flax seeds...yes or no

[Guest guest]

But what about people unable to make the conversion? Some need preformed

sources such as those found in CLO, Krill, and ohter animal or marine sources.

Elainie

[Guest guest]

Well, I think I just take a moderate approach. Just because I don't

buy into the anti-fat/anti-cholesterol myths doesn't mean I believe in

butter or sat. fat as a holy grail. Fact is, phytates prevent cancer

by leeching out ~harmful~ minerals such as iron from the body. Iron,

especially in excess in males, is often toxic so a bit of bran/whole

wheat is probably healthy for you unless you overdo it.

Omega-3 has continually shown positive results in studies, and fiber

as well (although I don't feel as strongly towards it). I wouldn't

start throwing out all scientific advice because it doesn't correlate

with the habits of primitive societies.

-

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

> paultheo2000@y... 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]

In a message dated 9/20/03 2:17:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

jopollack2001@... writes:

> But I have fuond it has uses in some LC

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

> it.

Wouldn't baking with something that's nearly all pufa be a bad idea?

Chris

[Guest guest]

Bee,

Thanks for the info.

> 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 4:28:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

paultheo2000@... writes:

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

Really? I've never even heard of it.

As far as I know it's not in dispute that the lignans in flax are estrogenic.

What is in dispute is whether lignans are very good for you or very bad for

you. Like DMM pointed out, since lots of problems are by the mainstream

blamed on over-exposure to estrogen it seems silly to value more dietary

estrogen.

I guess you could make a PCB shake every morning.

I think your point was not that bodybuilders know what's up when it comes to

health, but that they're paranoid about hormone effects... but again, I don't

think it's disputed that flax has estrogenic properties.

Nevertheless, they're probably countered by the testosterone produced by

bodybuilding?

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/20/03 4:32:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

paultheo2000@... writes:

> 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 think there's lots of diversity of opinion on here.

There's definitely diversity of debating etiquettes to, and apparently a bit

of diversity in what people get offended by. I don't think he meant any harm.

Chris

[Guest guest]

One more thing to add is that if someone is eating a diet free of n-6

vegetables, which anyone just about on this list would be doing, the addition of

4

grams of ALA, or worse, 12 grams (which is what you would need to get a gram of

EPA), would probably contribute to GLA deficiency, possibly contribute to DGLA

deficiency, and be saved from contributing to AA deficiency only by all the

eggs bacon steak and butter.

Omega-3s can hog the D5D and D6D enzymes away from the n-6s just like the

n-6s can hog them from the n-3s. The best defense is to get the preformed FAs

in

the diet. GLA might be tricky if you aren't supplementing with a special GLA

oil, although you can get it from oatmeal.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/20/03 6:35:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

paultheo2000@... writes:

> 1.) I didn't quote T-mag to present the most credible source out

> there, for those people who deliberately took that out of context. I

> was merely asking for thoughts on the article to see if anyone could

> address the facts being mentioned. Nobody did so.

,

Did you not receive my email? If you did, I find it mildly annoying that

rather than responding to the lengthy response I made and showing why any given

point I made is not valid, you simply say no one addressed the " facts. " Maybe

I didn't convince you, but I certainly addressed numerous points in the

article.

If you didn't receive it, that's understandable as I often don't receive

emails from the list here and there.

> 2.) I'm not big on credibility. Trust me, to criticize T-Mag is quite

> presumptious when you consider that the W.A.P foundation is considered

> by many nothing less than baseless propaganda where researchers' names

> are misspelt, studies are taken out of context, etc, etc. What do I

> think personally? I have no idea. I just want comments justified. The

> current orthodoxy is that flax seeds are a healthy addition to one's

> diet. If there is disagreement then some proof ought to be presented.

,

Since it was my disagreement with you that basically started this debate,

I'll point out that I never said flax was necessarily a bad thing. What I did

say is I didn't see any compelling reason to add it to one's diet. So that it

is important or necessary rather than just another food has a burden that's on

you, not me. And I *did* address the issues that you presented. As far as I

remember, you were the one to not respond to my points, not the other way

around. Unless I missed one of your emails.

> 3.) I'm not at all sensitive; I'm simply exercising restraint. I don't

> intend to start a flame war. I also don't see any point in discussing

> credibility, bias, etc, etc.

I'll agree with that.

>

> There two points being addressed:

>

> Is Flax healthy?

> Are phytates unhealthy in moderation?

Actually, neither of these are exactly the issues, especially the last one.

The issue is whether flax has any unique properties that give a compelling

reason to include it as a daily health food, other than because it tastes good,

and whether or not they clearly outweigh any risks. You haven't provided any

evidence that they are a health food-- I addressed quite thoroughly the n-3

issue, and the fiber-- c'mon, that's hardly unique to flax. The phytoestrogens

pose more of a potential problem than a health benefit. If you are disputing

that, well, that's a discussion we haven't had yet.

So the point on flax is that, fine, eat it if you want, but there's no

compelling health-related reason to include it as a daily food, and there are

some

potential risks with the estrogen that may or may not be a reason to avoid it,

depending on the person. So no, flax are not clearly " bad " for you, but there

are risks, the magnitude of which are unclear.

As to phytates, you've got the issue completely backwards. You asserted that

phytates were *healthful* in moderation. I disputed this and said there no

positive health value. You are *not* justified in holding me to a burden to

show that they have a negative effect on health in moderation, because I didn't

make that statement. In fact, the statement I initially made was that the

phytates in flax were probably *not* a big deal, but this was not because

phytates are *good* for you, but because there's such a *small amount* in the

flax.

So no, I'm not going to argue, and don't have to, that phytates in moderation

will cause health problems. But I will argue that something that affords no

benefit but decreases the net nutrition of a food is something which is wise

to avoid-- not because it will harm you if you eat it, but because you'll get

less benefit.

The burden is on you to back up your own assertion that there is any health

value to phytates. And I addressed this *thoroughly* in a very *lengthy*

response. Since often sends things out of order, perhaps you did not

receive

this, or perhaps you've responded but I haven't received it yet. Otherwise,

I'd appreciate you responding to the numerous points I made, rather than

claiming that none were made.

Again, the issue is whether there is any *health value* in consuming moderate

amounts of phytates on a regular basis; this is your assertion; you have the

burden to be met.

> As of yet I've seen nothing to disprove either assertion.

I don't think you're going to find any proof one way or another. Obviously

moderate amounts of almost anything, for someone who has a well-functioning

system, will not cause major problems. The question is not whether flax or

phytates will harm you in small amounts, or whether flax or phytates are good

for

you in small amounts, but whether or not either have a net positive benefit to

risk ratio.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/20/03 7:09:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

paultheo2000@... writes:

> Back on topic. Are phytates and flaxmeal healthy? Why or why not?

> What's the evidence? Is there any reason to believe that phytates need

> to be purposely combatted through soaking and such? If consumed in

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

> deleterious? If so, please, I would LOVE to see it and would be very

I haven't looked into it enough, but I'd just point out that the methods that

reduce phytates have other effects as well. They all help pre-digest

starches, and sprouting in particular vastly increases the nutrient density of

the

food, not only freeing the minerals from the phytates, but increasing B vitamins

and creating vitamin C.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/20/03 7:17:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

paultheo2000@... writes:

> Can we agree that, since there's no conclusive evidence either way...

> palatability should dictate whether you consume it or not (within reason)?

Yes, if you are talking amounts around a teaspoon a day. I think a

tablespoon and certainly anything more than that has an excessive amount of

pufa.

> Yes, true--that wasn't what I meant. I didn't mean to insinuate that

> the burden of evidence was on you--I was merely curious if you knew of

> any evidence against phytates (ie: studies). Whether or not you have

> any doesn't affect my contention (as you rightly point out).

Ok.

> But how will we determine this? I understand the points you're getting

> at...but the fact is we don't completely understand the underlying

> biochemical processes behind the things you mention.

Well, we understand a considerable amount. We understand that phytate is a

base and like basically any other it can and does bind minerals. We

understand that minerals will not be fully available from the foods. I also

disputed

the iron thing, and also pointed out that even when iron is a problem, eating

moderate amounts of phytates is not an effective way to combat it. Since you

apparently didn't recevie it, I'll send it again. So my point isn't that there

is clear and conclusive evidence that phytates must be avoided at all costs,

but simply that foods are more nutritious without the phytates, so it offers

more benefit to destroy the phytates than not to.

As to flax, we understand very well the benefits of EPA and DHA, and we

understand very well the obstacles to receiving such benefits out of flax. And

we

understand that more pufa means either more requirement for antioxidants or

more oxidation. So it is simply reasonable to not regard flax as an ideal

source of n-3s. If you like the taste, fine. I'm just saying there is no

compelling reason to eat them for one's health.

Chris

[Guest guest]

-

As the recent large-scale argument over politics and related subjects ought

to have conclusively demonstrated, that's just not true. Diverse opinions

are not only welcome but are expressed with a degree of civility not

commonly found on the net.

That said, there can obviously be very strong disagreements here on the

list, and there's a general demand here for a very high degree of

rigor. If you state that the consensus about fats on this list impairs the

list's credibility because we disagree with mainstream medical thought and

then you cite a bodybuilder source as an allegedly credible counter-source,

well, people are going to look at you a bit askance. Bodybuilding is a

terribly unhealthy discipline. Just look at the amount of injury and drug

abuse in the bodybuilding community -- it's rampant. And consider that the

fundamental goal of bodybuilding is not health or performance or vigor or

longevity but appearance, and specifically changes in appearance achieved

in the short term.

More generally, your initial statement about credibility is, I'm sorry to

say, arrant nonsense. Or rather, as far as objective truth and facts go,

it's arrant nonsense, but you're sadly exactly on target when it comes to

subjective perception, which is to say that people will perceive us as

being off our rockers if we disagree with mainstream received wisdom

regardless of the actual facts of the matter. But who cares? If the

conventional wisdom is wrong, it's wrong, and no amount of pretending

otherwise so that we don't lose some kind of perceived credibility in some

circles is going to change that. More importantly, I think we have a moral

obligation to NOT stick our heads in the sand and pretend we agree with the

conventional wisdom, because the conventional wisdom is provably wrong, is

harming people, and worst of all is literally fraudulent.

So if you don't want to face vigorous disagreement, then this list isn't

for you, but if you're up to the task of vigorously but civilly defending

your views against vigorous but civil challenge, then this is as good a

place as you're likely to find anywhere.

>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.

-

[Guest guest]

-

Estrogenic chemical pollution is a widespread problem today all throughout

nature. There are scores (or scores upon scores upon scores upon scores)

of chemicals which have estrogen-like effects, and while there's some

debate over whether humans are among the effected, there are documented

cause-and-effect relationships between certain estrogen-like pollutants and

problems certain species are having, and many of the same symptoms

(declining fertility, lowered sperm counts, increased birth defects, etc.)

are documented as widespread problems among humans, so right off the bat it

seems like a very bad idea to voluntarily consume extremely potent

phytoestrogens. Furthermore, look at soy, another phytoestrogen, (or

rather a food containing a complex of phytoestrogens) which has a range of

documented ill effects including some specifically attributable to its

estrogenic activity. Why would one potent phytoestrogen be harmless when

we know another is extremely harmful due at least in part to its estrogenic

effect?

To second Mike, I'm not saying flax is the antichrist. I'm not saying you

should avoid it like the plague. But as a staple or a regularly-consumed

supplement, I'd absolutely say ditch it and don't look back.

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

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

-

[Guest guest]

here's my understanding of the flax issue, largely echoing chris and

others. i used flax for a little while before switching to the

following reasoning.

pros:

1. omega-3's. not a very useful type of omega-3's, inefficiently

converted to a useful form, peroxidation risks. however, it's better

than nothing. then again, i can't imagine too many situations where

that's the only source of omega-3's a person would have. maybe

someone who is allergic to certain sea animal foods. i know someone

who has a thyroid problem such that they can eat virtually no

seafoods because of the iodine, but isolated fish oils probably are

still okay for this person. in general, though, why not just get a

better source of omega-3's?

2. phytoestrogens. maybe for a certian subset of females this is a

good thing? maybe not?

3. fiber. a million other non-controversial foods have tons of

fiber. in fact, it's hard to eat a varied diet of whole foods and

NOT get a good bit of fiber. i'm not interested in the question of

whether fiber is really such a big deal or not, and i suspect people

can thrive on low-fiber and high-fiber diets, and everything in-

between, considering that humans are so flexible in their diet. in

any case, if you're eating lots of other foods with fiber, then this

is an irrelevant consideration.

4. other substances i don't know much about or nobody knows much

about. i wouldn't be surprised if there are other goodies in most

foods, but i'd have to have concrete info before it affected my

decision. there is a body of literature about using flax to fight

cancer, but i think it's controversial, and i don't have cancer.

5. taste. i found ground flax pleasant, added to a drink, kefir,

smoothie, etc, although when i sprouted flax i found it unpleasant.

since i eat dozens of other foods i find much more delicious and

would like to eat yet hundreds more i find much more delicious, this

is not much of a consideration.

cons:

1. omega-3's. see above, more risk than benefit probably.

2. phytoestrogens. for men, risk of throwing off hormonal system.

hawaii study of brain aging and tofu consumption is one datum to make

us wonder. studies of clover and cows, etc give more reason to

wonder. general knowledge of human physiology makes us wonder.

enough reasons to play it on the safe side and minimize phytoestrogen

consumption for men. if something is not necessary and might be

harmful, why bother?

3. other substances... as above.

in sum, no convincing pros for me, two cons. for women in general,

there is one possibly convincing pro (phytoestrogens), and one con

(omega-3's), so probably not at the top of the list for food choices.

mike parker

[Guest guest]

1.) I didn't quote T-mag to present the most credible source out

there, for those people who deliberately took that out of context. I

was merely asking for thoughts on the article to see if anyone could

address the facts being mentioned. Nobody did so.

2.) I'm not big on credibility. Trust me, to criticize T-Mag is quite

presumptious when you consider that the W.A.P foundation is considered

by many nothing less than baseless propaganda where researchers' names

are misspelt, studies are taken out of context, etc, etc. What do I

think personally? I have no idea. I just want comments justified. The

current orthodoxy is that flax seeds are a healthy addition to one's

diet. If there is disagreement then some proof ought to be presented.

3.) I'm not at all sensitive; I'm simply exercising restraint. I don't

intend to start a flame war. I also don't see any point in discussing

credibility, bias, etc, etc.

There two points being addressed:

Is Flax healthy?

Are phytates unhealthy in moderation?

As of yet I've seen nothing to disprove either assertion.

-

[Guest guest]

>

> Is Flax healthy?

> Are phytates unhealthy in moderation?

>

> As of yet I've seen nothing to disprove either assertion.

>

> -

Then you should eat 'em!

You're article in question has been commented on.

Ps- I find the current " orthodoxy " you refer to as and excellent

source of information and barometer as a general rule I make a point

of doing the opposite. ;-)

As I and others have stated flax is certainly not the " antichrist "

however there are multiple other foods/supplements that simply do

the job better. That's not even my opinion, you'd probably find

some of the " orthodoxy " to agree.

DMM

[Guest guest]

> 2.) I'm not big on credibility. Trust me, to criticize T-Mag is

quite

> presumptious when you consider that the W.A.P foundation is

considered

> by many nothing less than baseless propaganda where researchers'

names

> are misspelt, studies are taken out of context, etc, etc. What do I

> think personally? I have no idea. I just want comments justified.

if you're " not big on credibility " then you shouldn't have

questioned the credibility of this group to start with. That was

and is my point. If you want to have a credible and spirited

discourse we can but you also must bring credibility to the table

too, not Tmag or the like.

As for what WAP is considered? Who cares? You can get people to

disagree on the age of a 1 year old rock. So you know " Many " who

don't like WAP, great more power to them.

You're last comment directly contradicts your first " not big on

credibility " then " just want comments justified. " Which is it?

Again to repeat this began with YOUR questioning the credibility of

this group. If you really and truly are hear to better understand

and form your own opinion be as derisive or cooperative as you want

just don't demand " justification " and use a bunch of junk and drivel

as your reference. That's all.

There's nobody on this board who can be as unreasonable as I am

except maybe I. ;-P (I love you I.) and I always enjoy

some spirited discourse which you apparently regard as " flaming " .

I just simply ask that if you're going to hold someone or group to a

standard do it fairly. Just because the " orthodoxy " chants it loud

enough doesn't make it " credible " or " justified " .

I have taken no offense at what you have posted I hope you have

taken none at mine.

DMM

[Guest guest]

Yes, the whole 'credibility' issue was a blunder on my part and I

retract whatever statement I made intitially. My last statement is a

more accurate portrayal of my thoughts, ie: I'd prefer discussing the

issue at hand than the credibility of the source (within reason).

Back on topic. Are phytates and flaxmeal healthy? Why or why not?

What's the evidence? Is there any reason to believe that phytates need

to be purposely combatted through soaking and such? If consumed in

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

deleterious? If so, please, I would LOVE to see it and would be very

grateful to whoever found evidence either way.

-

> > 2.) I'm not big on credibility. Trust me, to criticize T-Mag is

> quite

> > presumptious when you consider that the W.A.P foundation is

> considered

> > by many nothing less than baseless propaganda where researchers'

> names

> > are misspelt, studies are taken out of context, etc, etc. What do I

> > think personally? I have no idea. I just want comments justified.

>

>

>

> if you're " not big on credibility " then you shouldn't have

> questioned the credibility of this group to start with. That was

> and is my point. If you want to have a credible and spirited

> discourse we can but you also must bring credibility to the table

> too, not Tmag or the like.

>

> As for what WAP is considered? Who cares? You can get people to

> disagree on the age of a 1 year old rock. So you know " Many " who

> don't like WAP, great more power to them.

>

> You're last comment directly contradicts your first " not big on

> credibility " then " just want comments justified. " Which is it?

>

> Again to repeat this began with YOUR questioning the credibility of

> this group. If you really and truly are hear to better understand

> and form your own opinion be as derisive or cooperative as you want

> just don't demand " justification " and use a bunch of junk and drivel

> as your reference. That's all.

>

> There's nobody on this board who can be as unreasonable as I am

> except maybe I. ;-P (I love you I.) and I always enjoy

> some spirited discourse which you apparently regard as " flaming " .

> I just simply ask that if you're going to hold someone or group to a

> standard do it fairly. Just because the " orthodoxy " chants it loud

> enough doesn't make it " credible " or " justified " .

>

> I have taken no offense at what you have posted I hope you have

> taken none at mine.

>

> DMM

[Guest guest]

" ,

>

> Did you not receive my email? If you did, I find it mildly annoying

that

> rather than responding to the lengthy response I made and showing

why any given

> point I made is not valid, you simply say no one addressed the

" facts. " Maybe

> I didn't convince you, but I certainly addressed numerous points in the

> article. "

I didn't receive any email. If you emailed me concerning the article,

I'd be very grateful.

" Since it was my disagreement with you that basically started this

debate,

> I'll point out that I never said flax was necessarily a bad thing.

What I did

> say is I didn't see any compelling reason to add it to one's diet. "

Can we agree that, since there's no conclusive evidence either way...

palatability should dictate whether you consume it or not (within reason)?

"

> As to phytates, you've got the issue completely backwards. You

asserted that

> phytates were *healthful* in moderation. I disputed this and said

there no

> positive health value. You are *not* justified in holding me to a

burden to

> show that they have a negative effect on health in moderation,

because I didn't

> make that statement. "

Yes, true--that wasn't what I meant. I didn't mean to insinuate that

the burden of evidence was on you--I was merely curious if you knew of

any evidence against phytates (ie: studies). Whether or not you have

any doesn't affect my contention (as you rightly point out).

" The question is not whether flax or

> phytates will harm you in small amounts, or whether flax or phytates

are good for

> you in small amounts, but whether or not either have a net positive

benefit to

> risk ratio. "

But how will we determine this? I understand the points you're getting

at...but the fact is we don't completely understand the underlying

biochemical processes behind the things you mention.

-

[Guest guest]

>That said, there can obviously be very strong disagreements here on the

>list, and there's a general demand here for a very high degree of

>rigor. If you state that the consensus about fats on this list impairs the

>list's credibility because we disagree with mainstream medical thought and

>then you cite a bodybuilder source as an allegedly credible counter-source,

>well, people are going to look at you a bit askance.

Just to jump in here ... one thing I like about this list IS the insistence

on rigor. Sometimes to the point of nitpickiness, but very rarely

uncivil.

The point about " disagreeing with mainstream medical thought " is

interesting. MOST of the studies people quote here ARE mainstream medical

studies. The fact is the mainstream disagrees with itself all over

the place ... to use myself as an example, I tend to be anti-gluten (though

NT in general is not), based on studies done at the University of land,

among others. The stuff I've read that is anti-phytate is also mostly

from mainstream, or at least highly scientific, sources.

What the average doctor prescribes is often very different from

what the researchers are researching. Both are " mainstream " .

As for bodybuilders and Sumo wrestlers ... they are a very interesting test case

....

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 17:32:41 -0400

Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

>-

>

>As the recent large-scale argument over politics and related subjects ought

>to have conclusively demonstrated, that's just not true. Diverse opinions

>are not only welcome but are expressed with a degree of civility not

>commonly found on the net.

,

I must say I agree with your whole post. This is a rare list, uncommon

on the net. And it doesn't take long to figure out there is a huge

diversity of opinion which is handled quite well.

Very well said ...now about them flax seeds <weg>

It Really Was The People's Car

http://tinyurl.com/mwbv

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 20:27:54 -0000

" paultheo2000 " <paultheo2000@...> wrote:

>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.

>

>-

Hmmm...other than posting the interview with Ori, the author of the

Warrior Diet, I don't recall that mag being quoted here at all. And in

the case of Ori, it was an interview that went against everything that

mag believes concerning nutrition.

It Really Was The People's Car

http://tinyurl.com/mwbv

[Guest guest]

>There two points being addressed:

>

>Is Flax healthy?

>Are phytates unhealthy in moderation?

>

>As of yet I've seen nothing to disprove either assertion.

OK, here is a mainstream article showing phytates inhibit absorption.

I don't think ANYONE doubts that they do that. Now, is that a problem?

Wouldn't the answer depend on how many vitamins/iron you are getting in

the first place? Someone eating a lot of meat isn't likely to be

iron deficient -- SOME people do get too much iron (they lack the

ability to get rid of it, for some reason). There are other mainstream

articles that have been quoted here that state that even if you

soak, ferment, etc., you don't get rid of all the phytates, usually

only about 50%. So given that you have healthy people eating grains

at all, the phytates don't kill you. But in the study below, they

caused some people perhaps to be anemic without taking supplements.

It's one of those questions where there isn't a 'one size fits all'

answer. Foods are rarely all " good " or all " bad " .

http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/128/3/646

After the rapid decrease in the prevalence of iron deficiency and

iron-deficiency anemia in the Venezuelan population when a national program for

fortification of flours with iron and vitamins was instituted, we studied

micronutrient interactions in Venezuelan diets. One hundred human adults were

fed three cereal-based diets, labelled with either 59Fe or 55Fe in six studies.

Each diet contained different concentrations of vitamin A (from 0.37 to 2.78

µmol/100 g cereal) or -carotene (from 0.58 to 2.06 µmol/100 g cereal). The

presence of vitamin A increased iron absorption up to twofold for rice, 0.8-fold

for wheat and 1.4-fold for corn. -carotene increased absorption more than

threefold for rice and 1.8-fold for wheat and corn, suggesting that both

compounds prevented the inhibitory effect of phytates on iron absorption.

Increasing the doses of vitamin A or -carotene did not further significantly

increase iron absorption. We measured the iron remaining in solution performing

in vitro studies in which the pH of solutions was adjusted from 2 to 6 in the

presence of vitamin A or -carotene. All of the iron from ferrous fumarate was

soluble after changing the pH of the solution containing 3.4 µmol of -carotene

to 6.0. Vitamin A was less effective. However, 78 ± 18% of iron was soluble in

the presence of 3.3 µmol of vitamin A, whereas with no vitamin addition, only 26

± 13% of iron was soluble (<0.05). Vitamin A and -carotene may form a complex

with iron, keeping it soluble in the intestinal lumen and preventing the

inhibitory effect of phytates and polyphenols on iron absorption.

=========

Ditto for flax. Sally's take was that small amounts might be helpful, but it was

iffy. Mercola says the same, for different reasons. But both have a pretty

reasoned approach. I'm always leery when someone says " this food is good "

(usually a vendor of that food) or " this food is bad " . Shoot, I used to think

that botulism was something I could use as an example of something " bad " and now

folks are paying big bucks to have it injected!

=========

Ground flaxseeds are a useful addition to most people's diet. The unfortunate

problem though with using them for most people is that when one has elevated

insulin levels, the delta six desaturase enzyme is severely inhibited.

This enzyme is responsible for converting the alpha linolenic acid (ALA) in flax

to longer chain fats (like EPA and DHA) and it is easy to develop an excess of

ALA in one's system, which is counterproductive.

Who has elevated insulin levels?

Most Americans, as just about anyone who is overweight (60% of the US

population) has excess insulin, as do most all those with high cholesterol, high

blood pressure or type 2 diabetes.

So the flax should be used sparingly and probably alternated with other ground

grains, like sunflower, sesame and pumpkin, which will help to balance the omega

six and omega three ratios.

=========

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>>>>I rarely use them and

the small box I have has lasted me about 18 months so

far.

----->that seems like a really long time to store a food that goes rancid

fairly easily. i keep mine in my freezer, which i understand lots of other

folks do. of course seeds are going to store much better than the oil, but

i'd be wary about keeping them for long periods, especially at room temp.

and personally, i would absolutely never heat them under any circumstances.

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]

> mainstream nutrition

> dogma is often just completely wrong. and is often the product of many

> influences rather than honest scientific inquiry. in fact, *many* of us are

> here after years of *following* the grain and consequently getting sicker

> and sicker!

Amen, sister. I was sick (and getting ever sicker) for years on a

" perfect diet " : lacto-ovo vegetarian, low sat-fat, following the food

pyramid guidelines devoutly (lots of grains and legumes). You wouldn't

believe how much better I am (or perhaps you would) after a little over

a year of eating a grain-free diet (not necessary for everyone, of

course, but I am *very* sensitive to grains --- even rice makes my

sinuses swell up within 5-10 minutes of eating it) that contains

generous amounts of all types of fats, lots of vegetables and fruits,

plenty of animal protein. I don't take any supplements, and don't go to

any bother preparing my food --- I like to cook, and I like to eat, but

I'm really busy with family, farm, and many outside responsibilities, so

I keep things simple when it comes to preparing meals for our family of

five.

What I'm trying to say is that in my case it wasn't necessary to go to

any great bother to achieve a dramatic improvement in my health --- I

just threw out the food pyramid guidelines and decided to concentrate on

eating the most nutritious foods available, and avoiding anything that

caused an allergic or intolerant reaction (mainly in my lower digestive

tract --- grains appeared to be the chief culprits). My own research

quickly indicated that fish, eggs (*good* ones), liver, dairy products,

green and yellow vegetables, high-antioxidant fruits, and some nuts

could form the basis of a really nutritious diet, and the better the

quality of the food, the more nutrition it would provide. I don't eat

any junk food and don't like sweets, so I'm able to stick pretty well to

a healthy regimen.

As my health continues to improve, I shall probably make the time to do

some home-fermenting (I already make good sauerkraut and kimchi when I

remember to do it) and possibly switch to raw milk (I'm thinking of

getting a cow --- we have a small farm, and we could sustain a couple of

milk animals). I'm getting 50 lbs. of organic grass-fed beef from a

friend who just had a 1-year-old steer slaughtered, and I make sure that

I choose the best fish to eat (e.g., smaller fish like sardines which

are lowest in mercury contamination, wild-caught Pacific salmon,

fresh-water fish from the least polluted lake environments) --- but

basically it has been a fairly simple matter for me to reap great health

benefits from making a few fundamental but very significant changes in

my diet.

Pat

[Guest guest]

Suze,

Oh, we're agreed then. That seems like a reasonable interpretation of

his point, unless Bee was correct that it was tongue in cheek?

I'm not criticizing *you*, I'm just maintaining that if that is what

Mercola meant, it still doesn't seem like a sensible thing to say.

Chris

> >>>>I understand that, but I've never seen flax oil reported as a

good

> vitamin E

> source, whereas it's pufa content is enormous. Enig has no

figures

> whatsoever reported for vitamin E in flax oil.

>

> ---->chris, i wasn't making the point that flax seeds or oil are a

good

> source of vitamin E. i was only trying to interpret what mercola was

saying,

> and IIRC, the point was that you may not need to add as much vit. E

when

> taking ALA-rich plants because they already contain vitamin E that

protects

> the oil in the seed or plant. i think some of the E is lost in

processing

> the oil, but is still intact in the seed itself. i have no idea if

that

> helps protect it from oxidizing once you ingest it, i was just

trying to

> intrepet his point.

>

> 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>

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