Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » Ornery U » Ornery U - Politically Incorrect Nutrition (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Ornery U - Politically Incorrect Nutrition
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
At the request of several forum members, I'm going to attempt to put together an eating guide for people interested in losing weight and eating healthy.

I have to call it "Politically Incorrect" Nutrition, because, as you all know, much of what I wrote about is very contentious with a few members that are vehement in their opposition to the dietary advice I've given in various topics in the General forum.

So to get started, I'm going to begin with the biggest bones of contention...the politically incorrect notions that I claim are outright lies, promulgated by various sources, groups & institutions for a wide variety of reasons. These lies, misinformation and misconceptions are all dietary ideas and notions that have become conventional wisdom and widely accepted as fact.

I say they are lies, because from all of my research and reading I've done on the topic, I've followed the dietary advice from many of the sources and discovered that what they claimed would happened to me in terms of physical health and well-being all actually happened. I will provide the links to all my source material. It is up to you on whether or not you think that my anecdotal experience and the sources I cite are enough to merit you trying this lifestyle change for yourself to see if you will experience the same positive benefits I have.

Some of the things that will happen are in direct contradiction to what is commonly accepted knowledge of the medical establishment, so if you are an absolute believer in the sanctity of the dictates of modern medicine, you will find some of these things I write to be outlandish, crazy and just plain dumb.

Trust me when I tell you, those are all of the things I thought when I first read up on this topic. It took awhile to de-program my mind and become the paranoid conspiracy kook ya'all think I am today. [Cool]

Mistaken Notions, fallacies & Conventional Wisdom Regarding Dietary Health

* Losing weight is a simple equation of: calories in < calories expended

* Eating Fat will make you Fat.

* Saturated Fats are very unhealthy, they cause heart disease, clogged arteries and high cholesterol.

* Since saturated fats are bad, you should avoid things like butter and eat margarine and other manufactured substitutes like non-dairy creamer instead of using real dairy cream, as they are rich in saturated fats.

* High Cholesterol is bad for you.

* Vegetable oil is a better source of dietary fats than lard, grease or tallow.

* Low-Fat or Fat-Free lean foods are better for you than "full fat" foods.

* A Vegetarian Lifestyle is the healthiest diet there is.

* High Fructose Corn Syrup is the same thing as sugar, and eaten in moderation is harmless.

* High Protein and High Fat diets are bad for you liver & your kidneys.

* Soy is a health food.

* Red Meat is bad for you.

* Raw, unpasteurized dairy products are a health hazard.

Sounds crazy that I call these statements lies, misconceptions and fallacies so far?

[Eek!]

Please, all you skeptics...spare me your recriminations at this juncture. I will follow up with why I believe these dietary ideas are all wrong, as well as talk about what foods you should eat and what foods you should avoid if you want to lose weight, experience consistent energy levels and a better quality of overall health.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think the way around the seeming contradiction between Daruma's subjective undeniable experience (which I know him not to be the only one to have gone through), and Ev's far more precise scientific language, is, I humbly offer, as follows:

Different types of nutrients, and combinations thereof, require more or less energy to digest. For instance: You eat a big heaping bowl of pasta, reasonably al dente (not noodle mush), not boiled with even a drop of olive oil and without any sauce whatsoever (no butter, nothing at all) - with most people's metabolism, you will burn about as much calories digesting it as what you'll gain. Ad just a dollop of butter and boom! it slides through a lot of the tract before getting an actual workover on the way to toilet, and goes to your hips. [Smile] This is why you need fibers - they give you important proteins and carbs nutrients without really increasing your caloric intake (again, as long as you don't slather your thin slice of whole grain with a pile of butter...)

So Daruma is guilty of sloppy language, but his claims have merit. Now, he is also guilty of generalization - assuming everyone's metabolism and physical quirks are the same for the purposes of this type of diet. I'd bet the farm it's most decidedly not so, and that while many people could gain by losing weight and boosting energy from his diet, there are those to whom it could cause problems or just not help.

And Daruma is in no position to tell you which is which.

So definitely read carefully all he has to say about his diet and his results, then try to get info on how you compare with him physically and in lifestyle and environmental conditions, and decide whether you wanna take the chance (and btw, it has its upsides of course... you get to eat a lot of yummy fatty food for a "diet") [Smile]

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Moderator
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've removed some posts which I considered to be combative in nature. There are many who disagree with the type of dietary and nutritional advice Daruma is advocating here. To read further on those disagreements, I'd refer members to the General Comments section of this forum, which is the proper venue for debate.

This is not a debating forum; instead, it's a place for members with specialized knowledge to share that knowledge with other forum members. Respectful questioning is permitted and encouraged. In the "Welcome to Ornery" thread, OM posted the following:

quote:

One, this forum is neither intended nor designed for debate. If you'd like to respectfully raise a question about a factual element of another person's topic, you may do so in order to enhance the understanding and enjoyment of the reader--not to show the topic originator up, or to debate obscure interpretative details. I will remove combative posts as soon as I see them. Very often there are different schools of thought in a particular subject; sub-denominations of religious faiths are a good example. Here is not the place to debate whether the Russian Orthodox Church is a heretical breakaway sect of the Greek Orthodox Church...start your own thread about Russian Orthodoxy.

Parenthetically, should anyone have a problem with this or any other administrative action I undertake on this forum, I would encourage that person to contact me directly or to start a thread in the General Comments section on the subject. I will not permit discussion and debate with regard to any action by the moderator to derail any Ornery U thread.

And now back to your regularly scheduled programming. [Smile]

Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Before I get back to the initial claims I made in my first post, I just want to pose some questions to those of you that are skeptical of my initial claims - but still have an open mind to consider that there may be merit behind my claims.

Part of the reason I got the point I am today is because I became highly skeptical of standard medical establishment treatments that myself, my wife, and friends and family have received.

Essentially, my skepticism arose from observing the standard medical establishment's procedure of listening to patients and examining various symptoms and immediately whipping out the prescription pad and prescribing pharmaceutical products that only treat symptoms, never cure the underlying condition, and often cause irritating or even debilitating side effects. I've seen this M.O. from both HMO Doctors as well as private practice doctors, as I've had both kinds of coverages and health care throughout my life.

I bet most of you that read this can probably think of similar experiences with health care professionals in your own lives.

WHY do you always have indigestion? Oh never mind, here's a prescription for nexium or an antacid.

WHY do you always have migraine headaches? Oh never mind, here's some prescription strength excedrin.

WHY do you have frequent asthma attacks? Here, try ADVAIR. What? You've developed cataracts that have made you blind? Don't worry, our opthamologist can fix you...just keep taking the steroids...wait, what? You say it's just an allergic reaction to dust mites in your bedding? Nah...can't be. (My actual experience.)

Or my wife...who regularly drank starbucks sugary coffee drinks for breakfast, pastries, and eating sugar laced junk food and soda all day had an "anxiety" attack. The doctors didn't even ask her about her diet, or if she had insomnia, or any other things that may be relevant. They just gave her some depressant to calm her down and than put her on Paxil, zoloft, xanax and other psychotropic drugs that all had a host of unpleasant and lifestyle altering side effects. Once we figured out that she was simply having blood sugar crashes that caused her anxiety, and changed her diet, the "anxiety attacks" went away....but it still took close to a year before she stopped feeling all of the side effects (the "electric head") that came from being on the SSRI drugs for several months.

This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the experiences of myself and a lot of friends and acquaintances.

For another example, I had a friend who the doctor diagnosed as having "Irritable Bowel Syndrome" and went for almost a year taking a whole host of antacids...and eventually went so far as to give him a colonoscopy because he had frequent indigestion and sometimes blood in his stool. I told him to get an acidophilous pro-biotic supplement instead of taking the prescription meds his Doctor prescribed.

Within a week, his indigestion was gone.

The examples are legion.

When it comes to surgical procedures, like giving me intra-ocular lense replacements in my eyes...or resetting broken bones, or stitching up internal hernias or saving your life in the event of a heart attack, stroke, or car accident, Western Medicine is unparalleled in it's efficiency, efficacy and technological superiority.

But when it comes to diet, exercise and the degenerative diseases and irritable conditions that result from malnutrition, the only answers they have are to prescribe medications that treat the symptoms...and in the end, from a financial point of view, it really makes sense.

If a pharmaceutical company were to prescribe meds that CURED the problem, then you wouldn't need to repeatedly buy (or bill your insurance company) for "maintenance" medication. Or worse yet, if your health care provider could cure you with simple dietary advice and no meds at all...no profits for the pharma/healthcare complex.

Now...I don't mean to imply that these experiences and observations are proof positive that my contentions I made in the first post are correct - only that some of the protestations to my dietary advice say that my advice can be life threatening and that you should consult your doctors or the "real experts" on dietary matters.

Tell me...is not your experiences with what I just wrote about rather common? Furthermore, at least from my own observations, I have visited with plenty of doctors who are overweight and suffer from their own fair share of medical maladies that is quite obvious to me are all diet related. Who is this overweight guy to tell me about proper diet or how to lose weight? Because I've literally had that exact experience...an overweight/borderline obese doctor giving me the rote advice of the American Medical Association's low-fat/low-calorie/high-exercise baloney.

How many of you who have struggled to gain control of your weight applied yourself to a vigorous workout routine and a caloric-restrictive diet...and either failed miserably or got stuck in a roller coaster of "yo-yo" weight fluctuations?

Their is something very wrong with the "Conventional Wisdom" of modern American medicine when it comes to dietary and nutritional advice.

My research and experiences with the nutritional dietary advice I've researched and applied has proven to myself beyond a shadow of a doubt that the 'healthcare' industry has certainly been corrupted by misinformation, biased studies and propaganda for the financial benefits of pharmaceutical and agricultural corporations, as well as the entire racket of health care insurance.

But if you think I'm just being paranoid and delusional...by all means, ignore what I have to say. I have no financial incentive or motive to promote the dietary and nutritional advice I intend to write about here, other than share my experience with those of you that asked for me to do so.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Daruma-identified myths:

*Soy is a health food.


This is the one that concerned me.

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Good man, Paladine.

D - how bout some before and after pics? [Smile] Also, if you have em, and don't mind sharing, med data like blood counts etc. before and after.

There is no such thing as a health food. There are foods that contribute to different processes in your body. Assuming one to be a methodical, rational eater (few people are, but this is an example)then: If these are bad processes, you minimize your intake, sometimes to the point of refraining. If good, you make a point partake regularly. Processes being good or bad for the body can sometimes be an individual thing, not just in obvious cases such as allergies, but also in terms of "This guy eats what he feels like and does not do any organized exercise or any sports and so on, yet has a higher metabolism rate than this guy who works out watches what he eats". Anf this happens eithout any regard to Daruma's dietary advice. I'm talking people who eat junk food and hang out having much less problems with keeping off weight than those who bother... Life ain't fair. [Smile]

Soy is a very good solution for those who want to avoid meat yet still get *some* of the essential protein nutrients meat provides (not so much the iron, i don't think, but there are pills for that). Soy also has side effects. If you're concerned about ingesting minute but aggregating amounts of estrogen, you shouldn't have soy products in every meal, maybe.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
'm talking people who eat junk food and hang out having much less problems with keeping off weight than those who bother... Life ain't fair.

That was me until around 25. Despite turning into an exercise freak at 24, I spent the previous decade as a sedentary, non-exercising, pot smoking-junk food munching-beer guzzler, that was skinny as a rail. It was like a metabolism switch flipped, and I steadily started packing on the pounds until I finally got serious around age 33...when I was already 30 lbs. overweight.

Anyhow, I will get into the soy thing next, since that seems to be what interests a lot of folks.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Daruma: Could you also mention how you would style your diet if you were a vegetarian?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Josh - if I recall, you're primary concern is that you don't like the idea of killing animals for sustenance. There are still plenty of sources of animal protein and fat that don't rely on killing animals...dairy and eggs are probably the best sources - and the best part of what I recommend, is that the highest quality dairy and eggs ONLY come from animals that are treated well and raised in as natural an environment as possible. I am as opposed to factory farming as the most militant, radical PETA vegan activist is. They are environmentally destructive and they are inhumane and they promote nutritionally inferior produce at such a cheap price, they make truly healthy sources of animal foods much more expensive and harder to find.

I'll get into more detail later.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On with my list of "myths."

* Losing weight is a simple equation of: calories in < calories expended

This is the most fundamental principle that is often cited as to why my claims are ludicrous. It's based on the assumption of the Thermodynamics of Energy principle is the ultimate scientific explanation for obesity.

While I don't say the Thermodynamics of Energy principle is wrong, I say it is being mistakenly cited without considering the most important factor of all: NOT ALL CALORIES ARE THE SAME.

Gary Taubes, author of Good Calories, Bad Calories: Challenging the Conventional Wisdom on Diet, Weight Control, and Disease, gave the following lecture at Berkley which specifically addresses why the simple "eat less/work out more" paradigm is wrong.

There are three distinct categories of calories that make up all food: Protein, Fat and Carbohydrates.

1000 Calories of Protein and Fat has a much different metabolic and nutrient supplying effect on the human body than 1000 calories of Carbohydrates. And even amongst each category, there are substantial differences in how the human body digests, utilizes and excretes them.

Deep green lettuce, onions, broccoli, cauliflower, bell peppers, garlic....all predominantly carbohydrates. But their fiber content prevents the blood sugar spiking effect you get from processed, simple carbohydrate starchy foods.

So 1000 calories of vegetables is much different from 1000 calories of white flour bread, white rice or white flour pasta...in terms of how your body digests, metabolizes and stores it. This is why I say following a "eat less, burn more" approach is prone to failure...because WHAT you eat is far more important than how much you eat.

Nutritionist and Body Building Guru Mike Furci is the guy who's online advice column got me going in this direction in terms of diet. He breaks down the differences in Macro-Nutrition, and why not all calories are the same.

From his column, Washboard abs, a comprehensive strategy: Part I

quote:

MACRO NUTRITION / Carbohydrates
Eating correctly is the number one way to tighten up that gut. You can lift all the weight you want and do abs till your blue in the face and never see much improvement. To get you started, let's first start with a lesson in macro nutrition.

There are three basic macronutrients: carbohydrates, protein and fat. Carbohydrates are by far the leading cause of obesity. Around the world there is almost no correlation between protein or fat consumption and obesity. There is a very strong correlation, however, between sugar consumption and obesity.

In the United States we've gotten heavier each year since 1964. This is when our consumption of carbohydrates started to rise dramatically. Fructose (a simple sugar) was also starting to be used more frequently in fat free foods. As our sugar consumption went up each year, our waistlines have gotten bigger. And they continue to grow. As a nation we are the heaviest we've ever been, and obesity among our children is reaching epidemic proportions.

Our being fat as a nation is almost entirely due to excessive carbohydrate consumption. Foods are not created equal. They are metabolized, assimilated, utilized and stored in different ways. Carbohydrates are a fuel source for the body. It is important to understand that even though carbs can be a good fuel source, they are a nonessential nutrient. Meaning we do not have to ingest them to live and be healthy. On the contrary, carbs in the quantities Americans eat them can and will lead to a very unhealthy existence.

Our inability to process carbohydrates in large amounts is the result of millions of years of evolution. According to many experts man evolved on a diet consisting of 65% - 80% protein coming mainly from fish sources. The rest was a mixture of grains, nuts and fruit if available. For millions of years, man didn't have candy, pasta, cereal or other highly processed carbs. We've only had refined sugar as part of our diet for a mere blink of time. You can begin to understand why carbs play such a big roll in obesity, diabetes and heart disease. We just do not have the ability to eat carbs, especially simple sugars, in the amounts that we do.

Many doctors, dieticians and other health care professionals would have you believe that in order to lead a healthy life, 70% of your diet needs to come from fruits, cereals, bread, etc. If the American so-called vitamin- and mineral-enriched balanced diet as touted by the American Medical Association and the American Dietetics Association is so healthy, why is diabetes and obesity increasing at such an exponential rate? Why is it that middle-aged American men only live eighteen months longer than they did in the year 1900? This, despite the fact that we have refrigeration, improved packaging technology, vitamin and mineral supplements and better, more nutritious food. We also have a huge variety of food available to us all year round. So what gives?

As you eat carbs your body breaks them down into a simple, more absorbable sugar called glucose. The glucose is then transported to the blood stream. As your blood glucose levels rise, it sends a signal to your body to release insulin. Insulin governs the processing of glucose. Glucose is processed by insulin in two different ways. As glucose levels rise insulin converts a portion of it to glycogen, which is stored in the muscle cells and the liver. Once all the storage space is taken up, and it doesn't take much, insulin will convert the rest to triglycerides and store it as adipose tissue, or FAT. Insulin is a facilitator of fat storage and a deterrent to fat break down. Even low levels of circulating insulin have been shown to prevent the breakdown of fat to be used as energy. This is why insulin is called the fat storage hormone.

So what is the answer? Cut carbs out of your diet? Absolutely not. It is almost impossible for most people to eat a no carbohydrate diet and not cheat or fall off the wagon entirely. The only people I know that can stay loyal to a protein diet are those that have a life-threatening situation like heart disease, diabetes, high cholesterol or high blood pressure. A life threatening illness can be a strong motivator. What most have to do, including myself, is fit the diet to your lifestyle and goals.

I interrupt here to interject my own observations: much of the problems cited with regards to high protein/low carb diets like Atkins is that it encourages people to eat nothing but fat and meat and no vegetables or fruits.

I have not and do not ever advocate this approach...primarily because the majority of sources of meats and fats are not nutritionally rich enough to give a person a healthy diet. The healthy, primarily carnivore cultures that used to thrive on 95% fat/protein type of diets were living off of animals in their natural environments eating their natural diets, so that there meat and fat and dairy products were rich in nutrition that can provide a completely balanced and nourishing diet. The Plains Indians literally lived off of the Buffalo. The Masai, off there cows. The Inuit off of whale and seal blubber and fish. All thrive off of almost a complete meat and fat based diet.

To do so in America/The Western world today is inviting a nutritional disaster. Many natural sources of fats have been replaced by toxic, man-made fats, or have the fat removed. The proteins are raised in factory farmed animals fed unnatural, mass produced grain feeds that do not supply the adequate nutrition to the animals...and finally, much of the meat and dairy products in our grocery stores today are loaded with preservatives, artificial colors and flavors and other man made substances designed to make the food last a long time in storage and on the shelf, and to fool your taste buds into thinking you are eating nutritious food.

I eat carbs every day. What I focus on is two fold: avoid simple, processed and refined carbohydrates - especially sugar and high fructose corn syrup, and focus on mostly fiberous vegetables, and whole grains. The other factor is that I always try to ensure that carbohydrates only account for roughly 20 - 30% of my total meal, with the majority of it coming from healthy sources of protein and fat.

I'll get more into that when I make my general dietary recommendations.

More from Furci on Macronutrition:

quote:

MACRO NUTRITION / Protein
Protein. Just the mere mention of it gives most doctors and dieticians an anxiety attack. They'll tell you all kinds of crap like: "Too much protein can lead to kidney and liver problems," "an average person can only absorb 30 - 40 grams of protein at one sitting," "vegetable protein is just as good as meat or fish protein," and on and on. I cannot tell you how tired I am of dealing with this unfounded garbage. Yes you heard it, unfounded. There is not one study to support any of these previous statements. I defy anyone to produce one study that supports those statements. You will find, however, a mound of evidence supporting higher protein diets. Protein has a whole host of positive effects.

Protein repairs and maintains everything in our bodies from hormones to muscles. Proteins are made up of building blocks called amino acids. There are eight essential amino acids, "essential" meaning we have to ingest these for survival because our bodies cannot manufacture them. If your protein intake is low your body will get the essential aminos it needs from your muscle tissue. This is a big reason strict wacko vegetarians have a much lower percentage of muscle than meat- and fish-eating humans. And they also have a harder time gaining muscle in the gym because, as a few studies have shown, vege males have 7% - 10 % less testosterone than their meat-eating counterparts.

Why anyone would consciously eat a diet low in protein is beyond me. There are two things that begin with the letter "P" that I would never cut back on. One of them is protein. I cannot remember where I read that, but I had to use it. So having said that how much protein should one consume? I, along with many experts in the field, recommend one gram per pound of body weight (g/lb). However if you train intensely, which is how you should train, you need upwards of 1.5 to 2 g/lb. How can you possibly do this without getting fat?

Protein and fat, in and of themselves, have little to do with getting fat. You see, a calorie is not a calorie. A calorie of a carbohydrate does not equate to a calorie of protein when being metabolized in our bodies. Protein calories are not likely to be stored as fat when compared to carbs. This is mainly due to the fact that proteins require a lot of energy to metabolize and assimilate. It takes about five to six times more energy to process protein than it does carbs. And as an added bonus protein helps to stimulate the secretion of glucagon, which helps to stop the fat storage effects of insulin.

To put it quite simply, if you do not consume enough protein you will not only put a halt to your efforts of obtaining a leaner, more muscular body; you can actually lose some of the muscle you're working so hard to get.


MACRO NUTRITION / Fat
Fat: is it friend or foe? Well if you ask most people, including health care professionals, they'll say foe. It's time for people to wake up! The current ways of eating aren't working. Why do you think for the first time in history the top six books on the New York Times Best Seller list were about the same subject? The subject was diets low in carbs, moderate- to high-protein, high in fibrous carbs (vegetable), and moderate fat. The reason is that these diets work. And they work for various reasons.

One of the biggest reasons protein diets work is the consumption of fat. That is, fat minus the abundance of carbs. Fat has many functions outside of being used as an energy source, and certain fatty acids are essential. Without eating them you'd literally die.

But how does fat help our diet? Well, fat satiates the appetite. Fat helps to stop the cravings for sugar. And probably most importantly, fat, when combined with a low sugar intake, actually aids in burning fat as fuel. That's right, fat helps burn fat. When fat is restricted, our bodies have a defense mechanism built in through evolution for survival. Our bodies will actually stop using fat as fuel in an effort to preserve our stores for future use.

Bodybuilders have known this for years simply through trial and error while dieting for competitions. Many bodybuilders while dieting for shows would reach a certain body fat percentage and suddenly plateau for no apparent reason. We found that adding fat to the diet like olive oil, or flax seed oil, would jump-start the body to burn body fat. It's not the amount of food you consume that is the problem. It's the types of food you're consuming.

Sounds bizarre, doesn't it? Especially since it goes against what most of you have seen and heard.

It sounded bizarre to me too when I first read this stuff.

After trying it out, I can truly say that the most bizarre dietary advice is what is now considered the conventional wisdom, the low-fat, high carb diet.

Next up...more in depth on Fats and Oils.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The next six myths I listed are all closely related:

* Eating Fat will make you Fat.

* Saturated Fats are very unhealthy, they cause heart disease, clogged arteries and high cholesterol.

* Since saturated fats are bad, you should avoid things like butter and eat margarine and other manufactured substitutes like non-dairy creamer instead of using real dairy cream, as they are rich in saturated fats.

* High Cholesterol is bad for you.

* Vegetable oil is a better source of dietary fats than lard, grease or tallow.

* Low-Fat or Fat-Free lean foods are better for you than "full fat" foods.


These are some of the biggest dietary lies of them all. It has been a total marketing scam from day one, and is one for which I was suckered on for YEARS before I figured out the truth. My wife and I, in a never-ending war on trying to lose weight, bought EVERYTHING from the grocery store to the restaurants we ate...low-fat/non-fat/lean/Lite. In just about every food option you can find, if there were a lean/non-fat/low-fat version available, that's the one we'd take. Low fat, non-dairy creamer. Sour Cream Lite. Ground Turkey for any recipe that called for ground beef. Fat free or Lite Cheese. "Cholesterol-free" margarine. "Low-fat" chips, non-fat crackers. Low-fat, lean Turkey Bacon. Our fridge and our pantry was literally low-fat and lean...but our bodies certainly weren't! I don't know why it took so long for us to realize that YEARS of eating this way never translated into low-fat bodies...but once I started seriously researching high fat and high protein diets, it was like the light bulb went off. It's now as plain as day as far as I'm concerned. Low fat, non-fat, lite or Fat Free is a slick, marketing slogan that plays into the American subconscious. They never explicitly say it, but the idea is for you to associate dietary fat with your own body fat. This is also the best part of the diet I recommend. Because so many people blindly follow the low fat/non-fat/lean is better paradigm, the high fat, fatty cuts of meat and full fat creams, milks, cheeses and such are generally cheaper than the supposedly "healthier" versions of food.

So to get into one of the most important areas on diet - the Oils and Fats, or Lipids...first we need to define the differences:

quote:
Is it a Fat or an Oil?

To put it simply, they’re all fat whether in liquid form or solid. We tend to refer to them as oils if they’re liquid at room temperature like olive oil. And we refer to them as fat if they are solid at room temperature like beef tallow or butter.

Technically called lipids, fats and oils are made up of many different types of fatty acids. Fatty acids are the same whether they come from plants or animals. Oleic acid that is found in olive oil is exactly the same as the oleic acid found in lard (pig fat). It’s the proportions of fatty acids that will vary from plant to plant, from animal to animal, and from plant to animal.
Types of fats

A fatty acid is a molecule that is made up of a chain of carbon atoms. These chains can vary in length from 1 – 24 carbons. Fatty acids are given their names based of how long the chain is and at what position the “unsaturation” occurs. If the fatty acid is saturated, the carbon chain length determines the name.

What is a saturated fat? Each carbon atom in the fatty acid chain has room for two hydrogen molecules, except at the end, where it has room for three. A fatty acid possessing two hydrogen atoms for every carbon atom in the chain is said to be saturated. A fatty acid missing two or more hydrogen atoms along the chain, which causes double bonds between carbon atoms, is said to be unsaturated. If there is one double bond, the fatty acid is referred to as monounsaturated. If there are two or more double bonds found along the chain, the fatty acid is referred to as polyunsaturated.

Monounsaturated fats

Sources: Chicken fat, duck fat, goose fat, turkey fat, olive oil, canola oil, peanut oil, hazel nuts, almonds, cashews, brazil nuts, avocados.

Although olive oil is the best vegetable (it’s actually a fruit grown on trees) monosaturated fat to use in cooking because of its high oxidation threshold, it is not recommended for repeated use or deep frying. Purchasing extra virgin olive oil ensures that it has not been extracted with heat or detergents. Olive oil that is not labeled “Extra Virgin” comes to stores already denatured and containing high amounts of free radicals from the extraction process.

Polyunsaturated fats

Sources: Corn oil, soy oil, safflower oil, sunflower oil, cotton seed oil, walnuts, flax oil, hemp oil, herring, salmon, sardines, mackerel.

Safflower, corn, sunflower, soybean and cottonseed oils all contain over 50% of the highly unstable fatty acid Omega-6 and should never be used in cooking, frying or baking. Heating these oils causes oxidation and produces large amounts of free radicals.

We have been force fed a load of crap concerning the virtues of polyunsaturated fats. We’ve been told relentlessly that polyunsaturated fats are good for our health and to increase our consumption. Unfortunately, polyunsaturated fats cause many health problems. One of the biggest reasons polyunsaturated fats are so unhealthy is because they are very susceptible to becoming oxidized or rancid when exposed to heat and light. The polyunsaturated oils you buy in grocery stores are already rancid.

The extraction process is the problem:

1. Throughout the entire process, these oils are exposed to oxygen.
2. The oil is extracted with mechanical pressing and heated to 230 degrees.
3. Then a chemical solvent is used to get what oil is left.
4. The solvent is then boiled off. Again exposing the oils to heat.
5. Because these oils become rancid, they are treated with deodorizers to get rid of the horrible smell.
6. Finally, most oils are then bleached to give them eye appeal. Americans love the light golden color.

Now, you go to the store to purchase soy oil, which has been touted as super healthy, not knowing that you’re actually purchasing a free radical cocktail that over time causes serious health problems.
Free radicals, or “chemical marauders” as some scientists refer to them, wreak havoc on our bodies.

Some of the problems they cause for us include:

* Attack cell membranes
* Cause damage to DNA/RNA strands, triggering mutations in tissues throughout the body
* Causes wrinkles and premature aging
* Damage to tissues and organs sets the stage for tumors
* Damage to blood vessels initiates plaque buildup
* Linked to autoimmune diseases like arthritis
* Linked to Alzheimer’s
* Linked to cataracts

Saturated fats

Sources: Beef tallow (fat), dairy, palm oil, coconut oil.

Saturated fats’ roles in the body include: [1]

* They constitute at least 50% of our cell membranes and give our cells integrity.
* They play a vital role in the health of our bones.
* They lower Lp(a), a substance in the blood that is said to indicate proneness to heart disease.
* They protect the liver from alcohol and other toxins like Tylenol (Acetaminophen).
* They enhance the immune system.
* They are needed for proper utilization of essential fatty acids.
* Stearic acid and palmitic acid, both saturated fats, are the preferred energy source of the heart. This is why the fat around the heart muscle is mainly saturated. The best sources for palmitic acid are beef, butter and palm oil.
* Short and medium chain saturated fatty acids have strong antimicrobial properties. They help protect us from harmful microorganisms. The best sources are tropical oils such as coconut oil and palm oil.

Because the carbon atoms are saturated with hydrogen atoms, saturated fats are very stable and generally do not go rancid. These fats are the best sources for cooking because of their stability and the positive functions they play in our bodies.

Trans Fats

Sources: Any foods containing “shortening,” “partially hydrogenated vegetable oil” or “hydrogenated vegetable oil” in the ingredients list.

Decades of research show the consumption of trans fats to be detrimental to health.

Trans fat’s roles in the body include:

* Lowers high density lipoproteins (HDL), otherwise known as the “good Cholesterol.” [2]
* Raises low density lipoproteins (LDL), otherwise known as the “bad cholesterol.” [2]
* Raises C-reactive protein, a substance in the blood that indicates arterial inflammation and is said to indicate proneness to heart disease. [3]
* Raises Lipoprotein (a) (Lp(a)), a substance in the blood that indicates arterial inflammation and is said to indicate proneness to heart disease. [4]
* Raises C-reactive protein, a substance in the blood that indicates arterial inflammation and is said to indicate proneness to heart disease. [5]
* Promotes improper management of blood sugar, thus having detrimental effects in diabetics. [6]
* Interferes with the function of the immune system. [7]
* Decreases the body’s ability to utilize and decreases the amount of the healthy omega-3 fatty acids in our tissues. [7]

What are trans fats? They are poison in our food supply. “The latest government study confirms that trans fat is directly related with heart disease and increases LDL cholesterol. Because of that, the Institute of Medicine, a branch of the National Academy of Sciences, declared there is no safe amount of trans fat in the diet.” [8] “There should be a warning on food made with this stuff like there is on nicotine products. It’s that bad for you, says Dr. Jeffery Aron, a University of California at San Francisco professor of medicine and one of the nation’s leading experts on fatty acids and their effect on the body. [9]

Poison is the most appropriate description of trans fat I can think of. These man-made fats are literally toxins in our bodies. Trans fat is produced through the process of hydrogenation. This process turns polyunsaturated oils into fats that are solid at room temperature, which are used to make products like margarine and shortening. To produce them, manufacturers begin with the cheapest oils, including soy, corn, cottonseed and canola, which are already rancid from the extraction process discussed earlier.

The oil is mixed with metal particles, usually nickel oxide, and is then subjected to hydrogen gas in a high-pressure, high-temperature container. Next, emulsifiers and starch are added to the oil/metal mixture to give it a better consistency.

At this time you have the base for margarine, only it smells like **** because it’s rancid and it’s gray from the metallic additive. Who would buy a spread like this? Nobody, that’s why it is then steam cleaned to get rid of the smell, and colors and flavors are added to make it resemble butter. This junk has actually been pushed onto us by industry, the American Heart Association and many physicians. Thanks a lot AHA, health food my ass.

Hydrogenation serves two main purposes. First, the process causes the hydrogen atoms to rearrange and makes a normally curved molecule straighter. The straighter the fat molecules are, the easier they pack. The unnaturally straighter molecules allow a fat that is normally liquid at room temperature, like soy oil, to be solid. Second, hydrogenation makes the naturally unstable polyunsaturated molecules more stable by destroying most of the omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids, both essential for good health. Being unnaturally more stable, these fats extend the shelf life of processed foods.

At one time, tropical oils with anti-microbial properties like coconut and palm oils were the fats used in thousands of products we bought in grocery stores. These unusually healthy oils have been replaced by cheap, toxic, manmade hydrogenated oils. Oils like coconut oil and palm kernel oil are the best sources of lauric acid. Lauric acid has anti-microbial properties that inactivate viruses like HIV, measles, herpes simplex-1, vesicular stomatitis, visna and cytomeglovirus. [10]

Trans fat is toxic to our bodies, and as early as the 1940s, researchers found a strong correlation between cancer, heart disease and the consumption of hydrogenated fats, although the results were presented as though the culprit was saturated fats. [11] In fact, until recently, saturated fats were usually lumped together with trans fat in the various U.S. data bases that researchers use to correlate dietary trends with disease conditions. Because the FDA has turned a blind eye to the unreported levels of trans fat in foods, we have been misled about the fat composition of the foods we eat.

Amazingly, hydrogenated fats became classified as a health food and have been aggressively promoted as such by the edible oil and processed food industries. The sharp increase in the consumption of products like Crisco and margarine in the United States throughout the 1900s depicts the power of marketing over truth.

Yes indeed. The power of marketing over truth.

One of the reasons why the Western diet has changed dramatically has been definitely the power of marketing. One of the forerunners of the massive changes in the American diet was Samuel Kellog. Yes, that Kellog, founder of Kellog cereals.

He was a militant vegetarian and he believed that his corn flakes should be the staple of every American's breakfast, instead of what had been the norm of his time...bacon and eggs for breakfast.

Looks like he, among other grain producers, have certainly succeeded in demonizing animal products and promoting grains as the staple of the western diets. Coupled with the grain industries promotion of grain based "vegetable" oils, the American diet has changed dramatically in the 20th century.

So has the nation's overall health...and not for the better.

From Fats, cholesterol and the lipid hypothesis

quote:
Americans have been told for more than four decades to decrease the amount of saturated fat in their diets. In the early 1900s, clogged arteries were a medical rarity at any age. In the 1920s, physicians who were trying to study cardiovascular disease (CVD) had to search the country for patients. When an internist named Paul Dudley White introduced his electrocardiograph to his colleagues at Harvard, they advised him to seek a more profitable branch of medicine. White’s invention is the single most used diagnostic tool in cardiac pathologies to date.

By the mid 1950s, CVD became our number one killer and remains the leading killer today. It was around this time that the lipid hypothesis started to gain popularity. The lipid hypothesis, which was proposed by Ancel Keys in the late 1950s, is a theory claiming there is a direct relationship between the amount of saturated fat and cholesterol in the diet and the incidence of CVD.

Today in the United States, one person will die from CVD every 35 seconds. [12] This year in the U.S., more than one million people will have a heart attack and just short of half of those sufferers will die. [13] Approximately 70 million people, or roughly 25% of the U.S., has cardiovascular disease. [13] In 2002, CVD mortality was nearly 60% of “total mortality” in the U.S. This means that out of 2.4 million deaths from all causes, CVD was listed as a primary cause on about 1.4 million death certificates. [14] CVD causes more deaths than the next seven causes combined. It’s safe to say CVD had a meteoric rise from the 1930s to the 1950s to become number one and to this day shows no signs of giving that position up.

If the lipid hypothesis were true, with the incidence of CVD still on the rise, one would surmise Americans have had a corresponding increase of their consumption of saturated fats and cholesterol. So what do Americans eat? How does our diet differ from the early 1900s?

Evolution of the unhealthy American

What’s decreased?

* Animal fat consumption has dropped over 21% since 1910. [1]
* Whole milk consumption has decreased 50%. [15]
* The consumption of butter has decreased from 18 pounds per year to 4 pounds. [1]

What’s increased?

* Over the past 80 years, cholesterol consumption has increased a mere 1%. [1]
* Vegetable oil consumption, including hydrogenated oils, has increased 437%. [15]
* Sugar consumption went from 5 pounds per year in 1900 to 163 pounds per year today. [16]

If animal fats (saturated fats) are so dangerous, and vegetable oils (polyunsaturated fat) are so healthy, why are we so unhealthy as a nation? The scientific data of the past and present does not support the assertion that saturated fats cause heart disease. As a matter of fact, more than 20 studies have shown that people who have had a heart attack haven’t eaten any more saturated fat than other people, and the degree of atherosclerosis at autopsy is unrelated to diet. [17] Saturated fats have been nourishing societies around the world for thousands of years.

A study of more than one million males in India demonstrated that people in northern India consume more than seventeen times more animal fat than people in southern India. The incidence of CVD in northern India, however, is seven times lower than people in southern India. People in southern India consume much more vegetable oil than in the north. [18]

The French, despite eating 50% more saturated fat than Americans, die two and a half times less often from CVD. This phenomenon is referred to as the French paradox. But it is only a paradox if one believes saturated fat and cholesterol cause CVD. [19]

From 1951 to 1976, the consumption of animal fats in Switzerland increased by 20% despite a decrease in milk intake of 46%. Throughout this same period, smoking increased among women but remained the same among men. If the lipid hypothesis were correct, one would think mortality from cardiovascular disease would also increase. But to the disdain of the hypothesis proponents, mortality from CVD decreased by 22% in males and 46% in females. [20]

The Masai and Samburu tribes of Africa subsist almost completely on milk blood and beef. The Samburu may drink over a gallon of milk each day, which works out to well over one pound of butter fat. The Masai don’t drink as much milk as the Samburu, but eat more meat. Both tribes are virtually free from cardiovascular disease. [21]

The Japanese have the longest lifespan of any nation in the world, which is generally attributed to a low fat diet. The Japanese eat about one third of the dairy products as we do in the U.S., but it is still more than their total fish consumption per year. Their diets contain moderate amounts of animal fats from eggs, pork, chicken, beef, seafood and organ meats. Over the last 50 years, consumption of fats increased 15% and the mean cholesterol levels rose from a low 150 in 1958 to 188 in 1989. Despite the facts that the Japanese smoke much more than Americans and have increased their consumption of fats, they still live longer than any society in the world and have a very low incidence of CVD. [22]

I could go on and on with examples of what other societies eat that fly in the face of the lipid hypothesis, but I’ll end it here. It’s blatantly clear that there is no correlation in this country or any other that supports the lipid hypothesis.

In order for one to believe the lipid hypothesis, one has to believe cholesterol causes heart disease. I for one do not believe cholesterol causes heart disease and am also of the opinion that the lipid hypothesis is the biggest, most harmful scam in American history.

An excerpt from an article “Oiling of America” by Mary Enig, PhD and Sally Fallon.

In 1956, an American Heart Association (AHA) fund-raiser aired on all three major networks. The MC interviewed, among others, Irving Page and Jeremiah Stamler of the AHA, and researcher Ancel Keys. Panelists presented the lipid hypothesis as the cause of the heart disease epidemic and launched the Prudent Diet, one in which corn oil, margarine, chicken and cold cereal replaced butter, lard, beef and eggs. But the television campaign was not an unqualified success because one of the panelists, Dr. Dudley White, disputed his colleagues at the AHA. Dr. White noted that heart disease in the form of myocardial infarction was nonexistent in 1900 when egg consumption was three times what it was in 1956 and when corn oil was unavailable. When pressed to support the Prudent Diet, Dr. White replied: "See here, I began my practice as a cardiologist in 1921 and I never saw an MI patent until 1928. Back in the MI free days before 1920, the fats were butter and lard and I think that we would all benefit from the kind of diet that we had at a time when no one had ever heard the word corn oil."

There have been opponents to the lipid hypothesis from the beginning, but the powerful edible oil industry and processed food manufacturers, who stood to gain the most from the lipid hypothesis, have succeeded in fooling the public. These two industries have spent tens of millions of dollars promoting and funding research designed to support the lipid hypothesis.

Many studies touting the evidence for the lipid hypothesis have recently been shown to be severely flawed. The few studies that do indicate a correlation between fat reduction and a decrease in coronary heart disease mortality also document a concurrent increase in deaths from cancer, brain hemorrhage, suicide and violent death. [11]

Says Anthony Colpo in “LDL Cholesterol: Bad Cholesterol, or Bad Science”: “The concept that LDL is ‘bad cholesterol’ is a simplistic and scientifically untenable hypothesis. Independent thinking practitioners must look at the readily available evidence for themselves, instead of relying on the continual stream of anti-cholesterol propaganda emanating from ‘health authorities.’ By doing so, they will quickly realize that the LDL hypothesis is aggressively promoted for reasons other than public health.” [23]

In summary - much of the dietary advice most people follow today is based on the Lipid Hypothesis. As the name implies, it was a THEORY that has been promoted as proven fact...but it has not.

Much of the statements Furci makes are footnoted and link to the Weston Price Foundation website, among a wide variety of other sources.The Weston Price site goes into far more detail.

You can read The Skinny on Fats. It's one of the best source for debunking the Lipid Hypothesis and getting you to at least consider accepting the notion that Saturated Fats and high levels of cholesterol are good for you.

It's rather long...but here's the summary:

quote:
In summary, our choice of fats and oils is one of extreme importance. Most people, especially infants and growing children, benefit from more fat in the diet rather than less. But the fats we eat must be chosen with care. Avoid all processed foods containing newfangled hydrogenated fats and polyunsaturated oils. Instead, use traditional vegetable oils like extra virgin olive oil and small amounts of unrefined flax seed oil. Acquaint yourself with the merits of coconut oil for baking and with animal fats for occasional frying. Eat egg yolks and other animal fats with the proteins to which they are attached. And, finally, use as much good quality butter as you like, with the happy assurance that it is a wholesome-indeed, an essential-food for you and your whole family.

Organic butter, extra virgin olive oil, and expeller-expressed flax oil in opaque containers are available in health food stores and gourmet markets. Edible coconut oil can be found in Indian or Caribbean markets.

The single biggest difference you can make in your diet is to become aware of the fats in your food supply, which ones are good for you and which are bad for you.

Finally, you can think of the difference in animal fat vs. vegetable fat. In their natural state, before you had high volume, manufacturing and processing, think of the only way the human body ate vegetable oil (fat). You got it naturally from consuming the vegetable. Any idea how much natural, raw corn or soy you'd have to eat to get the equivalent amount of the concentrated, oxidized vegetable oil found in a single tablespoon of the typical oil that is now the biggest source of fat in the American diet?

If you're good at math...figure it out: It takes 1 bushel (56 lbs or 25.5 kg) of corn to make 1.6 lbs (720 g) of oil.

Your body was simply not designed or evolved, to eat such high concentrations of vegetable oil as we now do.

Next up...the ubiquitous and highly toxic soy bean.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Daruma28:
Josh - if I recall, you're primary concern is that you don't like the idea of killing animals for sustenance. There are still plenty of sources of animal protein and fat that don't rely on killing animals...dairy and eggs are probably the best sources - and the best part of what I recommend, is that the highest quality dairy and eggs ONLY come from animals that are treated well and raised in as natural an environment as possible. I am as opposed to factory farming as the most militant, radical PETA vegan activist is. They are environmentally destructive and they are inhumane and they promote nutritionally inferior produce at such a cheap price, they make truly healthy sources of animal foods much more expensive and harder to find.

I'll get into more detail later.

Here's the breakfast I eat mostly every morning. Let me know what you think?

The main dish is a bowl of oatmeal, about 1 cup of oats dry, usually prepared with organic milk, but sometimes water.

I mix in about 1/2 a cup of Stonyfield yogurt. I usually mix the plain and strawberry flavors to get a strawberry-lite. (I realize the strawberry flavoring is a concession, it's just a very yummy one) I finally add some cinnamon and if I have it fresh fruit.

I'll have two slices of whole-wheat toast on the side with butter and topped with either honey or jam. The honey I use is always A-Grade USA, and usually from a guy I know who keeps bees. The jam has no added sugar.

I'll have a large cup or two of tea, green or black, usually straight but occasionally slightly sweetened with honey. Finally, a glass of Kedem Grape Juice if it's on sale this week or if I have some stocked up. Otherwise water.

What do you think?

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[qoute]If you're good at math...figure it out: It takes 1 bushel (56 lbs or 25.5 kg) of corn to make 1.6 lbs (720 g) of oil.

Your body was simply not designed or evolved, to eat such high concentrations of vegetable oil as we now do.[/quote]

This looks a little specious to me. Why isn't the same calculation done to show that we are consuming much more olive oil than our bodies are capable of handling?

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would approach it evolutionarily. In our formative hunter/gatherer days, and then our early agro-civilizations, how much oil did we consume on average?

I know Eskimos thrive on fatty fish. Keeps 'em warm.
eans *losing* weight. Our ancestors would've thought us insane.
Anyway, I think it's funny that we now speak of healthy eating as something that, for most of us, m

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Next up...the ubiquitous and highly toxic soy bean."

Yo! Now you're messing with my homey! [Wink]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshuaD:
[qoute]If you're good at math...figure it out: It takes 1 bushel (56 lbs or 25.5 kg) of corn to make 1.6 lbs (720 g) of oil.

Your body was simply not designed or evolved, to eat such high concentrations of vegetable oil as we now do.

This looks a little specious to me. Why isn't the same calculation done to show that we are consuming much more olive oil than our bodies are capable of handling? [/QUOTE]

Josh, olives are saturated in oil. Just squeeze one olive and alot of the liquid that is expelled is oil. I would guess one pound of olives would yield quite a bit of olive oil.

Not so with a kernel of corn or a soybean. These grains have a minute amount of oil.

Think of how much corn you would have to eat in one sitting to get the equivalent amount of a tablespoon of corn oil in it's natural state.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sburgernutr
Member
Member # 6158

 - posted      Profile for sburgernutr   Email sburgernutr       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't know that this is such politically incorrect nutrition. Others have proposed it before.

The NY Times Sunday Magazine section has done several articles on the problems with overmarketing of corn and how this has influenced fatty acid ratios in meat (can't remember the title), the Nutrification of Food which critiqued the single nutrient analysis that some nutritional epidemiologists used (fortunately I was trained by someone who went much further than the simple associative analyses of Walter WIllet) and Mothering Magazine did a nice expose on soy. In soy-eating cultures, they were not guzzling down venti soy lattes in a desperate substitution to replace one white liquid with another artificially produced substitute. We have overproduced soy and put it in everything.

Humans are remarkably adaptive and have managed to create diets they can survive on in the most extreme climates and conditions. Yet, each diet has its health advantages and disadvantages. I've concluded I'm the ultimate scavenger having spent far too long traveling the globe and can eat a caterpillar or termite as happily as popcorn. The only foods I cannot manage to eat are palm grubs and fresh peas.

Pasteurization and oversterile environments have probably added to our health problems. While pasteurization of milk products reduced TB at one point in our history, it also contributed to nutrient loss. In other areas of the world where vegans are more common, vitamin B12 only gets into the diet because fecal contamination from lack of latrines is basically the only source.

One of the hugest experiments we ever did was to remove the most normal of our foods from most of the world's population --- human milk. Make no mistake, across the globe the majority of infants are being given something other than mother's own milk at far too young an age --- and that influences everything that follows. I regret the loss of wetnursing in many industrialized nations. We'd all be healthier if that had not gone out of fashion --- and it would certainly stem the pseudofeminist argument that a woman has a right to not breastfeed. I say pseudofeminist because to be truly in favor of women, you would want them to have access to ALL of their potential roles in life, including their reproductive and care giving roles. I'd argue than infants should have the right to human milk, even if they can't get it directly from mom. Even in the US, the death rates among infants who are not breastfed are over 20% higher than they would be if those infants were breastfed. (Rogan and Chen in Pediatrics) In West Africa, four out of five infants are prematurely introduced to substances other than breastmilk. If only one out of five infants were not introduced to substances other than breast milk, the mortality rates would drop by 13%. This is a far greater drop than anything Bill Gates is currently funding for child survival programs.

Personally, I was happy to see corn oil used up in cars rather than eating it.

Posts: 10 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Daruma,

I really am interested in the soy bean stuff. I like the tufu and I drink the soy milk.

Regular milk gives me a stomach ache, and I think tufu is great because isn't it a protein source?

so, am interested in listening to this.

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'll get to it soon. Little bit hectic trying to survive at work right now...
Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sburgernutr
Member
Member # 6158

 - posted      Profile for sburgernutr   Email sburgernutr       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dear Munga:

Read the issue in Mothering Magazine on soy. It has an excellent review of the problems with soy. While it is a protein, as with any food, it can cause problems in excessive quantities. Forget about drinking soy milk. Drink water. Soy milk is overly processed and if you drink a lot of soy milk, you will be ingesting excessive quantities. Ditto for rice milk. Eat the rice, drink water. Many cultures never drink any white liquid. You don't have to drink a white liquid just because milk has been pushed by the dairy industry for so long, particularly if you have either a cow's milk allergy or lactose intolerance.

Posts: 10 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The quick rundown on soy is this: it is the largest crop being grown, harvested and processed in the world.

The multinational corporations that own the majority of the soy crops and food processing plants that use soy have spent billions on marketing soy as a "health food" alternative.

As sburgernutr (Welcome to Ornery sburgernutr, you are wrong), wrote, Soy beans contain isoflavones that mimic estrogen in the human body. It has been suspected of playing a key role in the rise of menarche in the last 20 years (young girls hitting puberty at very young ages), in hyperthyroidism, defects in babies male genitalia from mothers that consumed a lot of soy during their pregnancies, and a whole host of other conditions that may be linked to the dramatic increase of soy in the food supply.

By now, it's common knowledge for people who research into healthy nutrition, whether we agree or not on the politically correct/incorrect basis of nature, one thing most people, even conventional doctors agree on, is that processed, manufactured junk food is simply bad for you.

Now go and read the labels of just about any manufactured and processed food product. You will find soy or a soy derivative in it.

Soybean oil. Soy lecithin. Hydrolized Soy Protein.

Soy is in just about everything nowadays.

Also include the fact that thanks to mega-conglomorates mass producing soy products and their farmer's subsidies they have attained through lobbying the federal government (BOTH Repubs and Dems), soybean oil is the cheapest oil in the country.

Fast food and regular food restaurants, food vendors, institutions that use cooking oil...they ALL use "vegetable oil" now.

Guess what "vegetable" that would be?

Here's a list of "Soy Myths" to start with, from the Weston Price Foundation:

quote:

Myth: Use of soy as a food dates back many thousands of years.

Truth: Soy was first used as a food during the late Chou dynasty (1134-246 BC), only after the Chinese learned to ferment soy beans to make foods like tempeh, natto and tamari.

Myth: Asians consume large amounts of soy foods.

Truth: Average consumption of soy foods in Japan and China is 10 grams (about 2 teaspoons) per day. Asians consume soy foods in small amounts as a condiment, and not as a replacement for animal foods.

Myth: Modern soy foods confer the same health benefits as traditionally fermented soy foods.

Truth: Most modern soy foods are not fermented to neutralize toxins in soybeans, and are processed in a way that denatures proteins and increases levels of carcinogens.

Myth: Soy foods provide complete protein.

Truth: Like all legumes, soy beans are deficient in sulfur-containing amino acids methionine and cystine. In addition, modern processing denatures fragile lysine.

Myth: Fermented soy foods can provide vitamin B12 in vegetarian diets.

Truth: The compound that resembles vitamin B12 in soy cannot be used by the human body; in fact, soy foods cause the body to require more B12

Myth: Soy formula is safe for infants.

Truth: Soy foods contain trypsin inhibitors that inhibit protein digestion and affect pancreatic function. In test animals, diets high in trypsin inhibitors led to stunted growth and pancreatic disorders. Soy foods increase the body's requirement for vitamin D, needed for strong bones and normal growth. Phytic acid in soy foods results in reduced bioavailabilty of iron and zinc which are required for the health and development of the brain and nervous system. Soy also lacks cholesterol, likewise essential for the development of the brain and nervous system. Megadoses of phytoestrogens in soy formula have been implicated in the current trend toward increasingly premature sexual development in girls and delayed or retarded sexual development in boys.

Myth: Soy foods can prevent osteoporosis.

Truth: Soy foods can cause deficiencies in calcium and vitamin D, both needed for healthy bones. Calcium from bone broths and vitamin D from seafood, lard and organ meats prevent osteoporosis in Asian countries-not soy foods.

Myth: Modern soy foods protect against many types of cancer.

Truth: A British government report concluded that there is little evidence that soy foods protect against breast cancer or any other forms of cancer. In fact, soy foods may result in an increased risk of cancer.

Myth: Soy foods protect against heart disease.

Truth: In some people, consumption of soy foods will lower cholesterol, but there is no evidence that lowering cholesterol improves one's risk of having heart disease.

Myth: Soy estrogens (isoflavones) are good for you.

Truth: Soy isoflavones are phyto-endocrine disrupters. At dietary levels, they can prevent ovulation and stimulate the growth of cancer cells. Eating as little as 30 grams (about 4 tablespoons) of soy per day can result in hypothyroidism with symptoms of lethargy, constipation, weight gain and fatigue.

Myth: Soy foods are safe and beneficial for women to use in their postmenopausal years.

Truth: Soy foods can stimulate the growth of estrogen-dependent tumors and cause thyroid problems. Low thyroid function is associated with difficulties in menopause.

Myth: Phytoestrogens in soy foods can enhance mental ability.

Truth: A recent study found that women with the highest levels of estrogen in their blood had the lowest levels of cognitive function; In Japanese Americans tofu consumption in mid-life is associated with the occurrence of Alzheimer's disease in later life.

{THIS STUDY WAS CONDUCTED HERE IN HAWAII BECAUSE WE HAVE THE HIGHEST PER CAPITA OF JAPANESE AMERICANS THAT CONSUME TOFU. IT WAS ALL OVER OUR NEWS AFTER THE RESULTS WERE PUBLISHED.}

Myth: Soy isoflavones and soy protein isolate have GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) status.

Truth: Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) recently withdrew its application to the FDA for GRAS status for soy isoflavones following an outpouring of protest from the scientific community. The FDA never approved GRAS status for soy protein isolate because of concern regarding the presence of toxins and carcinogens in processed soy.

Myth: Soy foods are good for your sex life.

Truth: Numerous animal studies show that soy foods cause infertility in animals. Soy consumption enhances hair growth in middle-aged men, indicating lowered testosterone levels. Japanese housewives feed tofu to their husbands frequently when they want to reduce his virility.

Myth: Soy beans are good for the environment.

Truth: Most soy beans grown in the US are genetically engineered to allow farmers to use large amounts of herbicides.

Myth: Soy beans are good for developing nations.

Truth: In third world countries, soybeans replace traditional crops and transfer the value-added of processing from the local population to multinational corporations.



[ March 04, 2009, 07:23 PM: Message edited by: Daruma28 ]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, and one of the common counter-arguments that get offered by proponents of soy is that "soy is bad for you" is nothing more than "the dairy and meat industry" propaganda.

The modern factory farms that provide 95% of the meat and dairy in this country rely on soy based feed for their animals!!!!!!!!

The Weston Price Foundation Website that I cite is as adamantly opposed to factory farming and soy feed for farm animals as they are to soy food to begin with!

quote:
The internet is abuzz with theories hoping to defame the cozy circle of soy opponents, many whom, like the James', are affiliated with the Weston Price Foundation (www.westonaprice.org.) Dr. Kaayla Daniel serves on the board of directors. The foundation follows the nutrition research of Dr. Weston Price, a dentist who wandered the globe studying the diets of diverse people. The foundation heavily encourages traditional diets based on animal foods and vegetables. Their agenda doesn't scare me away: I have a deep respect for the Weston Price research, and these people work hard to advocate safe, humane farming practices, chemical-free food, and old fashioned methods of fermentation and soaking. The diet may sound funny to those used to boxes and cans, but any student of world cuisine or of history and anthropology can tell these are hardly off the wall. Dr. Daniel says, "The Weston Price Foundation is supported by membership dues and private donations and receives no funding from the beef or dairy industries. We recommend an omnivorous diet that includes free-range eggs, grass-fed meat and raw dairy products from happy, pastured cows, but such products do not come from factory farming operations or corporate agribusiness. We support small farmers, humane treatment of animals, sustainable and organic agriculture and the consumer's right to obtain fresh healthy foods directly from local farmers."

The good sense of sustainable and humane farming and traditional food preparation get lost in the extravagant propaganda. "It's all about money. Soybeans were first heavily grown here for the soy oil… the one used most often in margarines and shortenings. But once processors took the oil out of the soybean, they had a lot of soy protein left over. The question was whether they should take it to the landfill and pay to dump it or turn it into another profit centre. Soy protein would make an excellent fertilizer, but unfortunately the chemical fertilizer companies had that market cornered. It is used as a primary ingredient in animal foods, but there are limits on how much they can safely feed to animals... It was initially hard to sell people on the idea of eating soy because it was perceived as either a poverty food or a hippie food. Then marketing experts changed the image of soy to an upscale 'health food.'

And that dear readers, is why all of us think this toxic waste, not healthy enough for animal feed, is a wonder food.


Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Myth: Soy isoflavones and soy protein isolate have GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) status.

Truth: Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) recently withdrew its application to the FDA for GRAS status for soy isoflavones following an outpouring of protest from the scientific community. The FDA never approved GRAS status for soy protein isolate because of concern regarding the presence of toxins and carcinogens in processed soy."

Isoflanes help prevent me from bleeding. It's in this goo I squirt up my nose. But actually, I'm very interested in your dietary research.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The next part of "politically incorrect nutrition has to do with one of the biggest reasons why Soy Milk has become so popular (I drank the stuff for years, as I thought I was allergic to milk, and that milk products were the cause for my asthma.)

Milk.

The problems with Milk are well known. What people don't realize that the typical gallon of white liquid you buy at the store is not really "MILK," as in the nourishing liquid that a mother cow uses to rear her calf into full health.

Milk, in it's natural state from free-range, pastured cows eating their natural diet of grass, provides a very rich, fat and cholesterol filled MILK that is full of fat soluble vitamins, minerals and proteins that are superior nutritionally. It also contains a host of dietary-tract beneficial bacteria - pro-biotics.

This is milk in it's raw state - as it used to be consumed by everyone.

But when the shift of milk being provided from local dairy producers to the larger corporate conglomerates that started to centralize and mass produce Milk and Dairy Products, they quickly ran into a problem for profitability.

Natural, Raw Milk spoils in days. This wasn't a problem when the milk man used to make daily deliveries of fresh milk from the local dairy to every doorstep in the small towns of the country, that would be used up that day.

So when they first began the move to try and mass produce milk and dairy products, they also had poor sanitary practices. People would get sick from contaminants, and milk products would spoil quickly.

The milk producers discovered that if you pasteurized the milk (a process that used to be used solely for beer), it would last almost 3 times as long on the store shelf.

That's because Milk, in it's raw, natural state, is a "live" food...all those pro-biotic bacteria in it...the bacteria that is beneficial to your digestive tract, and also helps your body metabolize the vitamins and fatty acids in the milk. Once milk is pasteurized, it is literally "dead." Oh, and the heating used in pasteurization results in destroying the natural vitamin content. This is why you see "FORTIFIED" on just about every brand of milk in the grocery store nowadays.

Everyone "knows" that milk is rich in Vitamin D...but if that is so, than why does milk need to be "fortified?" In addition, the "fortified" vitamins are lab produced, synthetic versions of the naturally occurring Vitamins D and A that are destroyed in pasteurization...and these synthetic vitamins are far inferior to the naturally occurring vitamins in milk in it's raw state.

That's because pasteurization destroys the vitamin content...but that is not all. Vitamins D, A, K and other vitamins are all "fat soluble." They are stored in the FAT of the milk. The butter. The cream.

What is the most popular kind of milk sold nowadays, thanks to the "lipid hypothesis" that has got everyone scared to death of eating saturated fats?

Low fat/non-fat skimmed milk!

When you buy low fat milk, you are literally buying milk that has had all of the vitamins and minerals "skimmed" out!

In addition, pasteurizing milk alters the milk protein molecules that make them resistant to digestive enzymes in the stomach...this is why lactose intolerance is so wide spread amongst the population!

Altered proteins, coupled with the loss of fat soluble vitamins and the destruction of the pro-biotic bacteria that was present in raw milk is like a tripled recipe for indigestion, lactose intolerance and milk allergies.

Fact is, I would bet that most people who are 'allergic to dairy' are really just allergic to that stripped down, boiled out, de-naturalized, fortified and homogenized imposter they dare to call "MILK."

[ March 04, 2009, 08:24 PM: Message edited by: Daruma28 ]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
USed to drink fresh cow and goat milk I milked myself on my uncle's farm. Awesome stuff... unless you let the cows pasture where wild onion grows. Nasty.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LOL...interesting ken! Supposedly the best milk possible comes from cows eating the fresh shoots of dark green grass of spring.

I cannot find a source of raw milk here in Hawaii...so I don't buy or drink milk.

But I do buy raw milk cheese and butter that I can find in some specialty stores here. Tillamook Dairy from Oregon sells "cultured" cheddar cheese, and Organic Praries in Wisconsin makes Raw Jack Cheese, although the other types of cheese they produce is all pasteurized (Swiss, muesnter etc.) And I use organic heavy whipping cream for my coffee or as a substitute for any cooking/baking recipes that call for milk.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, and another thing to consider...your body actually requires the vitamins found in the fat of the milk to digest the milk proteins - pasteurized or not.

Now, if you drink or eat fat free or low fat dairy, your body actually has to use it's own stores of these essential nutrients to process the proteins.

So over a long period of time, eating fat skimmed/removed foods will actually result in depleting your bodies natural stores of those vitamins, which leads to malnutrition and a host of other diseases like cancer and such.

Scientists are just now discovering that Vitamin D deficiency is one of the primary causes of cancer in the nation.

Part of it is the lack of proper sunlight exposure, large segments of the population living in areas of the country with not enough sun exposure year round, and a diet that is not only deficient in Vitamin D, but actually causes the body to use up what little vitamin D they have...it's like a double whammy.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sburgernutr
Member
Member # 6158

 - posted      Profile for sburgernutr   Email sburgernutr       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hmmm, a long treatise on nutrition by Daruma, but short shrift on an accusation. What does "you are wrong" mean? Am I wrong in the head, the wrong gender, wrong political party or just plain wrong as a human being? or am I wrong for stating something you believe is false? If so, wouldn't it be better to state "I disagree with you on your about about ... ." and be more explicit the idea you dispute. No one human is wrong or right 100% of the time and I refuse to be defined as a "wrong" even if my ideas may not always "right".

I think I have figured out that you meant as "my being wrong" as the part about Asians eating a lot of soy.

Let me be more explicit. By definition, infants whose ENTIRE diet is comprised of soy "milk" (the milk is really a misnomer) are consuming a far larger proportion of their diet as soy than in any culture. Even cultures that eat comparatively a large amount of soy are not eating ONLY soy. And I think it is only in recent human history that we have tried to transform "soy" into "milk". Most past efforts at substitutions involved altering some other mammals milk into something closer to human milk. Furthermore, I would argue that there are some in the United States who are consuming far more soy via their lattes and other soy products than was common in cultures that did consume a lot of soy.

So, I will accuse myself of being imprecise in my comparisons and appreciate the education on comparatively "high consumption" in some parts of Chinese culture.

An in terms of raw milk -- as near as I know Sweden is the only culture that has human donor milk banks that do not pastuerize their milk. They also pay women for their contributions for infants whose mother may not be able to or may not want to provide human milk.

Interestingly enough, I am now thinking of reviewing all the studies on pasteurization. Raw human milk lasts far longer at room temperature because of the live cells. Once refrigerated, the live cells die and it cannot last as long at room temperature. I am wondering if the initial comparisons were between refrigerated milks and pasteurized milks. We used to get cow's milk in an ice box in glass jars that were recycled. While the glass did permit the breakdown of riboflavin in the milk, the recycling system was very efficient. The milk man just came and collected the empty bottles when he delivered the next order.

Posts: 10 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"We used to get cow's milk in an ice box in glass jars that were recycled. While the glass did permit the breakdown of riboflavin in the milk, the recycling system was very efficient. The milk man just came and collected the empty bottles when he delivered the next order. "

In terms of energy consumption, far more efficient indeed to have one person deliver 200 milks in a serial loop beginning and ending at warehouse than to have 300 individual trips to warehouse then back home.

The amount of energy our current lifestyle expends if fantastic.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Moderator
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What does "you are wrong" mean?
It's our standard greeting for new members. [Smile]

Welcome.

Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sburgernutr
Member
Member # 6158

 - posted      Profile for sburgernutr   Email sburgernutr       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Aha. After the definition of "you are wrong", now I'm smiling!
Posts: 10 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sburgernutr
Member
Member # 6158

 - posted      Profile for sburgernutr   Email sburgernutr       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If only I could get my dh to read some of this so I could nudge him out of the 1960s style veganism of soy soaked stir fry eating. HIs life is one of removing foods from his diet, while I try to reinsert foods back in. On the other hand he collects plastic bags whereas I try to recycle them out of our apartment as quickly as possible.
Posts: 10 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Soy sauce is good stuff. Rich in amino acids. Fermented soy rocks.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
sburgernutr - sorry, I should've explained to you about the standard greeting around here. [Smile]

Ah yes, thank you ken, I see I forgot to put that very important disclaimer when discussing soy.

Soy food that is naturally fermented can be very good for you. Soy sauce, natto, tempeh and miso are all good. The fermentation process neutralizes all the isoflavones and phyto-estrogens in the raw soybean.

There's a soysauce found in most health food stores called "braggs amino's acid" a soy based sauce sold as "healthy" because it is low in sodium. It puts it on their label in huge letters "UNFERMENTED."

Just because it's sold in the health food store does not mean it is healthy or that you do not need to read the indredients label!

Oh, and munga - the primary culprit in brain degeneration and alzheimer symptoms in the soy study done here in hawaii was tofu - as that is the most widely eaten soy food in Hawaii's elderly Japanese population. Where I you, I would quit eating soy and quit drinking soy milk, period.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
tempeh and natto both have isoflavones, Daruma. So does miso, at quite a high level, but since it's not normal to consume a lot of miso it's probably not worth worrying about. Some kinds of soybean oil have almost no isoflavones.

Here's some info you can look at:
http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data/isoflav/isfl_tbl.pdf

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Upon a secondary review of the Weston Price info and the Soy Online Service websites, you are correct scifi. What fermentation does in not neutralize isoflavones, but phytates or nutrient inhibitors, which is one of the bad effects of not just soy, but most any legume or bean that has not been prepared properly before consumption.

Admittedly scifi, I have never been a big fan of the traditional fermented soy products, except for soy sauce as a condiment or mixing sauce used sparingly and an occasional bowl of Miso soup.

The point is, even fermented soy products should not be a significant part of your diet, and it should not be relied upon as a primary substitute for animal sources of protein under the mistaken assumption that it is perfectly fine source of protein without any problems associated with it.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"but there is no evidence that lowering cholesterol improves one's risk of having heart disease."

Mmmkay... [Smile]

"Fact is, I would bet that most people who are 'allergic to dairy' are really just allergic to that stripped down, boiled out, de-naturalized, fortified and homogenized imposter they dare to call "MILK."


You would bet wrong. Lactose is present in any kind of milk, pasteurized or not. It's lactose that people are allergic to.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually, I do fine with the lactose.

It is the protein that was so harmful. It even comes out in breastmilk.

We almost put my one month old baby in the hospital because he had "shutdown" so much and then someone said, hey, are you eating milk products??

I went off them, 24 hours later, baby was fine very hungry.

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
scifi - you don't expect Daruma to believe data from the USDA, do ya? [Big Grin]
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"but there is no evidence that lowering cholesterol improves one's risk of having heart disease."

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/256/20/2835

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/256/20/2823

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/308/6925/367

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/274/2/131

http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/18/1837

http://grande.nal.usda.gov/ibids/index.php?mode2=detail&origin=ibids_references&therow=284958

This is only a small sampling of the evidence available that higher overall levels of cholesterol increases risk for heart disease, and covers hundreds of thousands of patients.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1