Re: flax seeds...yes or no

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/19/03 4:31:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

paultheo2000@... writes:

> A definite yes, IMHO. Plenty of omega-3, fiber, ligans. The might

> contain phytates, but so what? Phytates aren't all bad...especially in

> small amounts.

Phytates are bad insofar as they are consumed, though. They aren't

necessarily *good* in small amounts, but that's because they are simply

ineffective in

small amounts.

I don't see much harm in small amounts of flax seed, but I also don't see

what's the biggy on the n-3s or the fiber. Especially the n-3s, which range

from

a moderately poor to a worthless source of DHA/EPA, depending on the person.

We do need small amounts of ALA and other n-3s, but some raw butter would

give you enough, as the main benefit is in DHA/EPA.

Chris

[Guest guest]

A definite yes, IMHO. Plenty of omega-3, fiber, ligans. The might

contain phytates, but so what? Phytates aren't all bad...especially in

small amounts.

-

--- In , " Lynn Razaitis " <lyn122@y...>

wrote:

> I knwo this has come up before but I thought I'd ask again and see

> if anyone has any new light to shed on flax seeds.

>

> Are they worth including? Do they contain phytates?

> How much would be a good daily amount?

>

> Thanks,

> Lynn

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/20/03 7:43:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

paultheo2000@... writes:

> People shouldn't rely solely on flaxseeds; fish is, at least in my

> estimation, an even better source of omega-3 fatty acids. But that

> doesn't mean I'd avoid flaxseeds since they're perfectly healthy.

>

> To my knowledge, about 15% of the n-3 content gets converted.

,

Fish are an enormously better source of n-3s. 15% seems a little above

average to me, but certainly some people convert 15% or more. It varies from

person to person. It can be as low as 0%, depending on your ancestry. Inuit

and

Irish seacoasters, and probably many other peoples lack the delta-6-desaturase

enzyme and can't convert them at all, is my understanding.

I personally am not saying to avoid flax; I just don't see them as having any

unique benefits or offering anything that can't be gotten in a much better

source somewhere else.

Chris

[Guest guest]

" What does that have to do with what I said? I didn't even mention

butter. "

Fair enough, you didn't mention it but it's the predominant theme

here. Seems like people here eat only sat fat! Veggies aren't real

important, fruit isn't necessary, who cares about fiber, omega-3s

cause cancer. While I can agree that sat. fat isn't the bad guy

here... some of the stuff on this board REALLY goes against the grain.

It goes against almost all respected research out there. Now, I'm

hardly in a position to criticize being a layman and all, but it makes

the group as a whole lack credibility (again, from my layman

perspective).

" I've never seen any convincing evidence at all for the benefits of

phytates. "

Can you show me convincing evidence that the consumption of phytates

is deleterious to health? My point is: both positions are based on a

theoretical understanding, not actual proof. One side says that

phytates are bad because they leech minerals and the other side says

they leech out mainly harmful minerals. So my conclusion is that a

moderate consumption is perfectly healthy. Why go out of my way to get

rid of phytates? It's like going out of my way to avoid fruit because

it contains fructose.

" Well, now you have lined yourself up to the plate to bat against all

the epidemiological evidence showing that enormous iron intakes do

not lead to heart disease or cancer. You also now have to explain why

the active transport system that regulates iron absorption isn't

sufficient to take care of this. "

Do you have any thoughts on the following article?:

http://t-mag.com/nation_articles/278iron.jsp

I'm no expert but everything I've read leads me to believe that too

much iron is harmful to health. That may be wrong, but until I see

contrary evidence that's what I have to stick with.

" You also have to explain why decreasing Ca, Zn, and other minerals

in proportion to the iron would have any beneficial effect, or

wouldn't have a negative effect, since phytates do not selectively

bind iron. "

You raise a good point. My contention was never that phytates are all

good...simply that they aren't all bad. I don't see why anyone should

go through loads of effort to get rid of phytates when the jury isn't

out yet.

" What studies have also shown is that increased omega-3s lead to

increased lipid peroxidation, which could lead to cancer and other

problems. So it seems wise to me to try to get the highest EPA/DHA

with the lowest total omega-3s. I mentioned raw butter simply to

point out that it contains ALA, so if one did not consume ALA-rich

oils, they could get sufficient ALA from other food sources. You

wouldn't have to eat butter, that's just one example. "

Again, I'm not stating that n-3s are without problems. But from all

the information out there, adding n-3s to your diet is probably a good

thing.

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/20/03 8:59:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

paultheo2000@... writes:

> Fair enough, you didn't mention it but it's the predominant theme

> here. Seems like people here eat only sat fat!

I don't know why on earth you'd think that. I eat lots of carbohydrates,

protein, monounsaturated fat (the predominant fat in almost all meat fats), and

actually go out of my way to supplement with PUFA! The latter being the only

kind of fat I " supplement " with.

I think what you're perceiving is the fact that we emphasize the need for

saturated fats because saturated fats are demonized by everyone else.

Veggies aren't real

> important, fruit isn't necessary, who cares about fiber, omega-3s

> cause cancer.

I didn't say any of those things; however, it is absolutely true that excess

pufa can cause cancer, and therefore it is rather reckless to load up on

unlimited quantities of omega-3s, regardless of the proportional benefit in

terms

of prostaglandins, DHA, etc. It is also simply silly to say " a study with fish

oil found this, therefore consume these wholly different fats formed in flax "

and to ignore the fact that there are lots of studies showing flax to *not*

have the same benefits as n-3s from animal sources.

The comment about fruit is odd, to say the least, in light of my recent posts

about berries. Most of us emphasize the importance of lacto-fermented

veggies etc and the anti-carb leaning folks tend to emphasize the importance of

decreasing grains in favor of veggies, etc.

While I can agree that sat. fat isn't the bad guy

> here... some of the stuff on this board REALLY goes against the grain.

Is this a clever pun? lol!

> It goes against almost all respected research out there. Now, I'm

> hardly in a position to criticize being a layman and all, but it makes

> the group as a whole lack credibility (again, from my layman

> perspective).

Well, good, since a lot of the " respected " research is a total load of bunk.

It's very anti-scientific to consider " respected " research to be worth more

than " disrespected research, " so I highly recommend you read some of the

research that many of the folks in this group are familiar with if you want to

decide how credible we are.

Besides, I'm not here to be credible or to teach people anything. I'm here

to interact with like-minded people who want to discuss things from the

perspective of someone who knows of Price's research, is familiar with

traditional

diets, and tries to enact them. If I somehow do either of the two things above

while in the process, great.

> " I've never seen any convincing evidence at all for the benefits of

> phytates. "

>

> Can you show me convincing evidence that the consumption of phytates

> is deleterious to health? My point is: both positions are based on a

> theoretical understanding, not actual proof.

Ok, and I haven't made any claims about what " the fact is, " which is

basically in accord with your above statement.

One side says that

> phytates are bad because they leech minerals and the other side says

> they leech out mainly harmful minerals.

Yes but one side says iron causes heart disease and cancer and ignores the

differences between various forms of iron, and the fact that epidemiological

evidence flies in the face of the iron-causes-heart-disease theory, the fact

that

having non-toxic metals (which phytates bind) actually is *protective*

against having toxic heavy metals.

Granted, phytic acid could be used in a short-term chelation treatment for

people overloaded with heavy metals, or iron, in cases where people have

something wrong with their active transport system. However, there is such an

enormous distinction between this method of therapy and haphazardly consuming

phytates in food: 1)When chelation therapies are followed, large doses of

mineral

supplements are absolutely necessary and used, and 2)It is a short-term

treatment used to flush out all of the minerals of the body, which is why it

involved

enormous doses of mineral supplements.

It is an enormous leap of logic to say that because one of these is

effective, we should deliberately consume phytates daily in food. The reason is

they

would have almost opposite effects. In one scenario, you are leaching out

*everything* as a cleansing system, to be replaced with large doses of minerals,

and then you are returning to a normal diet, and in the other, you are leaching

out tiny amounts of toxic minerals along with minerals that are protective!

Furthermore, one uses phytic acid, the other uses bound phytates (in food).

I'm not sure the solublility of phytates, but my guess is most of the heavier

metal phytates do not dissociate much at all, and therefore the only effect is

to deprive yourself of the minerals in the food, rather than to bind up any

minerals, good or bad, that are already in your system.

So my conclusion is that a

> moderate consumption is perfectly healthy. Why go out of my way to get

> rid of phytates? It's like going out of my way to avoid fruit because

> it contains fructose.

No, it is very different. The reason is that, for the reasons above, there

is no reason whatsoever to think moderate consumption of phytates has any

health value at all, and while yes, it is theoretical, it is simple logic to say

that something with more available minerals is better for you than something

with less available minerals. Whereas there's no reason to think fructose in

the

form of fruit acts in any way as an anti-nutrient.

To summarize: phytates have anti-nutrient properties; fructose does not.

>

> " Well, now you have lined yourself up to the plate to bat against all

> the epidemiological evidence showing that enormous iron intakes do

> not lead to heart disease or cancer. You also now have to explain why

> the active transport system that regulates iron absorption isn't

> sufficient to take care of this. "

>

> Do you have any thoughts on the following article?:

Yes.

>

> So what’s the problem? Well for starters, iron has been linked to

> cardiovascular disease, in part due to its pro-oxidative nature.(2) That’s

right; it

> has properties which make it the antithesis of beneficial antioxidants that we

> hear so much about (4). One might think of it as " anti-vitamin E. "

According to Prescription For Nutritional Healing, Balch and Balch:

" Unless you are diagnosed as anemic, you should not take iron supplements.

If you take a multivitamin and mineral supplement, choose a product that does

not contain iron. If you do need to take iron supplements, do not take them at

the same time as vitamin E, and choose an organic form of iron such as

ferrous gluconate or ferrous fumarate. Inorganic forms of iron, such as ferrous

sulfate, can oxidize vitamin E. "

So it seems one should make a distinction between iron from food such as red

meat and dark green vegetables, and iron from supplments, such as vitamin

pills and " enriched flour. "

Such oxidation could " harden " the plaques lining one’s arteries (lipid

peroxidation)

> and increase the atherogenic effects of high-cholesterol diets.(2)

So could eating a high pufa diet, like all Americans do. Maybe the reason

the Masai can have meat parties and eat 10 pounds of meat in a day (not every

day!) and drink blood often and yet have been shown not to have heart disease is

because excessive iron requires excessive pufa to lead to lipid peroxidation?

And because they were consuming food iron instead of supplemental iron?

And as a component of hemoglobin, iron is related to another

heart-unfriendly

> characteristic of some high-Testosterone men: polycythemia. This condition

> of excess red cells increases the viscosity of the blood leading to greater

> cardiac workload, potential hypertension, increased risk of stroke and,

> despite homeostatic adjustments, poorer blood flow to tissues.(9, 20, 24, 25)

I personally don't have any knowledge of this problem. But I do know that

exercise increases your need for iron, so I suspect that iron should be

proportionate to exercise. If you're not working out, you simply don't need to

eat

lots of red meat every day.

Of course, as longstanding treatments for anemia, Testosterone, nandrolone

and

> other anabolics really kick up hemoglobin and hematocrit levels. T is a

> fundamental reason why men have higher hematocrits than women so you can

imagine

> what pharmacological doses can do. Now, admittedly, the epidemiological

> (population based) evidence is spotty regarding iron and heart disease (2),

Exactly.

> but the underlying physiology makes enough sense to look pretty scary.

Not when the epidemiological evidence shows that there's something wrong with

the physiological theory.

As many

> of us are aware, oxidative damage goes beyond hardened arteries. Excess

> iron in tissues is also linked to DNA damage and cancer development,(4, 22) as

> well as diabetes (11) and elevated transaminase levels like ALT and AST (3, 7,

> 12) — although this has been questioned.(21) I’ve had bodybuilders ask me

> many times why they can’t get their ALT and AST levels down, even after

taking

> a week off from training and avoiding other, ahem, " liver stressors. " Could

> bodily iron concentrations be yet another reason why men get more damaged

> than women after intense exercise? It may be the case that simply enjoying

> iron-rich, plentiful meat year-round—combined with high Testosterone levels

and

> certain genes—will leave us pushing up daisies along with the carnivores of

the

> past.

This ignores the fact that most Americans probably get most of their iron

from " enriched " grains, which have *not* been " enriched " with vitamin E that

they've lost in refining.

> Look what aggressive behavior and bloody meat got the T-Rex!

This is too stupid to respond to.

A Widespread IssueLet’s start with a quote. " Iron stores in excess of normal

> eventually occur in most men and some women. " (1) Ugh. Whereas women rid

> themselves of a fair amount of iron-rich blood monthly and generally consume

> less meat, we meat-swilling men have no good way of disposing of the stuff.

Iron

> just hangs around in our systems, accumulating with time. And the fact that

> (terrestrial) animal flesh contains heme iron — which is particularly

> bioavailable — doesn’t help. At a whopping 30% or so bioavailability

(depending

> upon bodily iron stores) (18), a big steak equates to bushels of plant

material.

But both the meat iron and the plant iron act differently than supplemental

iron, which he hasn't mentioned.

We might call it the predicament of the predatory instinct, because veggies

offer

> us as little as 2%.(18) And let’s not even get into the " meat-fish-poultry "

> factor that further enhances iron bioavailability in animal foods.(18) Hence

> we're victims of our very carnivorous nature. (And sadly I, for one, enjoy

> meat in a big, bloody way.)So how do we know that men accumulate iron in their

> circulation as they age? Although there is some debate whether transferrin

> saturation or serum ferritin (both iron-related proteins) is the best marker

> of iron status (23), it’s clear that we gain progressively more iron from

age

> 12 to 32 or so.(6) As an example, a teenage male may have a serum ferritin of

> 23 ug/L whereas a thirty-something man will be closer to 125 ug/L.(6) If

> iron overload does indeed predispose us to several diseases (10) or tissue

> damage, then this is disconcerting.And things get worse. In an effort to

combat

> oxidative damage, whether from muscle-damaging workouts or excess iron (or

> both), many bodybuilders take vitamin C. The ironic thing is that ascorbic

acid

> actually enhances iron absorption (10),

True, but most other minerals *decrease* iron absorption. So once again, we

find the need for raw milk or bone broths or other forms of bone consumption

and, surprise surprise, not eating unsoaked grains!

potentially leading to more iron overload—and among other things, greater

> oxidation. Double ugh! (Actually, vitamin E would be a much better choice.)

> For high-iron guys insistent upon their vitamin C intake, it appears best to

> take it as far away from iron-containing meals as possible to avoid

> problems. In severe cases (much less common), iron overload can also result in

iron

> storage abnormalities like hemosiderosis and hemochromatosis. The former is

> over-stuffed cell storage of hemosiderin, the (you guessed it) long-term iron

> storage protein. The latter is a chronic disease that is literally

> characterized by a dark or reddish coloring due to iron saturation of tissues.

Liver

> damage (hepatomegaly and cirrhosis) and diabetes mellitus result. Of course

we’

> re talking extreme examples

uh-huh...

here but the lesser, chronic effects of iron accumulation are also real.

Hepatic

> damage, diabetes and a chest-clenching M.I. [myocardial infarction] are not

> on my " to do " list —

They apparently weren't on the to-do list of the Masai either, as discussed

earlier...

not now and not twenty years from now.

> Dietary FixesThere is hope. One corrective approach for men who are

> cognizant oftheir high iron levels—or are concerned over where they’re

heading—is

> to include plenty of low-iron and iron-free foods instead of obsessing over

> meats. (God, it pains me to say this.) Luckily, several are great for

> bodybuilding. Milk and eggs can be very valuable as they not only provide

superior

> protein quality and contain no iron, but these foods actually block iron

> absorption (17, 19).

Ok, so a well-rounded diet is the key?

Although some authorities site literature that meat-containing diets are

superior to

> lacto-ovo-vegetarian ones for muscle gain (5), recent data seem to refute

> this notion, at least in part.(13) High fiber foods also help reduce iron

> absorption due to compounds like phytates (10), as do coffee and tea, due to

> phytochemicals like tannins. Green tea in particular—at a dose of ten cups

per day

> —has been shown to drop serum ferritin concentrations and tends to reduce

> ALT and AST enzyme levels as well.(15)

This has the caffeine of about 3 cups of coffee. I wouldn't recommend anyone

drink that much green tea.

If a man were to limit iron intake to no more than about 30 mg per day as

has

> been suggested (10, 22), there are a couple more beneficial moves he can

> make. Aside from avoiding iron and stainless steel-lined cookware, one dietary

> maneuver is to go for the tuna and even artificial crab meat—both low-iron

> alternatives to terrestrial meat. Another smart move is to avoid iron in

> dietary supplements. This should be a no-brainer.

I agree with this one.

I'm no expert but everything I've read leads me to believe that too

> much iron is harmful to health. That may be wrong, but until I see

> contrary evidence that's what I have to stick with.

Here's one: people who consume enormous quantities of iron, but don't have

heart disease. Case in point, the Masai.

All this article and other things I've seen tells me is that a

not-so-well-rounded diet that is very high in iron and low in other minerals is

bad for ones

health. (big surprise that only eating one thing is bad for your health).

And that Americans probably have a toxic overload from inorganic forms of iron,

due to cooking materials and encriched grains (which Americans eat a TON of,

more than they do read meat I'm sure).

> " You also have to explain why decreasing Ca, Zn, and other minerals

> in proportion to the iron would have any beneficial effect, or

> wouldn't have a negative effect, since phytates do not selectively

> bind iron. "

>

> You raise a good point. My contention was never that phytates are all

> good...simply that they aren't all bad. I don't see why anyone should

> go through loads of effort to get rid of phytates when the jury isn't

> out yet.

I basically addressed this in the first part of the email. I don't consider

it " loads " of effor to buy sproated bread, and I consider it very moderate

effort to soak grains over night. The point is that I don't think these

phytates

have much health value for anyone.

>

> " What studies have also shown is that increased omega-3s lead to

> increased lipid peroxidation, which could lead to cancer and other

> problems. So it seems wise to me to try to get the highest EPA/DHA

> with the lowest total omega-3s. I mentioned raw butter simply to

> point out that it contains ALA, so if one did not consume ALA-rich

> oils, they could get sufficient ALA from other food sources. You

> wouldn't have to eat butter, that's just one example. "

>

> Again, I'm not stating that n-3s are without problems. But from all

> the information out there, adding n-3s to your diet is probably a good

> thing.

Which n-3s? What information indicates that ALA has the benefits that DHA

and EPA do? I'm simply recommending care in WHICH n-3s you supplement with.

All pufa, flax or fish, will increase the chance of lipid peroxidation, but fish

oil will have at *least* five times the benefit in terms of DHA/EPA. It's a

matter of maximizing benefit to risk ratio.

Chris

[Guest guest]

-

Flax seeds also have significant estrogenic activity, strongly

contraindicating consumption for men.

>A definite yes, IMHO. Plenty of omega-3, fiber, ligans. The might

>contain phytates, but so what? Phytates aren't all bad...especially in

>small amounts.

-

[Guest guest]

--- Idol <Idol@...> wrote: >

-

>

> Flax seeds also have significant estrogenic

> activity, strongly

> contraindicating consumption for men.

>

Really??? In all the talk about flaxseed on the US

low carb lists no-one ever mentioned this. For

american LCers, flaxseed always appears to be a

wonder-food. It's never really taken off in this

country, But I have fuond it has uses in some LC

baking recipes so I've never made a point of avoiding

it.

I would be interested in learning more about this

effect - do you have any links to share? Because of

endometriosis I try not to eat anything that will

affect my oestrogen levels.

Thanks

Jo

________________________________________________________________________

Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE

Messenger http://mail.messenger..co.uk

[Guest guest]

Dear Jo,

There is a wealth of information at www.mercola.com; just search flax.

Effects of Dietary Flax Compared With Fish Oil

ALA, found in flax seed is the precursor of omega-3 fats, can be

converted to long-chain omega-3 fats and can therefore be substituted

for fish oils.

However, ALA is not equivalent in its biological effects to the long-

chain omega-3 fats found in marine oils. EPA and DHA are more rapidly

incorporated into plasma and membrane lipids and produce more rapid

effects than does ALA.

Experimental studies suggest that intake of 3-4 grams of ALA per day

is equivalent to 0.3 grams (300 mg) EPA per day.

Relatively large reserves of LA in body fat, as are found in vegans

or in the diet of omnivores in Western societies, would tend to slow

down the formation of long-chain omega-3 fats like EPA and DHA from

ALA.

One advantage of the consumption of ALA over omega-3 fats from fish

is that the problem of insufficient vitamin E intake does not exist

with high intake of ALA from plant sources.

Benefits of Omega-3 Fats

Dietary intake of omega-3 fats from seafood was associated with

reduced risk of primary cardiac arrest compared with no fish intake;

5.5 g omega-3 fats per month or the equivalent of 1 fatty fish meal

per week was associated with a 50% reduction in the risk of primary

cardiac arrest.

A 5.0% increase in omega-3 fats was associated with a 70% reduction

in the risk of primary cardiac arrest.

An increase in EPA and DHA also leads to increases in membrane

fluidity, the number of insulin receptors, and insulin action.

Clinical interventions provide further support for the beneficial

effects of omega-3 fats in the prevention and management of

cardiovascular disease, hyperinsulinemia, and possibly type 2

diabetes.

Omega-3 fats affect coronary heart disease beneficially not by

changing serum lipid concentrations, although EPA and DHA do lower

triglycerides, by reducing blood clotting in vessel walls (72, 76)

and ventricular arrhythmias (8, 9, 75, 77).

Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, September 1999; 70: 560 - 569

Bee

>

> -

> >

> > Flax seeds also have significant estrogenic

> > activity, strongly

> > contraindicating consumption for men.

> >

>

>

> Really??? In all the talk about flaxseed on the US

> low carb lists no-one ever mentioned this. For

> american LCers, flaxseed always appears to be a

> wonder-food. It's never really taken off in this

> country, But I have fuond it has uses in some LC

> baking recipes so I've never made a point of avoiding

> it.

>

> I would be interested in learning more about this

> effect - do you have any links to share? Because of

> endometriosis I try not to eat anything that will

> affect my oestrogen levels.

>

> Thanks

>

> Jo

>

>

______________________________________________________________________

__

> Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE

> Messenger http://mail.messenger..co.uk

[Guest guest]

Jo-

>I would be interested in learning more about this

>effect - do you have any links to share? Because of

>endometriosis I try not to eat anything that will

>affect my oestrogen levels.

Hmm, I've actually read about it in literature from flax vendors, but

here's the best I could find in about 30 seconds.

>>Given the fact that the lignan constituents in plants, such as SDG in

>>flax oil, resemble the female hormone estrogen, these lignans are also

>>classified as phytoestrogens. Their chemical resemblance with estrogen

>>gives the lignans their agonist or antagonist properties to the

>>estrogenic receptor site. A clinical study has shown that the SDG

>>phytoestrogen in particular, exhibits agonist properties to the estrogen

>>receptor 15. This property is of specific value to postmenopausal women,

>>which typically exhibit low estrogen levels. Another study has shown that

>>supplementation with phytoestrogens alleviated symptoms associated with

>>postmenopausal women such as hot flashes, sweating16

>>

>>15 Brzezinski A. and Debi A. 1999 Eur. J. Obst. Gyn. Reprod. Biol. 85,

>>47-51.

>>16 Knight D.C. and Eden J.A. 1996 Obstet. Gynecol. 87 (5 pt. 2), 897-904.

That's from http://www.forbesthealth.com/FlaxSeed3.htm

At any rate, I think it's generally accepted that the lignans in flax are

phytoestrogens.

-

[Guest guest]

I fail to see how this makes flax unhealthy for men in general. I

think we're skipping a step in the reasoning somewhere. Many

bodybuilders supplement with vast amounts of flax and they're

borderline paranoid about hormonal effects of foods and supplements.

-

" At any rate, I think it's generally accepted that the lignans in flax are

phytoestrogens. "

[Guest guest]

I apologize for anyone who already recieved this, but there were apparently

some problems with some people getting it.

Chris

[Guest guest]

I came across this thread late so I don't have much to add

other than Idol and are 100% on the mark on this one and

as for the TMag article. Consider the source my friend. As a long

time " gym rat " lets be clear that the bodybuilding community knows

little if anything about longevity and well being. Big bi's yup.

But they have little to do with being well. I find it somewhat

amusing that you question the " credibility " of this group and then

go and post what you'd regard as a " credible " article from of all

places T Mag c'mon even though I disagree with your position

certainly you can do better than citing " Testosterone.net " LOL!

DMM

> " What does that have to do with what I said? I didn't even mention

> butter. "

>

> Fair enough, you didn't mention it but it's the predominant theme

> here. Seems like people here eat only sat fat! Veggies aren't real

> important, fruit isn't necessary, who cares about fiber, omega-3s

> cause cancer. While I can agree that sat. fat isn't the bad guy

> here... some of the stuff on this board REALLY goes against the

grain.

> It goes against almost all respected research out there. Now, I'm

> hardly in a position to criticize being a layman and all, but it

makes

> the group as a whole lack credibility (again, from my layman

> perspective).

>

>

> " I've never seen any convincing evidence at all for the benefits of

> phytates. "

>

> Can you show me convincing evidence that the consumption of

phytates

> is deleterious to health? My point is: both positions are based

on a

> theoretical understanding, not actual proof. One side says that

> phytates are bad because they leech minerals and the other side

says

> they leech out mainly harmful minerals. So my conclusion is that a

> moderate consumption is perfectly healthy. Why go out of my way to

get

> rid of phytates? It's like going out of my way to avoid fruit

because

> it contains fructose.

>

> " Well, now you have lined yourself up to the plate to bat against

all

> the epidemiological evidence showing that enormous iron intakes

do

> not lead to heart disease or cancer. You also now have to explain

why

> the active transport system that regulates iron absorption isn't

> sufficient to take care of this. "

>

> Do you have any thoughts on the following article?:

>

> http://t-mag.com/nation_articles/278iron.jsp

>

> I'm no expert but everything I've read leads me to believe that too

> much iron is harmful to health. That may be wrong, but until I see

> contrary evidence that's what I have to stick with.

>

> " You also have to explain why decreasing Ca, Zn, and other

minerals

> in proportion to the iron would have any beneficial effect, or

> wouldn't have a negative effect, since phytates do not selectively

> bind iron. "

>

> You raise a good point. My contention was never that phytates are

all

> good...simply that they aren't all bad. I don't see why anyone

should

> go through loads of effort to get rid of phytates when the jury

isn't

> out yet.

>

> " What studies have also shown is that increased omega-3s lead to

> increased lipid peroxidation, which could lead to cancer and other

> problems. So it seems wise to me to try to get the highest

EPA/DHA

> with the lowest total omega-3s. I mentioned raw butter simply to

> point out that it contains ALA, so if one did not consume ALA-rich

> oils, they could get sufficient ALA from other food sources. You

> wouldn't have to eat butter, that's just one example. "

>

> Again, I'm not stating that n-3s are without problems. But from all

> the information out there, adding n-3s to your diet is probably a

good

> thing.

>

> -

[Guest guest]

I can think of no worse place to use flax oil or seeds than in

cooking, baking, etc... considering the remarkable instability of

PUFA this form (at least) of flax should definitely be avoided.

Some flax seeds here or ther isn't going to kill anyone but they are

far from a " superior " food.

DMM

>

> -

> >

> > Flax seeds also have significant estrogenic

> > activity, strongly

> > contraindicating consumption for men.

> >

>

>

> Really??? In all the talk about flaxseed on the US

> low carb lists no-one ever mentioned this. For

> american LCers, flaxseed always appears to be a

> wonder-food. It's never really taken off in this

> country, But I have fuond it has uses in some LC

> baking recipes so I've never made a point of avoiding

> it.

>

> I would be interested in learning more about this

> effect - do you have any links to share? Because of

> endometriosis I try not to eat anything that will

> affect my oestrogen levels.

>

> Thanks

>

> Jo

>

>

_____________________________________________________________________

___

> Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE

> Messenger http://mail.messenger..co.uk

[Guest guest]

theo,

This statement would be akin to " I fail to see how this make

sticking a screwdriver in your eye bad for eyesight in general. "

Firstly again, please stop using bodybuilders as a credible standard

for a healthy human, this would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

Second the mountain of very mainstream evidence regarding the

cultural OVER exposure to estrogens would clearly suggest that any

opportunity to minimize consumption and exposure would be wise.

Will some flax seeds kill you? No absolutely not. But for them to

be portrayed as a valuable and practically necessary food staple is

not only ridiculous but in fact unhealthy. As has sited more

than once Fish Oil is FAR superior in delivering the O-3 components

and I can name hundreds of great phytate sources (LOL). So sure

I'll give you that nobody is going to keel over from eating some

flax seeds as if they drank some drano, but anyone, especially

someone trying to avoid environmental and dietary estrogens would be

better served just casually staying away from them.

DMM

> I fail to see how this makes flax unhealthy for men in general. I

> think we're skipping a step in the reasoning somewhere. Many

> bodybuilders supplement with vast amounts of flax and they're

> borderline paranoid about hormonal effects of foods and

supplements.

>

> -

>

> " At any rate, I think it's generally accepted that the lignans in

flax are

> phytoestrogens. "

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/20/03 7:27:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

ChrisMasterjohn@... writes:

> I apologize for anyone who already recieved this, but there were apparently

>

> some problems with some people getting it.

I apologize again, as I keep forgetting this list does not take forwards.

Below is my original response to , which he apparently, and perhaps others,

did not receive.

First, I'll make two points: one, you have to scroll down a bit for my

critique of the article, since I responded to some other things which have

already

been since covered.

Second, I'll add one more point about epidemiological evidence: the reason we

keep pointing to the Masai is not because they're the only example, but

because out of all the paragons of health Price studied, we have the most

detailed,

repeated, thorough, and conclusive evidence specifically in regard to the

absence of heart disease among the Masai, compared to the other groups.

However,

if you do a search for " iron " or " magnesium " in the archives, you'll probably

find the recent post where soemone posted Price's data for a different group

he studied, which showed the iron content to be something like 10 or 15 or 150

or some crazy number, times higher than the American intake at his time.

While we don't have a throrough analysis of heart disease and post-mortum

anylses

of their aortas, etc, if the idea that dietary iron excess causes heart

disease is correct, these people should have been keeling over left and right

when

Price visited them. Rather, he found them to be paragons of health.

Anyway, here is my original post...

In a message dated 9/20/03 8:59:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

paultheo2000@... writes:

> Fair enough, you didn't mention it but it's the predominant theme

> here.  Seems like people here eat only sat fat!

I don't know why on earth you'd think that.  I eat lots of carbohydrates,

protein, monounsaturated fat (the predominant fat in almost all meat fats),

and

actually go out of my way to supplement with PUFA!  The latter being the only

kind of fat I " supplement " with.

I think what you're perceiving is the fact that we emphasize the need for

saturated fats because saturated fats are demonized by everyone else.

Veggies aren't real

> important, fruit isn't necessary, who cares about fiber, omega-3s

> cause cancer.

I didn't say any of those things; however, it is absolutely true that excess

pufa can cause cancer, and therefore it is rather reckless to load up on

unlimited quantities of omega-3s, regardless of the proportional benefit in

terms

of prostaglandins, DHA, etc.  It is also simply silly to say " a study with

fish

oil found this, therefore consume these wholly different fats found in flax "

and to ignore the fact that there are lots of studies showing flax to *not*

have the same benefits as n-3s from animal sources.

The comment about fruit is odd, to say the least, in light of my recent posts

about berries.  Most of us emphasize the importance of lacto-fermented

veggies etc and the anti-carb leaning folks tend to emphasize the importance

of

decreasing grains in favor of veggies, etc.

While I can agree that sat. fat isn't the bad guy

> here... some of the stuff on this board REALLY goes against the grain.

Is this a clever pun?  lol!

> It goes against almost all respected research out there. Now, I'm

> hardly in a position to criticize being a layman and all, but it makes

> the group as a whole lack credibility (again, from my layman

> perspective).

Well, good, since a lot of the " respected " research is a total load of bunk. 

It's very anti-scientific to consider " respected " research to be worth more

than " disrespected research, " so I highly recommend you read some of the

research that many of the folks in this group are familiar with if you want

to

decide how credible we are.

Besides, I'm not here to be credible or to teach people anything.  I'm here

to interact with like-minded people who want to discuss things from the

perspective of someone who knows of Price's research, is familiar with

traditional

diets, and tries to enact them.  If I somehow do either of the two things

above

while in the process, great.

> " I've never seen any convincing evidence at all for the benefits of

> phytates. "

>

> Can you show me convincing evidence that the consumption of phytates

> is  deleterious to health? My point is: both positions are based on a

> theoretical understanding, not actual proof.

Ok, and I haven't made any claims about what " the fact is, " which is

basically in accord with your above statement.

One side says that

> phytates are bad because they leech minerals and the other side says

> they leech out mainly harmful minerals.

Yes but one side says iron causes heart disease and cancer and ignores the

differences between various forms of iron, and the fact that epidemiological

evidence flies in the face of the iron-causes-heart-disease theory, the fact

that

having non-toxic metals (which phytates bind) actually is *protective*

against having toxic heavy metals.

Granted, phytic acid could be used in a short-term chelation treatment for

people overloaded with heavy metals, or iron, in cases where people have

something wrong with their active transport system.  However, there is such

an

enormous distinction between this method of therapy and haphazardly consuming

phytates in food: 1)When chelation therapies are followed, large doses of

mineral

supplements are absolutely necessary and used, and 2)It is a short-term

treatment used to flush out all of the minerals of the body, which is why it

involved

enormous doses of mineral supplements.

It is an enormous leap of logic to say that because one of these is

effective, we should deliberately consume phytates daily in food.  The reason

is they

would have almost opposite effects.  In one scenario, you are leaching out

*everything* as a cleansing system, to be replaced with large doses of

minerals,

and then you are returning to a normal diet, and in the other, you are

leaching

out tiny amounts of toxic minerals along with minerals that are protective!

Furthermore, one uses phytic acid, the other uses bound phytates (in food). 

I'm not sure the solublility of phytates, but my guess is most of the heavier

metal phytates do not dissociate much at all, and therefore the only effect

is

to deprive yourself of the minerals in the food, rather than to bind up any

minerals, good or bad, that are already in your system.

So my conclusion is that a

> moderate consumption is perfectly healthy. Why go out of my way to get

> rid of phytates? It's like going out of my way to avoid fruit because

> it contains fructose.

No, it is very different.  The reason is that, for the reasons above, there

is no reason whatsoever to think moderate consumption of phytates has any

health value at all, and while yes, it is theoretical, it is simple logic to

say

that something with more available minerals is better for you than something

with less available minerals.  Whereas there's no reason to think fructose in

the

form of fruit acts in any way as an anti-nutrient.

To summarize: phytates have anti-nutrient properties; fructose does not.

>

> " Well, now you have lined yourself up to the plate to bat against all

> the  epidemiological  evidence showing that enormous iron intakes do

> not lead to heart disease or cancer.  You also now have to explain why

> the active transport  system that regulates iron absorption isn't

> sufficient to take care of this. "  

>

> Do you have any thoughts on the following article?:

Yes.

>

> So what’s the problem? Well for starters, iron has been linked to

> cardiovascular disease, in part due to its pro-oxidative nature.(2) That’s

right; it

> has properties which make it the antithesis of beneficial antioxidants that

we

> hear so much about (4). One might think of it as " anti-vitamin E. "

According to Prescription For Nutritional Healing, Balch and Balch:

" Unless you are diagnosed as anemic, you should not take iron supplements. 

If you take a multivitamin and mineral supplement, choose a product that does

not contain iron.  If you do need to take iron supplements, do not take them

at

the same time as vitamin E, and choose an organic form of iron such as

ferrous gluconate or ferrous fumarate.  Inorganic forms of iron, such as

ferrous

sulfate, can oxidize vitamin E. "

So it seems one should make a distinction between iron from food such as red

meat and dark green vegetables, and iron from supplments, such as vitamin

pills and " enriched flour. "

Such oxidation could " harden " the plaques lining one’s arteries (lipid

peroxidation)

> and increase the atherogenic effects of high-cholesterol diets.(2)

So could eating a high pufa diet, like all Americans do.  Maybe the reason

the Masai can have meat parties and eat 10 pounds of meat in a day (not every

day!) and drink blood often and yet have been shown not to have heart disease

is

because excessive iron requires excessive pufa to lead to lipid peroxidation?

And because they were consuming food iron instead of supplemental iron?

And as a component of hemoglobin, iron is related to another

heart-unfriendly

> characteristic of some high-Testosterone men: polycythemia. This condition

> of excess red cells increases the viscosity of the blood leading to greater

> cardiac workload, potential hypertension, increased risk of stroke and,

> despite homeostatic adjustments, poorer blood flow to tissues.(9, 20, 24,

25)

I personally don't have any knowledge of this problem.  But I do know that

exercise increases your need for iron, so I suspect that iron should be

proportionate to exercise.  If you're not working out, you simply don't need

to eat

lots of red meat every day.

Of course, as longstanding treatments for anemia, Testosterone, nandrolone

and

> other anabolics really kick up hemoglobin and hematocrit levels. T is a

> fundamental reason why men have higher hematocrits than women so you can

imagine

> what pharmacological doses can do. Now, admittedly, the epidemiological

> (population based) evidence is spotty regarding iron and heart disease (2),

Exactly.

> but the underlying physiology makes enough sense to look pretty scary.

Not when the epidemiological evidence shows that there's something wrong with

the physiological theory.

As many

> of us are aware, oxidative damage goes beyond hardened arteries. Excess

> iron in tissues is also linked to DNA damage and cancer development,(4, 22)

as

> well as diabetes (11) and elevated transaminase levels like ALT and AST (3,

7,

> 12) — although this has been questioned.(21) I’ve had bodybuilders ask me

> many times why they can’t get their ALT and AST levels down, even after

taking

> a week off from training and avoiding other, ahem, " liver stressors. " Could

> bodily iron concentrations be yet another reason why men get more damaged

> than women after intense exercise? It may be the case that simply enjoying

> iron-rich, plentiful meat year-round—combined with high Testosterone levels

and

> certain genes—will leave us pushing up daisies along with the carnivores of

the

> past.

This ignores the fact that most Americans probably get most of their iron

from " enriched " grains, which have *not* been " enriched " with vitamin E that

they've lost in refining.

> Look what aggressive behavior and bloody meat got the T-Rex!

This is too stupid to respond to.

A Widespread IssueLet’s start with a quote. " Iron stores in excess of normal

> eventually occur in most men and some women. " (1) Ugh. Whereas women rid

> themselves of a fair amount of iron-rich blood monthly and generally

consume

> less meat, we meat-swilling men have no good way of disposing of the stuff.

Iron

> just hangs around in our systems, accumulating with time. And the fact that

> (terrestrial) animal flesh contains heme iron — which is particularly

> bioavailable — doesn’t help. At a whopping 30% or so bioavailability

(depending

> upon bodily iron stores) (18), a big steak equates to bushels of plant

material.

But both the meat iron and the plant iron act differently than supplemental

iron, which he hasn't mentioned.

We might call it the predicament of the predatory instinct, because veggies

offer

> us as little as 2%.(18) And let’s not even get into the " meat-fish-poultry "

> factor that further enhances iron bioavailability in animal foods.(18)

Hence

> we're victims of our very carnivorous nature. (And sadly I, for one, enjoy

> meat in a big, bloody way.)So how do we know that men accumulate iron in

their

> circulation as they age? Although there is some debate whether transferrin

> saturation or serum ferritin (both iron-related proteins) is the best

marker

> of iron status (23), it’s clear that we gain progressively more iron from

age

> 12 to 32 or so.(6) As an example, a teenage male may have a serum ferritin

of

> 23 ug/L whereas a thirty-something man will be closer to 125 ug/L.(6) If

> iron overload does indeed predispose us to several diseases (10) or tissue

> damage, then this is disconcerting.And things get worse. In an effort to

combat

> oxidative damage, whether from muscle-damaging workouts or excess iron (or

> both), many bodybuilders take vitamin C. The ironic thing is that ascorbic

acid

> actually enhances iron absorption (10),

True, but most other minerals *decrease* iron absorption.  So once again, we

find the need for raw milk or bone broths or other forms of bone consumption

and, surprise surprise, not eating unsoaked grains!

potentially leading to more iron overload—and among other things, greater

> oxidation. Double ugh! (Actually, vitamin E would be a much better choice.)

> For high-iron guys insistent upon their vitamin C intake, it appears best

to

> take it as far away from iron-containing meals as possible to avoid

> problems. In severe cases (much less common), iron overload can also result

in iron

> storage abnormalities like hemosiderosis and hemochromatosis. The former is

> over-stuffed cell storage of hemosiderin, the (you guessed it) long-term

iron

> storage protein. The latter is a chronic disease that is literally

> characterized by a dark or reddish coloring due to iron saturation of

tissues. Liver

> damage (hepatomegaly and cirrhosis) and diabetes mellitus result. Of course

we’

> re talking extreme examples

uh-huh...

here but the lesser, chronic effects of iron accumulation are also real.

Hepatic

> damage, diabetes and a chest-clenching M.I. [myocardial infarction] are not

> on my " to do " list —

They apparently weren't on the to-do list of the Masai either, as discussed

earlier...

not now and not twenty years from now.

> Dietary FixesThere is hope. One corrective approach for men who are

> cognizant oftheir high iron levels—or are concerned over where they’re

heading—is

> to include plenty of low-iron and iron-free foods instead of obsessing over

> meats. (God, it pains me to say this.) Luckily, several are great for

> bodybuilding. Milk and eggs can be very valuable as they not only provide

superior

> protein quality and contain no iron, but these foods actually block iron

> absorption (17, 19).

Ok, so a well-rounded diet is the key?

Although some authorities site literature that meat-containing diets are

superior to

> lacto-ovo-vegetarian ones for muscle gain (5), recent data seem to refute

> this notion, at least in part.(13) High fiber foods also help reduce iron

> absorption due to compounds like phytates (10), as do coffee and tea, due

to

> phytochemicals like tannins. Green tea in particular—at a dose of ten cups

per day

> —has been shown to drop serum ferritin concentrations and tends to reduce

> ALT and AST enzyme levels as well.(15)

This has the caffeine of about 3 cups of coffee.  I wouldn't recommend anyone

drink that much green tea.

If a man were to limit iron intake to no more than about 30 mg per day as

has

> been suggested (10, 22), there are a couple more beneficial moves he can

> make. Aside from avoiding iron and stainless steel-lined cookware, one

dietary

> maneuver is to go for the tuna and even artificial crab meat—both low-iron

> alternatives to terrestrial meat. Another smart move is to avoid iron in

> dietary supplements. This should be a no-brainer.

I agree with this one.

I'm no expert but everything I've read leads me to believe that too

> much iron is harmful to health. That may be wrong, but until I see

> contrary evidence that's what I have to stick with.

Here's one:  people who consume enormous quantities of iron, but don't have

heart disease.  Case in point, the Masai.

All this article and other things I've seen tells me is that a

not-so-well-rounded diet that is very high in iron and low in other minerals

is bad for ones

health.  (big surprise that only eating one thing is bad for your health). 

And that Americans probably have a toxic overload from inorganic forms of

iron,

due to cooking materials and encriched grains (which Americans eat a TON of,

more than they do read meat I'm sure).

> " You  also have to explain why decreasing Ca, Zn, and other minerals

> in proportion to the iron would have any beneficial effect, or

> wouldn't have a negative effect, since phytates do not selectively

> bind iron. "

>

> You raise a good point. My contention was never that phytates are all

> good...simply that they aren't all bad. I don't see why anyone should

> go through loads of effort to get rid of phytates when the jury isn't

> out yet.

I basically addressed this in the first part of the email.  I don't consider

it " loads " of effor to buy sproated bread, and I consider it very moderate

effort to soak grains over night.  The point is that I don't think these

phytates

have much health value for anyone.

>

> " What studies have also shown is that increased omega-3s lead to

> increased lipid peroxidation,  which could lead to cancer and other

> problems.  So it seems wise to me to try  to get the highest EPA/DHA

> with the lowest total omega-3s.  I mentioned raw  butter simply to

> point out that it contains ALA, so if one did not consume ALA-rich

> oils, they could get sufficient ALA from other food sources.  You

> wouldn't  have to eat butter, that's just one example. "

>

> Again, I'm not stating that n-3s are without problems. But from all

> the information out there, adding n-3s to your diet is probably a good

> thing.

Which n-3s?  What information indicates that ALA has the benefits that DHA

and EPA do?  I'm simply recommending care in WHICH n-3s you supplement with. 

All pufa, flax or fish, will increase the chance of lipid peroxidation, but

fish

oil will have at *least* five times the benefit in terms of DHA/EPA.  It's a

matter of maximizing benefit to risk ratio.

Chris

[Guest guest]

I have nothing to gain in anyone being right...I'm just looking for

the truth. Do you have any specific comments about the T-mag article

(T-mag is quoted here often, btw, from what I've noticed) or just ad

hoc attacks? Which, btw, are very often comitted against Sally Fallon,

which I'm sure you find annoying.

-

> > " What does that have to do with what I said? I didn't even mention

> > butter. "

> >

> > Fair enough, you didn't mention it but it's the predominant theme

> > here. Seems like people here eat only sat fat! Veggies aren't real

> > important, fruit isn't necessary, who cares about fiber, omega-3s

> > cause cancer. While I can agree that sat. fat isn't the bad guy

> > here... some of the stuff on this board REALLY goes against the

> grain.

> > It goes against almost all respected research out there. Now, I'm

> > hardly in a position to criticize being a layman and all, but it

> makes

> > the group as a whole lack credibility (again, from my layman

> > perspective).

> >

> >

> > " I've never seen any convincing evidence at all for the benefits of

> > phytates. "

> >

> > Can you show me convincing evidence that the consumption of

> phytates

> > is deleterious to health? My point is: both positions are based

> on a

> > theoretical understanding, not actual proof. One side says that

> > phytates are bad because they leech minerals and the other side

> says

> > they leech out mainly harmful minerals. So my conclusion is that a

> > moderate consumption is perfectly healthy. Why go out of my way to

> get

> > rid of phytates? It's like going out of my way to avoid fruit

> because

> > it contains fructose.

> >

> > " Well, now you have lined yourself up to the plate to bat against

> all

> > the epidemiological evidence showing that enormous iron intakes

> do

> > not lead to heart disease or cancer. You also now have to explain

> why

> > the active transport system that regulates iron absorption isn't

> > sufficient to take care of this. "

> >

> > Do you have any thoughts on the following article?:

> >

> > http://t-mag.com/nation_articles/278iron.jsp

> >

> > I'm no expert but everything I've read leads me to believe that too

> > much iron is harmful to health. That may be wrong, but until I see

> > contrary evidence that's what I have to stick with.

> >

> > " You also have to explain why decreasing Ca, Zn, and other

> minerals

> > in proportion to the iron would have any beneficial effect, or

> > wouldn't have a negative effect, since phytates do not selectively

> > bind iron. "

> >

> > You raise a good point. My contention was never that phytates are

> all

> > good...simply that they aren't all bad. I don't see why anyone

> should

> > go through loads of effort to get rid of phytates when the jury

> isn't

> > out yet.

> >

> > " What studies have also shown is that increased omega-3s lead to

> > increased lipid peroxidation, which could lead to cancer and other

> > problems. So it seems wise to me to try to get the highest

> EPA/DHA

> > with the lowest total omega-3s. I mentioned raw butter simply to

> > point out that it contains ALA, so if one did not consume ALA-rich

> > oils, they could get sufficient ALA from other food sources. You

> > wouldn't have to eat butter, that's just one example. "

> >

> > Again, I'm not stating that n-3s are without problems. But from all

> > the information out there, adding n-3s to your diet is probably a

> good

> > thing.

> >

> > -

[Guest guest]

You arrogance, is astounding, I'll give you that much. I'll leave it

at that. I do however recommend to anyone reading this that they

actually go read up on the issue before taking any position

(especially an extreme position) on this matter.

I can tell diverse opinions aren't that welcome here. I was just

laying the question out there; I didn't expect this kind of flaming.

-

> > I fail to see how this makes flax unhealthy for men in general. I

> > think we're skipping a step in the reasoning somewhere. Many

> > bodybuilders supplement with vast amounts of flax and they're

> > borderline paranoid about hormonal effects of foods and

> supplements.

> >

> > -

> >

> > " At any rate, I think it's generally accepted that the lignans in

> flax are

> > phytoestrogens. "

[Guest guest]

you specifically stated in a reply to that

the " credibility " of " this group " was questionable based upon

certain themes such as sat fat and PUFA negatives that re occur

here, all I'm saying is that this group doesn't hold itself as some

great authority over all others so you questioning its credibility

is unnecessary and on top of that you question the credibility of

this group and reference absurd and ridiculous sources such

as " bodybuilders " and " Tmag " .

People who live in glass houses ...

> > > " What does that have to do with what I said? I didn't even

mention

> > > butter. "

> > >

> > > Fair enough, you didn't mention it but it's the predominant

theme

> > > here. Seems like people here eat only sat fat! Veggies aren't

real

> > > important, fruit isn't necessary, who cares about fiber, omega-

3s

> > > cause cancer. While I can agree that sat. fat isn't the bad guy

> > > here... some of the stuff on this board REALLY goes against

the

> > grain.

> > > It goes against almost all respected research out there. Now,

I'm

> > > hardly in a position to criticize being a layman and all, but

it

> > makes

> > > the group as a whole lack credibility (again, from my layman

> > > perspective).

> > >

> > >

> > > " I've never seen any convincing evidence at all for the

benefits of

> > > phytates. "

> > >

> > > Can you show me convincing evidence that the consumption of

> > phytates

> > > is deleterious to health? My point is: both positions are

based

> > on a

> > > theoretical understanding, not actual proof. One side says that

> > > phytates are bad because they leech minerals and the other

side

> > says

> > > they leech out mainly harmful minerals. So my conclusion is

that a

> > > moderate consumption is perfectly healthy. Why go out of my

way to

> > get

> > > rid of phytates? It's like going out of my way to avoid fruit

> > because

> > > it contains fructose.

> > >

> > > " Well, now you have lined yourself up to the plate to bat

against

> > all

> > > the epidemiological evidence showing that enormous iron

intakes

> > do

> > > not lead to heart disease or cancer. You also now have to

explain

> > why

> > > the active transport system that regulates iron absorption

isn't

> > > sufficient to take care of this. "

> > >

> > > Do you have any thoughts on the following article?:

> > >

> > > http://t-mag.com/nation_articles/278iron.jsp

> > >

> > > I'm no expert but everything I've read leads me to believe

that too

> > > much iron is harmful to health. That may be wrong, but until I

see

> > > contrary evidence that's what I have to stick with.

> > >

> > > " You also have to explain why decreasing Ca, Zn, and other

> > minerals

> > > in proportion to the iron would have any beneficial effect, or

> > > wouldn't have a negative effect, since phytates do not

selectively

> > > bind iron. "

> > >

> > > You raise a good point. My contention was never that phytates

are

> > all

> > > good...simply that they aren't all bad. I don't see why anyone

> > should

> > > go through loads of effort to get rid of phytates when the

jury

> > isn't

> > > out yet.

> > >

> > > " What studies have also shown is that increased omega-3s lead

to

> > > increased lipid peroxidation, which could lead to cancer and

other

> > > problems. So it seems wise to me to try to get the highest

> > EPA/DHA

> > > with the lowest total omega-3s. I mentioned raw butter

simply to

> > > point out that it contains ALA, so if one did not consume ALA-

rich

> > > oils, they could get sufficient ALA from other food sources.

You

> > > wouldn't have to eat butter, that's just one example. "

> > >

> > > Again, I'm not stating that n-3s are without problems. But

from all

> > > the information out there, adding n-3s to your diet is

probably a

> > good

> > > thing.

> > >

> > > -

[Guest guest]

As I said in my previous post you were the one who questioned

credibility here not me. The first part if my post isn't as much a

flame as it is simply don't come to ANY group and question

its " credibility " and the post cite ridiculous and absurd sources in

contrast that's it.

And as for the " Second " in my post what exactly did you find

arrogant about it. I'd guess that most would find it simply common

sense.

I don't think that Flax is a devilish little bad man to be avoided

at all costs and yet it is marginal at best in its benefits and

there are other foods/supplements that supply those benefits

better. In addition there are situations in which people would

actually benefit from avoiding it. IMO. Its not arrogant, its just

my opinion you are certainly permitted to disagree just don't rebut

my opinion with trash from " bodybuilders " .

Sorry if you felt " flamed " as that wasn't my intention, I'll

remember next time you'll need me to be more sensitive.

DMM

> > > I fail to see how this makes flax unhealthy for men in

general. I

> > > think we're skipping a step in the reasoning somewhere. Many

> > > bodybuilders supplement with vast amounts of flax and they're

> > > borderline paranoid about hormonal effects of foods and

> > supplements.

> > >

> > > -

> > >

> > > " At any rate, I think it's generally accepted that the lignans

in

> > flax are

> > > phytoestrogens. "

[Guest guest]

Jo, here are some links re estrogen and food incl. flax seed

Crucifers and Cancer -- By , MD

http://www.westonaprice.org/women/natural_protection.html

Estrogen & Food

http://holisticonline.com/Remedies/hrt/hrt_food_and_estrogen.htm

this one has a list of foods containing natural oestrogen and Estrogen

inhibiting foods

another article with lists --

http://www.womens-menopause-health.com/natural_estrogen_replacement.htm

Estrogen and Metabolic Resistance

http://atkins.com/Archive/2001/12/21-394348.html

Tissue-bound Estrogen in Aging - by Dr. Ray Peat

go to www.efn.org/~raypeat and get it there.

Dr. Mercola has lots of article re Estrogen

Dedy

======================================================

<<

----- Original Message -----

Really??? In all the talk about flaxseed on the US low carb lists no-one ever

mentioned this. For american LCers, flaxseed always appears to be a

wonder-food. It's never really taken off in this country, But I have fuond it

has uses in some LC

baking recipes so I've never made a point of avoiding it.

I would be interested in learning more about this effect - do you have any links

to share? Because of endometriosis I try not to eat anything that will affect

my oestrogen levels.

Thanks

Jo >>

[Guest guest]

Are phytates and flaxmeal healthy?

--------Assuming you mean are these exceptional foods that one

should go out of their way for daily the answer it no. For reasons

stated multiple times in preivous posts by multiple group members.

If your use of healthy here means neutral effect on the person

meaning won't kill them I suppose the answer might be sometimes in

moderation.

Why or why not?

> What's the evidence?

--------------Here is where we may or may not part company. The

issues of environmental and dietary estrogens are clear in the

modern mainstream. I just can't think of a good reason to go out of

ones way to consume more estrogens in any form. Much less flax

whose inefficiencies has masterfully depicted.

As for Phytates, the same is true. When looking at the behaviour of

phytates it is clear that they damage the absorptive process. This

you can find plenty of info on, most likely in a botany or

agriculture text. With all the uncontrollable things disrupting

these absorptive processes why would one want to go out of their way

to get more intentionally.

Both of those things being said, to repeat, a little flax seed or

unsoaked grain is unlikely to do in a healthy person. ;-)

DMM

Is there any reason to believe that phytates need

> to be purposely combatted through soaking and such?

Besides the fact that sour grains are more fun and taste better, see

above.

If consumed in

> moderation is there any study, anywhere, that shows them as being

> deleterious?

Off the top of my head I don't know and I'm too lazy to look right

now. However the corrollaries ie. environmental and dietary

estrogens along with the clearly documented physiologic behaviour of

phytates provide enough information to make a reasonable

conclusion. If someone has studies to post I'd like to see them too

however methinks on these two particular topics they're reasonably

irrelevant.

[Guest guest]

... your phrase ('against the grain') demonstrates how ingrained

grains are in our culture.

- Daphne (who misses pizza and sushi but feels much better since she

swore off grains, at least for now...)

>

> While I can agree that sat. fat isn't the bad guy

> > here... some of the stuff on this board REALLY goes against the grain.

>

>

>

> Is this a clever pun? lol!

>

>

[Guest guest]

" against the grain " comes from the grain of " wood grain " ...

but that sense of " grain " originally comes from the seed sense

because of the resemblance of wood fibers to the seeds...

ingrained indeed...

mike parker

mike parker

> ... your phrase ('against the grain') demonstrates how ingrained

> grains are in our culture.

>

> - Daphne (who misses pizza and sushi but feels much better since she

> swore off grains, at least for now...)

>

>

> >

> > While I can agree that sat. fat isn't the bad guy

> > > here... some of the stuff on this board REALLY goes against the

grain.

> >

> >

> >

> > Is this a clever pun? lol!

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Dear You are right. The title of the article is " Flax is Not

the Best Omega 3 Source. "

" ALA, found in flax seed is the precursor of omega-3 fats, can be

converted to long-chain omega-3 fats and can therefore be substituted

for fish oils. However, ALA is not equivalent in its biological

effects to the long-chain omega-3 fats found in marine oils. EPA and

DHA are more rapidly incorporated into plasma and membrane lipids and

produce more rapid effects than does ALA. "

The comparison of how much ALA it takes compared to fish oil

indicates how fish oil is more beneficial because you take a lot less.

The point they made about Vitamin E is like " a tongue in cheek "

comment. The article needs to be read in it's entirety.

Bee

wrote:

> > Experimental studies suggest that intake of 3-4 grams of ALA per

day is equivalent to 0.3 grams (300 mg) EPA per day.

>

> This is an *enormous* quantity of ALA to take to get significant

amounts of EPA. That means if you want 1 gram a day, you have to

take 12 grams of ALA!

> That's a hell of a lot of pufa to keep from oxidizing.

>

> > One advantage of the consumption of ALA over omega-3 fats from

fish is that the problem of insufficient vitamin E intake does not

exist with high intake of ALA from plant sources.

>

> This makes no sense to me. Plant oils are not that high in vitamin

E, except palm oil and wheat germ oil for the most part, which are

not high in ALA.

>

> >

> > Benefits of Omega-3 Fats

> >

> > Dietary intake of omega-3 fats from seafood was associated with

> > reduced risk of primary cardiac arrest compared with no fish

intake;

> > 5.5 g omega-3 fats per month or the equivalent of 1 fatty fish

meal

> > per week was associated with a 50% reduction in the risk of

primary

> > cardiac arrest.

> > A 5.0% increase in omega-3 fats was associated with a 70%

reduction

> > in the risk of primary cardiac arrest.

> >

>

> And on the other hand, some studies show ALA specifically to have

no

> reduction of heart disease at all.

>

> Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/20/03 9:21:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

beewilder@... writes:

> The comparison of how much ALA it takes compared to fish oil

> indicates how fish oil is more beneficial because you take a lot less.

I understood that. I was just highlighting it for the sake of the discussion

since it was one of the points I'd made, not arguing against the article.

>

> The point they made about Vitamin E is like " a tongue in cheek "

> comment. The article needs to be read in it's entirety.

Now that I didn't get. Thanks :-)

Chris