Re: Re: MUFA, PUFA on Grain & Grass

[Guest guest]

>> You were originally quoting Christie, iirc, not me. Does that help?

:-) <<

No, it wasn't me... and I don't think I've seen this whole thread, either. I

keep seeing things being quoted that I didn't see in their original version. I'm

sort of lost, to tell the truth.

Is having a nervous breakdown again?

Christie

Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds

Holistically Raising Our Dogs Since 1986

http://www.caberfeidh.com/

http://www.doggedblog.com/

[Guest guest]

>> But from what I've seen and what Colby's posted, the n-6s in beef

are relatively constant. <<

Interesting. I have seen different information, here and there over the years. I

just did a VERY fast google search and came up with this site, which I have seen

before but never bookmarked, which indicates not just a different ratio but

different gross amounts as well - Omega 6s being around double in grain fed

beef:

http://www.alderspring.com/health_benefits/html/lean.html

Table 2 on this page from Cal State University at Chico seems to say the same...

almost double the Omega 6 fatty acids in grain fed beef, not just a ratio

difference:

http://www.csuchico.edu/agr/grassfedbeef/health-benefits/

Table 1, on the other hand, looks like it's comparing several different diets

and the differences among them are not that great.

I just want to stress, again, that the EFA ratios are not my primary objection

to grain fed beef. I was responding to someone else's direct question about

those ratios. This is interesting to me but it's not " my " issue. In other words,

I don't have a dog in this fight.

Christie

Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds

Holistically Raising Our Dogs Since 1986

http://www.caberfeidh.com/

http://www.doggedblog.com/

[Guest guest]

I am not sure what you're seeing in the first page ... the first page

lists Omega 6 in grass fed as 139 and Omega 6 in grain fed as 275. That's around

double the Omega 6s in grain fed, which is what I said. I also found this table,

indicating Omega 6 levels around twice in grain fed than grass fed, giving a

citation to a 1986 study or article from the Journal of Food Quality as its

source:

http://www.sevensons.net/benefits.htm

I agree on the second page it's the ratios that are the issue using their data,

rather than the absolute amounts.

I really don't know what the truth is, or if there even IS one truth - it seems

that diet has a huge impact on Omega 3s and an effect that is much less, minor,

or nil on Omega 6s, depending on who you ask and also, perhaps, on what exactly

the cows are eating, time of year, geographical location, age, breed ... there

are probably a lot of variables that could explain this discrepancy. Or perhaps

a lot of people are just parroting outdated information. Maybe even me. <G>

Christie

Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds

Holistically Raising Our Dogs Since 1986

http://www.caberfeidh.com/

http://www.doggedblog.com/

Re: MUFA, PUFA on Grain & Grass

On 9/7/05, Christie <christiekeith@...> wrote:

> Table 2 on this page from Cal State University at Chico seems to say the

> same... almost double the Omega 6 fatty acids in grain fed beef, not just a

> ratio difference:

>

> http://www.csuchico.edu/agr/grassfedbeef/health-benefits/

No, look again: 5.66 for GRASS-FED, and only 3.92 for grain-fed for

n-6s. The grass-fed has MORE. But the difference in n-3s is much

bigger than the difference in n-6s, leading to a much lower n-6:n-3

ratio. This is more consistent to what I've seen than the table

showing lower n-6s on grass-fed.

Actually, the first website likewise does not support the idea of

higher n-6s. The table shows the absolute amounts, and the total fat

is twice as much in the grain-fed, which is a LARGER difference than

the n-6 difference, which means that the concentration of n-6s went up

slightly in grass-fed-- but the concentration of n-3s went up a HUGE

amount more. The grain-fed had a disproportionate rise in MUFA.

Both websites are consistent with the general picture that n-3s rise

considerably at expense of MUFA, whereas the difference in n-6s is

pretty small (though usually greater in grass-fed.)

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

<HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

" http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT

FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

<B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B>

<UL>

<LI><B><A

HREF= " / " >NATIVE

NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI>

<LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire message

archive with Onibasu</LI>

</UL></FONT>

<PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A

HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST OWNER:</A></B>

Idol

<B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer

Wanita Sears

</FONT></PRE>

</BODY>

</HTML>

[Guest guest]

>> Everything I've seen so far is consistent, <<

Which is also RESEARCH or things that appear to be DATA, and has nothing to do

with what I said, which is " parroting, " ie, " what people say. "

I guarantee you, if you lower your standards substantially below what either you

or I are willing to accept as reliable data, you will find plenty of people

saying that 6s are higher in grain fed cattle.

They either don't understand the idea of a ratio (that 6s can stay the same or

go up, but as long as 3s go WAY up, the ratio will improve), or like me, didn't

consider for an instant the change in the total amount of fat. Math is not my

thing, but it never would have crossed my mind to look at the data that way. I'm

sure lots of other people with my kind of brain are doing the same thing.

I'm no longer arguing with you on the main point, which was a tangential one for

me anyway.

Christie

Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds

Holistically Raising Our Dogs Since 1986

http://www.caberfeidh.com/

http://www.doggedblog.com/

[Guest guest]

>> It really

bugs me what a lot of people on " our side " consider to be justified

deductions from data, because those flimsy standards are what allows

all the junk science in the mainstream to pass as sensible. <<

Yes, you should try hanging out with other holistic dog people sometime... it's

like fingernails on a chalkboard!

Christie

Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds

Holistically Raising Our Dogs Since 1986

http://www.caberfeidh.com/

http://www.doggedblog.com/

[Guest guest]

>> Ok. Your main point-- just to show I was paying attention ;-) -- was

that there are lots of reasons to not eat grain-fed beef aside from

the fatty acid composition, even if it's not a good source of n-3s. <<

ROFL... yes. Exactly.

Christie

Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds

Holistically Raising Our Dogs Since 1986

http://www.caberfeidh.com/

http://www.doggedblog.com/

[Guest guest]

On 9/8/05, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> Well I think it my subsequent emails I've pretty clearly explained

> what I think. Just disregard this goof-up: my understanding, again,

> is that grass-fed tends to be lower in total fat, and as a proportion

> of total fat, is about the same or a little higher than grain-fed in

> n-6, much higher in n-3, yielding a higher total PUFA at the expense

> of MUFA.

>

> Chris

I'm thinking this must be a function of the age at which grass fed

beef is slaughtered rather than an absolute standard. I have been told

that older grass fed beef is much fattier than the the normal stuff we

see at market.

--

" Twenty years ago I was an extreme right-wing

Republican, a young and lone 'Neanderthal'

(as the liberals used to call us) who believed,

as one friend pungently put it, that 'Senator

Taft had sold out to the socialists. Today,

I am most likely to be called an extreme leftist,

since I favor immediate withdrawal from

Vietnam, denounce U.S. imperialism, advocate

Black Power and have just joined the new

Peace and Freedom Party. And yet my basic

political views have not changed by a single

iota in these two decades! "

Murray Rothbard

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>I really can't stomach what people consider acceptable data, and

>unfortunately this goes even for the sources I like most. It really

>bugs me what a lot of people on " our side " consider to be justified

>deductions from data, because those flimsy standards are what allows

>all the junk science in the mainstream to pass as sensible.

Amen brother.

-

[Guest guest]

-

>I'm thinking this must be a function of the age at which grass fed

>beef is slaughtered rather than an absolute standard. I have been told

>that older grass fed beef is much fattier than the the normal stuff we

>see at market.

Exactly. In fact, grass-fed animals were traditionally killed at a MUCH

older age than they are now, and though I can't seem to find it now, I read

awhile ago that nutrient density really takes awhile to build up in

animals, meaning that the young animals we get nowadays are sort of like

the junk food of grass-fed meat even if they're raised on decent soil,

which is pretty rare by itself.

-