and Chemical Toxicology, Volume 23, No. 10, page 961, 1985." 
"...(1) Because of the very rapid metabolism of methanol, a bolus dose of 200 mg aspartame/kg in humans does not elevate blood formate, which is the toxic metabolite (Stegink, in Aspartame Physiology and Biochemistry, edited by L. Stegink & J. Filer, Chap. 26, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1984). This dose is over six times the
estimated maximum daily consumption of aspartame; it is equivalent to a single ingestion of over fifty 12-oz cans of aspartame-sweetened soda and is the sweetening equivalent of over 5 lb sugar. Therefore, it is physically impossible for a human to develop methanol poisoning from aspartame ingestion.
(2) A model of methanol poisoning has in fact been produced in monkeys and has been re-created by formate administration (Martin-Amat et al. Toxic. appl. Pharmac. 1978, 45, 201). Toxicity was not observed in monkeys ingesting aspartame at 3 g/kg/day for 9 months (Reynolds et al. in Aspartame Physiology and Biochemistry, op. cit.).
(3) Formaldehyde is carcinogenic only by inhalation in rats, in which species it produces carcinomas of the nasal cavity (Kerns et al. Cancer Res. 1983, 43, 4382); it is not carcinogenic by ingestion in any species.
(4) Because ethanol is metabolized much more rapidly than methanol, any 'protective' effect in food sources will be pharmacokinetically evanescent. For example, the 'protective' effect of ethanol in 500 ml orange juice can be shown to persist for less than 1 min after a simultaneous aspartame dose of 200 mg/kg.
(5) The EPA has not set a limit for methanol ingestion. This allegation stems from a misunderstanding of the Agency's publications.
(6) Anecdotal reports from aspartame users are used by Monte (loc. cit.) to suggest that the symptoms are those of methanol poisoning. This is not confirmed by analyses of consumer complaints by the Centers for Disease Control (Morbid. Mortal. Wkly Rep. 1984, 33, 605). In particular, Monte (loc. cit.) associated aspartame with the death, from a heart condition, of a former employee in Searle's manufacturing plant in Arizona; in fact, the records reveal that (a) the employee was not exposed to aspartame during the 10 months before his death; (b) nothing in the autopsy report suggested methanol toxicity; (c) the subject was taking quinidine for ventricular ectopy and complained of known side effects of this drug; (d) Monte's statement that he was a non-drinker is false; (e) a heart problem had been noted at the decedent's pre-employment examination. "The clinical history has been reviewed by the FDA, and it was not felt that there was any
indication that this death was associated with aspartame ingestion" (Centers for Disease Control, loc. cit.). 
In summary, there is no responsible scientific evidence that aspartame ingestion can result in methanol toxicity. The allegations of Monte (loc. cit.) have been uniformly rejected by the Food and Drug Administration, by the Arizona Department of Health Services, and by state and federal courts; they have been given credence principally in the lay media."

You are correct on the issue of direct methanol intake. When methanol and ethanol are taken together ethanol is a better substrate then methanol for the processing enzymes. This is also the case with ethyleneglycol which will be nicly metabolized by alcohol dehydrogenase, but again ethanol is a better substrate.

people should go ahead and make their own judgements but should do so in an imformed fashion.





mdg_cycling said:


> WampaOne, the methanol from natural sources comes with much larger amounts of ethanol. Ethanol prevents conversion of methanol into formaldehyde while it is release in the breath and urine. The web page mentioned above goes into this in detail at: www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/abuse/methanol.html . It is the only additive I've seen where formaldehyde is accumulation in the organs about ingestion. I believe cigarettes also cause formaldehyde adduct accumulation as well. They used ingestion of 10mg/kg for the rats. That is equivalent to approx. 1.2 liters of diet soda for a 70 kg person.


----------



## mdg_cycling (Sep 28, 2004)

WampaOne said:


> "Sturtevant, F., 1985. "Does Aspartame Cause Methanol Toxicity" (Letter To The Editor), Food and Chemical Toxicology, Volume 23, No. 10, page 961, 1985."


WampaOne,

Hi again. Please keep in mind that the letter you're referring to was written by a vice president of the company selling the product and may not be considered independent.
Also, I think you'll agree that persons who discuss methanol in aspartame without at least considering potential protective factors in natural products probably may not be thoroughly familiar with the scientific literature.

All of the points raised by this manufacturer employee, while interesting, were addressed in detail and with extensive references and quotes from research on the web page mentioned earlier.

> "...(1) Because of the very rapid metabolism of methanol, a bolus dose of 200 mg 
> aspartame/kg in humans does not elevate blood formate, which is the toxic metabolite 

There are several reasons why this statement by Sturtevant is irrelevant:

1. A recent study in Europe demonstrated that aspartame ingestion at 10 mg/kg led to the accumulation of formaldehyde adducts in the brain, liver, etc.. This part of the formaldehyde did not convert to formate and would not be available to elevate blood formate levels.

2. "Previously, we reviewed exposure studies (both occupational and experimental) in which formate concentrations were measures, along with these data, as a basis for the conclusion that methanol, not formate, in serum can be used as a biological marker of exposures." [Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Volume 38, Issue 6, pages 571-576.] 

Other researchers have pointed out that formate measurements are not useful for chronic, methanol or formaldehyde poisoning. Being familiar with methanol and formaldehyde research, I'd be willing to go into more detail.

3. In the following review of methanol toxicology: 

[Kavet, R, et al., "The Toxicity of Inhaled Methanol Vapors," Critical Reviews in Toxicology, Volume 21, Issue 1, page 21-50, 1990, 

the author pointed out that the studies conducted by the manufacturer of aspartame on formate levels had initial baseline measurements [1-1/2 to 3 times] higher than all other studies conducted by independent experts. He stated that such a high initial baseline formate level would test to mask any actual format increase.

> (2) A model of methanol poisoning has in fact been produced in monkeys and has been 
> re-created by formate administration (Martin-Amat et al. Toxic. appl. Pharmac. 1978, 
> 45, 201). Toxicity was not observed in monkeys ingesting aspartame at 3 g/kg/day for 9 
> months (Reynolds et al. in Aspartame Physiology and Biochemistry, op. cit.).

3 grams/kg of aspartame per day (for 9 months) is equivalent to > 300 mg/kg of methanol per day. It turns out that ONE DOSE of 300 mg/kg of methanol is capable of causing death in humans. This is disucssed in detail in the article by Kavet cited above. The reason why these monkeys were able to survive 9 months of a dose of methanol that would kill a human within a week and sometimes within a day is that non-human primates and rodents are much, much less susceptible to methanol toxicity. Please see: "Species Differences in Mehtanol Poisoning," CRC Critical Reviews In Toxicology, October 1982, page 275-286.

> (3) Formaldehyde is carcinogenic only by inhalation in rats, in which species it 
> produces carcinomas of the nasal cavity (Kerns et al. Cancer Res. 1983, 43, 4382); it is 
> not carcinogenic by ingestion in any species.

I agree to the extent that formaldehyde is not a "proven" carcinogen in humans. But being not proven can often mean that not enough data is available. Nevertheless, I consider it a side issue to formadehyde toxicity. 

> (4) Because ethanol is metabolized much more rapidly than methanol, any 'protective' 
> effect in food sources will be pharmacokinetically evanescent. For example, 
> the 'protective' effect of ethanol in 500 ml orange juice can be shown to persist for less 
> than 1 min after a simultaneous aspartame dose of 200 mg/kg.

Ethanol is just one of a large number of chemicals in fruit and juices. There is two ways one can demonstrate indirectly that fruits have other protective factors that prevent methanol or formaldehyde poisoning: 

1) One can show that there is more methanol obtained from fruits than would be obtained from a significantly methanol-contaminated liquor. Research published in 

["Endogenous Production of Methanol after the Consumption of Fruit," Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, Volume 21, No. 5, pages 939-943.]

demonstrated that ingestion of a few apples and oranges was equivalent to 

"...0.3 liters of brandy (40% ethanol) containing 0.5% of methanol (compared with ethanol), which would qualify as significantly methanol-contaminated liquor." 

We know that tomatoes can have as much as five times more methanol than orange juice. So, if these natural products did not have protective factors (as has been proven for other products like wine), then persons would be getting chronic methanol poisoning from fruit juices, especially tomato juice.

2) It can be shown that ingestion of a moderate amount of apples and oranges (or a smaller amount of tomatoes) is equivalent or more than the amount of methanol exposure seen in industrial research demonstrating chronic methanol toxicity. I would be willing to discuss the calculations if you like. This again, demonstrates indirectly that fruits must have protective factors such as ethanol and/or other chemicals.

> (5) The EPA has not set a limit for methanol ingestion. This allegation stems from a 
> misunderstanding of the Agency's publications.

I agree with this statement. However, one can estimate the amount of formaldehyde exposure (with calculations and statements from the manufacturer's own scientists) and formaldehyde accumulation (with recent European research). Then one can compare this to research related to genetic damage and other symptoms of chronic formaldehyde poisoning seen in independent human studies.

> The allegations of Monte (loc. cit.) have been uniformly rejected by the Food and Drug 
> Administration, by the Arizona Department of Health Services, and by state and federal 
> courts; they have been given credence principally in the lay media."

I have seen statements from former FDA scientists online. I tend to give much more weight to such statements as opposed to statements from beaurocrats at a government organization, but perhaps I'm cynical. 

> people should go ahead and make their own judgements but should do so in an 
> imformed fashion.

I wholeheartly second that motion!


----------



## WampaOne (May 28, 2004)

I am/was aware of who wrote the letter, and that is is not an actual artcle but rather a response/rebutal letter (which is why I noted that it was a letter to the editor). Oddly it was the 1st and only reference I opened, if I had more time I would have examined additional sources but it is really not a priority at this time.
I intentionally omited scientific information as I believe few would would want to read it (and if they did why should they believe me). I was tryign to get the point across to those who read these threads that often people will print/publish data which supports their ideas or positions and as such you need to examine actual sources and not rely on things like web sites. On the opposite side you will find researchers/editors who attempt to block publication of data which disputes their own work (I have fallen victim to such behavoir and had to fight to get work published which was later confirmed though undisputable solution and solid state structural techniques).

So basically this goes back to the need for people to examine the sources to make informed decisions. Sources like web sites are seldom invited articles or peer-reviewed. As such they are poor and unreliable sources for information, primarily because they are often based strong opinion and have little independent research to back it. 

I will again go back to the need to people to research it on their own, or with the help of actual experts in the field, to reach their own conclusions.


----------

