DEAR DR. BLONZ: It is a bit frustrating that it takes researchers so long to come up with answers for the major diseases affecting us all. I was hoping for some thoughts, as members of my circle of friends are dealing with several health issues. Their doctors prescribe pill after pill, with little in the way of answers. -- W.F., San Francisco

DEAR W.F.: Why does “science” take so long to come up with its cures? The frustration you feel, not uncommon, gives birth to a tendency to believe the worst about the medical and pharmaceutical communities. We tune in when the subject is conspiracies with the rich and powerful at the reins. This approach is all too easy to embrace by those who suffer.

Is there a reasonable answer? Those who have been around for several decades understand that there’s much that can go wrong with the human body. There has been amazing progress along many fronts, even though sophisticated medical research has not been around for very long. For example, we have only begun to understand how our 25,000 or so genes work and interact, and what turns them on, off or tweaks them in the right direction. We are, in essence, a collection of complicated interactive chemical reactions and control mechanisms, with only a rudimentary understanding of how it all works together and how we can make adjustments to avoid, or treat, disease.

Research, while vibrant, can seem poky when there are specific answers we crave. It takes enormous amounts of money, and there is not enough coming from federal funding. Our government has a moral responsibility to fund such research, but nobody wants to pay higher taxes to make it happen. Much gets done in corporate laboratories, but those are profit-making institutions that have to answer to their stockholders.

It is not an ideal situation, but there is no logic in jumping from this situation to one in which you embrace remedies with no testing or scientific foundation. The peddlers of such remedies have nothing but a sales pitch preceded by a condemnation of the status quo.

Most physicians and scientists are noble in their motivations. At least, most start that way. It is wrong to think that someone with a handle on a cure would not follow through to find out whether it is valid. Scientists relish the chance to be on a team that would help end a dreaded disease.

For my part, I will remain vigilant in my readings. I’ve been in the science field for a while, and do my best to foster promising concepts. At the same time, I will take issue with situations in which health frustrations and tragedies degenerate to financial opportunities for the unscrupulous to push unproven remedies on desperate people.

Send questions to: “On Nutrition,” Ed Blonz, c/o Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO, 64106. Send email inquiries to questions@blonz.com. Due to the volume of mail, personal replies cannot be provided.

DEAR DR. BLONZ: What fats do you recommend for baking? Years ago I used shortening, but then shifted to butter because of the trans fat issue. But butter has saturated fats, which are also a problem. -- F.S., Tucson, Arizona

DEAR F.S.: The fats used in baking serve a number of functions. They coat the flour and help to shorten the strings of gluten protein that form when water and flour mix; interestingly, this is the basis for the word “shortening.” The fats also help hold things together, and fats that are more solid help trap the air bubbles that allow baked goods to rise. (This is not much of an issue with cookies, which helps explain why less-solid fats can work there.)

This all means that you need specific performance characteristics from baking fats and oils, but at the same time, you don’t want your food to be a health liability. It makes sense to experiment a bit to see what works with your recipes. Also: Be aware that there are now shortenings without trans fats.

Additional guidance is available at the many websites and blogs covering baking, including bakefromscratch.com, bakerpedia.com, and bakerbettie.com.

DEAR DR. BLONZ: Is salmon safe to eat if it’s been frozen for over a year? Should I just throw it away? -- Y., Hayward, California

DEAR Y.: There shouldn’t be any problems from a safety perspective if the salmon was packaged tightly, ideally in a container or bag meant for this type of storage, and if your freezer has maintained its low temperature. I suggest removing any areas of freezer burn, which show as blotches of discolored fish, usually near the edges.

As the fish defrosts, let your senses be your guide as you check for “off” odors: After the siesta, your fish will not be as flavorful as it was fresh.

DEAR DR. BLONZ: What determines what is classified as dietary fiber in foods? -- D.D., Tulsa, Oklahoma

DEAR D.D.: There are two main categories of dietary fiber: water-insoluble and water-soluble, and their health benefits differ. Both, however, are valuable parts of the diet.

Fiber refers to the materials found in plant foods that the human body cannot digest. Think of the foods we eat as a complex combination of nutrients and non-nutrient ingredients. To absorb and make use of what’s there, the food has to be disassembled into small, absorbable bits, and our digestive system is that disassembly and absorption line.

Enzymes are the body’s chemicals that break foods down. Fiber is unique in that the human body lacks the enzymes that can take it apart. Instead of being absorbed, it remains in the part that passes on through. As fiber travels through the digestive system, what it does depends on how it’s built.

The average diet in the U.S. contains only about half the fiber we need. Research evidence suggests an increased fiber intake (a total of 25 to 30 grams per day) helps control heart disease, certain cancers, diabetes, diverticular disease, constipation, diarrhea, weight, hemorrhoids and ulcerative colitis. Quite impressive, when you consider that dietary fiber isn’t absorbed. Recent findings suggest that the interaction between fiber and the flora in our intestines -- our microbiome -- will hold the key here, and this is now an emerging and exciting field of study.

Send questions to: “On Nutrition,” Ed Blonz, c/o Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO, 64106. Send email inquiries to questions@blonz.com. Due to the volume of mail, personal replies cannot be provided.

DEAR DR. BLONZ: Two weight-loss “miracles” are featured in a constant stream of emails I now receive. (I take responsibility for this mess, having clicked on an ad a few weeks ago.) One of the ingredients is hoodia, and the other is Caralluma fimbriata. The ads discuss how they have been used for centuries in India to suppress appetite. There is also mention of research studies providing evidence that they work to cause weight loss. Are these something you are familiar with? -- M.Q., Lafayette, California

DEAR M.Q.: Hoodia gordonii is a succulent plant found in Africa. There is no reliable scientific evidence to affirm the weight-loss efficacy of hoodia. Indeed, the Federal Trade Commission has taken action against a company for making false weight-loss claims about hoodia.

Caralluma fimbriata is the name of a succulent plant that does, indeed, grow in India. It can be eaten raw or cooked with spices, but it’s also used in pickles and chutneys. Stories in folklore tell of chewing chunks of this plant to suppress hunger while on days-long hunts.

There is a published, peer-reviewed study for Caralluma fimbriata. Let’s go through the details of this study, as it can illustrate how folkloric stories, coupled with aggressive marketing, will not guarantee that a product works.

The research was published in the May 2007 issue of the journal Appetite, and it involves a 60-day study using 50 overweight male and female volunteers. Half the subjects received an extract of Caralluma fimbriata, and the other half received a placebo. Measurements were taken before, midway and at the end of the study, including weight, BMI (body mass index) and body fat, along with appetite variables such as food intake, measures of hunger, thoughts of food and feelings of fullness.

At the end of the study, the group taking Caralluma fimbriata had lost weight, and their BMIs (and a number of other measurements) were lower. I have seen this mentioned in advertisements. But -- and this is key -- what the ads leave out is the fact that similar results were found in the placebo group.

This reinforces why it is absolutely essential to have a placebo group when studying the possible efficacy of substances. Comparing both groups, there was no significant difference in body weight, BMI, body fat or hip circumference. The only difference between the groups was in the measure of waist circumference -- but, given the lack of difference in all other metrics, this is of dubious import.

The Appetite study reported no differences in thoughts of food, feelings of fullness, urges to eat or in the amounts of energy (calories), fat, carbohydrate and protein consumed. The only difference between the groups was in reports of hunger. Even so, when compared to the placebo, the treatment did not have a significant effect on how much the subjects actually ate.

Our bottom line is that there is nothing “miraculous” to report about Hoodia gordonii or Caralluma fimbriata as weight-loss products. A second important takeaway is that we always need to view these types of claims with a critical eye.

Send questions to: “On Nutrition,” Ed Blonz, c/o Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO, 64106. Send email inquiries to questions@blonz.com. Due to the volume of mail, personal replies cannot be provided.