Re: Fat Requirements

[Guest guest]

>> I would imagine like everything else excess would not be good and one

could stress the liver with excessive fats. <<

I don't know, " excessive " in and of itself implies " too much, " so of course

it would. The question is, what is " excessive " ?

I don't think there is a one size fits all answer to that. I myself have

been getting 75-80 percent of my calories from fat for over two years now

and have lost almost 130 pounds, and all my blood lipids and liver values

and other bloodwork are excellent.

Also, not all dietary fats are created equal.

Christie

Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds

Holistically Raising Our Dogs Since 1986

http://www.caberfeidh.com

http://doggedblog.com

[Guest guest]

>As I'm reading through Nourishing Traditions I am really having to reorient my

thinking toward fat. I have believed like so many that fat is bad. I am curious

about Dr Price's claim that animal fat has an acitivator needed to assimilate

minerals. Has his claim been verified by others? Also how does one tell how much

fat is needed? I would imagine like everything else excess would not be good and

one could stress the liver with excessive fats.

>

>Phil

>

Well, first, fat soluble vitamins and essential fatty acids are found in

fats, mainly animal fats. Besides, a high carbohydrate diet can make

you fat, because once your glycogen stores are full (about 2,500

calories), the body turns the rest of those excess carb calories to

fat. Here's a bit I wrote to another list recently about this (which is

missing info on ketogenic diets, but oh well):

I keep seeing dietary information concerning carbohydrates and fats that

irks me to no end. I can't for the life of me understand the low fat

push. Fats and carbohydrates are both fine energy sources. Fats are

absolutely necessary for cell membranes, healthy skin and hormones,

whereas carbs are only for energy. You see, when you eat carbohydrates,

insulin in your body gets sent to store them as glycogen in the muscles

and liver. If you eat more than the 2,500 calories or so that will fit

there (and usually it takes 3 days to deplete glycogen stores), the body

converts the carbs to fat for storage. So, basically it doesn't matter

- if you eat too many carbs or fat, you get fat. So I don't understand

the push for such a high carbohydrate diet, especially since insulin

gets shot into the bloodstream in direct proportion to the carbs eaten,

and insulin is bad news on the body eventually. I am not sure about

which fats these extra carbs get turned into, but I do know that certain

fatty acids must be consumed - n3s. Anyway, it has just been on my mind

lately and wanted to share my thoughts. Moderation is the key for me.

I don't really care for Dr. Mercola much anymore, but this is one such

bombardment of the carb/fat/insulin articles I have read recently.

http://www.mercola.com/2005/may/31/diabetes_disease.htm

Deanna

[Guest guest]

Deanna

Just curious -- why don't you care that much for Dr. Mercola any more?

I have kind of a hard time with his stuff myself, but mostly because

he's so commercial.

>

> I don't really care for Dr. Mercola much anymore, but this is one such

> bombardment of the carb/fat/insulin articles I have read recently.

>

> http://www.mercola.com/2005/may/31/diabetes_disease.htm

>

>

> Deanna

>

[Guest guest]

>Deanna

>

>Just curious -- why don't you care that much for Dr. Mercola any more?

> I have kind of a hard time with his stuff myself, but mostly because

>he's so commercial.

>

>

>

,

I think Dr. Mercola has some fine information on his site. However, I

find increasingly that he plays on peoples' fears to sell products. For

instance, I question the cell phone ferrite beads that " you'll only find

this exclusive safety device right here at Mercola.com. " If you don't

want radio waves (which are indeed part of the same frequency spectrum

as microwaves) blasting into your body, then don't use cell phones. It

is that simple. Anyone with any physics knowledge knows this. Some

magic bead isn't going to take away much of the 3d projected radiation.

Perhaps this is why the founder of Motorola doesn't use cell phones. It

reminds me of the fluoroscopes that were so popular until the long term

health problems became well-established. In our family of engineers, we

just say no to cell phones to really protect our brains, rather than be

lulled into a false sense of safety by using some unproven product.

This product needs to be tested on a dummie in an anacoic chamber to see

exactly what kind of radiation is present and where. It will take

decades to find out the real effects of these phones on human bodies.

Should they become usable on flights soon, I won't be flying. Can you

imagine the radiation in such an environment for hours? Scary stuff.

The towers that have to be increasingly built because of this popularity

are really bad news as well. As a doctor, Mercola ought to wait until

real studies shows a product's effectiveness on humans using cell phones

with ferrite beads before he tries to cash in on it, imo. I understand

some people do need such phones on occasion, but most people don't ever

need a mobile phone. Children should steer clear of them period.

Another fault I find with Dr. Mercola is the pushing of products like

the cherry and blueberry softgels. Supplements like these are a waste

of money, imho. Frozen berries, while not as good as fresh, are a real

food that is readily available. This sort of thing is like the elixirs

and potions of a century ago. If he wants to promote healthy eating and

exercise, then he should promote real foods whenever possible over the

package processed stuff from the lab. So yeah, it's the commercialism I

guess. Again, I do read some of his articles and I have purchased food

through his site. I like the WAPF approach promoting mainly local farm

foods.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

Deanna,

I share your feelings about Dr. Mercola's product-pushing. Sales

pitches for me are a big red flag for trusting the pitchers.

Another complaint I have is that I queried him regarding the lower vit

A content of the Carlson's CLO he recommends, and got no reply, and

still pushes on's on his site (unlike Sally, who did reply and

who no longer recommends Carlson's on the WAPF website).

Like you I think he has some good information on his site, but I trust

it largely because it agrees with other sources I trust.

john

[Guest guest]

Deanna

Good points. But do you know if anyone has verfied Dr Price's claim about the

factor in fats needed for mineral use? Also do you know what happens if one

consumes excess fat? What does teh body do with that?

Phil

Re: Fat Requirements

>As I'm reading through Nourishing Traditions I am really having to reorient

my thinking toward fat. I have believed like so many that fat is bad. I am

curious about Dr Price's claim that animal fat has an acitivator needed to

assimilate minerals. Has his claim been verified by others? Also how does one

tell how much fat is needed? I would imagine like everything else excess would

not be good and one could stress the liver with excessive fats.

>

>Phil

>

Well, first, fat soluble vitamins and essential fatty acids are found in

fats, mainly animal fats. Besides, a high carbohydrate diet can make

you fat, because once your glycogen stores are full (about 2,500

calories), the body turns the rest of those excess carb calories to

fat. Here's a bit I wrote to another list recently about this (which is

missing info on ketogenic diets, but oh well):

I keep seeing dietary information concerning carbohydrates and fats that

irks me to no end. I can't for the life of me understand the low fat

push. Fats and carbohydrates are both fine energy sources. Fats are

absolutely necessary for cell membranes, healthy skin and hormones,

whereas carbs are only for energy. You see, when you eat carbohydrates,

insulin in your body gets sent to store them as glycogen in the muscles

and liver. If you eat more than the 2,500 calories or so that will fit

there (and usually it takes 3 days to deplete glycogen stores), the body

converts the carbs to fat for storage. So, basically it doesn't matter

- if you eat too many carbs or fat, you get fat. So I don't understand

the push for such a high carbohydrate diet, especially since insulin

gets shot into the bloodstream in direct proportion to the carbs eaten,

and insulin is bad news on the body eventually. I am not sure about

which fats these extra carbs get turned into, but I do know that certain

fatty acids must be consumed - n3s. Anyway, it has just been on my mind

lately and wanted to share my thoughts. Moderation is the key for me.

I don't really care for Dr. Mercola much anymore, but this is one such

bombardment of the carb/fat/insulin articles I have read recently.

http://www.mercola.com/2005/may/31/diabetes_disease.htm

Deanna

[Guest guest]

>Deanna

>

>Good points. But do you know if anyone has verfied Dr Price's claim about the

factor in fats needed for mineral use? Also do you know what happens if one

consumes excess fat? What does teh body do with that?

>

>Phil

>

Phil,

I honestly don't know much about fats concerning mineral use. Off the

top of my head comes vitamin D which only comes from sun and animal

foods and is necessary in assimilation of calcium and magnesium in the

body. Here's what WAPF says:

http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnutrition/vitamindmiracle.html

" Sunlight and vitamin D are critical to all life forms. Standard

textbooks state that the principal function of vitamin D is to promote

calcium absorption in the gut and calcium transfer across cell

membranes, thus contributing to strong bones and a calm, contented

nervous system. It is also well recognized that vitamin D aids in the

absorption of magnesium, iron and zinc, as well as calcium. "

....

" Osteoporosis is strongly associated with low vitamin D. Postmenopausal

women with osteoporosis respond favorably (and rapidly) to higher levels

of D plus calcium and magnesium.^28 "

What is excess fat exactly, Phil? To an Inuit, mostly eating animal

foods, the percentage of fat is high, but health is/was maintained. In

fact, Dr. Price found different folks eating vastly different diets (due

to ancestry and location obviously), yet a few things remained

consistent, like special foods for reproduction, fermented foods and raw

animal products, to name a few. I haven't taken the time to breakdown

the percentage of calories that I eat as fat, but I eat no starches save

for that in beans on occasion. I would imagine that much of the push

for carbs is just following the flock, so to speak. And there are just

too many factors to health to pinpoint any one as the cause for this or

that; for many factors are not even food related, like exercise and stress.

Deanna

Ft. Worth Chapter Leader, Weston A. Price Foundation

http://www.salvonix.com/WAP/

[Guest guest]

>As I'm reading through Nourishing Traditions I am really having to

>reorient my thinking toward fat. I have believed like so many that fat is

>bad. I am curious about Dr Price's claim that animal fat has an acitivator

>needed to assimilate minerals. Has his claim been verified by others? Also

>how does one tell how much fat is needed? I would imagine like everything

>else excess would not be good and one could stress the liver with

>excessive fats.

>

>Phil

Well, here is my rundown, FWIW:

1. Some fats ARE bad, and have been clinically shown to

be bad. It's just that the bad fats aren't the ones you usually

think of as " bad " . Bad fats included anything with high

linoleic acid (causes heart disease in mice): which means corn

and safflower oil. Canola oil is bad because it can help promote

sun damage and gives some people diarrhea. Hydrogenated

fats are bad because they have high trans fat content.

2. Animal fat can be bad if the animal has stored PCB's or

other toxins (animals store toxins in the fat). I personally

think the fat from factory animals might not be a good

thing to eat: the animals are stressed and they are full

of chemicals, hormones, etc.

3. A lot of people have a hard time digesting fats, esp.

if they have gut damage (which a large percentage of

folks in the US do). In that case, eating lots of fat will

make you feel nauseated. Coconut oil is a good fat

to start with, because it is easily digested.

4. AFAIK " excess " fat doesn't stress the liver.

You can get a " fatty liver " from drinking too much

alcohol, from being gluten intolerant, or other things.

Some people get a clogged gall bladder when they

eat a lot of fat suddenly after going very low fat ... it

is likely there was a gall bladder problem previously

though and that just exacerbated it?

5. It is absolutely true that fats in the diet are needed

to assimilate certain things, though I'm not clear

on what-all things. Fat is needed with greens, for

instance, to assimilate the Vit A I think (hence

the olive oil on salads or fatback with collards).

I don't think there is one answer for all people

on how much to eat though. I eat less fat than

I used to, just because I feel satisfied with less

and " too full " if I eat more. My skin is no longer

dry so I figure I'm getting enough. When I was

on a LOW fat diet, I got very, very dry skin and

I tend to get chapped lips if I don't get enough

these days.

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Deanna

Thanks That helps some.I still wonder if anyone else has found this " factorX " as

Dr Price did as his findings go against the orthodoxy.Would just feel better

with someone finding the same thing. I just figured there has to be some symptom

of excess fat;excess carbs lead to weight gain and excess protein strains the

kidneys then excess fat must do something. Maybe the gallbladder gets stressed

with more fat to emulsify? One symptom I am aware of for me is that my forehead

gets greasy so I kind of use that as a gauge to determine excess

Phil

Re: Fat Requirements

>Deanna

>

>Good points. But do you know if anyone has verfied Dr Price's claim about the

factor in fats needed for mineral use? Also do you know what happens if one

consumes excess fat? What does teh body do with that?

>

>Phil

>

Phil,

I honestly don't know much about fats concerning mineral use. Off the

top of my head comes vitamin D which only comes from sun and animal

foods and is necessary in assimilation of calcium and magnesium in the

body. Here's what WAPF says:

http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnutrition/vitamindmiracle.html

" Sunlight and vitamin D are critical to all life forms. Standard

textbooks state that the principal function of vitamin D is to promote

calcium absorption in the gut and calcium transfer across cell

membranes, thus contributing to strong bones and a calm, contented

nervous system. It is also well recognized that vitamin D aids in the

absorption of magnesium, iron and zinc, as well as calcium. "

...

" Osteoporosis is strongly associated with low vitamin D. Postmenopausal

women with osteoporosis respond favorably (and rapidly) to higher levels

of D plus calcium and magnesium.^28 "

What is excess fat exactly, Phil? To an Inuit, mostly eating animal

foods, the percentage of fat is high, but health is/was maintained. In

fact, Dr. Price found different folks eating vastly different diets (due

to ancestry and location obviously), yet a few things remained

consistent, like special foods for reproduction, fermented foods and raw

animal products, to name a few. I haven't taken the time to breakdown

the percentage of calories that I eat as fat, but I eat no starches save

for that in beans on occasion. I would imagine that much of the push

for carbs is just following the flock, so to speak. And there are just

too many factors to health to pinpoint any one as the cause for this or

that; for many factors are not even food related, like exercise and stress.

Deanna

Ft. Worth Chapter Leader, Weston A. Price Foundation

http://www.salvonix.com/WAP/

[Non

[Guest guest]

Phil --

> Good points. But do you know if anyone has verfied Dr Price's claim about the

factor in

> fats needed for mineral use?

IMHO, Dr. Price's " findings " were common and undocumented knowledge among the

traditional, non-industrialised societies.

This is in line with the findings of other researchers like Vilhjalmur

Stefansson.

Even among the industrialised societies of the 18th and 19th century, the old

cookbooks

and home-remedies illustrate the importance of good fats, good dairy and organ

meats.

Links to old cookbooks have been posted on this list several times and Sally

quotes

several such books in NT.

So, in our life and times, we need to re-discover and re-verify the knowledge

that was

commonplace in the traditional societies.

> Also do you know what happens if one consumes excess fat?

> What does teh body do with that?

Assuming " excess fat " is a measurable quantity (which it may not be), and varies

with

individuals, I believe it is simply not possible to eat " excess fat " because

your body

won't let you !

When was the last time you pigged out on steaks, butter and cream while watching

the

Saturday night movie?

Yet all of us can remember the last time we polished off several bags of potato

chips,

crackers, fries or other high-carb junk foods.

Unlike carbs, your body knows when it has had enough fat and you simply can't

eat more.

If I have a 3-egg omellete with melted butter and fried anchovies, I can only

eat so

much.

After that I am so full that I don't want to look at any food for the next 4

hrs.

Not the case if my meal would have comprised of a bread sandwitch, orange juice

and

crackers - I would be hungry in an hr.

It is possible (and quite common) to eat " excess " carbs (especially junk carbs),

but not

excess fats.

-Pratick

__________________________________

Discover

Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out!

http://discover./weekend.html

[Guest guest]

Pratick,

>If I have a 3-egg omellete with melted butter and fried anchovies, I can only

eat so

>much.

>After that I am so full that I don't want to look at any food for the next 4

hrs.

>

>Not the case if my meal would have comprised of a bread sandwitch, orange juice

and

>crackers - I would be hungry in an hr.

>

>It is possible (and quite common) to eat " excess " carbs (especially junk

carbs), but not

>excess fats.

>

>-Pratick

>

I agree basically, except when carbs are combined with fat. Many of the

high carb junk foods are also high in fat. It is the fat in these foods

that get the bad press, not the carbs. Of course, the fats in potato

chips are not health-promoting either. But I earnestly believe it is

the carbs in these foods and resulting biochemistry that cause the

energy/eating yo yo to result. If mostly fat and protein are combined

at a meal, the result is satiation for longer periods.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

--- Deanna <hl@...> wrote:

> But I earnestly believe it is

> the carbs in these foods and resulting biochemistry that cause the

> energy/eating yo yo to result. If mostly fat and protein are combined

> at a meal, the result is satiation for longer periods.

Oh, absolutely !

I am convinced that a high-fat, moderate protein and low-carb diet works well

for me

(sounds like the Atkins diet, doesn't it? it is !).

Fats are believed to slow down the absoption of carbs and their conversion into

sugar.

Fats and protein also fill us up.

In terms of carbs, just like fats, the source matters.

If the bulk of your carbs come from fruits and vegetables, then it is difficult

to overdo

carbs as well.

Trouble starts from the carbs start coming from refined, processed foods.

That's what creates insulin resistence, yo-yo dieting, etc.

Which is why you don't hear of people pigging out on real food like fruits,

vegetables,

meats, etc. but it is common to pig out on processed foods.

-Pratick

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

On 6/16/05 9:56 AM, the Muses inspired Pratick Mukherjee to write:

> Which is why you don't hear of people pigging out on real food like fruits,

> vegetables,

> meats, etc. but it is common to pig out on processed foods.

Hello, I am new to the list. I have a medical history that involved having

to take lots of antibiotics, some necessary and others out of the doctors

insistence that antibiotics cured *everything*. I am exploring probiotic

and traditional diets as a way of overcoming the myriad effects of this

medical treatment.

Anyway, I wanted to add an observation to your point. The more people pig

out on foods, the more profits are made by the companies that make them.

There is a huge incentive out there to keep people addicted to this junk and

to make them unwilling to change. It would be a devastating economic change

if everyone started eating basic foods agains. Think of all the parasitic

chemical companies and agricultural middlemen who would suffer!

YR

[Guest guest]

>Assuming " excess fat " is a measurable quantity (which it may not be), and

varies with

>individuals, I believe it is simply not possible to eat " excess fat " because

your body

>won't let you !

And if you DO eat more fat than you need, your body can

decide not to digest it. Unlike undigested carbs, undigested

fats don't necessarily cause a lot of problems: bacteria

don't eat them so quickly (as you can see if you put

some in your compost bin ...). Rancid butter fat though,

stinks a lot because it has butyrate in it, and butyrate

is really, really good for gut health. In fact butyrate is

the preferred food for the intestinal cells: we've speculated

here in the past, where the butyrate must come from

in a low-fiber diet. In a high-fiber diet, the fiber is

decomposed by bacteria into butyrate which feeds

the intestines. But in a low fiber diet, such as the Inuit

eat, perhaps the " excess " fat is metabolized into butyrate

also?

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Hi :

## I think I could afford to say welcome to you.

--- In , Rathbone <yvonr@e...>

wrote:

> On 6/16/05 9:56 AM, the Muses inspired Pratick Mukherjee to write:

> > Which is why you don't hear of people pigging out on real food

like fruits,

> > vegetables,

> > meats, etc. but it is common to pig out on processed foods.

>

> Hello, I am new to the list. I have a medical history that

involved having

> to take lots of antibiotics, some necessary and others out of the

doctors

> insistence that antibiotics cured *everything*. I am exploring

probiotic

> and traditional diets as a way of overcoming the myriad effects of

this

> medical treatment.

## I hope you will be able to mend this very soon.

> Anyway, I wanted to add an observation to your point. The more

people pig

> out on foods, the more profits are made by the companies that make

them.

> There is a huge incentive out there to keep people addicted to this

junk and

> to make them unwilling to change. It would be a devastating

economic change

> if everyone started eating basic foods agains. Think of all the

parasitic

> chemical companies and agricultural middlemen who would suffer!

>

> YR

## This is a very timely observation. Maybe the ideal situation would

be for us to produce our own food, but given the present situation of

people and nations, this is of course impossible. We have to rely on

other people to do that for us. And there are also those of us who

are not at all familiar with food production or don't have the guts

for it. Maybe hunting and gathering aren't that difficult, but I

think that producing foods by other means are not easy at all. I

think we should strive for a compromise. We should demand from the

food producers that they only give us organic food as much as

possible. This could be more expensive, but maybe our doctor bills

would be much lower as well. We should demand more real foods in the

supermarkets rather than processed items. We should boycott junk

food. If the companies realize they can't make money with junk, they

will look for other niches.

What I want to imply is that the first change, the motivation or

education, must start with the consumers, with the common citizens.

It is we who must change in the first place and then the food

industry (I am afraid we need it) will follow suit.

Thanks.

José

[Guest guest]

[Phil] As I'm reading through Nourishing Traditions I am really having

to reorient my thinking toward fat. I have believed like so many that

fat is bad. I am curious about Dr Price's claim that animal fat has an

acitivator needed to assimilate minerals. Has his claim been verified

by others?

[MikeP] As I understood it, the claim about an " activator " was not for

animal fat in general, but the very specific, unique animal fat found

in milk. I'm pretty sure there has never been any scientific support

for his specific theory of " Activator X " , largely because it simply

hasn't been investigated, but I personally doubt there ever will be a

verification of the theory even if tons of resources were poured into

an attempt to verify it. It strikes me as a vague and unsophisticated

way of describing the complex benefits obtained from milkfat during

certain peak periods of dietary quality for the lactating animal. In

a general way, Price is right--there's something incredibly great

about milkfat at its best, but in a specific way, there are probably

dozens of substances acting synergestically and semi-independently in

milkfat, not a single " Activator X " . When speaking of animal fat,

it's critical to treat milkfat as a separate special case, because

milk is... well, MILK! This is a point sadly overlooked in

nutritional discourse, even among milk-centric circles like the WAPF

community. Milkfat is part of milk, and milk is an incredibly complex

substance with hundreds of nutritional factors delicately balanced to

provide optimal nutrition for newly born mammals. Yes, we all know

this, but if you pause to consider what this really means, then you

will see that it's almost inevitable that various " Activator X " type

effects will exist, like favorable mineral absorption. Milks have

evolved to be an efficient and ideal food for specific mammals and the

benefits appear to mostly transfer across species to other mammals.

[Phil] Also how does one tell how much fat is needed? I would imagine

like everything else excess would not be good and one could stress the

liver with excessive fats.

[MikeP] Well, all food is more or less fat, protein, or carbs, so the

concept of excess fat can only be interpreted in two ways: 1)

excessive percentage of calories from fat or 2) excessive calories.

The latter is not specific to fat. You could eat too much food by

eating too much protein or carbs just as easily as eating too much

fat. Surely there is harm from consistently eating too much food; it

puts stress on the body and eventually you'll become obese, etc. Then

again, it's possible the human body is adapted to seasonal

feast/famine cycles and that overeating in itself is harmless and the

harm would only come from consistent, prolonged overeating.

That said, I believe the interpretation you are interested in would be

the first one. Empirical and theoretical evidence suggests that

something like 10-15% of calories should come from protein at a

minimum and that at least 1 or 2% of calories from carbs is probably a

good idea, even if not strictly necessary. So, roughly speaking, a

fat intake of more than 85% or so is probably excessive and certainly

not a sensible or practical diet for anyone. And I'd certainly

imagine 80% would be a more reasonable upper limit for all kinds of

obvious reasons.

High fat diets in the 60-80% range appear to be fairly common in

traditional societies that enjoyed vibrant health, and ultra-low fat

diets (15-25% or so) also appear to be justified as perfectly healthy

in traditional societies assuming a certain level of nutrient-density

for those fats, which would typically mean a certain portion of

high-density animal foods (eggs, shellfish, organs). In modern,

post-industrial societies it seems extremely unlikely that a person

could sustain great health on such low fat levels because the overall

quality of our foodways have been severaly compromised, so it seems

better to play it on the safe side and eat at least 30% fat, and for

most people medium levels (40-60%) are probably best. There is no

advantage to gambling on the low side since the high range is clearly

viable based on evidence from Eskimos, Masai, etc. For anyone with

compromised health, increasing fat intake is usually a wise practice

unless the health issues are specific to fat metabolism, which I

believe is a rare situation. When in doubt, eat more fat.

These are my fairly well-informed conclusions, but I'm not an expert.

Once you get over the blatantly bogus 20th century myths about fat,

the exact details don't really matter because common sense will put

most people somewhere comfortably in the middle range of fat intake

and there is no magic number that will guarantee optimal health for

everyone.

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

The best way to predict the future is to invent it. --Alan Kay

[Guest guest]

--- Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...> wrote:

> Rancid butter fat though,

> stinks a lot because it has butyrate in it, and butyrate

> is really, really good for gut health. In fact butyrate is

> the preferred food for the intestinal cells: we've speculated

> here in the past, where the butyrate must come from

> in a low-fiber diet. In a high-fiber diet, the fiber is

> decomposed by bacteria into butyrate which feeds

> the intestines.

Good point, Heidi, about the butyrate.

Any idea how to ensure that your body is making enough butyrate (without

spoiling

butter)?

Is fibre the only source of butyrate?

-Pratick

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Butyrate? Would that be what Price is referring to when he mixes melted butter

with CLO? or am I off the mark here?

" ...small quantities of very high vitamin butter mixed in equal parts with a

very high vitamin cod liver oil. A simple method of preparing the butter is by

melting it and allowing it to cool for twenty-four hours at a temperature of

about 70° F., then centrifugalizing it which provides an oil that remains liquid

at room temperature. When this butter oil is mixed in equal parts with a very

high-vitamin cod liver oil, it produces a product that is more efficient than

either alone. It should be used within a couple of weeks of the time it is

mixed. "

[Guest guest]

>Good point, Heidi, about the butyrate.

>Any idea how to ensure that your body is making enough butyrate (without

spoiling

>butter)?

>Is fibre the only source of butyrate?

>

>-Pratick

The only things I've heard about it are that it

is produced by bacteria eating fiber. It is though

to be why high-fiber diets might prevent colon

cancer. But it is also clearly produced when

certain fats go rancid, so we've surmised that

some folks must get it from fats. Apple pectin is supposed

to be good food for butyrate producers.

I did meet someone who finally got her gut

issues in line doing " butyrate enemas " . It

seems it does not survive digestion well,

plus it really stinks so you likely would not

want to eat it.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Heidi,

<plus it really stinks so you likely would not

want to eat it.

I've been wondering as I read your posts if the way I eat butter is giving

me any butyrate. I take a quantity from the refrigerator and leave in

out -- covered, in a cupboard -- for as long as 4-5 days. It never gets

very cold here (southern California), so even in winter the butter not only

gets soft but develops a slightly cheesey odor. This is raw butter, so it

never smells bad or spoiled, the way pasteurized would, but when you says

" stinks " I wonder if that's the true test of butyrate presence.

http://www.taichi4seniors.com

[Guest guest]

> Re: Fat Requirements

>

>

>Heidi,

>

><plus it really stinks so you likely would not

>want to eat it.

>

>I've been wondering as I read your posts if the way I eat butter is giving

>me any butyrate. I take a quantity from the refrigerator and leave in

>out -- covered, in a cupboard -- for as long as 4-5 days. It never gets

>very cold here (southern California), so even in winter the butter

>not only

>gets soft but develops a slightly cheesey odor. This is raw butter, so it

>never smells bad or spoiled, the way pasteurized would, but when you says

> " stinks " I wonder if that's the true test of butyrate presence.

My understanding is that butter in any form contains butyrate (it was named

after this fatty acid). You can also produce butyrate in the intestines by

consuming certain types of fiber - moderately fermentable fiber, I believe.

IIRC, I also read that dogs produce it from eating meat. I don't know if

this extends to humans (I doubt it's been studied).

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]

>This is raw butter, so it

>never smells bad or spoiled, the way pasteurized would, but when you says

> " stinks " I wonder if that's the true test of butyrate presence.

>

>

I don't know: I'd expect rancid butter has more of it,

but d'Adamo says ghee has plenty. Or it could be

that the ghee gets more butyrate as it digests.

http://www.dadamo.com/ask/ask2.pl?20040828.txt

Butyrate is a short chain fatty acid normally appearing as a result of colonic

fermentation of fiber in the gut. Butyrate is a preferred source of energy for

the cells of the intestinal lining and several studies suggest that it is the

effect of butyrate which actually gives dietary fiber its anti-cancer effects:

cells incubated in high butyrate environments tend to not mutate as frequently.

There were companies marketing commercial preparations of " calcium/magnesium

butyrate " however, most have stopped doing so. The ARA6 preparation discussed

here on other occasions will increase butyrate concentrations in the intestines.

You can also make " ghee, " an Ayurvedic preparation of clarified butter. Loaded

with short chain fatty acids, including butyric acid. OK for all types. I found

this recipe on the internet:

http://www.dadamo.com/napharm/BTstore/BTSstore.pl?user_action=detail & catalogno=N\

P001

ARA6 is a product derived from the Western Larch tree (Larix occidentalis). The

primary component of ARA6 is the polysaccharide (a long chain of linked sugars)

called ARABINOGALACTAN.

Arabinogalactans from the western larch tree are high-molecular weight

polysaccharides (sugars) capable of up-regulating critical aspects of the immune

system. ARA6 is gentle, safe immune enhancing product which, unlike Echinacea,

can be recommended for all blood types. ARA6 is also an excellent source of

soluble fiber, capable of promoting colon health.

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

Or eat white beans and apples!

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Thanks Mike. I am curious about the fat issue as I seem to really want fatty

foods.As I have lyme disease though and my body is quite messed up I've been

trtying to setermine if my want of fat is a need or a craving. Part of me thinks

it is a need as my nervous system has really been weakened and I do think fat is

integral to maintaining the nervous system. Anway I'll eat fat to my heart's

content and see how I do.

Phil

Re: Fat Requirements

[Phil] As I'm reading through Nourishing Traditions I am really having

to reorient my thinking toward fat. I have believed like so many that

fat is bad. I am curious about Dr Price's claim that animal fat has an

acitivator needed to assimilate minerals. Has his claim been verified

by others?

[MikeP] As I understood it, the claim about an " activator " was not for

animal fat in general, but the very specific, unique animal fat found

in milk. I'm pretty sure there has never been any scientific support

for his specific theory of " Activator X " , largely because it simply

hasn't been investigated, but I personally doubt there ever will be a

verification of the theory even if tons of resources were poured into

an attempt to verify it. It strikes me as a vague and unsophisticated

way of describing the complex benefits obtained from milkfat during

certain peak periods of dietary quality for the lactating animal. In

a general way, Price is right--there's something incredibly great

about milkfat at its best, but in a specific way, there are probably

dozens of substances acting synergestically and semi-independently in

milkfat, not a single " Activator X " . When speaking of animal fat,

it's critical to treat milkfat as a separate special case, because

milk is... well, MILK! This is a point sadly overlooked in

nutritional discourse, even among milk-centric circles like the WAPF

community. Milkfat is part of milk, and milk is an incredibly complex

substance with hundreds of nutritional factors delicately balanced to

provide optimal nutrition for newly born mammals. Yes, we all know

this, but if you pause to consider what this really means, then you

will see that it's almost inevitable that various " Activator X " type

effects will exist, like favorable mineral absorption. Milks have

evolved to be an efficient and ideal food for specific mammals and the

benefits appear to mostly transfer across species to other mammals.

[Phil] Also how does one tell how much fat is needed? I would imagine

like everything else excess would not be good and one could stress the

liver with excessive fats.

[MikeP] Well, all food is more or less fat, protein, or carbs, so the

concept of excess fat can only be interpreted in two ways: 1)

excessive percentage of calories from fat or 2) excessive calories.

The latter is not specific to fat. You could eat too much food by

eating too much protein or carbs just as easily as eating too much

fat. Surely there is harm from consistently eating too much food; it

puts stress on the body and eventually you'll become obese, etc. Then

again, it's possible the human body is adapted to seasonal

feast/famine cycles and that overeating in itself is harmless and the

harm would only come from consistent, prolonged overeating.

That said, I believe the interpretation you are interested in would be

the first one. Empirical and theoretical evidence suggests that

something like 10-15% of calories should come from protein at a

minimum and that at least 1 or 2% of calories from carbs is probably a

good idea, even if not strictly necessary. So, roughly speaking, a

fat intake of more than 85% or so is probably excessive and certainly

not a sensible or practical diet for anyone. And I'd certainly

imagine 80% would be a more reasonable upper limit for all kinds of

obvious reasons.

High fat diets in the 60-80% range appear to be fairly common in

traditional societies that enjoyed vibrant health, and ultra-low fat

diets (15-25% or so) also appear to be justified as perfectly healthy

in traditional societies assuming a certain level of nutrient-density

for those fats, which would typically mean a certain portion of

high-density animal foods (eggs, shellfish, organs). In modern,

post-industrial societies it seems extremely unlikely that a person

could sustain great health on such low fat levels because the overall

quality of our foodways have been severaly compromised, so it seems

better to play it on the safe side and eat at least 30% fat, and for

most people medium levels (40-60%) are probably best. There is no

advantage to gambling on the low side since the high range is clearly

viable based on evidence from Eskimos, Masai, etc. For anyone with

compromised health, increasing fat intake is usually a wise practice

unless the health issues are specific to fat metabolism, which I

believe is a rare situation. When in doubt, eat more fat.

These are my fairly well-informed conclusions, but I'm not an expert.

Once you get over the blatantly bogus 20th century myths about fat,

the exact details don't really matter because common sense will put

most people somewhere comfortably in the middle range of fat intake

and there is no magic number that will guarantee optimal health for

everyone.

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

The best way to predict the future is to invent it. --Alan Kay

[Guest guest]

On 6/18/05, Pratick Mukherjee <pratickmukherjee@...> wrote:

> --- Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...> wrote:

> > Rancid butter fat though,

> > stinks a lot because it has butyrate in it, and butyrate

> > is really, really good for gut health. In fact butyrate is

> > the preferred food for the intestinal cells: we've speculated

> > here in the past, where the butyrate must come from

> > in a low-fiber diet. In a high-fiber diet, the fiber is

> > decomposed by bacteria into butyrate which feeds

> > the intestines.

>

> Good point, Heidi, about the butyrate.

> Any idea how to ensure that your body is making enough butyrate (without

> spoiling

> butter)?

> Is fibre the only source of butyrate?

Butter has plenty of butyrate, bound up in triglycerides. All that

happens for free butyrate to be produced is for the butryate to be

freed from the triglyceride. So eating lots of butter should be good

insurance.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 6/18/05, <harringtonwa@...> wrote:

> Butyrate? Would that be what Price is referring to when he mixes melted

> butter with CLO? or am I off the mark here?

>

> " ...small quantities of very high vitamin butter mixed in equal parts with a

> very high vitamin cod liver oil. A simple method of preparing the butter is

> by melting it and allowing it to cool for twenty-four hours at a temperature

> of about 70° F., then centrifugalizing it which provides an oil that remains

> liquid at room temperature. When this butter oil is mixed in equal parts

> with a very high-vitamin cod liver oil, it produces a product that is more

> efficient than either alone. It should be used within a couple of weeks of

> the time it is mixed. "

I don't see any direct reference to something that might be butyrate

here, but since butyric acid is one of the short-chain fatty acids,

the butter oil being liquid, probably contains a higher proportion of

it than butter itself.

Chris