Fats: was chips

[Guest guest]

>Yes, there are many questions. The implications of her writing are that all

>other things were equal and the switch from saturated fats to

>polyunsaturated canola oil is what was largely responsible for the drop in

>CHD. This is in direct contradiction to the NT/NN philosophy and does

>appear to be somewhat evidenced based and disconcerting.

Well, I TOTALLY agree with your " question everything " approach! I don't think

it's simple. I've been following the debate in the science mags, which are not

as " anti fat " as people make out. The researchers are pretty convinced that fat

isn't the issue, but oxidation of the fat IS the issue. Corn oil oxidizes easier

than olive oil. But even if you have a huge load of oxidants, you can be fine if

you ALSO have anti-oxidants, which is where fruits, vegies, raw meats, vit. D

come in.

Also there is the issue of " inflammation " . Time magazine did a whole issue on it

.... Americans have these huge problems with inflammation, whether they are low

fat or high fat. Some of it is in the arteries, but more of it is in the joints

and muscles (arthritis, fms, rosacea etc.) Where is it coming from? The source

that I have studied has to do with the IgA thing, but there are others, I think,

such as our lack of Vitamin D and the food additives and lack of probiotics. I

think grain-fed meat may also be inflammatory, because the animals themselves

have inflammation problems because of their diet so I'd think the meat, and esp.

the fat, would contain inflammatory compounds.

As for the writing: in that article, and in others I've read, they change a mess

of variables and then concentrate on ONE variable as if they know that was the

cause. Now Canola has 56% oleic (n-9) 26% linoleic (n-6) and 10% linolenic

(n-3). Corn oil has 31% oleic, 52% linoleic, 1% linolenic. Linoleic is the one

that is thought to be " bad " , at least for mice, though you need it is small

quantities (10% is thought to be good). So Canola is FAR different from corn

oil, though both are " unsaturated " . Olive oil is more like canola oil. The

problem with canola oil is that it has other substances in it that cause

problems, like sun sensitivity, plus it goes through a lot of processing.

Beef fat, incidentally, is a lot like olive oil. Olive oil is 12% saturated,

beef fat is 37% saturated. Butter though, is 61% saturated. Which kind of makes

you wonder why they lump " animal fat " all in one category (whether or not you

think saturated fat is a good thing).

Also, of the saturated fats, stearic acid is now thought to be harmless even by

the anti-saturated fat folks, ditto for palmitic I think. Those are the two main

fats in tallow, so you kind of wonder how tallow could be considered a problem

for the anti-saturated fat folks. I don't really think the food writers think

about it much, they just say " animal fat: bad " .

It really does help to read the actual studies though. A relative of mine was

involved in one, where they fed rats lard and sugar and watched them develop

plaque. Thing is, the rats also developed plaque when fed corn flake breakfast

cereal. They didn't develop plaque on rat chow, or when fed nothing but eggs. My

relative deduced from this that eggs do not cause heart disease. Science news

had a couple of articles where mice develop plaque on corn oil. Chickens develop

plaque more when fed a high-wheat diet (which was done by the author of " life

without bread " to show " carbs " cause plaque: but that experiment doesn't show

whether the chooks would get plaque off carbs that were NOT grains). Folks with

diabetes get plaque more than anyone, which suggests blood sugar plays a big

role. Anyway, the animal data suggests that carbs/and/or/grains (depending on if

you are a ite or a HeidiIte) have more to do with oxidation and plaque than

the fats do, though the fats do play a role (the fats are what get oxidized),

and anti-oxidants play a big protective role. The reason it gets so confusing is

that there are several players in the game!

>

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

> It really does help to read the actual studies though. A relative of mine

> was involved in one, where they fed rats lard and sugar and watched them

> develop plaque. Thing is, the rats also developed plaque when fed corn

> flake breakfast cereal. They didn't develop plaque on rat chow, or when

> fed nothing but eggs. My relative deduced from this that eggs do not cause

> heart disease. Science news had a couple of articles where mice develop

> plaque on corn oil. Chickens develop plaque more when fed a high-wheat

> diet (which was done by the author of " life without bread " to show " carbs "

> cause plaque: but that experiment doesn't show whether the chooks would

> get plaque off carbs that were NOT grains). Folks with diabetes get plaque

> more than anyone, which suggests blood sugar plays a big role. Anyway, the

> animal data suggests that carbs/and/or/grains (depending on if you are a

> ite or a HeidiIte) have more to do with oxidation and plaque than the

> fats do, though the fats do play a role (the fats are what get oxidized),

> and anti-oxidants play a big protective role. The reason it gets so

> confusing is that there are several players in the game!

>

> Heidi Jean

During the Depression my Dad would eat lard and sugar sandwiches. It wasn't

today's lard and probably not today's sugar or bread either. He's nearly 80

and has bad knees and high blood pressure he won't take medication for. He

was never a big carb eater, meat and potatoes. Corn flakes have that harmful

chemical found by a Scandinavian country last year in french fries. It's

probably from the heat of the extrusion making them cornflakes and altering

the oils. Corn flakes are also a lectin, agglutinating the blood of types A

and AB.

Wanita

--

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.

Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.2.0 - Release Date: 2/21/2005

[Guest guest]

>During the Depression my Dad would eat lard and sugar sandwiches. It wasn't

>today's lard and probably not today's sugar or bread either. He's nearly 80

>and has bad knees and high blood pressure he won't take medication for. He

>was never a big carb eater, meat and potatoes. Corn flakes have that harmful

>chemical found by a Scandinavian country last year in french fries. It's

>probably from the heat of the extrusion making them cornflakes and altering

>the oils. Corn flakes are also a lectin, agglutinating the blood of types A

>and AB.

>

>Wanita

Yeah, I forgot about that chemical. I feel weird whenever I eat packaged corn

chips, but who knows why? There is SO MUCH wrong with them. And the lectin thing

.... the proteins in corn seem to be almost as bad as the ones in wheat, and it

seems a lot of folks do better if they just have cornstarch vs. whole corn (I

do, my joints don't hurt from cornstarch bread, but popcorn is horrid on them).

Seems like a lot of folks get " inflammation " from those sorts of things though,

so it wouldn't surprise me that they contribute to heart disease.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Hi Heidi,

> >Yes, there are many questions. The implications of her

> writing are that all

> >other things were equal and the switch from saturated fats to

> >polyunsaturated canola oil is what was largely responsible

> for the drop in

> >CHD. This is in direct contradiction to the NT/NN

> philosophy and does

> >appear to be somewhat evidenced based and disconcerting.

>

> Well, I TOTALLY agree with your " question everything "

> approach! I don't think it's simple. I've been following the

> debate in the science mags, which are not as " anti fat " as

> people make out. The researchers are pretty convinced that

> fat isn't the issue, but oxidation of the fat IS the issue.

> Corn oil oxidizes easier than olive oil. But even if you have

> a huge load of oxidants, you can be fine if you ALSO have

> anti-oxidants, which is where fruits, vegies, raw meats, vit.

> D come in.

Got it. Nicely said, btw.

>

> Also there is the issue of " inflammation " . Time magazine did

> a whole issue on it ... Americans have these huge problems

> with inflammation, whether they are low fat or high fat. Some

> of it is in the arteries, but more of it is in the joints and

> muscles (arthritis, fms, rosacea etc.) Where is it coming

> from? The source that I have studied has to do with the IgA

> thing, but there are others, I think, such as our lack of

> Vitamin D and the food additives and lack of probiotics. I

> think grain-fed meat may also be inflammatory, because the

> animals themselves have inflammation problems because of

> their diet so I'd think the meat, and esp. the fat, would

> contain inflammatory compounds.

I have to insert a plug here for the guy who saved my life, Barry Sears. I

read the Zone back in 1995 or 96 and lost 40 pounds using it. I gained it

all back plus some over the next years until I used it again in January of

2002 to take off 92 pounds. I've kept it off ever since. My eating has

shifted dramatically from Zone eating in the ensuing two years, but it was

Sears' ability write cogently and to explain the mechanisms of inflammation

and insulin overproduction that got me off of the high carb/low fat

bandwagon.

The brief story about Sears was that in 1985 he read the abstracts from the

original research done on eicosanoids that won the Nobel prize in 1982 and

immediately understood the implications for control of inflammation and the

fact that everyone in America was constantly inflamed. He spent the next 10

years trying to find supplements that would control the problem (he was a

lipids researcher at MIT) and constantly came back to the fact that diet had

the biggest effect. He published _Enter the Zone_ in 1995 and very clearly

explained all of this long before it was on most everyone else's radar. I

don't know if he was truly the originator and original driving force that

lead to all of the research that you cited above, but he was surely a big

factor in getting the info out there.

>

> As for the writing: in that article, and in others I've read,

> they change a mess of variables and then concentrate on ONE

> variable as if they know that was the cause. Now Canola has

> 56% oleic (n-9) 26% linoleic (n-6) and 10% linolenic (n-3).

> Corn oil has 31% oleic, 52% linoleic, 1% linolenic. Linoleic

> is the one that is thought to be " bad " , at least for mice,

> though you need it is small quantities (10% is thought to be

> good). So Canola is FAR different from corn oil, though both

> are " unsaturated " . Olive oil is more like canola oil. The

> problem with canola oil is that it has other substances in it

> that cause problems, like sun sensitivity, plus it goes

> through a lot of processing.

>

> Beef fat, incidentally, is a lot like olive oil. Olive oil is

> 12% saturated, beef fat is 37% saturated. Butter though, is

> 61% saturated. Which kind of makes you wonder why they lump

> " animal fat " all in one category (whether or not you think

> saturated fat is a good thing).

I understand.

>

> Also, of the saturated fats, stearic acid is now thought to

> be harmless even by the anti-saturated fat folks, ditto for

> palmitic I think. Those are the two main fats in tallow, so

> you kind of wonder how tallow could be considered a problem

> for the anti-saturated fat folks. I don't really think the

> food writers think about it much, they just say " animal fat: bad " .

>

> It really does help to read the actual studies though. A

> relative of mine was involved in one, where they fed rats

> lard and sugar and watched them develop plaque. Thing is, the

> rats also developed plaque when fed corn flake breakfast

> cereal. They didn't develop plaque on rat chow, or when fed

> nothing but eggs. My relative deduced from this that eggs do

> not cause heart disease. Science news had a couple of

> articles where mice develop plaque on corn oil. Chickens

> develop plaque more when fed a high-wheat diet (which was

> done by the author of " life without bread " to show " carbs "

> cause plaque: but that experiment doesn't show whether the

> chooks would get plaque off carbs that were NOT grains).

> Folks with diabetes get plaque more than anyone, which

> suggests blood sugar plays a big role. Anyway, the animal

> data suggests that carbs/and/or/grains (depending on if you

> are a ite or a HeidiIte) have more to do with oxidation

> and plaque than the fats do, though the fats do play a ro!

> le (the fats are what get oxidized), and anti-oxidants play

> a big protective role. The reason it gets so confusing is

> that there are several players in the game!

Good lord, woman. When do you have time to make your kefir beer? You read

entirely too much...

Ron

[Guest guest]

[Heidi wrote:]

> Well, I TOTALLY agree with your " question everything "

> approach! I don't think it's simple. I've been following the

> debate in the science mags, which are not as " anti fat " as

> people make out. The researchers are pretty convinced that

> fat isn't the issue, but oxidation of the fat IS the issue.

> Corn oil oxidizes easier than olive oil. But even if you have

> a huge load of oxidants, you can be fine if you ALSO have

> anti-oxidants, which is where fruits, vegies, raw meats, vit.

> D come in.

[ replied:]

I'm not sure that's correct. My understanding is that antioxidants really

just slow down a chain reaction rather than completely neutralizing free

radicals. And even if they could completely neutralize free radicals, the

free radicals still have potential to do some damage before they run into

antioxidants. A high oxidative load combined with a lot of free radicals may

be better than a moderate oxidative load with no antioxidants, but with any

given level of antioxidants, you're still better off with a lower oxidative

load.

[chimes in:]

The only thing that can neutralize a free radical is another free radical.

Anti-oxidants just get oxidized themselves, is my understanding, and an

oxidized antioxidant I believe would become an oxidizing agent itself. I'm not

educated on antioxidants in biological systems, but from what I know about

oxidation in general, using some common sense, I believe that the benefit is

that

oxidants demonstrate a preference for what we call " antioxidants " rather

than targets in tissues, and therefore antioxidants will take a bullet, so to

speak, for the tissues, and then get excreted in urine. My understanding from

some very brief reading is that fat-soluble antioxidants take the free

electron and pass it on to water-soluble antioxidants via polyphenols, which

are

then excreted in urine.

However, then there are questions like, what about fat-soluble antioxidants

that are absorbed into tissues? I've come across-- and haven't investigated

it further-- some writings suggesting that excessive carotene accumulation in

lung tissue combined with a high oxidative load can actually caused damage.

This makes some intuitive sense to me, because if antioxidants like

carotenes are have a higher affinity for oxidants than other elements of

tissues,

then perhaps during the transitory exposure of breathing, some oxidants will

react with them that otherwise would have gotten exhaled. But I really don't

know.

Anyway, I agree with you that we'd generally be best off without the corn

oil, but some time oxidative agents have positive effects. For example, I

think it's better to have antioxidant protection in the retina and have the eyes

exposed to UV light than to avoid the UV light.

___

[Heidi wrote:]

> I think grain-fed meat may also be inflammatory, because the

> animals themselves have inflammation problems because of

> their diet so I'd think the meat, and esp. the fat, would

> contain inflammatory compounds.

[ replied:]

This seems iffy to me. Are you just speculating here, or are you drawing on

research? What kind of inflammatory compounds? Are they the result of

inflammation, or causal contributors? And are they orally active in healthy

people, only in people with leaky guts, or not at all?

[chimes in:]

Arachidonic acid is often accused of promoting inflammation. Red meat

regardless of feeding is high in AA. But grain-fed meats are much lower in

anti-inflammatory fatty acids, so that might present a problem. I think

avoiding

AA to avoid inflammation is going down the wrong path.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Heidi Schuppenhauer [mailto:heidis@...]

>

> Well, I TOTALLY agree with your " question everything "

> approach! I don't think it's simple. I've been following the

> debate in the science mags, which are not as " anti fat " as

> people make out. The researchers are pretty convinced that

> fat isn't the issue, but oxidation of the fat IS the issue.

> Corn oil oxidizes easier than olive oil. But even if you have

> a huge load of oxidants, you can be fine if you ALSO have

> anti-oxidants, which is where fruits, vegies, raw meats, vit.

> D come in.

I'm not sure that's correct. My understanding is that antioxidants really

just slow down a chain reaction rather than completely neutralizing free

radicals. And even if they could completely neutralize free radicals, the

free radicals still have potential to do some damage before they run into

antioxidants. A high oxidative load combined with a lot of free radicals may

be better than a moderate oxidative load with no antioxidants, but with any

given level of antioxidants, you're still better off with a lower oxidative

load.

> Also there is the issue of " inflammation " . Time magazine did

> a whole issue on it ... Americans have these huge problems

> with inflammation, whether they are low fat or high fat. Some

> of it is in the arteries, but more of it is in the joints and

> muscles (arthritis, fms, rosacea etc.) Where is it coming

> from?

Does rosacea have anything to do with muscles?

> I think grain-fed meat may also be inflammatory, because the

> animals themselves have inflammation problems because of

> their diet so I'd think the meat, and esp. the fat, would

> contain inflammatory compounds.

This seems iffy to me. Are you just speculating here, or are you drawing on

research? What kind of inflammatory compounds? Are they the result of

inflammation, or causal contributors? And are they orally active in healthy

people, only in people with leaky guts, or not at all?

> Also, of the saturated fats, stearic acid is now thought to

> be harmless even by the anti-saturated fat folks, ditto for

> palmitic I think. Those are the two main fats in tallow, so

> you kind of wonder how tallow could be considered a problem

> for the anti-saturated fat folks. I don't really think the

> food writers think about it much, they just say " animal fat: bad " .

I've heard that stearic acid is generally considered to be okay, but I

haven't heard that about palmitic. What are they worried about, then?

Myristic and lauric acids?

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/27/2005 1:05:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

My point was that IF in fact factory-farmed grain-fed beef affects people

negatively, that would throw off the statistics and might account for why

*modern* studies seem to show " animal fat is bad for you " . There are of course

other problems with " modern " meats, one of which is that many of them are eaten

in junk like lunchmeat and hot dogs.

____

But one thing you are ignoring is the phenomenon of a study finding that

" animal fat is irrelevant to your health " or " animal fat is good for you " and

the author's writing in the abstract that the study found " animal fat is bad for

you, " and then the doctors and health journalists just read the abstract,

and then the tv reporters read the newspaper and just report what the newspaper

said, and then 10 years later the directors of the study write a whole book

about how the study found what the abstract said instead of what the data

actually indicated.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/27/2005 1:05:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

I dunno either: that's what is weird. It seems that *statistically*, folks

that eat a " high saturated fat " diet have their cholesterol (and maybe other

indicators) go up. Now, what does that mean? If cholesterol is a " policeman "

like white blood cells are, it *may* mean that the person is getting more

inflammation. But feeding a person lauric acid doesn't produce higher

cholesterol

(so presumably, doesn't produce more inflammation ... that's my thoughts).

Feeding coconut oil or palm oil doesn't either, if I recall right (unless

maybe it is hydrogenated?).

___

Have you read Ravnskov's _The Cholesterol Myths_? What is your response for

his refutation of these statsitical claims, if so?

___

So ... (my theorizing) is that something ELSE in the fat is causing

problems, which wouldn't be unlikely as animals store toxins in their fat. And

in

commercial beef fat there are lots of potential culprits, ditto for commercial

dairy.

____

I agree this is possible, but you seem to be dancing around the simpler and

very apparent explanation that researchers lie all the time in their

abstracts.

A good example of this is the study that came out last year on breast cancer

that was reviewed on, I think beyondveg.com, or it may have been the second

thoughts site (forget the URL.) The abstract reported that a linear

relationship was found between animal fat intake and breast cancer, and the news

media ran with it. Throughout the world, it was proclaimed that this study

overturned all the past evidence that animal fat DIDN'T cause breast cancer

(such

as the Nurses Health Study) to reveal that there was a direct linear

relationship.

Turns out, right in the data, it was a pure fabrication. The highest

quintile of animal fat intake had the second lowest risk of breast cancer.

So, you could just read what all the science journalists write who take the

interpretations of the lying researchers for granted, and then speculate about

what through the numbers off, or you could look at the actual numbers and

conclude that there's nothing to explain.

Chris

[Guest guest]

:

>I'm not sure that's correct. My understanding is that antioxidants really

>just slow down a chain reaction rather than completely neutralizing free

>radicals. And even if they could completely neutralize free radicals, the

>free radicals still have potential to do some damage before they run into

>antioxidants. A high oxidative load combined with a lot of free radicals may

>be better than a moderate oxidative load with no antioxidants, but with any

>given level of antioxidants, you're still better off with a lower oxidative

>load.

I'd agree there. I wouldn't recommend a high oxidative load. But the antioxidant

effect accounts for some of the weird numbers in some of the statistics, I

think.

>> Also there is the issue of " inflammation " . Time magazine did

>> a whole issue on it ... Americans have these huge problems

>> with inflammation, whether they are low fat or high fat. Some

>> of it is in the arteries, but more of it is in the joints and

>> muscles (arthritis, fms, rosacea etc.) Where is it coming

>> from?

>

>Does rosacea have anything to do with muscles?

OK, " Joints, muscles, and skin " . You should be an editor.

>> I think grain-fed meat may also be inflammatory, because the

>> animals themselves have inflammation problems because of

>> their diet so I'd think the meat, and esp. the fat, would

>> contain inflammatory compounds.

>

>This seems iffy to me. Are you just speculating here, or are you drawing on

>research? What kind of inflammatory compounds? Are they the result of

>inflammation, or causal contributors? And are they orally active in healthy

>people, only in people with leaky guts, or not at all?

There is a lot of reseach that shows that fat causes inflammation (too much fat,

that is) and that grain fed beef are sickly. I do know people that get sick off

grain-fed beef but not grass-fed beef, but I'm speculating as to the causes ...

it could be inflammatory compounds or chemicals or hormones -- a LOT of things

get stored in the fat part of the animal and they do seem to survive digestion

(dioxin being one of the more major ones that has been absolutely shown to get

stored in humans). My point was that IF in fact factory-farmed grain-fed beef

affects people negatively, that would throw off the statistics and might account

for why *modern* studies seem to show " animal fat is bad for you " . There are of

course other problems with " modern " meats, one of which is that many of them are

eaten in junk like lunchmeat and hot dogs.

>I've heard that stearic acid is generally considered to be okay, but I

>haven't heard that about palmitic. What are they worried about, then?

>Myristic and lauric acids?

I dunno either: that's what is weird. It seems that *statistically*, folks that

eat a " high saturated fat " diet have their cholesterol (and maybe other

indicators) go up. Now, what does that mean? If cholesterol is a " policeman "

like white blood cells are, it *may* mean that the person is getting more

inflammation. But feeding a person lauric acid doesn't produce higher

cholesterol (so presumably, doesn't produce more inflammation ... that's my

thoughts). Feeding coconut oil or palm oil doesn't either, if I recall right

(unless maybe it is hydrogenated?).

So ... (my theorizing) is that something ELSE in the fat is causing problems,

which wouldn't be unlikely as animals store toxins in their fat. And in

commercial beef fat there are lots of potential culprits, ditto for commercial

dairy.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>

>____

>

>I agree this is possible, but you seem to be dancing around the simpler and

>very apparent explanation that researchers lie all the time in their

>abstracts.

>

>Turns out, right in the data, it was a pure fabrication. The highest

>quintile of animal fat intake had the second lowest risk of breast cancer.

>

>So, you could just read what all the science journalists write who take the

>interpretations of the lying researchers for granted, and then speculate about

>what through the numbers off, or you could look at the actual numbers and

>conclude that there's nothing to explain.

>

>Chris

Actually I don't think writing off the researchers because " they must all be

lying " is " simpler " ... to do that would be showing a rather strong degree of

bias, I would think. What if, in fact, there IS a certain degree of inflammation

that gets caused by factory-farmed beef? Should we just ignore that? Has anyone

here actually gone through the studies to DISPROVE any such connection? Just

based on my experiences with factory farmed vs. grass fed beef, and from folks I

know, I'm pretty convinced the factory farmed stuff is in fact inflammatory, at

least to some people. Someday I'd love to do a full-fledged reading of the data

.... meanwhile I'll eat my grass-fed beef ...

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

>Beef fat, incidentally, is a lot like olive oil. Olive oil is 12%

>saturated, beef fat is 37% saturated.

Just to chime in, where did you get that idea? From Cordain, who makes the

error of extrapolating from the least-saturated body parts to suggest that

grass-fed meat fat is significantly less saturated?

Here's data from the USDA database. Yes, it's imperfect, but it's better

than nothing, and grass-feeding does little to change the saturated and

monounsaturated fat content of ruminant meat. It's mainly the proportions

of types of PUFA which change.

Beef tallow: 49.8% saturated, 41.8% monunsaturated, 4% polyunsaturated.

Raw 75% lean hamburger: 45.1% saturated, 52.1% monunsaturated, 2.9%

polyunsaturated.

Raw sirloin steak: 46.4% saturated, 49.2% monunsaturated, 4.4% polyunsaturated

And now olive oil: 13.5% saturated, 73.9% monounsaturated, 10% polyunsaturated.

Even a 25% difference in saturated (from your numbers) would be dramatic,

not trivial, but the actual numbers are much more substantial, not to

mention the difference in micronutrient profiles. As vegetable oils go,

olive oil (particularly when cold-pressed, organic, super-virgin, from good

soil, etc.) is OK, but that's it.

-

[Guest guest]

-

>My understanding is that antioxidants really

>just slow down a chain reaction rather than completely neutralizing free

>radicals. And even if they could completely neutralize free radicals, the

>free radicals still have potential to do some damage before they run into

>antioxidants. A high oxidative load combined with a lot of free radicals may

>be better than a moderate oxidative load with no antioxidants, but with any

>given level of antioxidants, you're still better off with a lower oxidative

>load.

AFAIK that's about the size of it, though I'm not sure a high oxidative

load can ever be preferable -- but that's just a question of degrees.

-

[Guest guest]

> RE: Fats: was chips

>

>

>

>-

>

>>My understanding is that antioxidants really

>>just slow down a chain reaction rather than completely neutralizing free

>>radicals. And even if they could completely neutralize free radicals, the

>>free radicals still have potential to do some damage before they run into

>>antioxidants. A high oxidative load combined with a lot of free

>radicals may

>>be better than a moderate oxidative load with no antioxidants,

>but with any

>>given level of antioxidants, you're still better off with a lower

>oxidative

>>load.

>

>AFAIK that's about the size of it, though I'm not sure a high oxidative

>load can ever be preferable -- but that's just a question of degrees.

>

>

>

>-

Can either of you point me toward evidence of such? From what I've read of

the chemistry of free radicals being neutralized by antioxidants, it's not

just that the chain reaction is slowed down, but that the ROS (reactive

oxygen species, a.k.a. " free radicals " ) are essentially eliminated (although

not every time - depends on the antioxidant network in place in the body).

*Unless* you mean that the ROS are reduced to less harmful by-products by

progressive redox steps, which would match my understanding.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

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

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

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

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

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

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

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

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

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>But one thing you are ignoring is the phenomenon of a study finding that

> " animal fat is irrelevant to your health " or " animal fat is good for you "

>and

>the author's writing in the abstract that the study found " animal fat is

>bad for

> you, " and then the doctors and health journalists just read the abstract,

>and then the tv reporters read the newspaper and just report what the

>newspaper

> said, and then 10 years later the directors of the study write a whole

> book

>about how the study found what the abstract said instead of what the data

>actually indicated.

I just wanted to quote this back, because it's enormously important,

tremendously widespread (indeed, arguably predominant, even enormously so)

and almost universally overlooked.

-

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

>Actually I don't think writing off the researchers because " they must all

>be lying " is " simpler " ... to do that would be showing a rather strong

>degree of bias, I would think. What if, in fact, there IS a certain degree

>of inflammation that gets caused by factory-farmed beef? Should we just

>ignore that? Has anyone here actually gone through the studies to DISPROVE

>any such connection? Just based on my experiences with factory farmed vs.

>grass fed beef, and from folks I know, I'm pretty convinced the factory

>farmed stuff is in fact inflammatory, at least to some people. Someday I'd

>love to do a full-fledged reading of the data ... meanwhile I'll eat my

>grass-fed beef ...

There's plenty of good reason to eat grass-fed beef that don't require

suspending skeptical thought.

The issue is not an irrational bias against research, and did not say

" they must all be lying " . What he DID say is that there are endless

examples of research data saying one thing and abstracts and journalism

derived therefrom saying another. Ravnskov's book is founded largely on

this phenomenon. He documents it in detail. offered at least one

further example himself.

It's not bias to look at the data and conclude that the abstracts and

reporting of the data are at odds with each other. Nor is it bias to

observe that this is a widespread phenomenon -- that lying and error or

legion -- and to conclude that one should therefore avoid trusting

abstracts. It's simply logic, which is in stunningly short supply nowadays

in pretty much every sphere of human activity there is.

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/28/2005 1:51:03 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

Actually I don't think writing off the researchers because " they must all be

lying " is " simpler " ...

____

That's definitely not what I meant. What I meant was that we can't assume

they are telling the truth in the abstracts. There is, of course, an obvious

solution-- read the data, and critical reviews of the study design, etc.

____

to do that would be showing a rather strong degree of bias, I would think.

What if, in fact, there IS a certain degree of inflammation that gets caused

by factory-farmed beef? Should we just ignore that?

____

No!

___

Has anyone here actually gone through the studies to DISPROVE any such

connection? Just based on my experiences with factory farmed vs. grass fed

beef,

and from folks I know, I'm pretty convinced the factory farmed stuff is in

fact inflammatory, at least to some people. Someday I'd love to do a

full-fledged reading of the data ... meanwhile I'll eat my grass-fed beef ...

____

Let us know...

Chris

[Guest guest]

>[Chris] That's definitely not what I meant. What I meant was that we can't

assume

>they are telling the truth in the abstracts. There is, of course, an obvious

>solution-- read the data, and critical reviews of the study design, etc.

[Heidi] I agree. The thing is, I have been reading some of them more in depth,

and there does seem to be something going on with animal fats (which,

translated, means " factory beef " ). I don't know enough to be dogmatic

about it, but I don't think it's a good time to be dismissive of it either.

The LAST thing we need is for NT'ers to get the reputation of being dogmatically

FOR animal fat regardless of the source. But on this list I keep seeing people

dismiss any study that might show animal fat is bad, without, I guess,

thinking about the source of the fat in the study. So I guess what I'm

saying is ... besides looking at the actual results of the study, one should

also look at the source of the meat involved, which varies by country

and time period.

BTW " Health " magazine, which has become very mainstream and glitzy,

this month had an article about the goodness of grass fed beef. Though

there were a little leery of it's taste and tenderness. And of course praising

it for being low fat, which in my experience it isn't, particularly (my steer

had a lot less fat on the outside of the carcass, but no one eats that anyway

....

there is plenty in the meat).

>

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

At 01:06 PM 3/1/05 -0800, Heidi wrote:

>The LAST thing we need is for NT'ers to get the reputation of being

dogmatically

>FOR animal fat regardless of the source. But on this list I keep seeing

people

>dismiss any study that might show animal fat is bad, without, I guess,

>thinking about the source of the fat in the study. So I guess what I'm

>saying is ... besides looking at the actual results of the study, one should

>also look at the source of the meat involved, which varies by country

>and time period.

Heidi, you just hit a personal nail right on the head - I was just talking

to a fellow NT'er about this the other day.

When I first started eating this way, I'd be talking to friends about it,

and they'd say " Oh, you're on Atkins? " I'd say " No, but in many ways

it's similar, and I'm not necessarily doing it for weight loss, although

that's a lovely side benefit which I have need of. I'm doing it for

general health, plus it tastes really damn good. Native Nutrition just

makes sense to me. "

But I told them that the bottom line was the SOURCE of the food. That I

could follow any diet I want, eat anything I want, but if the food source

is crappy to begin with, then ultimately it's just not going to work.

(Yes, that's an extremely digested version of what I said - no pun intended

- but you get the idea.)

As an aside to Deanna, that's one of the big things that WAPF got through

into my head ... about the source. And if it worked for thick-headed me,

who knows who else. That makes it worth supporting.

MFJ

If I have to be a grownup, can I at least be telekinetic too?

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/28/2005 7:24:21 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

I just wanted to quote this back, because it's enormously important,

tremendously widespread (indeed, arguably predominant, even enormously so)

and almost universally overlooked.

____

You'll probably be glad to see the review I'm writing of T. Colin 's

_The China Study_ in the upcoming Wise Traditions, which essentially

followed that pattern. I can't for the life of me figure out how he contorts

the

data within his mind that is shown in the original monograph to support the

idea that animal foods cause cancer.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/1/2005 4:21:17 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

The LAST thing we need is for NT'ers to get the reputation of being

dogmatically

FOR animal fat regardless of the source. But on this list I keep seeing

people

dismiss any study that might show animal fat is bad, without, I guess,

thinking about the source of the fat in the study. So I guess what I'm

saying is ... besides looking at the actual results of the study, one should

also look at the source of the meat involved, which varies by country

and time period.

____

[Chris]

I admit that I haven't been paying perfect attention to the list lately,

but, such as what? I don't recall seeing specific studies discussed recently

and dismissed on the basis that they must have been rigged.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/1/2005 4:35:30 PM Eastern Standard Time,

mfjewett@... writes:

But I told them that the bottom line was the SOURCE of the food. That I

could follow any diet I want, eat anything I want, but if the food source

is crappy to begin with, then ultimately it's just not going to work.

____

[Chris]

Well I fully agree with that. But my point is that even with bad sources,

often times the research simply doesn't find the problems that the researchers

claim it does. That doesn't diminish the importance of source. But, just

as we can't dogmatically assume the researchers are using flawed designs or

being dishonest, we also can't dogmatically assume that the numbers are thrown

off from source. I'm suggesting that they are both important phenomena, but

the fact that researchers often say something in the abstract that doesn't

correspond to what they found is much too common to assume that in any given

study it isn't happening.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

>The LAST thing we need is for NT'ers to get the reputation of being

>dogmatically

>FOR animal fat regardless of the source.

In light of our insistence on grass-feed ruminant meat, pastured fowl,

avoidance of pesticides, high soil fertility, high Brix readings, organic

standards and beyond, where on earth did you get the idea that any of us

are dogmatically for animal fat without regard to source? This is absurd.

>But on this list I keep seeing people

>dismiss any study that might show animal fat is bad, without, I guess,

>thinking about the source of the fat in the study.

Quite the contrary. Most studies which purport to show dangers with animal

fat are simply misreported (often in their own conclusions and

abstracts). Ravnskov's work is adequate demonstration of this, but the

phenomenon is much more widespread than even he reports on. All others, to

my knowledge, result from one or more of the following errors: (a)

conflating saturated fat with PHO, as demonstrated by Enig's work; (

epidemiologically associating harm with saturated fat consumption when

other harmful factors (like smoking, or Mcs french fry consumption)

are elevated in the higher-risk group; © epidemiologically associating

consumption of refined meat products (with their nitrates, high-temperature

processing, chemical additives and so on) with other sources of meat fat,

which is basically just a particular case of (.

You repeatedly refer to studies which show an actual danger with saturated

fat, but I don't recall a single instance of you actually offering a

citation and some data.

It's fashionable in some circles to cry havoc about the PUFA imbalance in

grain-fed beef, and perhaps that's a legitimate issue, but consider its

magnitude: regardless of feed source, the PUFA fraction of beef fat stays

inside a narrow range, from about 3-7%. Someone eating grain-fed beef and

consuming no other source of EFAs would obviously develop an omega-3

deficiency, but it's hard to argue that he'd have a meaningfully harmful

excess of omega 6 or even PUFA generally just from eating grain-fed

beef. Contrast that with the massive and widespread direct consumption of

vegetable oils, through cooking oil, mayonnaise and a million and one

refined foods, not to mention PHO products, and I think you'll see where

the real problem comes from.

Certainly factory farm beef is *less nutritious* than grass-fed beef, but

as far as n3/n6 balancing goes, beef is a sideshow.

Or is there some other problem with beef you're referring to? Obviously

factory-farm beef tends to be much more polluted than organic grass-fed

beef, but again, I doubt you'll find an active member of this list who

isn't at least somewhat concerned about getting the best possible grass-fed

beef.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> I can't for the life of me figure out how he contorts the

>data within his mind that is shown in the original monograph to support the

>idea that animal foods cause cancer.

Maybe he doesn't. Admittedly it's harder to figure out these people's

motivations for lying than it is with some other people (politicians, for

example) but at some point it becomes harder to believe in extreme mental

contortionism than in simple mendacity. You know, Occam's Razor and all.

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/2/2005 12:32:09 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

Maybe he doesn't. Admittedly it's harder to figure out these people's

motivations for lying than it is with some other people (politicians, for

example) but at some point it becomes harder to believe in extreme mental

contortionism than in simple mendacity. You know, Occam's Razor and all.

___

With his background and his history in government you get the idea from the

book that he's honest. (Obviously he has an interest in portraying himself

this way.) In particular, he details his experience with industrial

corruption in government diet-related agencies and how he was, to some degree,

persecuted for his lack of fidelity to certain industries. So it makes him

seem

like an objective scientist, at least one without industrial PR motivations.

However, I suspect that after his initial lab studies which he invalidly

generalized from casein isolate to indict all animal protein in contributing to

cancer, he began to ponder vegetarianism from a dietary perspective, and then

succumbed to it ideologically, thus blinding him to objective assessment of

further science. I have no evidence for this of course, but it's the only

sense I can make of it.

Chris

[Guest guest]

At 08:30 AM 3/2/2005, you wrote:

>Heidi-

>

>>The LAST thing we need is for NT'ers to get the reputation of being

>>dogmatically

>>FOR animal fat regardless of the source.

>

>In light of our insistence on grass-feed ruminant meat, pastured fowl,

>avoidance of pesticides, high soil fertility, high Brix readings, organic

>standards and beyond, where on earth did you get the idea that any of us

>are dogmatically for animal fat without regard to source? This is absurd.

Originally, (so far back I can't remember the source) it was because some study

associated " high saturated fat " with problems. I pointed out that " high

saturated

fat " means " factory farmed animals " when it comes to studies ... so assuming

the study is " wrong " just because of that association doesn't make sense. Which

is what I was referring to.

>You repeatedly refer to studies which show an actual danger with saturated

>fat, but I don't recall a single instance of you actually offering a

>citation and some data.

Well, ok, I'll have to agree to disagree there. Next time I come across one I'll

let you know.

>It's fashionable in some circles to cry havoc about the PUFA imbalance in

>grain-fed beef, and perhaps that's a legitimate issue, but consider its

>magnitude: regardless of feed source, the PUFA fraction of beef fat stays

>inside a narrow range, from about 3-7%. Someone eating grain-fed beef and

>consuming no other source of EFAs would obviously develop an omega-3

>deficiency, but it's hard to argue that he'd have a meaningfully harmful

>excess of omega 6 or even PUFA generally just from eating grain-fed

>beef. Contrast that with the massive and widespread direct consumption of

>vegetable oils, through cooking oil, mayonnaise and a million and one

>refined foods, not to mention PHO products, and I think you'll see where

>the real problem comes from.

I tend to agree in general that cooking fats are a bigger problem. But some

folks do seem

to get problems from beef fat, esp. dairy fat. Which goes against Price's

" butter is good " thing

to be sure. But Price's butter was 80 years ago, and I suspect today's butter is

different. I don't

know that it's the PUFA issue ... I'd suspect that toxins accumulate in the fat.

As they do for

seals now ... the Inuit who eat their native diet are at risk because of

industrial toxins that accumulate

in the fat. The Orcas in Puget Sound are said to be at risk because of the

dioxins that accumulate

in their fat: in " lean " times, when the fat breaks down, they get dioxin

poisoning.

>Or is there some other problem with beef you're referring to? Obviously

>factory-farm beef tends to be much more polluted than organic grass-fed

>beef, but again, I doubt you'll find an active member of this list who

>isn't at least somewhat concerned about getting the best possible grass-fed

>beef.

Likely many people are concerned about that, and I do hope they get good beef.

But again,

originally I was talking about the dismissal of studies that seem to show a link

between " saturated

fat " and whatever issues.

For instance: a similar issue exists with " eating protein " and " bone density " .

Some studies

have shown that eating more meat causes excretion of more calcium. And the

articles usually

end with " so only eat 4 oz of meat a day " . Now, you can dismiss the article with

" oh,

they are just full of it! " or, maybe it is in fact the case that if you eat a

lot of protein,

you need more calcium to process it. Which in fact is what I've found, as I'm

very

sensitive to calcium loss. It makes sense too: any decent carnivore will be

eating LOTS

of calcium, usually in the form of whole bones. And in fact other studies show

that eating

MORE calcium AND more protein results in the strongest bones of all.

So, when I see things about " saturated fat " and some link to something, I'm not

apt

to dismiss it. I'd love to study it more in depth, and will.

-- Heidi Jean