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 » General Comments » Fat is Where it's At (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Fat is Where it's At
IrishTD
Member
Member # 2216

 - posted      Profile for IrishTD   Email IrishTD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Colin, that needs a warning. I was just starting to eat my lunch.
Posts: 825 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
2 days later... about time I get a reaction [Wink]

K - raw almonds are a good source of protein. to eat, of course, not in your smoothie. Of course, if they are grown in the US, they are not really raw any longer - they are irradiated and steamed. However, imported (usually Spanish) almonds don't get the same treatment so are really raw.

Look into whey or egg protein, but do avoid soy protein or anything "isolate". You can actually find some rice protein powders that are supposed to be pretty good.

Even better, if you have a local health food store, go ask them - they'll give you several options. Tell them you don't want soy, and want as natural as possible.

BTW, the short story on soy is two-fold.
1. The high-production chemical process used to extract the usable protein literally soaks the beans in rocket fuel to break down the various parts. Even if it "washes off", I don't care to eat stuff that's been marinated in rocket fuel.

2. If it isn't organic, it's GMO and there is a fair amount of info out there that anything GMO should be avoided at all costs (in the US that means unless its organic, no soy, corn, canola, or cotton seed oil)

You have a lot of options other than a big fat steak every day.

Why not an egg every day? Lots of good stuff in those. We go through a dozen at least once a week. Of course, the trick there is stick to organic for the aforementioned reasons. Non organic eggs - even the vegetarian fed ones - very likely are fed GMO corn and soy.

Beans are also high in protein... Get yourself a bottle of beano and eat away!

Posts: 4738 | 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 
Question: how many of you folks have bought into the conventional wisdom that red meat and/or saturated animal fats cause cancer?
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 
You know, D, just as you read a lot of stuff that is, at least in your estimation, 'alternative' nutrition lit, you obviously also read a lot of 'mainstream' nutrilit.

Some of us don't read any of that crap because it's almost all next year's last year's news, and has changed.

Not to make it into any wonder wisdom, but the Words of Wisdom Mormons (like I used to be) are raised on pretty much says it all.

Any fool knows home grown or at least local small-scale produce is better than massive Imperial Valley pesticidal produce shipped by rail or truck. Doesn;t have to be pesticide or whatever free, but the better the soil and the less poison sprayed on it... well, doh, huh?

Same with meat and the rest of the stuff.

And any numbnuts like me knows that junk food is so named for a reason.

And hey, cigarettes are really bad for you but it hardly matters when you're young and is a terrible curse if you're not.

Eat your vegetables. Eat some fruit. Stock your fridge with decent food and cook/prep it sufficiently in advance so when you come home STARVED it's not necessary to eat a bowl of tortilla chips before you figure what you;re gonna eat.

Simple stuff.

EVERYTHING gives you cancer.

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 
ken...I don't disagree too much with your contentions that it is "simple stuff." However, there is a very specific reason why I asked that question.

I spent years swallowing the outright lies and propaganda that have permeated society with regards to dietary "wisdom." One of the most pernicious is the idea that meat and especially red meat...but more generally saturated fats, is one of the primary culprits in clogging arteries and causing cancer.

I've since learned otherwise...but I was curious to see how many people accept the conventional wisdom as truth as I once did.

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 
Don't take media seriously and it's no prob.

One day media talks about things that cause cancer. Next, it's Michael J 24/7.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I had totally forgotten that song.
Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I spent years swallowing the outright lies and propaganda that have permeated society with regards to dietary "wisdom." One of the most pernicious is the idea that meat and especially red meat...but more generally saturated fats, is one of the primary culprits in clogging arteries and causing cancer.
Now imagine if at that time, the government had taken it upon themselves to ban red meat in an effort to keep society healthy. Or taken a "health tax" imposed on red meat sales. How long would it have taken it to come out that red meat is not poison?

Think of the effect this would have had on a slew of farms and processing plants, the economy as a whole, and the health of the nation. Isn't it much much much better for the government to say "ok this is what some scientists have discovered so far..." and then let us figure out our own diets?

Give the people the information, let them decide what and how much they want to eat.

Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  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 
Uh, that's what happened.

There is, however, zero dispute that salmonella et al make people really really ****ing SICK, and that sloppy slaughterhouse rendering processes can disperse meat that creates an actual epidemic of salmonella poisoning.

Not some research results *suggesting* that salmonella bacteria increase one's risk of salmonella poisoning, but a direct cause and effect correlation between sloppy/rendering/salmonella-tainted meat, and people getting so sick that infants and elderly often die from it.

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 
'I had totally forgotten that song."

The original studio version has Jackson break into uncommonly powerful, "authentic", hard-boppish R&B piano pounding. One of those studio moments where the plan and the feeling converge.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ken - yes thankfully that is what happened (sort of) in that case. I thought it was obvious I was using that case to compare to the other foods that the government DOES ban. I would hate to wait 20 years and find out that trans fats are actually something our body needs to grow toenails or eyelashes, or fight off cancer or something else positive. Or smoking cigars, though bad for the lungs, improves vision or something similar.

Even in the red meat case, though, it was "common knowledge" that red meat would kill you ( salmonella aside ), eating pasta and bread was a much better choice. This misinformation wasn't the governments fault, it was the people who reported it as fact instead of a mix of indications and speculation. Yet the public paid the price for it. Again, I would be very frustrated to wake up 20 years from now and see a news report that trans fats are no longer banned because of some new research that shows a link between trans fats and longevity, or eating raw eggs increases bone structure.

Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  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 
Well, you used a general principle about government involvement in a situation where the guv does exactly what you said it *should* do.

Trans fats have been banned by a few small guvs, and a few national guvs are looking into banning it, but red meat has, you know, been around a long time and folks aren't going to ban it.

Pick your analogies wisely and your analogies won't get picked on.

By the way, regarding trans fats, you might find a look into the history of this substance category. It's basically a laboratory beast.

It was first promoted as being affordable, but later, as being a superior health alternative to saturated fats.

Polyunsturated fat was one of the major health/diet conventions of the 60s. It was touted as being much healthier than bad old animal fat.

I think it helps to keep in mind that trans-fats are laboratory foods, were once sold as the healthy alternative, and are now looking to be pretty bad for you.

Well, hell: butter tastes good and margarine tastes like ****. That would be the first clue.

[ July 10, 2009, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]

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 
As a libertarian who thinks drug prohibition shoudl be rescinded completely, Trans fats SHOULD be banned. It is not a food, it is a poison.

Anyhow, the reason why I asked that question is because I've done a bit of research into just how and why so many articles and reports have been written to promote this idea that animal fats and proteins are "cancer causing."

I've often heard several different PSA's on various radio stations, advocating a "PLANT-BASED DIET" as the key to preventing cancer.

The most memorable PSA I can recall having heard multiple times, is one done by Anthony Hopkins. I guess it's most memorable because whenever I heard it, I'd always chuckle at the thought of Hannibal Lecter telling people to eat a vegetarian diet...

Anyhow, you can listen for yourself to the PSA I'm talking about here, as well as read/listen/watch to a few other PSA's dedicated to pushing vegetarian "plant-based" diets as the key to preventing cancer.

While I don't have the time to check any and all references (I suppose I could, but than, I think I already know how this is going to turn out...), I read the Diet and Cancer Research page on the Cancer Project website.

When I got to the concluding sentence of the introductory paragraph (which is usually where a thesis statement placed in an exposition written to convince the reader of some position,) there was this:

Overall, these studies showed significant reductions in cancer risk among those who avoided meat.

Ok....so I check the citation: Barnard ND, Nicholson A, Howard JL. The medical costs attributable to meat consumption. Prev Med 1995;24:646-55.

I than googled: Prev Med 1995;24:646-55

Where I find this: Dietary Risk Factors for the Incidence and Recurrence of Colorectal Adenomatous Polyps: A Case-Control Study

Under the METHODS, we get this:

quote:
Our study sample included patients having colonoscopy at three colonoscopy practices in New York City between April 1986 and March 1988. In total, 2988 patients were evaluated. Of these, 2443 (81.8%) were eligible for our study (patients had to be between 35 and 84 years of age; reside in New York, New Jersey, or Connecticut; speak English or Spanish; and have colonoscopy to at least the splenic flexure). The colonoscopists completed data sheets indicating the reason for colonoscopy and the clinical findings at the time of colonoscopy. The study pathologist reviewed slides of all suspected neoplastic lesions.

All eligible participants received a letter signed by their colonoscopist introducing the study. A trained interviewer then contacted and interviewed participants by telephone. Alternatively, the questionnaire was mailed for self-completion and was followed by a telephone interview to resolve any remaining questions. An earlier study indicated that the results obtained for dietary factors were similar for both interview methods [13].

The interview itself consisted of a general questionnaire that focused on demographic characteristics, medical history, lifestyle, family history, and other topics. The dietary interview consisted of the Block food frequency questionnaire and specified food intake for a period 3 to 5 years before the colonoscopy [14].

Ultimately, 1956 dietary questionnaires were completed (80.1% of eligible patients). Of these, 71% were conducted by telephone, and 29% were returned by mail.

Do you get this? A self-reporting questionnaire to determine colorectal cancer patient's diet to try and assess the dietary causes for cancer!

I didn't stop there. This report mentioned the actual Block Food Frequency Questionnaire...which of course, I promptly googled to see if I could find the questionnaire online.

Check it out: online page

I note without a trace of irony, that in fact, the title of that segment of the Block Food Questionnaire is FAT SCREENER.

Yet look at these options:

quote:
Margarine, butter or mayo on bread or potatoes

Margarine, butter or oil in cooking.

Consider this: the "conclusions" that have become conventional wisdom because the likes of Hannibal Lecter taking to the airwaves to spread the word that A PLANT BASED DIET is the key to avoiding cancer, the actual questionnaire they use to get these results to reach their conclusions makes no differentiation between animal-based butter and plant-based margarine!

But it gets worse.

I clicked on the ABOUT US link from the company responsible for this completely idiotic questionnaire, and find that there are two High Priests in the Church of Secular Science...ooops, I meant "Doctors," and a COO (a Marketing and IT guy) responsible for the creation of this questionnaire...

quote:
Dr. Gladys Block (Ph.D, Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins), Senior Scientist. Dr. Block is professor of Public Health Nutrition and Epidemiology at the University of California, Berkeley. She continues to provide expertise and leadership in the development and analysis of NutritionQuest's dietary and physical activity instruments.

Torin Block, Chief Operating Officer, is the Manager of NutritionQuest. He has 11 years of experience in the development and analysis of dietary questionnaires. He is responsible for the design and development of the NutritionQuest Data-on-Demand system, including the development of electronic questionnaires, analysis algorithms and data management systems.

Clifford H. Block (Ph.D., Cognitive Psychology, Yale), Chief Behavioral Scientist. He has been the architect of many large-scale programs in health social marketing, education, and the application of new technologies. He directs NutritionQuest’s innovations in education and health behavior change, such as our emailed dietary intervention program.

An epidemeologist, a Marketing executive and a Chief Behavioral Scientist specializing in health social marketing.

You figure with all of that expertise, experience, certifications like PhD's (Piled Higher and Deeper has never been a more apropos description than here!), they would actually understand something as basic as THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MARGARINE AND BUTTER!!!

This deliberate deception is certainly no accident.

Is this SCIENCE? Is this a scientific, double-blind study that actually uses a control group, and actually monitors a diet of plant based foods versus animal based foods to try and see if in fact there is direct causation between eating meat and cancer? Nope...this is a straight up marekting styled survey, in which the number crunchers are able to manipulate the statistics to reach the predetermined conclusion they're after.

So, remember that the next time you do your grocery shopping, don't forget your plant-based high fructose corn syrup, your plant-based soybean oil margarine, your plant based, fortified ceral and your plant-based soymilk and your plant-based potato chips fried in plant-based cottonseed oil...you wouldn't want to get cancer! [Exploding]

[ July 10, 2009, 05:26 PM: Message edited by: Daruma28 ]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You figure with all of that expertise, experience, certifications like PhD's (Piled Higher and Deeper has never been a more apropos description than here!), they would actually understand something as basic as THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MARGARINE AND BUTTER!!!
Daruma, why don't you explain what you consider the relevant difference to be. Between you and me, I'm not a big fan of margarine (it's just inferior in terms of flavour and utility as a cooking / baking ingredient) but I always assumed that if you purchased a brand without hydrogenated oils, like Becel, there was no significant health difference between the two. Was I wrong about that?
Posts: 7629 | 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 
The differences are legion.

I'll refer you to a an article written by Sally Fallon and Mary Enig. (Enig, btw - is a PhD who specializes in lipid biochemistry.)

From Why Butter is Better

quote:
Heart disease was rare in America at the turn of the century. Between 1920 and 1960, the incidence of heart disease rose precipitously to become America's number one killer. During the same period butter consumption plummeted from eighteen pounds per person per year to four. It doesn't take a Ph.D. in statistics to conclude that butter is not a cause. Actually butter contains many nutrients that protect us from heart disease. First among these is vitamin A which is needed for the health of the thyroid and adrenal glands, both of which play a role in maintaining the proper functioning of the heart and cardiovascular system. Abnormalities of the heart and larger blood vessels occur in babies born to vitamin A deficient mothers. Butter is America's best and most easily absorbed source of vitamin A.

Butter contains lecithin, a substance that assists in the proper assimilation and metabolism of cholesterol and other fat constituents.

Butter also contains a number of anti-oxidants that protect against the kind of free radical damage that weakens the arteries. Vitamin A and vitamin E found in butter both play a strong anti-oxidant role. Butter is a very rich source of selenium, a vital anti-oxidant--containing more per gram than herring or wheat germ.

Butter is also a good dietary source cholesterol. What?? Cholesterol an anti-oxidant?? Yes indeed, cholesterol is a potent anti-oxidant that is flooded into the blood when we take in too many harmful free-radicals--usually from damaged and rancid fats in margarine and highly processed vegetable oils.3 A Medical Research Council survey showed that men eating butter ran half the risk of developing heart disease as those using margarine.4
Butter & Cancer

In the 1940's research indicated that increased fat intake caused cancer.5 The abandonment of butter accelerated; margarine--formerly a poor man's food-- was accepted by the well-to-do. But there was a small problem with the way this research was presented to the public. The popular press neglected to stress that fact that the "saturated" fats used in these experiments were not naturally saturated fats but partially hydrogenated or hardened fats--the kind found mostly in margarine but not in butter. Researchers stated--they may have even believed it--that there was no difference between naturally saturated fats in butter and artificially hardened fats in margarine and shortening. So butter was tarred with the black brush of the fabricated fats, and in such a way that the villains got passed off as heroes.

Actually many of the saturated fats in butter have strong anti-cancer properties. Butter is rich in short and medium chain fatty acid chains that have strong anti-tumor effects.6 Butter also contains conjugated linoleic acid which gives excellent protection against cancer.7

Vitamin A and the anti-oxidants in butter--vitamin E, selenium and cholesterol--protect against cancer as well as heart disease.
Butter & the Immune System

Vitamin A found in butter is essential to a healthy immune system; short and medium chain fatty acids also have immune system strengthening properties. But hydrogenated fats and an excess of long chain fatty acids found in polyunsaturated oils and many butter substitutes both have a deleterious effect on the immune system.8

Butter & Arthritis

The Wulzen or "anti-stiffness" factor is a nutrient unique to butter. Dutch researcher Wulzen found that it protects against calcification of the joints--degenerative arthritis--as well as hardening of the arteries, cataracts and calcification of the pineal gland.9 Unfortunately this vital substance is destroyed during pasteurization. Calves fed pasteurized milk or skim milk develop joint stiffness and do not thrive. Their symptoms are reversed when raw butterfat is added to the diet.

Butter & Osteoporosis

Vitamins A and D in butter are essential to the proper absorption of calcium and hence necessary for strong bones and teeth. The plague of osteoporosis in milk-drinking western nations may be due to the fact that most people choose skim milk over whole, thinking it is good for them. Butter also has anti-cariogenic effects, that is, it protects against tooth decay.10
Butter & the Thyroid Gland

Butter is a good source of iodine, in highly absorbable form. Butter consumption prevents goiter in mountainous areas where seafood is not available. In addition, vitamin A in butter is essential for proper functioning of the thyroid gland.11

Butter & Gastrointestinal Health

Butterfat contains glycospingolipids, a special category of fatty acids that protect against gastro-intestinal infection, especially in the very young and the elderly. For this reason, children who drink skim milk have diarrhea at rates three to five times greater than children who drink whole milk.12 Cholesterol in butterfat promotes health of the intestinal wall and protects against cancer of the colon.13 Short and medium chain fatty acids protect against pathogens and have strong anti-fungal effects.14 Butter thus has an important role to play in the treatment of candida overgrowth.

Butter & Weight Gain

The notion that butter causes weight gain is a sad misconception. The short and medium chain fatty acids in butter are not stored in the adipose tissue, but are used for quick energy. Fat tissue in humans is composed mainly of longer chain fatty acids.15 These come from olive oil and polyunsaturated oils as well as from refined carbohydrates. Because butter is rich in nutrients, it confers a feeling of satisfaction when consumed. Can it be that consumption of margarine and other butter substitutes results in cravings and bingeing because these highly fabricated products don't give the body what it needs?.

Butter for Growth & Development

Many factors in butter ensure optimal growth of children. Chief among them is vitamin A. Individuals who have been deprived of sufficient vitamin A during gestation tend to have narrow faces and skeletal structure, small palates and crowded teeth.16 Extreme vitamin A deprivation results in blindness, skeletal problems and other birth defects.17 Individuals receiving optimal vitamin A from the time of conception have broad handsome faces, strong straight teeth, and excellent bone structure. Vitamin A also plays an important role in the development of the sex characteristics. Calves fed butter substitutes sicken and die before reaching maturity.18

The X factor, discovered by Dr. Weston Price (and now believed to be vitamin K2), is also essential for optimum growth. It is only present in butterfat from cows on green pasture.19

Cholesterol found in butterfat plays an important role in the development of the brain and nervous system.20 Mother's milk is high in cholesterol and contains over 50 percent of its calories as butterfat. Low fat diets have been linked to failure to thrive in children21--yet low-fat diets are often recommended for youngsters! Children need the many factors in butter and other animal fats for optimal development.
Beyond Margarine

It's no longer a secret that the margarine Americans have been spreading on their toast, and the hydrogenated fats they eat in commercial baked goods like cookies and crackers, is the chief culprit in our current plague of cancer and heart disease.22 But mainline nutrition writers continue to denigrate butter--recommending new fangled tub spreads instead.23 These may not contain hydrogenated fats but they are composed of highly processed rancid vegetable oils, soy protein isolate and a host of additives. A glitzy cookbook called Butter Busters promotes butter buds, made from maltodextrin, a carbohydrate derived from corn, along with dozens of other highly processed so-called low-fat commercial products.

Who benefits from the propaganda blitz against butter? The list is a long one and includes orthodox medicine, hospitals, the drug companies and food processors. But the chief beneficiary is the large corporate farm and the cartels that buy their products--chiefly cotton, corn and soy--America's three main crops, which are usually grown as monocultures on large farms, requiring extensive use of artificial fertilizers and pesticides. All three--soy, cotton and corn--can be used to make both margarine and the new designer spreads. In order to make these products acceptable to the up-scale consumer, food processors and agribusiness see to it that they are promoted as health foods. We are fools to believe them.

Incidentally, when I changed my diet lifestyle (note, I did not "go on a diet"), the first thing I did was throw out the PAM and get rid of all the polyunsaturated, cheap vegetable oils and started buying Anchor butter...the only butter I could find in the stores here that came from 100% grass fed, free range cows.

That and saved bacon grease drippings from free range, organic bacon, and extra virgin coconut oil became my primary cooking oils. These three fats are fully saturated, which is what protects them from high heat oxidization.

I'll occasionally add extra-virgin olive oil to my sautee's...but only at the end of the cooking, as EOO is very sensitive to heat, and will break down and oxidize very quickly.

Butter, as a saturated fat, is very stable.

Aside from that, jason, have you ever tried lard in your baking?

I recently had a BBQ party at my house, and I made my own hamburger buns and hot dog rolls by using organic whole wheat flour, honey as the sugar, and used the butter, extra virgin macadamia nut oil and bacon grease as the oils.

I had my guests tell me it was the best hamburger and hot dog buns they ever tasted... [Big Grin]

Oh, and one more thing - awhile back, I was on one of my typical rants about how commercial breads are loaded with high fructose corn syrup, soybean oil, and other garbage.

You wrote that I shouldn't be buying bread anyways, it's much better to bake it yourself.

Well, I have pretty much limited my grains consumption dramatically, but I WILL occasionally eat something like a homemade pizze, calzone, or hamburgers & hot dog buns. Like I said...I'm not militant about my diet. But when I do "splurge," I like to make my own breads because I know exactly what's in them...only wholesome, organic ingredients.

Anyhow, thanks to your suggestion back then, I went back into my closet and pulled out the bread machine my wife and I received as a wedding present 11 years ago. I blew all the dust off, cleaned it out, and have gained quite a bit of kudos from a number of family and friends for making my own breads and rolls and bringing them to parties and giving them away.

I never thanked you back then for giving me that idea...so here it is now: thanks, dude. [Smile]

[ July 10, 2009, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: Daruma28 ]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Cancer Project begins with the following on its website,
quote:
The World Health Organization has determined that dietary factors account for at least 30 percent of all cancers in Western countries and up to 20 percent in developing countries. When cancer researchers started to search for links between diet and cancer, one of the most noticeable findings was that people who avoided meat were much less likely to develop the disease. Large studies in England and Germany showed that vegetarians were about 40 percent less likely to develop cancer compared to meat eaters. In the United States, researchers studied Seventh-day Adventists, a religious group that is remarkable because, although nearly all members avoid tobacco and alcohol and follow generally healthful lifestyles, about half of the Adventist population is vegetarian, while the other half consumes modest amounts of meat. This fact allowed scientists to separate the effects of eating meat from other factors. Overall, these studies showed significant reductions in cancer risk among those who avoided meat. In contrast, Harvard studies showed that daily meat eaters have approximately three times the colon cancer risk, compared to those who rarely eat meat.
While one may doubt the exact WHO figures, which they sensibly express as a minumum, the belief that a vegetarian diet prevents some cancers while a diet high in meat causes others comes from population studies and not from scientific research. The Diet and Cancer Research page on that website reports efforts to confirm the results from such population studies by measuring how much meat people eat, and then waiting to see whether they get cancer - and I agree reliance on self-reported diets is dubious for this purpose.

Now someone could argue that Americans eat mostly beef, and that almost all cattle have some carcinogen added to their feed which accumulates in their flesh, and that beef from cattle fed a different diet would be harmless. And that might be true, and the high quality beef you choose to eat may not cause cancer. But the correlation between eating meat frequently and getting cancer is in itself well established at the present time, whatever its cause may be.

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  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 
But the correlation between eating meat frequently and getting cancer is in itself well established at the present time, whatever its cause may be.

Nah...there's more. The more I look into it, the more I find out that all of these correlations are almost entirely dependent on self-reporting questionnaires. One of the more famous ones was a food study that was given by the NIH surveying AARP members.

It had the exact same kind of questions asked...in which they lumped in pizza, hotdogs, and other fare in with "red meat."

Personally, I think it's all a bunch of bologna, promoted so that the big agricultural corporations can purposely create the "FAT FREE/REDUCED FAT" paradigm to fool people into thinking they're eating healthy simply by avoiding meat and dairy.

Hey, if it's "Plant-based" it must be alright!

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 
eating meat WITH a lot of grains and/or legumes? Eating meat in context of what?

EAt a buncha good food, in caqriety, eat less than more. That's healthy.

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 
variety

caqriety is some fussy French word meaning 'diversity of social obnoxiousness'

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Daruma28:
Personally, I think it's all a bunch of bologna, promoted so that the big agricultural corporations can purposely create the "FAT FREE/REDUCED FAT" paradigm to fool people into thinking they're eating healthy simply by avoiding meat and dairy.

While I agree with mayn of your points here, you keep conflating "fat" and "meat" in ways that really weaken your point because they're two separate issues. Types of fat (and that includes dary products) are players in the cholesterol/heart disease debate, red meat- even lean red meat- is what has been statistcally correlated with cancer rates, not the fat, and fats aren't even suggested to play a role except in opportunist jabs as saturated fats.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, I found the Adventist studies suggestive. But I do eat moderate amounts of meat anyway.
Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kuato goat milk is lower in bacteria, lower in lactose and the fats are more easily digestible. It doesn't need to be homogonized or even pasturized (though you might not want to roll the dice on that.)

I go through phases with my lactose intollerance and I've been in one of my more intollerant phases lately. I got some raw goat milk from a farmer a couple weeks ago. I was able to drink it straight with no ill effects which I can't do with cow's milk. THe only difference in taste was that it had a slightly meaty taste. However if you're going to mix it in protien shakes you probably won't notice.

Camel's milk is very low in lactose but good luck finding that. [Smile]

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You need some saturated fat. Too much is unhealthy. Increasing the percentage of your energy intake that is saturated fat from 5%-12% doubles your risk of fatal heart disease. Trans fat we really don't need, and eating more than 1% of your daily energy intake in that form is just stupid. A diet that is about 25% fat is pretty damn healthy, as long as the fats are primarily from things like olive oil, nuts, whole grains, legumes.
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  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 
PSRT - have you read nothing in this thread?

You can have a diet that is almost exclusively saturated fat...like the inuit, the masai and the Lakota did prior to Westernization, and not get any heart disease.

You're echoing the politically correct conventional wisdom for which I have offered you the links and resources to show you that the whole "saturated fats causes heart disease" and "red meat" causes cancer were in fact NOT SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN!

These meme's are sourced from statistical manipulations of self-reported questionnaire results, not the results of any actual rigorous scientific investigation.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Masai and the Lakota grew grains, so I do not know offhand what percentage of their diet came from meat. But the Inuit had to live mostly on meat and fish, because vegetable foods where they lived were scarce and available mostly in the summer months. I would guess they survived unharmed in part because extreme cold creates such a need for calories that men exposed to it will happily wolf down a pound of butter to relieve that craving. Also they died young, for the most part, and heart disease and so forth usually do not show themselves at a young age. But their diet does raise questions.

Incidentally the percentage of fat in one's diet can be reduced by heavy consumption of protein also. Many fish are quite lean, and if the primitive Inuit lived largely on those I am not sure they had a high fat diet. They certainly celebrated seals as of tremendous symbolic value in their culture, but that does not mean seals were necessarily what they typically ate. Some African tribes similarly celebrate elephants as a source of food; but that does not mean they primarily ate elephants, which are very hard to kill and must be eaten promptly in the African heat.

[ July 13, 2009, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: hobsen ]

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You can have a diet that is almost exclusively saturated fat...like the inuit, the masai and the Lakota did prior to Westernization, and not get any heart disease.
You mean people who died by the time they were 30 prior to westernization? Of course they got heart disease after westernization... their life expectancies doubled, and heart disease is usually a mid-life or later disease.

Among modern maasai, their level of athletic fitness is extremely high, and they add bitter barks and roots to their diet which lower their cholesterol levels. Those maasai who do not add these barks, have heart disease. Huh. Funny. People with lower cholesterol have less heart disease. Their diet as a whole is also not that far off 5-7% saturated fat, containing a high level of protein, and carbohydrates.

What I'm "quoting" to you in my above post is evidence gathered from tens of thousands of people across cultures and diets, tracked for over a decade. The people who ate more saturated fat (in particular long chain saturated fats) had a higher incidence of fatal and non-fatal heart disease.

You can go your own route and eat a diet high in long chain saturated fats. When you have heart disease in your 50's though, I won't be shocked.

Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  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:
You mean people who died by the time they were 30 prior to westernization?
Why do people always automatically default to this fallacy? Yeah, a hunter/gatherer - nomadic tribal lifestyle is certainly risky in terms of dying from warfare, or accidents in extreme geographical environments...but degenerative diseases of the Western diet (most cancers, heart disease, clogged arteries and diabetes) were almost non-existent amongst such populations.

And the Lakota lived off of a diet of 80% buffalo meat and fat, and about 20% came from fish, dog, chicken, and whatever fruits they would gather when they were in season. The Lakota were not carb eaters.

The Masai live almost exclusively off of milk, blood and meat from cows.

PSRT, low cholesterol is much more deadly a condition than high cholesterol.

You parrot conventional wisdom, and I say to you, that the stuff you are repeating is unprovable lies.

Please, show me a link to the study that proves the saturated fat - heart disease link...

...because I can and will show you a host of evidence that debunks it.

That's because I already know the source of the claim you are ignorantly repeating here: it was all based on Ancel Key's studies on meat consumption in which he compared meat consumption amongst several countries to reach his biased, mistaken conclusion...which soon became the conventional wisdom.

PSRT - use your common sense: we have heart disease amongst the masses as a freakin' epidemic right now...and yet, at no time have we ever had such a large population that has largely taken saturated fats out of their diets en masse like we have in the last 30 years.

quote:
]Heart disease was rare in America at the turn of the century. Between 1920 and 1960, the incidence of heart disease rose precipitously to become America's number one killer. During the same period butter consumption plummeted from eighteen pounds per person per year to four.
Do your research. Don't be a useful idiot for the vast government/corporate interests that care only about profits and not health.

The reason why this whole "plant based" zeitgeist is pushed relentlessly by Government Agencies on the receiving end of giant agribusiness corporation's largess is simply into fooling the masses into thinking fat is bad so that everyone buys and consumes all of their processed garbage like crackers, cookies, and the million and one food products made out of the three largest, most profitable grain crops - soy, corn and cotton.

Just look inside any grocery store, anywhere USA. Is not every 3rd item contain some sort of "fat free" or "reduced fat" marketing claim on it?

Yet we've got heart disease killing people every day in this country.

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 
Here, just a quick googling...brought me to a blog that discussed some various results from REAL scientific studies...not statistical manipulations using questionnaire data.

On in particular references the Framingham Heart Study

quote:
In fact, the “diet-heart hypothesis”, which is the scientific name for the idea that eating cholesterol causes heart disease, has even been discounted by the researchers who were responsible for its genesis. Ancel Keys, who in many ways can be considered the “father” of the cholesterol-heart disease hypothesis, had this to say in 1997:

“There’s no connection whatsoever between the cholesterol in food and cholesterol in the blood. And we’ve known that all along. Cholesterol in the diet doesn’t matter at all unless you happen to be a chicken or a rabbit.”

This is a reference to early studies performed on chickens and rabbits where they force-fed these animals high-levels of cholesterol. Since rabbits and chickens are mostly vegetarian, their physiology is not adapted for processing such large amounts of dietary cholesterol, so it’s no surprise they developed atherosclerosis. The mistake was assuming that the results of this experiment could be extrapolated to humans, who are omnivores with significant differences in physiology.

The second tenet of the cholesterol-heart disease hypothesis, the notion that high cholesterol levels in the blood cause heart disease, is referred to as the “lipid hypothesis” in the scientific community. Though it still accepted as gospel truth by the general public and many medical professionals, most researchers now believe the primary causes of heart disease are inflammation and oxidative stress. Unfortunately, the rest of us haven’t gotten the memo, so to speak, that cholesterol isn’t the cause of heart disease.

It would take several articles to explain this in complete detail, but I’d like to give at least a brief summary here.

If cholesterol caused heart disease, it should be a risk factor in 1) all ages, 2) both sexes and 3) all populations around the world (barring any protective factor, of course). Also, if cholesterol caused heart disease we would expect that lowering cholesterol would reduce heart disease. But none of these assumptions turn out to be true.

The rate of heart disease in 65-year old men is ten times that of 45-year old men. Yet a recent study in the Journal of American Medical Association indicated that high LDL cholesterol is not a risk factor for from coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality or total mortality (death from any cause). It is extremely unlikely that a risk factor for a disease would stop being a risk factor at a time when that disease kills the greatest number of people. That is akin to suggesting that smoking causes lung cancer in young men, but somehow stops doing so in older men!

Another consistent thorn in the side of supporters of the “lipid hypothesis” is that women suffer 300% less heart disease than men, in spite of having higher average cholesterol levels. At the recent Conference on Low Blood Cholesterol, which reviewed 11 major studies including 125,000 women, it was determined that there was absolutely no relationship between total cholesterol levels and mortality from cardiovascular or any other causes.

Nor is cholesterol a risk factor in all populations around the world. In fact, some of the populations with the highest levels of blood cholesterol have among the lowest rates of heart disease, and vice versa. Dr. Malcom Kendrick, a well-known skeptic of the lipid-hypothesis, explains this very well in the video below:

Finally, more than 40 trials have been performed to determine whether lowering cholesterol levels can prevent heart disease. In some trials heart disease rates went down, in others they went up. But when the results of all of the trials were taken together, just as many people died in the treatment groups (who had their cholesterol levels lowered by drugs) as in the control groups (who had no treatment).

If you’re still skeptical after reading all of this, perhaps William Castelli, the director of the famed Framingham Heart Study mentioned above can convince you:

“Serum cholesterol is not a strong risk factor for CHD, in the sense that blood pressure is a strong risk factor for stroke or cigarette smoking is a risk factor for lung cancer.”

Or how about Frederick Stare, a long-time American Heart Association member and (former) proponent of the lipid hypothesis:

“The cholesterol factor is of minor importance as a risk factor in CVD. Of far more importance are smoking, hypertension, obesity, diabetes, insufficient physical activity, and stress.”

So there you have it. Contrary to popular belief, cholesterol is not a dangerous poison that causes heart disease. Rather, it is an essential nutrient present in the cell membranes of all tissues of all mammals, and has some very important functions in the body. In fact, in many studies low cholesterol has been associated with an increase in total mortality!

Again, the Framingham Study which followed 15,000 participants over three generations:

“There is a direct association between falling cholesterol levels over the first 14 years and mortality over the following 18 years.”

In other words, as cholesterol fell death rates went up.

The Honolulu Heart Program study, with 8,000 participants, published in 2001:

“Long-term persistence of low cholesterol concentration actually increases the risk of death. Thus, the earlier the patients start to have lower cholesterol concentrations, the greater the risk of death.”

And finally, the huge Japanese Lipid Intervention Trial with over 47,000 participants:

“The highest death rate observed was among those with lowest cholesterol (under 160mg/dl); lowest death rate observed was with those whose cholesterol was between 200-259mg/dl”

In other words, those with the lowest cholesterol had the highest death rate, and those with cholesterol levels that would today be called “dangerous” had the lowest death rate.

As you can see, not only does high cholesterol not cause heart disease, low cholesterol can actually be dangerous to your health. So toss out your vegetable oil and start eating butter and eggs again! But more on that next week…


Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Four counter points-

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

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

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/303/6794/89

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

Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  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 
Counterpoint? Have you even bothered trying to read and comprehend exactly what you are citing...or did you just google up some links and post them as some sort of grand rebuttal?

Point 1: A cross study of Ischeamic heart disease...a study of folks that already have clogged arteries...and how lowering their serum levels can prevent such people from having a heart attack. Read it over, and you'll see it's really a study on the efficacy of statin medications on people who ALREADY have heart disease or are on the verge. Nowhere does it show whether or not dietary cholesterol intake is implicated or exonerated in causing heart disease!

Point 2: This was a follow up study done on Ancel Keys initial 7 country study. Again, it simply took baseline measurements amongst a certain population of males and than took measurements again 15 years later, and tracked that with CHD rates and drew conclusions...nothing truly scientific about studying actual cholesterol in the diet! They don't study particular diets and their effects, they generalize an entire population based on popular quisine - i.e. Japanese have lower cholesterol, therefore Japanese diet is superior.

Sorry, not buying that either.

From Stop-Trans-Fats.com

quote:
The most famous, and most often cited, work of Ancel Keys was the Seven Countries Study – a 20-year study of about 12,000 men between the ages of 40 and 59 from 16 communities in Italy, the Greek islands, Yugoslavia, the Netherlands, Finland, Japan and the United States.

The Seven Countries Study is said to “prove” that countries with the highest saturated fat consumption had the highest rates of heart disease.

Subsequent researchers had criticised this Seven Countries Study and pointed out serious flaws. But these criticisms were largely ignored and the theory that saturated fatss “cause” heart disease became widely accepted.

The Seven Countries in Ancel Keys study were said to have been chosen for their contrasting dietary patterns and the relative uniformity of their rural labouring populations.

However, a major criticism is that Ancel Keys had chosen to study only those countries where both saturated fats consumption and heart disease were high. He ignored other countries that ate similar diet but had low rates of heart disease.

The statistician Russell H. Smith had this to say about the Seven Countries Study:

“The dietary assessment methodology was highly inconsistent across cohorts and thoroughly suspect. In addition, careful examination of the death rates and associations between diet and death rates reveal a massive set of inconsistencies and contradictions. . .

It is almost inconceivable that the Seven Countries study was performed with such scientific abandon. It is also dumbfounding how the NHLBI/AHA alliance ignored such sloppiness in their many "rave reviews" of the study. . .

In summary, the diet-CHD relationship reported for the Seven Countries study cannot be taken seriously by the objective and critical scientist."

– Diet, Blood Cholesterol and Coronary Heart Disease:
A Critical Review of the Literature, Volume 2, November 1991


Point 3: It's primary conclusion: Reducing plasma cholesterol concentrations in middle age may influence the risk of death from coronary heart disease in old age.

Translation: manipulating the statistics between men who died of heart disease and their measurements of plasma cholesterol concentrations to support an otherwise unprovable theory.

Again, PSRT - go and read your "points" in depth. In all three of your 4 points I've looked at so far, they are all based on simply looking at cholesterol readings of certain selected populations, than making statements about heart disease and death and the statistical probabilities associated...but where is the REAL SCIENCE? The double blind studies? The Control Group? A careful monitoring of test subjects diet?

Where is the research here that distinctly points out that cholesterol levels are linked to saturated fat intake?

As pointed out in the initial criticism of Ancel Keys 7 country study, there are plenty of other foods that are in common in the diet other than saturated fats...like refined sugars, refined flours, and the preponderance of processed vegetable oils and trans fats.

Scientists that have actually conducted actual research on the physiological effects of eating saturated fats have found in fact that saturated fats has almost no effect on how much cholesterol your body produces...but more importantly what KIND of cholesterol your body produces!

What is far more important to track here is not whether you have "high" or "low" cholesterol, but the ratio of HDL to LDL, as well as the density of the lipoproteins themselves.

Point 4...now here's the best one yet.

It did a statistical analysis of the Framingham study.

I refer you to Michael Eades, M.D., and his blog, in which he debunks the conclusions of the Framingham study...

Framingham Follies

quote:
The dietary studies were performed using a couple of techniques described here and here (both are large PDF files). Basically, researchers interviewed the subjects multiple times over the study period using a fairly complex Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ). (From a previous post you should know that I'm not a big fan of FFQs, but in this case with the kind of attention to detail the interviewers used, the FFQ has some value.

What did they find?

In terms of caloric balance vis a vis serum cholesterol they discovered that

calories per day showed a slight negative association with serum cholesterol (over all age groups) in men but no association in women.

In other words the more calories the men consumed, the lower were their serum cholesterol levels. Obviously, this wasn't what the researchers expected to find.

This finding is somewhat puzzling and it is reasonable to inquire if this is related in some way to the level of physical activity.

Typical research thinking: if we don't get the data that is consistent with our hypothesis, we must have overlooked something. It seems that the idea that maybe the hypothesis is wrong never crosses their minds.

In this case, they were banking on the idea that perhaps those subjects who ate more may have been more physically active and thus have lower cholesterol levels than those who ate less but were sedentary. After fiddling around with the different levels of activity of the subjects, the data fesses up:

Men in the same physical activity class tend to have higher serum cholesterol levels at lower caloric intake. This finding is contrary to expectation. [I'll bet it was.]

In other words, even after correcting for differing levels of physical activity, the correlation remains the same: those subjects with lower caloric intake tended to have higher levels of cholesterol and vice versa.

What about fat intake?

Paralleling the findings for total calories there is a slight negative association between daily intake of total fat (and also of animal fat) with serum cholesterol level, in men but not in women. This parallel is not surprising given the high correlation between fat intake and total caloric intake. No association between percent of calories from fat and serum cholesterol level was shown; nor between ratio of plant fat to animal fat intake and serum cholesterol level.

How about protein?

There was a trivial negative correlation between daily protein intake (in grams) and serum cholesterol level.

Dietary cholesterol?

There is no indication of a relationship between dietary cholesterol and serum cholesterol level. If the intake on animal fat is held constant there is still no relation of cholesterol intake to serum cholesterol level. If (further) a multiple regression is calculated [using animal fat and dietary cholesterol] there is also little suggestion of an association between this pair of variables and serum cholesterol level.

The researchers weren't going to give up easily.

The failure to turn up any positive association between food intake and serum cholesterol level in the Framingham Diet Study led to the exploration of a large number of variant analyses. [In other words, maybe if we torture the data unmercifully, it will confess to anything. Alas, for them, this wasn't the case.] These were uniformly unsuccessful in finding expected relationships. Only a fraction of these explorations are included in this report.

When it comes to diet and coronary heart disease, nothing changes.

In undertaking the diet study at Framingham the primary interest was, of course, in the relation of diet to the development of coronary heart disease (CHD). It was felt, however, that any such relationship would be an indirect one, diet influencing serum cholesterol level and serum cholesterol level influencing the risk of CHD. However, no relationship could be discerned within the study cohort between food intake and serum cholesterol level.

In the period between the taking of the diet interviews and the end of the 16-year follow-up, 47 cases of de novo CHD developed in the Diet Study group. The means for all the diet variables measured were practically the same for these cases as for the original cohort at risk. There is, in short, no suggestion of any relation between diet and the subsequent development of CHD in the study group...

The study conclusions:

With one exception there was no discernible association between reported diet intake and serum cholesterol level in the Framingham Diet Study Group. The one exception was a weak negative association between caloric intake and serum cholesterol level in men. [As to] coronary heart disease--was it related prospectively to diet. No relationship was found.

So, I would say that the results of this study were pretty clear. These guys tried as hard as they could to show a correlation between diet and serum cholesterol and between diet and the incidence of coronary heart disease, but failed. The data conclusively demonstrated no such correlations.

Did you read my earlier posts and all the associated links, PSRT...ya know, the ones about which the researchers used self-reporting QUESTIONNAIRES to determine the subject's diets?!?!

EVEN using self-reporting questionnaires, the Framingham study researchers couldn't establish the link between dietary saturated fat intake and serum cholesterol levels!

PSRT - you want to cling to your notions of nutritional conventional wisdom based on statistical manipulations...be my guest. But trying to debunk me by simply citing links to studies that grasp at straws to blame saturated fats to heart disease is really, really weak.

Not one of those links show or prove what you think they do.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Your brain is made up of cholesterol and water... What happens to the brain when a person takes cholesterol-lowering drugs?

Furthermore, high cholesterol can be a SYMPTOM of illness; it is not an illness in and of itself.

If you have a cold and take a decongestant (ie a drug that treats a symptom), and you can breath easy for a few hours, do you say your cold has been cured?

Studies have showed that patients on statins have a SLIGHTLY HIGHER incidence of death by heart attack… So the conventional wisdom is a statin will lower your cholesterol which will then promote healthy heart function, right?

Give me a pasture raised organic beef hamburger over a Boca burger any day – has anyone else ever read their label? GMO soy, GMO corn, soy protein isolate (MSG precursor), and so on. Umm, umm good.

What I’d like to see is the incidence of cancer and immune-compromising illnesses in vegetarians who eat this garbage.

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is a must watch/read for everyone, IMO. I had no idea how much of a CF creating GMO's is, and the crap that goes into the modified cells.
The Risks of GM food

For example, who knows:
- The genes are so small, there's no way to get them into a cell other than shooting them into a group of cells and hoping they stick.
- In order to identify the gene sticks, an antibiotic resistant gene is also shot in. Then they dose the entire batch with antibiotics; whatever doesn't die has the new genes.
- There's no way to guarentee the new gene will turn on, so they also add in a "switch" gene that tells it to turn on 24/7.

So, with such an inexact science, what happens when the switch gene turns on the wrong gene?
What happens with those antibiotic resistant genes?

What happens when these genes mutate/jump in our guts? What if that "switch" gene gets into, for example, your colon cells?

It is illegal to label food as non-GMO in the US. Thank the food lobies for that.

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You are concerned that nuclear material from food cells is going to somehow insert itself into the nucleus of cells in the digestive tract? Really?
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Watch the video - it was shown that, at least, the roundup resistance has transferred. Dissected rats also showed abnormal cell growth after eating a GM diet.

The assumption is that would all be destroyed by digestion, but that is an incorrect assumption.

IIRC it's called genetic drift and it's not unheard of. For example, the infamous swine flu is a result of combining at least 3 other types of flu.

[ July 14, 2009, 10:34 AM: Message edited by: Colin JM0397 ]

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And straight off the "no sh!t, Sherlock" presses: Fat women have fat daughters


Someone actually pays good money for such studies? Next study up: men who bang head against wall 100% more likely to suffer from headaches.

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Studies have showed that patients on statins have a SLIGHTLY HIGHER incidence of death by heart attack
No. Studies have shown that a subset of users of statins who have an elevated level of phospholipid transferprotein prior to taking statins are at a heightened risk of heart disease while taking statins.

article

If you have studies that show what you claim, could you please link them?

Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  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 
"You can have a diet that is almost exclusively saturated fat...like the inuit, the masai and the Lakota did prior to Westernization, and not get any heart disease."

with their lifestyle and hereditary metabolism, sure. You try living on the diet in metro USA somewhere not too cold, and we'll see.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
PSRT - google away. I've run across it several times now over the past few months. You are welcome to track it down if you're interested... I am no one's Google Bitch!

Damn! Just when I think I've coined a clever new term, it's already done been coined: Urban Dictionary

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I did google, and the closest I found to your claim in terms of evidence from scientific studies was what I linked to above.

I believe you are wrong, Colin.

On another note, I may or may not get to Daruma's nonsense today. I'll try to get there in the next few days.

Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Believe away all you want...
You're splitting hairs - add "some" to what I said and it's now magically accurate (according to that link you provided). Neat how that works, isn't it?

You want to take statins, by all means knock yourself out. I'll never take one, and that's about all I care inasmuch as this discussion goes. Read the article; there are many more worries than increased risk of heart attack.

Speaking of statins and Natural News

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
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