Re: Negative study on saturated fat? Any thoughts?

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/7/03 2:19:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

paultheo2000@... writes:

> Could you explain how Price's work refutes the contention that

> saturated fat is bad? (I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but curious on

> your justification). If societies consuming saturated fat unhealthy it

> may well be inspite of their saturated fat use (ie: avoiding sugar,

> exercising, etc.)

The most convincing would be Mann's work, who studied the Masai, one

of the peoples Price studied. He went so far as to take 50 hearts and aortas

back to the United States from deceased Masai and examined them to find that

not one of them had any evidence that the person died of myocardial infarction.

The Masai subsist almost wholly on meat, blood and milk.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Dear , I was not able to locate the specific study you referred?

Any ideas on how to access it? Do you have the complete title?

Thanks, Bee

> Someone gave me this link to a pubmed study with a negative review

> concerning saturated fat. Is it flawed? It seems quite convincing to

> me- but I don't know what to think anymore!

>

> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

cmd=Retrieve & db=PubMed & list_uids=9366580 & dopt=Abstract

>

> -

[Guest guest]

Bee-

You may have to paste the end of the link in your browser. The link is

good.

It may have broken into 2 parts:

1)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

2)

cmd=Retrieve & db=PubMed & list_uids=9366580 & dopt=Abstract

make sure you have both 1 & 2 , all on one line - in your browser " address "

window.

Try it again ;-)

(different one)

Re: Negative study on saturated fat? Any

thoughts?

> Dear , I was not able to locate the specific study you referred?

> Any ideas on how to access it? Do you have the complete title?

>

> Thanks, Bee

>

> > Someone gave me this link to a pubmed study with a negative review

> > concerning saturated fat. Is it flawed? It seems quite convincing to

> > me- but I don't know what to think anymore!

> >

> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

> cmd=Retrieve & db=PubMed & list_uids=9366580 & dopt=Abstract

> >

> > -

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Firstly, a significant conclusion canNOT ever be drawn by looking at

a single abstract. There is little detail given here other than

what the authors would like to be seen in the abstract. This

doesn't mean its necessarily a bad study just simply that without

and study constructs, methods, analysis, etc... no significant

conclusion is possible. Which leads me to Secondly...

Secondly, I am so sick and tired of this ridiculous question. (not

by you , just in general). Price's work stands all by itself

refuting all the baloney perpetrated on this culture regarding the

NON issue of saturated fat. Until a real and honest scientist comes

out with a study without agenda that provides real food for real

people and studies their effect these studies should just be ignored.

First and foremost I find " survey style " studies to be ridiculous.

Docs will be the first to tell you they can't get a straight answer

from a patient when they want to know what they ate yesterday.

Can't get them to comply with the simplest of demands such as take a

drug on schedule. So someone please tell me how it is that they are

going to get and acurate study surveying people over a period in

excess of 10 years. What a joke! Second this study does the same

garbage most studies do, too many generalizations (likely in an

effort to fulfill a particular bias). What's a carbohydrate in this

study a krispy creme doughnut (loaded with UNsaturated fat I might

add) or is a carbohydrate a blueberrry? What's protein? A peanut

from a snickers bar or factory farm hormone layden steak? What's

saturated fat? The fat on the factory farm hormone layden steak or

from a battery chicken egg or from a krispy kreme? What's

unsaturated fat? Wesson oil or Corn oil or margarine (literally 1

molecule removed from plastic). My point is either this abstract

really leaves out an enormous amount of significant details OR if

these people are scientists I am a conservative liberal gay

uncircumcised rapper waiting to get married. (That last part's in

tribute to Suze);-)

DMM

> > > Someone gave me this link to a pubmed study with a negative

review

> > > concerning saturated fat. Is it flawed? It seems quite

convincing to

> > > me- but I don't know what to think anymore!

> > >

> > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

> > cmd=Retrieve & db=PubMed & list_uids=9366580 & dopt=Abstract

> > >

> > > -

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

>Someone gave me this link to a pubmed study with a negative review

>concerning saturated fat. Is it flawed? It seems quite convincing to

>me- but I don't know what to think anymore!

>

><http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve & db=PubMed & list_uids\

=9366580 & dopt=Abstract>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retriev\

e & db=PubMed & list_uids=9366580 & dopt=Abstract

>

>-

Wow, thanks! Actually I think it's good news ...

" Total fat intake was not signficantly related to the risk of coronary disease "

That is really significant! The mainstream now firmly believes that some fats

are ok.

I have ZERO doubt that an increase in *saturated* fat causes an increase in

heart disease, in America. Why? Because for 99.99 percent of the people, the fat

comes from grain fed animals (in meat or milk) fed a bunch of drugs, and THAT

fat encourages inflammation plus it's full of toxins no doubt. Also a lot of the

fat in the SAD comes from processed meats that are full of preservatives, and

they don't mention that they excluded those (the nitrates were what made the

" meat causes cancer argument -- take out the nitrates, and meat doesn't cause

cancer).

As for trans fats causing problems, well, we all knew that.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

So, for someone like me who can't get grass-fed meat or raw milk, I

should just give up on most saturated fat? Maybe I'll stick to Organic

(but pasteurized butter) and coconut variations?

-

>

> >Someone gave me this link to a pubmed study with a negative review

> >concerning saturated fat. Is it flawed? It seems quite convincing to

> >me- but I don't know what to think anymore!

> >

>

><http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve & db=PubMed & list_uids\

=9366580 & dopt=Abstract>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retriev\

e & db=PubMed & list_uids=9366580 & dopt=Abstract

> >

> >-

>

> Wow, thanks! Actually I think it's good news ...

>

> " Total fat intake was not signficantly related to the risk of

coronary disease "

> That is really significant! The mainstream now firmly believes that

some fats are ok.

>

> I have ZERO doubt that an increase in *saturated* fat causes an

increase in heart disease, in America. Why? Because for 99.99 percent

of the people, the fat comes from grain fed animals (in meat or milk)

fed a bunch of drugs, and THAT fat encourages inflammation plus it's

full of toxins no doubt. Also a lot of the fat in the SAD comes from

processed meats that are full of preservatives, and they don't mention

that they excluded those (the nitrates were what made the " meat causes

cancer argument -- take out the nitrates, and meat doesn't cause cancer).

>

> As for trans fats causing problems, well, we all knew that.

>

> -- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Could you explain how Price's work refutes the contention that

saturated fat is bad? (I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but curious on

your justification). If societies consuming saturated fat unhealthy it

may well be inspite of their saturated fat use (ie: avoiding sugar,

exercising, etc.)

Your points about how the study are conducted should definitely be

considered though. I wish I knew the details.

-

> > > > Someone gave me this link to a pubmed study with a negative

> review

> > > > concerning saturated fat. Is it flawed? It seems quite

> convincing to

> > > > me- but I don't know what to think anymore!

> > > >

> > > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

> > > cmd=Retrieve & db=PubMed & list_uids=9366580 & dopt=Abstract

> > > >

> > > > -

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

I did not say that saturated fat was an exclusive reason as to why

Prices work deserved such merit. Two words, Eskimo, Masai.

Certainly the lack of sugar and increased activity are part of the

picture but based upon just the sheer amount of sat fat consumed in

Prices observances certainly it cannot be implicated in any way.

DMM

> > > > > Someone gave me this link to a pubmed study with a

negative

> > review

> > > > > concerning saturated fat. Is it flawed? It seems quite

> > convincing to

> > > > > me- but I don't know what to think anymore!

> > > > >

> > > > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

> > > > cmd=Retrieve & db=PubMed & list_uids=9366580 & dopt=Abstract

> > > > >

> > > > > -

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

>So, for someone like me who can't get grass-fed meat or raw milk, I

>should just give up on most saturated fat? Maybe I'll stick to Organic

>(but pasteurized butter) and coconut variations?

>

>-

Good question. Ori seems to think one should limit saturated fat unless you get

good sources, but I'm not sure of all his thinking on that. I've been using

free-range goose fat (they are pretty easy to get, albeit pricy) -- I'm not sure

where that fits in, they are fed grains but birds I hope work differently than

cattle ...

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

I'll play devil's advocate here:

How old were these people? How much exercise did they have?

So many correlations, so many factors involved. I can't say I'm

convinced either way just yet.

-

> In a message dated 9/7/03 2:19:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

> paultheo2000@y... writes:

>

> > Could you explain how Price's work refutes the contention that

> > saturated fat is bad? (I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but curious on

> > your justification). If societies consuming saturated fat unhealthy it

> > may well be inspite of their saturated fat use (ie: avoiding sugar,

> > exercising, etc.)

>

> The most convincing would be Mann's work, who studied the

Masai, one

> of the peoples Price studied. He went so far as to take 50 hearts

and aortas

> back to the United States from deceased Masai and examined them to

find that

> not one of them had any evidence that the person died of myocardial

infarction.

> The Masai subsist almost wholly on meat, blood and milk.

>

> Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>So, for someone like me who can't get grass-fed meat or raw milk, I

>should just give up on most saturated fat? Maybe I'll stick to Organic

>(but pasteurized butter) and coconut variations?

----->first i just want to agree with what heidi posted about the saturated

fat study...it was undoubtedly SADietary saturated fat, which is probably as

bad as it gets in terms of toxins. (credit to scott kroyer for coining

" SADietary fat " .)

second, i think there are some camps that say go ahead and eat it if that's

all you can get, but be sure the rest of your diet isn't SAD. other

suggestions on how to get more healthful sources of saturated fat:

1) mail order raw cheese from grass-fed cows

2) mail order grass-fed meats - there are MANY sources.

3) try http://www.localharvest.org or http://www.eatwild.com to try and

locate sources of grass-fed meats in your vicinity

4) eat organic butter, grass-fed if you can find it (one study of butter

collected from supermarkets in various countries found pcbs, dioxins and

other organophosphates in all samples, i believe. note, it was regular

supermarket butter...probably neither grass-fed or organic)

5) eat pastured and/or organic eggs

i think you can avoid much of the toxin issue with saturated fat if you

stick to these and organic CO. Plus, our bodies are designed to eliminate

toxins, so maybe a little boost to the detoxification system could help

eliminate ingested toxins.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

What would you recommend as a little boost tho the detos system? After many

years in the horticulture industry I shudder to think of the chemicals that

might be lurking in my body.

Amy

RE: Re: Negative study on saturated fat? Any

thoughts?

>So, for someone like me who can't get grass-fed meat or raw milk, I

>should just give up on most saturated fat? Maybe I'll stick to Organic

>(but pasteurized butter) and coconut variations?

----->first i just want to agree with what heidi posted about the saturated

fat study...it was undoubtedly SADietary saturated fat, which is probably as

bad as it gets in terms of toxins. (credit to scott kroyer for coining

" SADietary fat " .)

second, i think there are some camps that say go ahead and eat it if that's

all you can get, but be sure the rest of your diet isn't SAD. other

suggestions on how to get more healthful sources of saturated fat:

1) mail order raw cheese from grass-fed cows

2) mail order grass-fed meats - there are MANY sources.

3) try http://www.localharvest.org or http://www.eatwild.com to try and

locate sources of grass-fed meats in your vicinity

4) eat organic butter, grass-fed if you can find it (one study of butter

collected from supermarkets in various countries found pcbs, dioxins and

other organophosphates in all samples, i believe. note, it was regular

supermarket butter...probably neither grass-fed or organic)

5) eat pastured and/or organic eggs

i think you can avoid much of the toxin issue with saturated fat if you

stick to these and organic CO. Plus, our bodies are designed to eliminate

toxins, so maybe a little boost to the detoxification system could help

eliminate ingested toxins.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

SAD stands for Standard American Diet. Crap food and crap fats!

Elainie

[Guest guest]

Forgive my ignorance, but what is SAD?

-

> >So, for someone like me who can't get grass-fed meat or raw milk, I

> >should just give up on most saturated fat? Maybe I'll stick to Organic

> >(but pasteurized butter) and coconut variations?

>

>

> ----->first i just want to agree with what heidi posted about the

saturated

> fat study...it was undoubtedly SADietary saturated fat, which is

probably as

> bad as it gets in terms of toxins. (credit to scott kroyer for coining

> " SADietary fat " .)

>

> second, i think there are some camps that say go ahead and eat it if

that's

> all you can get, but be sure the rest of your diet isn't SAD. other

> suggestions on how to get more healthful sources of saturated fat:

>

> 1) mail order raw cheese from grass-fed cows

> 2) mail order grass-fed meats - there are MANY sources.

> 3) try http://www.localharvest.org or http://www.eatwild.com to try and

> locate sources of grass-fed meats in your vicinity

> 4) eat organic butter, grass-fed if you can find it (one study of butter

> collected from supermarkets in various countries found pcbs, dioxins and

> other organophosphates in all samples, i believe. note, it was regular

> supermarket butter...probably neither grass-fed or organic)

> 5) eat pastured and/or organic eggs

>

> i think you can avoid much of the toxin issue with saturated fat if you

> stick to these and organic CO. Plus, our bodies are designed to

eliminate

> toxins, so maybe a little boost to the detoxification system could help

> eliminate ingested toxins.

>

>

> Suze Fisher

> Lapdog Design, Inc.

> Web Design & Development

> http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

> Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

> http://www.westonaprice.org

>

> ----------------------------

> " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

> heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. "

--

> Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

> University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

>

> The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

> <http://www.thincs.org>

> ----------------------------

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/7/03 8:47:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

paultheo2000@... writes:

> I'll play devil's advocate here:

>

> How old were these people? How much exercise did they have?

>

> So many correlations, so many factors involved. I can't say I'm

> convinced either way just yet.

I don't know, but people get heart attacks pretty young. It is irrelevant

anyway, as they were also found to have no athersclerotic legions, which occurs

well before heart attacks.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/7/03 11:49:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> 5) eat pastured and/or organic eggs

I mostly agree with your suggestions, but eggs are not a significant source

of saturated fat.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Well I definitely appreciate you bringing up that point; I'll mention

it to the guy who showed me the study to see what he thinks.

-

> In a message dated 9/7/03 8:47:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

> paultheo2000@y... writes:

>

> > I'll play devil's advocate here:

> >

> > How old were these people? How much exercise did they have?

> >

> > So many correlations, so many factors involved. I can't say I'm

> > convinced either way just yet.

>

> I don't know, but people get heart attacks pretty young. It is

irrelevant

> anyway, as they were also found to have no athersclerotic legions,

which occurs

> well before heart attacks.

>

> Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

>>Could you explain how Price's work refutes the contention that

>>saturated fat is bad? (I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but curious on

>>your justification). If societies consuming saturated fat unhealthy it

>>may well be inspite of their saturated fat use (ie: avoiding sugar,

>>exercising, etc.)

>

>

> The most convincing would be Mann's work, who studied the Masai, one

> of the peoples Price studied. He went so far as to take 50 hearts and aortas

> back to the United States from deceased Masai and examined them to find that

> not one of them had any evidence that the person died of myocardial

infarction.

> The Masai subsist almost wholly on meat, blood and milk.

It could be that a minor (by amount), and frequently ignored, part of their diet

(e.g. bark tea I've read they consume) is what has kept them healthy. As

said in another message, there are too many factors to determine that saturated

fats (or any other nutrient, for that matter) are OK, based on work of Price and

Mann. BTW, is 50 really enough to draw any conclusion safely? I think that the

only thing we can conclude with certainty is that their way of life has served

them well.

Roman

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/9/03 1:57:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time, romeml@...

writes:

> It could be that a minor (by amount), and frequently ignored, part of their

> diet (e.g. bark tea I've read they consume) is what has kept them healthy.

> As said in another message, there are too many factors to determine that

> saturated fats (or any other nutrient, for that matter) are OK, based on work

> of Price and Mann. BTW, is 50 really enough to draw any conclusion safely? I

> think that the only thing we can conclude with certainty is that their way

> of life has served them well.

Roman,

First, yes I believe 50 randomly selected hearts/aortas out of a small tribal

group is sufficient to draw the conclusion that if heart disease existed

among the population it accounted for less than two percent of deaths.

What we cannot safely conclude is that heart attacks were a) non-existant or

did not exceed one percent. It may well have been that heart attacks

accounted for 1.5% of deaths, and Mann's research does not verify that that is

not

the case.

But whether heart disease accounted for 0%, 0.5%, 1.0%, or 1.5%, it's a safe

conclusion that saturated fat intake does not cause heart diseases, as their

saturated fat intake was/is astronomical.

Of course there are other factors! There are important plant-based nutrients

perhaps (hasn't been studied enough, like you point out, maybe something in

bark tea), exercise, etc. Well, yeah, they *get* _lots_ of exercise? So?

Don't we already know you should get lots of exercise?

Now I reocognize that the research doesn't answer any quesiton we might have,

but if you look at the opposing evidence, you are looking at very good, high

quality evidence, versus poor and almost worthless evidence. It's the

difference between studying a variety of people with a variety of awful diets

that

are emasculated in a variety of ways to a variety of degrees and trying to make

some sense of that, versus studying a population that is *healthy* to see

which things they *do* and which things they *don't do*.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/9/03 8:25:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> ------>why would just one minor component of their diet be THE THING that

> kept them healthy?

Additionally, we don't even have to show what kept them healthy, we simply

need to show that one can eat loads of saturated fat and have no proportionate

increase in CHD-- which the Masai did.

> 9) without dietary saturated fat we wouldn't be getting dietary cholesterol

> which has a number of functions vital to good health. our bodies manufacture

> their own SF and cholesterol, but most likely not enough. our livers can

> produce up to 75% of the cholesterol the body needs, but depending on

> numerous factors (including exposure to air pollution since cholesterol and

> saturated fat protect the lungs from inhaled toxins) our needs could be much

> greater than what we produce endogenously.

One could easily get loads of dietary cholesterol without getting much

saturated fat by eating eggs though, and could get quite a bit without eating

much

fat for that matter at all by eating liver. But the liver seems to make

cholesterol much more easily out of saturated fat than anything else, including

HDL,

which is supposedly preventative of CHD from the mainstream perspective.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> The most convincing would be Mann's work, who studied the Masai,

one

> of the peoples Price studied. He went so far as to take 50 hearts and

aortas

> back to the United States from deceased Masai and examined them to find

that

> not one of them had any evidence that the person died of myocardial

infarction.

> The Masai subsist almost wholly on meat, blood and milk.

>>>It could be that a minor (by amount), and frequently ignored, part of

their diet (e.g. bark tea I've read they consume) is what has kept them

healthy.

------>why would just one minor component of their diet be THE THING that

kept them healthy? that doesn't make sense to me. i would guess it played *a

role* in their health. hey, maybe it contains polyphenolic compounds like

pycogenol that are super antioxidants. but as you said, all we know with

certainty is that their *way of life* served them well.

>>>>As said in another message, there are too many factors to determine

that saturated fats (or any other nutrient, for that matter) are OK, based

on work of Price and Mann.

-------->a couple of things here:

1) there are too many factors to determine that saturated fats are NOT OK,

based on modern research

2) too many studies have found that the amount of dietary

cholesterol/saturated fat have no correlation with the incidence of CHD to

determine that saturated fat is the cause of heart disease

3) when george mann went to study the masai and heart disease in the 60s, he

found that the masai were not dying of heart disease (aside from the 50

hearts he examined).

4) their cholesterol levels were about 50% lower than americans

5) a researcher named tailor, also had 10 masai aortas examined in which

atherosclerosis was nearly absent

6) the masai aortas were wider than most western folk's aortas, probably

from the amount of running they do (herding cattle)

7) some of price's other healthy groups ate a decent amount of saturatef fat

regularly, such as the swiss, who ate butterfat daily in the form of milk

and cheese

8) there is no conclusive evidence that high quality saturated fat is

dangerous. i haven't seen any conclusive evidence that saturated fat *per

se* causes heart disease either - even SADietary SF, although i'd imagine it

could contribute to disease due to toxins and EFA ratio.

9) without dietary saturated fat we wouldn't be getting dietary cholesterol

which has a number of functions vital to good health. our bodies manufacture

their own SF and cholesterol, but most likely not enough. our livers can

produce up to 75% of the cholesterol the body needs, but depending on

numerous factors (including exposure to air pollution since cholesterol and

saturated fat protect the lungs from inhaled toxins) our needs could be much

greater than what we produce endogenously.

so, while we may not be able to conclude beyond a shadow of a doubt that

saturated fat was anything other than a healthful part of the masai diet, as

well as ours, in the context of all the other evidence we have, we can at

least make a reasonable hypothesis that high quality saturated fat is not a

dangerous poison, but is rather part of a healthful diet.

unfortanately though, the well-financed smear campaign against these

traditional nutrients is very effective at making people fear a dietary

component that might improve their health.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

;-)

What she said!

> > The most convincing would be Mann's work, who studied the

Masai,

> one

> > of the peoples Price studied. He went so far as to take 50

hearts and

> aortas

> > back to the United States from deceased Masai and examined them

to find

> that

> > not one of them had any evidence that the person died of

myocardial

> infarction.

> > The Masai subsist almost wholly on meat, blood and milk.

>

> >>>It could be that a minor (by amount), and frequently ignored,

part of

> their diet (e.g. bark tea I've read they consume) is what has kept

them

> healthy.

>

> ------>why would just one minor component of their diet be THE

THING that

> kept them healthy? that doesn't make sense to me. i would guess it

played *a

> role* in their health. hey, maybe it contains polyphenolic

compounds like

> pycogenol that are super antioxidants. but as you said, all we know

with

> certainty is that their *way of life* served them well.

>

> >>>>As said in another message, there are too many factors to

determine

> that saturated fats (or any other nutrient, for that matter) are

OK, based

> on work of Price and Mann.

>

> -------->a couple of things here:

>

> 1) there are too many factors to determine that saturated fats are

NOT OK,

> based on modern research

>

> 2) too many studies have found that the amount of dietary

> cholesterol/saturated fat have no correlation with the incidence

of CHD to

> determine that saturated fat is the cause of heart disease

>

> 3) when george mann went to study the masai and heart disease in

the 60s, he

> found that the masai were not dying of heart disease (aside from

the 50

> hearts he examined).

>

> 4) their cholesterol levels were about 50% lower than americans

>

> 5) a researcher named tailor, also had 10 masai aortas examined in

which

> atherosclerosis was nearly absent

>

> 6) the masai aortas were wider than most western folk's aortas,

probably

> from the amount of running they do (herding cattle)

>

> 7) some of price's other healthy groups ate a decent amount of

saturatef fat

> regularly, such as the swiss, who ate butterfat daily in the form

of milk

> and cheese

>

> 8) there is no conclusive evidence that high quality saturated fat

is

> dangerous. i haven't seen any conclusive evidence that saturated

fat *per

> se* causes heart disease either - even SADietary SF, although i'd

imagine it

> could contribute to disease due to toxins and EFA ratio.

>

> 9) without dietary saturated fat we wouldn't be getting dietary

cholesterol

> which has a number of functions vital to good health. our bodies

manufacture

> their own SF and cholesterol, but most likely not enough. our

livers can

> produce up to 75% of the cholesterol the body needs, but depending

on

> numerous factors (including exposure to air pollution since

cholesterol and

> saturated fat protect the lungs from inhaled toxins) our needs

could be much

> greater than what we produce endogenously.

>

>

> so, while we may not be able to conclude beyond a shadow of a doubt

that

> saturated fat was anything other than a healthful part of the masai

diet, as

> well as ours, in the context of all the other evidence we have, we

can at

> least make a reasonable hypothesis that high quality saturated fat

is not a

> dangerous poison, but is rather part of a healthful diet.

>

>

> unfortanately though, the well-financed smear campaign against these

> traditional nutrients is very effective at making people fear a

dietary

> component that might improve their health.

>

>

>

> Suze Fisher

> Lapdog Design, Inc.

> Web Design & Development

> http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

> Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

> http://www.westonaprice.org

>

> ----------------------------

> " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol

cause

> heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -

-

> Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at

Vanderbilt

> University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

>

> The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

> <http://www.thincs.org>

> ----------------------------

[Guest guest]

@@@@@@@@@@@ Chris:

> Additionally, we don't even have to show what kept them healthy, we

simply

> need to show that one can eat loads of saturated fat and have no

proportionate

> increase in CHD-- which the Masai did.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@

yes! that's the key logic. and the idea that a minor component of

the diet could counteract a strong negative impact of saturated fat,

given the quantities involved, is pretty implausible.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ in response to Suze:

> 9) without dietary saturated fat we wouldn't be getting dietary

cholesterol

> > which has a number of functions vital to good health. our bodies

manufacture

> > their own SF and cholesterol, but most likely not enough. our

livers can

> > produce up to 75% of the cholesterol the body needs, but

depending on

> > numerous factors (including exposure to air pollution since

cholesterol and

> > saturated fat protect the lungs from inhaled toxins) our needs

could be much

> > greater than what we produce endogenously.

>

> One could easily get loads of dietary cholesterol without getting

much

> saturated fat by eating eggs though, and could get quite a bit

without eating much

> fat for that matter at all by eating liver. But the liver seems to

make

> cholesterol much more easily out of saturated fat than anything

else, including HDL,

> which is supposedly preventative of CHD from the mainstream

perspective.

>

> Chris

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

I want to say that I enjoyed Suze's and Chris' posts, with their very

lucid reasoning. The idea that saturated fat is bad is just a

bizarre idea with little support when you strip away the media

distortions of recent decades. However, I wanted to clarify two

points. One is that Suze's point about not being able to get enough

cholesterol without saturated fat is not correct, because there are

lots of sea animal foods with tons of cholesterol and very little

saturated fat (mainly by virtue of extremely low levels of overall

fat, not necessarily in the ratios of SFA to MUFA and PUFA), and

these are staple foods for most humans historically. The other is

that Chris' point about eggs not being a good source of saturated fat

is not correct either, going by the USDA data at least, which show

them to be about 38% saturated fat, a significant amount. Also,

their fatty acid profile is about the same as most meat items (liver

being a key exception), roughly equal amounts of SFA and MUFA, making

them equally good sources of SFA. The ratio of cholesterol to SFA is

higher for eggs, though, since they have much more cholesterol than

the meats, so Chris' point is valid in that sense.

mike parker

[Guest guest]

The other is

> that Chris' point about eggs not being a good source of saturated

fat

> is not correct either, going by the USDA data at least, which show

> them to be about 38% saturated fat, a significant amount. Also,

> their fatty acid profile is about the same as most meat items

(liver

> being a key exception), roughly equal amounts of SFA and MUFA,

making

> them equally good sources of SFA. The ratio of cholesterol to SFA

is

> higher for eggs, though, since they have much more cholesterol than

> the meats, so Chris' point is valid in that sense.

I'm going by commercial egg cartons, which have varying amounts. The

Country Hen carton I have lists more total fat than Gold Circle

Farms, and it is about 33% saturated. GCF has less fat but more SFA

as a percentage, don't remember exactly.

But it doesn't matter I don't think. The point is you can easily eat

more than 1000 mg of cholesterol a day, which is over 3 times the

recommended maximum, while eating less than 5 grams of saturated fat,

which is well within the recommended guidelines, and in fact only 25%

thereof, in the same day, by eating eggs.

Whereas you could easily exceed the reccomended max of saturated fat

with four glasses of milk and not have a whole lot of cholesterol.

So I would say, comparitively, eggs are not great sources of

saturated fat, but are fantastic sources of dietary cholesterol. One

glass of milk alone will give you more SFA than 3 eggs, which will

give you 800 mg of cholesterol, give or take.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Anton wrote:

> @@@@@@@@@@@ Chris:

>

>>Additionally, we don't even have to show what kept them healthy, we simply

>>need to show that one can eat loads of saturated fat and have no proportionate

>>increase in CHD-- which the Masai did.

>

> @@@@@@@@@@@@@

>

> yes! that's the key logic. and the idea that a minor component of

> the diet could counteract a strong negative impact of saturated fat,

> given the quantities involved, is pretty implausible.

Not implausible to me. I am sure you could come up with a few example of very

powerful substances, be it from plants or synthetic chemicals. There are plant

compounds very small amounts of which could kill you very quickly or make you

hallucinate for a long time, for example. I think it's reasonable to admit a

possibility of existence of very healing substances as well. Not claiming that,

but... couldn't the tea contain substances that dilate vessels, thin blood,

remove plaque, and/or heal diseases arterial walls. I don't want my words to be

misinterpreted as a statement that the tea Masai drink does all or any of these

things. I am talking about a possibility. Powerful chemicals aren't taken in

large amounts (that what makes them powerful).

Based on the above, I disagree that Chris' logic is necessarily correct. Not to

repeat myself, I will use a metaphor. You'll probably agree that, in general,

leaving your doors and windows open, increases your chances of being robbed. But

if you keep a guard with a machine gun by each window and door (in addition to 7

snipers at the roof), your chances of being robbed goes down dramatically.

Roman