Guest guest Posted March 3, 2005 Report Share Posted March 3, 2005 " 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. " ___ [Chris's reply] There are other issues to. For example, different dietary factors correlate with each other, not just with diseases. In an era where saturated fat consumption is considered fatal, naturally most who eat more saturated fat also engage in other dietary and lifestyle patterns considered unhealthy, many of them legitimately considered unhealthy. Toxins is also a valid issue. So is study design, methods of data display, and again, dishonesty in the abstracts. (Note that abstracts and introductions both serve propaganda functions-- abstracts to induce people researching to read the article, and, perhaps more, to give a sound byte to media, and introductions to convince grant agencies that the material is medically relevant, and, on another level, both perhaps to show the research's conformity to established doctrine.) I think those are all things we should look at without making assumptions one way or another. It's worth noting that some big studies show no problems with saturated fat, which is also toxic factory farm saturated fat. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2005 Report Share Posted March 5, 2005 Chris- >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. That may or may not be true for him, but lying scientists are legion, and they can't all have ideological blinders on, can they? - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2005 Report Share Posted March 5, 2005 Heidi- >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. Again, I have yet to see an actual study where the actual data (as opposed to the abstract and conclusion and the reporting about the study) indicated a real problem with non-processed saturated animal fat. Maybe one exists, in which case, hey, let's pick it apart and try to figure it out, but every single time someone's reported that Study X shows Problem Y with consuming saturated fat, it's turned out to be total lie, either an outright misrepresentation of the data or misdirection in which one type of food appears to be the cause of the problem while another is blamed. >I tend to agree in general that cooking fats are a bigger problem. Not just cooking oils, though. Vegetable oils are in all sorts of products -- dressings, dips, mayo... endless prepared foods. And desserts, of course, often in PHO form. It's a massive attack. >But some folks do seem >to get problems from beef fat, esp. dairy fat. Some people have problems with dairy fat due to allergy and/or lactose intolerance, but I'm not aware of anything besides that, though factory farm dairy does tend to be more polluted than other factory farm sources of fat. >Which goes against Price's " butter is good " thing >to be sure. Well, Price's butter thing was more about the quality and nutrient profile than just butter period. He recommended the brightest, yellowest, most nutritious butter -- and his data back him up. >But Price's butter was 80 years ago, and I suspect today's butter is >different. Yes, quite different! I have yet to find a really intense yellow butter. Kerry Gold is the yellowest (and for all I know they're cheating). And color is just one crude indicator of nutritional quality. >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 " . This isn't something I've read extensively on, but the studies I have seen actually associate bone loss with protein isolate consumption, not meat consumption. The reporting and often the abstracts and conclusions don't make that distinction, though. Are there any studies involving actual meat? (And if there are, I wouldn't be surprised if it's LEAN meat.) - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2005 Report Share Posted March 5, 2005 In a message dated 3/5/2005 1:36:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, Idol@... writes: >That may or may not be true for him, but lying scientists are legion, and >they can't all have ideological blinders on, can they? ____ [Chris's reply] We're in agreement. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 is there any chance you could go and find the review of the breast cancer study that you mention below? Beyondveg.com appears not to have been updated in three years and I haven't been able to turn up a site related to nutrition called Second Thoughts. Tom ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote: <SNIPPITY SNIPS> > 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Jeanne [mailto:t.l.jeanne@...] > > is there any chance you could go and find the review > of the breast cancer study that you mention below? > Beyondveg.com appears not to have been updated in three years > and I haven't been able to turn up a site related to > nutrition called Second Thoughts. was almost right. It's Second Opinions: http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/animal_fat_breast_cancer.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.