Submit a manuscript Sign up for article alerts Contact us Support

RSS

Latest comments

Modification of Comment (John Rokos, 29 January 2014)

When making my (first) comment, I was not aware that mesozeaxanthin, not found in the diet or in plasma, can be found in the retina (Bone RA, Landrum JT, Hime GW, Cains A, Zamor J: Stereochemistry of the humanmacular carotenoids. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1993, 34:2033-2040), let alone that its synthesis in the retina may have been demonstrated directly. If, as seems likely, the predecessor is lutein, than my warning against swamping ingested zeaxanthin with too much lutein becomes inappropriate, and the indirect role to which I assigned lutein, that of making more zeaxanthin available to the fovea by displacing it from binding sites outside the fovea, becomes assignable, to a vastly more limited extent, to zeaxanthin with regard to lutein and/or mesozeaxanthin. read full comment

Comment on: Mozaffarieh et al. Nutrition Journal, 2:20

Low cholesterol is associated with highest mortality; worse in women? (eddie vos, 05 July 2012)

The authors[1] express ¿deep concern¿ about cholesterol levels in northern Swedes increasing since 2007 as well as about the ¿long-term deleterious effects of a high cholesterol... read full comment

Comment on: Johansson et al. Nutrition Journal, 11:40

Another aspect of the difference between high intake of folate and vitamin B12 on lipid profile (Ahmad Saedisomeolia, 06 January 2012)

Title of... read full comment

Comment on: Semmler et al. Nutrition Journal, 9:31

In reference to comment entitled 'Questions' (Andrea Melendez-Acosta, 26 July 2011)

The article to which this comment refers was not press released by Nutrition Journal nor BioMed Central (the journal publisher). The journal or the publisher has no connection with the website or author of the piece mentioned in the website above. read full comment

Comment on: Nemzer et al. Nutrition Journal, 10:67

Questions (Douglas Kalman, 25 July 2011)

Thank you for posting and publishing this study.

A few questions:

1. Why utilize a IRB from Mexico when the study was apparently conducted in the United States? It appears that the study was conducted at a site in Orange County and there are plenty of California-based IRB's available for study and study conduct review and approval (i.e., Aspire IRB). Please explain.

2. Why allow such puffery as in this press release (http://www.nutraingredients-usa.com/Research/Futureceuticals-builds-science-defends-IP-for-coffee-fruit-extract/) since the product that appeared to be studied had over 10 ingredients and not just one that is promoted in this press release, this appears to water down the science and weaken the overall study. read full comment

Comment on: Nemzer et al. Nutrition Journal, 10:67

Interview structure as additional file? (Marjukka Mäkelä, 07 June 2011)

Thank you for your paper which we are using at the Nordic Course of Evidence-Based Health Care as an example of a well-done qualitative study. Our group would have liked to see the questions you used (the interview schedule) as supplementary material. read full comment

Comment on: Thomas et al. Nutrition Journal, 7:34

New Email address (Keith Grimaldi, 08 February 2010)

Please note that my new email addresses are:
keith.grimaldi@gmail.com
kgrimaldi@biomed.ntua.gr read full comment

Comment on: Arkadianos et al. Nutrition Journal, 6:29

Lithium is no nutrient, and orotate may not be so much better (Ben C, 22 October 2008)

Lithium is not a part of the Dietary Reference Intakes, and so its classification as a nutrient in this paper is puzzling. I'm assuming that the authors do not consider it a nutrient, but an explicit qualification on that would have been nice. Similarly, St. John's Wort doesn't seem to be a nutrient.The bigger problem is that lithium orotate may be not be so much more helpful, and Lakhan and Veira present an unfortunately one-sided view of the literature. I haven't looked at the papers they cite because I can't afford it, but other studies don't show conclusive evidence that lithium orotate crosses the blood-brain barrier more easily. Kling et al in 1978[1] found it... read full comment

Comment on: Lakhan et al. Nutrition Journal, 7:2

Is the instrument available? (Benjamin Littenberg, 18 February 2007)

I found this article interesting and a potentially valuable contribution to the field of Health Literacy. However, I was disappointed that the instrument was not included in the article. It is very difficult to understand the strengths and weaknesses of a survey instrument that you can't look at. Is the instrument available?Thank you for your good work!Benjamin Littenberg, MD, Henry and Carleen Tufo Professor of Medicine & Professor of Nursing Director, General Internal Medicine, University of Vermont read full comment

Comment on: Diamond Nutrition Journal, 6:5

Obvious or erroneous? (Steve Hickey, 12 February 2007)

Michael Donaldson’s paper includes erroneous and misleading points on vitamin C. The first is his assertion that oral intakes of vitamin C, even in multiple divided doses, are not as effective as intravenous (IV) administration for the treatment of cancer. There is insufficient data to support this statement. Donaldson references Padayatty et al (2004), who provide limited evidence, based on plasma levels. These data do not show oral doses to be less therapeutically effective than IV. Donaldson has extrapolated from the results of in vitro experiments, over periods of hours, to oral treatments, lasting months. [1] A principle benefit of non-toxic redox therapies, based on vitamin C, is that patients can take them continuously for months, or even years. [2] To put it simply, just... read full comment

Comment on: Donaldson Nutrition Journal, 3:19

Parents, not TV screens, should be targetted: A response to Dehghan, Akhtar-Danesh and Merchant (Owen Carter, 26 March 2006)

Dehghan, Akhtar-Danesh and Merchant (2005) suggest that “numerous studies have shown that sedentary behaviors like watching television and playing computer games are associated with increased prevalence of obesity”. This statement is misleading, although it is true that data from North America, Europe and Oceania consistently indicate that childhood obesity and television viewing are related. Children watching above-average levels of television are approximately twice as likely to be obese (e.g., Wake, Hesketh & Waters, 2003; Janssen et al., 2005), however the correlational and cross-sectional nature of all such studies fails to suggest the direction of causation, so it might be equally true to say that obese children are twice as likely than their more svelte peers to... read full comment

Comment on: Dehghan et al. Nutrition Journal, 4:24

Consider pediatric use of the Waist-to-Height ratio (Henry Kahn, 04 October 2005)

Your brief review of alternative definitions for pediatric obesity might also have considered the Waist-to-Height ratio (WHtR). This relatively simple index has been shown in at least 3 publications (citations below) to perform better than BMI or BMI percentiles for identification of children at risk of cardiometabolic disorders. Interestingly, this ratio may not require standardization for either sex or age of the children. Thus, its application in pediatric clinics could reduce the confusion that currently surrounds the interpretation of pediatric BMIs. There are no publications that suggest what might be the cutpoints for defining an adverse WHtR value. The definition(s) of such cutpoints would depend, of course, on the their intended purpose. They might also vary depending... read full comment

Comment on: Dehghan et al. Nutrition Journal, 4:24

An Alternative Reason Why Medium-Quantity Lutein might have Similar Effectiveness against AMD to that of Zeaxanthin (John Rokos, 20 October 2004)

We know that both the foveal and perifoveal regions take up zeaxanthin, whereas uptake of lutein by the more visually active foveal region is negligible. However, anecdotally it was not the zeaxanthin sources like egg yolk, maize, orange peppers and persimmon that were quoted as being associated with protection against loss of vision due to AMD, but the highly lutein-rich green leafy vegetables like spinach, collard greens and kale. It may be for this reason that retinal conversion of lutein to zeaxanthin is suggested in the literature. I should like to propose a rationale for the possible effectiveness of lutein that does not postulate chemical conversion: Because of its size, the total binding capacity of the perifoveal region for zeaxanthin might exceed that of the foveal region, with... read full comment

Comment on: Mozaffarieh et al. Nutrition Journal, 2:20

"A calorie is a calorie": does it truly contradict thermodynamics? (Giuseppe Marineo, 06 October 2004)

Dear Sirs, In regard to the article “A calorie is a calorie violates the second law of thermodynamics” by Feinman RD et al (Nutr J 2004; Jul 28;3:9 ), I believe it is a useful brief thought on the proper application and interpretation of thermodynamics in nutrition. We agree with several aspects of the article and with its overall meaning. However, we believe there are still some potential conflicts regarding the analytical methods to be used when a complex system such as the biological one is considered. This occurs because we are forced to use a number of general laws and conceptually adjust them to biology with its complexity and dynamics. To examine energy transformations from a thermodynamic point of view, we adopt the definition from physics of a calorie as the thermic... read full comment

Comment on: Feinman et al. Nutrition Journal, 3:9