Re: Is Lettuce Worth Eating?

[Guest guest]

>

> Group, what's our collective opinion on the nutritional worth of

> lettuce? I remember a thread last fall about this but I'm asking

whether

> it's worth eating lettuce regularly. I enjoy a salad once in a while

but

> I certainly don't have to eat it, so I'm thinking it may be better to

> just eat cooked kale, collards, chard, and raw and cooked spinach more

> often since they are more nutrient dense. Besides cellulose, my

> impression is there's not a whole lot of nutrition in all types of

> lettuce, given that the ratio of fiber and water to other nutritive

> components is very high, and it's eaten raw so many of the nutrients

are

> not absorbed. Thoughts?

>

> Tom

Hi

Do you mean romaine lettuce or classic iceberg? Romaine is very

nutritionally dense and if you eat it with a dressing made with oil,

you should be able to absorb everything

[Guest guest]

I meant romaine or any non-iceberg lettuce, although as Mike

pointed out, iceberg lettuce, if grown under good conditions, has a lot

more nutrition than most people credit it.

Even with oil, you can't absorb everything. I'm wondering how " worth it "

lettuce is. In other words, should I got out of my way to eat a salad

several times a week rather than another type of vegetable, or can I get

everything in lettuce from more nutrient-dense veggies? If the latter,

I'll just eat salad when I feel like it.

Tom

arielb53 wrote:

> Hi

> Do you mean romaine lettuce or classic iceberg? Romaine is very

> nutritionally dense and if you eat it with a dressing made with oil,

> you should be able to absorb everything

>

[Guest guest]

>

> I meant romaine or any non-iceberg lettuce, although as Mike

> pointed out, iceberg lettuce, if grown under good conditions, has a lot

> more nutrition than most people credit it.

>

> Even with oil, you can't absorb everything. I'm wondering how " worth

it "

> lettuce is. In other words, should I got out of my way to eat a salad

> several times a week rather than another type of vegetable, or can I

get

> everything in lettuce from more nutrient-dense veggies? If the latter,

> I'll just eat salad when I feel like it.

>

> Tom

I like this website because it lets you compare different foods:

http://whfoods.com/foodstoc.php

As you can see you get more folate in romaine vs kale but kale has

more vitamin A. It's good to strive for as much variety as possible

since each vegetable has its own unique benefit

[Guest guest]

> > Hi

> > Do you mean romaine lettuce or classic iceberg? Romaine is very

> > nutritionally dense and if you eat it with a dressing made with oil,

> > you should be able to absorb everything

> >

>

I don't think lettuce is worth eating personally. I'm not a fan of

raw veggies at all, but I love fermented veggies and eat many cooked.

I'm not saying its not nutritious, but I don't think they are

necessary, and if you don't enjoy salads that much, or don't want to

go out of your way making them, then just eat a good amount of

cruciferous veggies and you'll be fine.

I do think that raw veggies are harder to break down and digest, as

well as assimilate all the nutrients from. I can't imagine primitive

people making salads and don't even know if they did.

[Guest guest]

>

> I don't think lettuce is worth eating personally. I'm not a fan of

> raw veggies at all, but I love fermented veggies and eat many cooked.

> I'm not saying its not nutritious, but I don't think they are

> necessary, and if you don't enjoy salads that much, or don't want to

> go out of your way making them, then just eat a good amount of

> cruciferous veggies and you'll be fine.

>

> I do think that raw veggies are harder to break down and digest, as

> well as assimilate all the nutrients from. I can't imagine primitive

> people making salads and don't even know if they did.

That's what the " paleo " diet people do. They eat lots of raw

salads...but no salt or vinegar and no fermented anything see

http://www.thepaleodiet.com/recipes.htm

[Guest guest]

--- In , " arielb53 " <aribhaviv@f...>

wrote:

>

> --- In , " gdawson6 " <gdawson6@y...>

wrote:

> >

> > I don't think lettuce is worth eating personally. I'm not a fan of

> > raw veggies at all, but I love fermented veggies and eat many cooked.

> > I'm not saying its not nutritious, but I don't think they are

> > necessary, and if you don't enjoy salads that much, or don't want to

> > go out of your way making them, then just eat a good amount of

> > cruciferous veggies and you'll be fine.

> >

> > I do think that raw veggies are harder to break down and digest, as

> > well as assimilate all the nutrients from. I can't imagine primitive

> > people making salads and don't even know if they did.

>

> That's what the " paleo " diet people do. They eat lots of raw

> salads...but no salt or vinegar and no fermented anything see

> http://www.thepaleodiet.com/recipes.htm

>

Yes, and they also believe that primitive people ate lean meat and

lots of vegetable oils.

I am confused as to whether you were serious or not, as many people on

this board think that diet is quite a joke.

[Guest guest]

> >

> > I don't think lettuce is worth eating personally. I'm not a fan

of

> > raw veggies at all, but I love fermented veggies and eat many

cooked.

> > I'm not saying its not nutritious, but I don't think they

are

> > necessary, and if you don't enjoy salads that much, or don't

want to

> > go out of your way making them, then just eat a good amount of

> > cruciferous veggies and you'll be fine.

> >

> > I do think that raw veggies are harder to break down and digest,

as

> > well as assimilate all the nutrients from. I can't imagine

primitive

> > people making salads and don't even know if they did.

>

> That's what the " paleo " diet people do. They eat lots of raw

> salads...but no salt or vinegar and no fermented anything see

> http://www.thepaleodiet.com/recipes.htm

>

Would not primative people eat their " salads " on the run so to

speak? As they walked through the landscape and saw an edible leaf

here or there, just pulled it off and ate it? On the way to the nut

tree or bushes/fruit tree/honey tree?

Connie

[Guest guest]

> Yes, and they also believe that primitive people ate lean meat and

> lots of vegetable oils.

To his defense, Loren Cordain doesn't claim primitive people actually

used those oils. He uses them to restore equivalent fatty acid ratios

because most people don't have access to " real " paleo foods.

But he really does seem to like canola oil even though it has been

" raped " in so many ways!

> I am confused as to whether you were serious or not, as many people on

> this board think that diet is quite a joke.

Somewhat serious...there are a lot of people who have the

misconception that WAP and paleo are compatible. WAP isn't even low

carb or even anti-grain but there are people who got the idea

somewhere that WAP fits in with those ideas.

I do think it makes more sense to eat a lot more vegetables to balance

out all that acidity though there's no such thing as a magic vegetable

that you 'have' to eat. On the other hand both are against soy and I

think that fermented soy should be a part of the diet just like miso

soup is eaten every day in Japan.

The most important principle is variety-just like you need variety in

a stock portfolio. There are benefits, usually phytochemicals, that

you have in one food that you won't get in something else even if it

doesn't look so great in terms of simple vitamins and minerals. This

is especially true with whole grains which are loaded with unique

antioxidants and other cancer fighting properties but look rather weak

if you are only looking at vitamins.

[Guest guest]

--- In , " arielb53 " <aribhaviv@f...>

wrote:

>

> --- In , " gdawson6 " <gdawson6@y...>

wrote:

>

> > Yes, and they also believe that primitive people ate lean meat and

> > lots of vegetable oils.

>

> To his defense, Loren Cordain doesn't claim primitive people actually

> used those oils. He uses them to restore equivalent fatty acid ratios

> because most people don't have access to " real " paleo foods.

> But he really does seem to like canola oil even though it has been

> " raped " in so many ways!

>

> > I am confused as to whether you were serious or not, as many people on

> > this board think that diet is quite a joke.

>

> Somewhat serious...there are a lot of people who have the

> misconception that WAP and paleo are compatible. WAP isn't even low

> carb or even anti-grain but there are people who got the idea

> somewhere that WAP fits in with those ideas.

>

> I do think it makes more sense to eat a lot more vegetables to balance

> out all that acidity though there's no such thing as a magic vegetable

> that you 'have' to eat. On the other hand both are against soy and I

> think that fermented soy should be a part of the diet just like miso

> soup is eaten every day in Japan.

>

> The most important principle is variety-just like you need variety in

> a stock portfolio. There are benefits, usually phytochemicals, that

> you have in one food that you won't get in something else even if it

> doesn't look so great in terms of simple vitamins and minerals. This

> is especially true with whole grains which are loaded with unique

> antioxidants and other cancer fighting properties but look rather weak

> if you are only looking at vitamins.

>

Just to clarify my first post, I just want to say if you like eating

salads thats fine and they would have some benefits, but I don't think

they are necessary. I do believe fermented veggies would be much more

beneficial than salads in most cases.

Oh and to Connie, did you ever try taking a big bite of lettuce and

swallowing by itself? I would much rather eat some wild berries.

[Guest guest]

--- In , " gdawson6 " <gdawson6@y...>

wrote:

>

> Oh and to Connie, did you ever try taking a big bite of lettuce and

> swallowing by itself? I would much rather eat some wild berries.

>

Not as a " meal " but haven't you ever or ever seen someone chewing on

a straw or twig or whatever?? And certainly one would prefer wild

berries - sweet, tart, what is not to like, but what if you are

somewhat thirsty and there is no stream nearby? chewing on something

relieves thirst for a while.

And humans have to be taught not to put stuff in their mouths...

Connie <mother of three>

[Guest guest]

> Oh and to Connie, did you ever try taking a big bite of lettuce and

> swallowing by itself? I would much rather eat some wild berries.

I think this is a very important point. Your body knows what you need.

I tend to go with the japanese when I pick my foods. I aspire to " a

hundred foods a day " in every color of the spectrum.

-Lana

[Guest guest]

On 11/2/05, Connie Hampton <connie@...> wrote:

>

> >

> > Oh and to Connie, did you ever try taking a big bite of lettuce and

> > swallowing by itself? I would much rather eat some wild berries.

> >

>

> Not as a " meal " but haven't you ever or ever seen someone chewing on

> a straw or twig or whatever?? And certainly one would prefer wild

> berries - sweet, tart, what is not to like, but what if you are

> somewhat thirsty and there is no stream nearby? chewing on something

> relieves thirst for a while.

Eating watery greens to quench thirst must go way back. Tons of other

animals do it, too.

Just finished reading a Denton Welch book where he talked about eating

wild sorrel to stop his thirst after walking all day. He also

mentioned raw liver as a common prescription for curing anemia. This

was set in roughly mid-1930s UK. That was more of an anecdote than

" evidence. "

[Guest guest]

> >

> > Oh and to Connie, did you ever try taking a big bite of lettuce and

> > swallowing by itself? I would much rather eat some wild berries.

> >

>

> Not as a " meal " but haven't you ever or ever seen someone chewing on

> a straw or twig or whatever?? And certainly one would prefer wild

> berries - sweet, tart, what is not to like, but what if you are

> somewhat thirsty and there is no stream nearby? chewing on something

> relieves thirst for a while.

>

> And humans have to be taught not to put stuff in their mouths...

> Connie <mother of three>

>

Here's an interesting quote:

http://www.westonaprice.org/ihf/machiguenga.html

" An interesting feature of the Machiguenga diet is a relative paucity

of greens. In the midst of one of the greenest places on Earth, there

are no salads, and no leaf material in the diet. One reason is that

leaves are commonly thought of as medicine and many contain alkaloids

or other chemicals that render them unpalatable, but pharmacologically

powerful. An exception to the green-free rule is avocado, which is

eaten plain as other fruits, and relished for its taste, as well as

for its abundant protein and healthful fat content. For obvious

reasons, the avocados are enjoyed not only by the people, but are a

favorite quarry of their scavenging dogs. "

[Guest guest]

Read what Dr. Mercola says about Canola Oil and Soy Beans, it's very

interesting. I'm including the URL's to both and a short description

of each. You will have to click the links to get the whole stories.

On Canola Oil:

http://www.mercola.com/2002/aug/14/con_ola1.htm

The Great Con-ola

By Sally Fallon and G. Enig, PhD

Canola oil is " widely recognized as the healthiest salad and cooking

oil available to consumers. " It was developed through hybridization

of rape seed.

Rape seed oil is toxic because it contains significant amounts of a

poisonous substance called erucic acid.

Canola oil contains only trace amounts of erucic acid and its unique

fatty acid profile, rich in oleic acid and low in saturated fats,

makes it particularly beneficial for the prevention of heart

disease. It also contains significant amounts of omega-3 fatty

acids, also shown to have health benefits. This is what the food

industry says about canola oil.

Canola oil is a poisonous substance, an industrial oil that does not

belong in the body. It contains " the infamous chemical warfare agent

mustard gas, " hemagglutinins and toxic cyanide-containing

glycocides; it causes mad cow disease, blindness, nervous disorders,

clumping of blood cells and depression of the immune system. This is

what detractors say about canola oil.

How is the consumer to sort out the conflicting claims about canola

oil? Is canola oil a dream come true or a deadly poison? And why has

canola captured so large a share of the oils used in processed foods?

On Soy Beans:

http://www.mercola.com/2000/feb/13/more_on_soy.htm

Where the soybean goes wrong?

Here at the Gerson Institute, we feel the positive aspects of the

soybean are overshadowed by their potential for harm. Soybeans in

fact contain a large number of dangerous substances. One among them

is phytic acid, also called phytates. This organic acid is present

in the bran or hulls of all seeds and legumes, but none have the

high level of phytates that soybeans do. These acids block the

bodyís uptake of essential minerals like calcium, magnesium, iron

and especially zinc. Adding to the high-phytate problem, soybeans

are very resistant to phytate reducing techniques, such as long,

slow cooking.

Soybeans also contain potent enzyme inhibitors. These inhibitors

block uptake of trypsin and other enzymes that the body needs for

protein digestion. Normal cooking does not deactivate these

harmful " antinutrients, " that can cause serious gastric distress,

reduced protein digestion and can lead to chronic deficiencies in

amino acid uptake.

Beyond these, soybeans also contain hemagglutinin, a clot promoting

substance that causes red blood cells to clump together. These

clustered blood cells are unable to properly absorb oxygen for

distribution to the body's tissues, and cannot help in maintaining

good cardiac health. Hemagglutinin and trypsin inhibitors are

both " growth depressant " substances. Although the act of fermenting

soybeans does deactivate both trypsin inhibitors and hemagglutinin,

precipitation and cooking do not. Even though these enzyme

inhibitors are reduced in levels within precipitated soy products

like tofu, they are not altogether eliminated.

Only after a long period of fermentation (as in the creation of miso

or tempeh) are the phytate and " antinutrient " levels of soybeans

reduced, making their nourishment available to the human digestive

system. The high levels of harmful substances remaining in

precipitated soy products leave their nutritional value questionable

at best, and in the least, potentially harmful.

[Guest guest]

On 11/2/05, arielb53 <aribhaviv@...> wrote:

>

>

> > Yes, and they also believe that primitive people ate lean meat and

> > lots of vegetable oils.

>

> To his defense, Loren Cordain doesn't claim primitive people actually

> used those oils. He uses them to restore equivalent fatty acid ratios

> because most people don't have access to " real " paleo foods.

> But he really does seem to like canola oil even though it has been

> " raped " in so many ways!

>

> > I am confused as to whether you were serious or not, as many people on

> > this board think that diet is quite a joke.

>

> Somewhat serious...there are a lot of people who have the

> misconception that WAP and paleo are compatible.

Well they aren't exactly incompatible depending on how you understand

" paleo " . WAP isn't a particular diet but rather a set of concepts that

cover a broad range of diets, as evidenced by the variety of diets

that WAP's primitives ate.

> WAP isn't even low

> carb or even anti-grain but there are people who got the idea

> somewhere that WAP fits in with those ideas.

Yes that would be incorrect to think that WAP is anti-grain or low

carb, on the other hand it can embrace those who eat that way, since

there were low carb/low grain groups among WAP's primitives. But no,

WAP does not embrace the idea that low carb/low grain is a *must* for

everybody to achieve optimum health.

> I do think it makes more sense to eat a lot more vegetables to balance

> out all that acidity though there's no such thing as a magic vegetable

> that you 'have' to eat

Weston Price thought otherwise regarding the alkaline/acidity issue.

You might check the archives for this topic: www.onibasu.com. I have

quoted him durectly several times on the subject.

> On the other hand both are against soy and I

> think that fermented soy should be a part of the diet just like miso

> soup is eaten every day in Japan.

WAP is not against *all* soy, just the modern soy products that are

not properly prepared to get rid of all the anti-nutrient properties

apparently inherent in soy.

> The most important principle is variety-just like you need variety in

> a stock portfolio. There are benefits, usually phytochemicals, that

> you have in one food that you won't get in something else even if it

> doesn't look so great in terms of simple vitamins and minerals. This

> is especially true with whole grains which are loaded with unique

> antioxidants and other cancer fighting properties but look rather weak

> if you are only looking at vitamins.

Actually you can get all the nutrients you need from a diet that

doesn't have much variety, depending on how you put it together. A

diet which consists primarily of eating the *whole* animal for example

(and not just the muscle meat) would pretty much take care of most of

what is needed.

--

" It is no crime to be ignorant of economics,

which is, after all, a specialized discipline

and one that most people consider to be a

'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible

to have a loud and vociferous opinion on

economic subjects while remaining in this

state of ignorance. "

-- Murray Rothbard

[Guest guest]

Dear Connie and others,

Having followed this little conversation, I will add that when I

lived in Chile in 1974, at the tender age of 22, I was very poor (I

taught school and was paid miserably!) and my one luxury at night,

with a group of really good musician friends, was to buy three large

heads of lettuce (green leaf types), wash and separate the leaves and

put them in a big bowl in the middle of the table. We would jam into

the night and relish the sweet, incredibly delish lettuce! We could

have had something else, but no. No pot, no alcohol (this was the

70s) - just lettuce leaves! Yum!

Lynne

______________

On Nov 3, 2005, at 2:49 AM, arielb53 wrote:

>

> > >

> > > Oh and to Connie, did you ever try taking a big bite of

> lettuce and

> > > swallowing by itself? I would much rather eat some wild berries.

> > >

> >

> > Not as a " meal " but haven't you ever or ever seen someone

> chewing on

> > a straw or twig or whatever?? And certainly one would prefer wild

> > berries - sweet, tart, what is not to like, but what if you are

> > somewhat thirsty and there is no stream nearby? chewing on

> something

> > relieves thirst for a while.

> >

> > And humans have to be taught not to put stuff in their mouths...

> > Connie <mother of three>

> >

> _____

Lynne Muelle

lynne@...

[Guest guest]

,

Some consider eating a whole animal as variety. Remember, we live

in the day where most only ever eat the muscle meat.

-Lana

> Actually you can get all the nutrients you need from a diet that

> doesn't have much variety, depending on how you put it together. A

> diet which consists primarily of eating the *whole* animal for example

> (and not just the muscle meat) would pretty much take care of most of

> what is needed.

[Guest guest]

>

> Well they aren't exactly incompatible depending on how you understand

> " paleo " . WAP isn't a particular diet but rather a set of concepts that

> cover a broad range of diets, as evidenced by the variety of diets

> that WAP's primitives ate.

>

Paleo style could be as a subset of WAP-though not Cordain's idea of

Paleo. Once you add in the milk and grains it becomes more neolithic

and with the butter and cod liver oils, WAP actually turns pretty

modern (relatively speaking!)

> > I do think it makes more sense to eat a lot more vegetables to balance

> > out all that acidity though there's no such thing as a magic vegetable

> > that you 'have' to eat

>

> Weston Price thought otherwise regarding the alkaline/acidity issue.

> You might check the archives for this topic: www.onibasu.com. I have

> quoted him durectly several times on the subject.

That would be this article I assume?

http://www.price-pottenger.org/Articles/Acid_base_bal.htm

> Actually you can get all the nutrients you need from a diet that

> doesn't have much variety, depending on how you put it together. A

> diet which consists primarily of eating the *whole* animal for example

> (and not just the muscle meat) would pretty much take care of most of

> what is needed.

>

>

Nutrients yes but not the wide array of antioxidants you get by a

variety of fruits, vegetables, grains, legumes, nuts and spices.

[Guest guest]

They are called variety meats for a reason.

>

> ,

>

> Some consider eating a whole animal as variety. Remember, we live

> in the day where most only ever eat the muscle meat.

>

> -Lana

>

> > Actually you can get all the nutrients you need from a diet that

> > doesn't have much variety, depending on how you put it together. A

> > diet which consists primarily of eating the *whole* animal for

example

> > (and not just the muscle meat) would pretty much take care of most of

> > what is needed.

>

[Guest guest]

On 11/3/05, arielb53 <aribhaviv@...> wrote:

>

> >

> > Well they aren't exactly incompatible depending on how you understand

> > " paleo " . WAP isn't a particular diet but rather a set of concepts that

> > cover a broad range of diets, as evidenced by the variety of diets

> > that WAP's primitives ate.

> >

> Paleo style could be as a subset of WAP-though not Cordain's idea of

> Paleo. Once you add in the milk and grains it becomes more neolithic

> and with the butter and cod liver oils, WAP actually turns pretty

> modern (relatively speaking!)

Are you familiar with the various groups that Price observed? There

were a few who had no dairy and no grains, so Paleo style is

definitely a subset of the Price paradigm. That is what I meant when I

said WAP is a set of concepts that embraces a *broad* continuum of

diets, of which paleo style is one, no " could be " about it.

Not only that, the time frame when dairy was supposedly introduced

keeps getting shifted back farther and farther, and I for one don't

have much confidence in paleo ideas of who ate what when.

> > > I do think it makes more sense to eat a lot more vegetables to balance

> > > out all that acidity though there's no such thing as a magic vegetable

> > > that you 'have' to eat

> >

> > Weston Price thought otherwise regarding the alkaline/acidity issue.

> > You might check the archives for this topic: www.onibasu.com. I have

> > quoted him durectly several times on the subject.

>

> That would be this article I assume?

> http://www.price-pottenger.org/Articles/Acid_base_bal.htm

Actually I was referring to some of his comments from _Nutrition and

Physical Degeneration_.

> > Actually you can get all the nutrients you need from a diet that

> > doesn't have much variety, depending on how you put it together. A

> > diet which consists primarily of eating the *whole* animal for example

> > (and not just the muscle meat) would pretty much take care of most of

> > what is needed.

> >

> >

>

> Nutrients yes but not the wide array of antioxidants you get by a

> variety of fruits, vegetables, grains, legumes, nuts and spices.

By nutrients I meant everything you need for *optimal* health. We do

not *need* fruits, much in the way of veggies, grains, legumes, nuts,

and spices for optimal health. There are plenty of antioxidants in a

whole animal diet, not the least of which is cholesterol.

By the way, is there any particular reason you don't sign your name?

This thread seems to have several people who post without giving a

name.

--

" It is no crime to be ignorant of economics,

which is, after all, a specialized discipline

and one that most people consider to be a

'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible

to have a loud and vociferous opinion on

economic subjects while remaining in this

state of ignorance. "

-- Murray Rothbard

[Guest guest]

Lets not forget that a healthy body supplied with the right nutrients

from various animal parts has the capability of making its own

anti-oxidants in abundance. I don't know if that can apply in todays

toxic world though.

-

> > >

> > > Well they aren't exactly incompatible depending on how you

understand

> > > " paleo " . WAP isn't a particular diet but rather a set of

concepts that

> > > cover a broad range of diets, as evidenced by the variety of diets

> > > that WAP's primitives ate.

> > >

> > Paleo style could be as a subset of WAP-though not Cordain's idea of

> > Paleo. Once you add in the milk and grains it becomes more neolithic

> > and with the butter and cod liver oils, WAP actually turns pretty

> > modern (relatively speaking!)

>

> Are you familiar with the various groups that Price observed? There

> were a few who had no dairy and no grains, so Paleo style is

> definitely a subset of the Price paradigm. That is what I meant when I

> said WAP is a set of concepts that embraces a *broad* continuum of

> diets, of which paleo style is one, no " could be " about it.

>

> Not only that, the time frame when dairy was supposedly introduced

> keeps getting shifted back farther and farther, and I for one don't

> have much confidence in paleo ideas of who ate what when.

>

> > > > I do think it makes more sense to eat a lot more vegetables to

balance

> > > > out all that acidity though there's no such thing as a magic

vegetable

> > > > that you 'have' to eat

> > >

> > > Weston Price thought otherwise regarding the alkaline/acidity issue.

> > > You might check the archives for this topic: www.onibasu.com. I have

> > > quoted him durectly several times on the subject.

> >

> > That would be this article I assume?

> > http://www.price-pottenger.org/Articles/Acid_base_bal.htm

>

> Actually I was referring to some of his comments from _Nutrition and

> Physical Degeneration_.

>

> > > Actually you can get all the nutrients you need from a diet that

> > > doesn't have much variety, depending on how you put it together. A

> > > diet which consists primarily of eating the *whole* animal for

example

> > > (and not just the muscle meat) would pretty much take care of

most of

> > > what is needed.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Nutrients yes but not the wide array of antioxidants you get by a

> > variety of fruits, vegetables, grains, legumes, nuts and spices.

>

> By nutrients I meant everything you need for *optimal* health. We do

> not *need* fruits, much in the way of veggies, grains, legumes, nuts,

> and spices for optimal health. There are plenty of antioxidants in a

> whole animal diet, not the least of which is cholesterol.

>

> By the way, is there any particular reason you don't sign your name?

> This thread seems to have several people who post without giving a

> name.

>

>

> --

> " It is no crime to be ignorant of economics,

> which is, after all, a specialized discipline

> and one that most people consider to be a

> 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible

> to have a loud and vociferous opinion on

> economic subjects while remaining in this

> state of ignorance. "

>

> -- Murray Rothbard

>

[Guest guest]

>

> Lets not forget that a healthy body supplied with the right nutrients

> from various animal parts has the capability of making its own

> anti-oxidants in abundance. I don't know if that can apply in todays

> toxic world though.

>

> -

I think that's the basic problem. Remember cholesterol itself can be

oxidized and that's what causes arterial plaque (along with too much

omega 6 that we've only recently been able to come up with in the form

of chemically extracted vegetable oils and margarine)

[Guest guest]

>

> Are you familiar with the various groups that Price observed? There

> were a few who had no dairy and no grains, so Paleo style is

> definitely a subset of the Price paradigm. That is what I meant when I

> said WAP is a set of concepts that embraces a *broad* continuum of

> diets, of which paleo style is one, no " could be " about it.

Yes but my point is that there is no conclusion from WAP that we

*must* restrict our diet that way. Dr. Price even thought a

combination diet such as the grain and fish eating Dinka tribe may be

optimal though that's debatable from observing just one tribe.

However, there are many other studies such as on the mediterranean

diet which make the case for a diet of mostly fish and whole

grains/legumes.

(my opinion is to eat a piece of fatty fish and not fish oil or red

meat, that the small amounts of saturated fat and other components are

needed to prevent the omega 3's from oxidizing plus prevention of

overdosing on concentrated oils and that we really don't need that

much more saturated fat)

> By nutrients I meant everything you need for *optimal* health. We do

> not *need* fruits, much in the way of veggies, grains, legumes, nuts,

> and spices for optimal health. There are plenty of antioxidants in a

> whole animal diet, not the least of which is cholesterol.

Cholesterol itself can be oxidized and cause arterial plaque. Iron is

an oxidant and there's a lot of it in red meat. Also it depends on

what meat you eat. Salmon is loaded with omega 3 while pork is loaded

with omega 6. Chicken has mostly mono fats and generally low in fat

> By the way, is there any particular reason you don't sign your name?

> This thread seems to have several people who post without giving a

> name.

>

>

I always forget to do this because my name is already in my email address

Ari

[Guest guest]

Ari-

>(my opinion is to eat a piece of fatty fish and not fish oil or red

>meat, that the small amounts of saturated fat and other components are

>needed to prevent the omega 3's from oxidizing plus prevention of

>overdosing on concentrated oils and that we really don't need that

>much more saturated fat)

I'm afraid the science doesn't support your opinion. Small amounts

of saturated fat aren't nearly sufficient to prevent oxidation of

large amounts of PUFA, and red meat contains many very useful nutrients.

-

[Guest guest]

On 11/6/05, arielb53 <aribhaviv@...> wrote:

>

> >

> > Are you familiar with the various groups that Price observed? There

> > were a few who had no dairy and no grains, so Paleo style is

> > definitely a subset of the Price paradigm. That is what I meant when I

> > said WAP is a set of concepts that embraces a *broad* continuum of

> > diets, of which paleo style is one, no " could be " about it.

>

> Yes but my point is that there is no conclusion from WAP that we

> *must* restrict our diet that way.

But that is *my* point that I have made several times in this thread

and in several differents ways. What else could I mean when I say that

Price's concepts encompass a broad continuum in which " paleo " is but

one approach?. Forgive me for not being very clear. If someone wants

to restricts themselves to a paleo diet they are *not* doing anything

incompatible with the Price paradigm, contrary to *your* original

point as noted below:

" Somewhat serious...there are a lot of people who have the

misconception that WAP and paleo are compatible. "

WAP and " paleo " only become *incompatible* when a so called " paleo

dieter " insists that everyone else should or must eat that way for

optimal health. And even then the incompatibility only exists at the

ideological level since " paleo " style eating is contained within the

continuum that makes up the Price paradigm.

> Dr. Price even thought a

> combination diet such as the grain and fish eating Dinka tribe may be

> optimal

Yes grains and *seafood*, which included many animals from the sea and

all their organs (i.e. that whole animal thing again), not just fish

in the way we normally think about it..

> though that's debatable from observing just one tribe.

>

> However, there are many other studies such as on the mediterranean

> diet which make the case for a diet of mostly fish and whole

> grains/legumes.

Do you have a link to a study about this particular style of the

mediterranean diet? That is not my understanding of the mediterranean

diet.

> (my opinion is to eat a piece of fatty fish and not fish oil or red

> meat,

And what is this opinion based on?

> that the small amounts of saturated fat and other components are

> needed to prevent the omega 3's from oxidizing plus prevention of

> overdosing on concentrated oils

This is one reason why I think Price recommended the butter oil/clo

combo (besides the quantum leap in effectiveness because of the

synergistic effects of mixing butter oil/clo) to prevent the oxidation

of the PUFA's *and* because such a combo allowed both to be taken in

smaller amounts.

Having said that, it takes more than small amounts of saturated fats

to negate the effects of large amounts of PUFA's.

> and that we really don't need that

> much more saturated fat)

And this is based on?

The evidence seems to suggest that PUFA's should make up no more than

4% of the diet, as advocated by the WAPF and the best source of that

is animal food PUFA's. However the total amount of dietary fat can

range up to 80% with the low end being about 30%. So I'm not sure

where you get this idea that we don't need much more saturated fat? Is

this from Cordain?

> > By nutrients I meant everything you need for *optimal* health. We do

> > not *need* fruits, much in the way of veggies, grains, legumes, nuts,

> > and spices for optimal health. There are plenty of antioxidants in a

> > whole animal diet, not the least of which is cholesterol.

>

> Cholesterol itself can be oxidized and cause arterial plaque.

I'm not sure your point. That doesn't change the fact that there are

plenty of antioxidants in a whole food diet, including cholesterol.

And I'm not just talking about dietary cholesterol since most

cholesterol is produced by our own body.

> Iron is

> an oxidant and there's a lot of it in red meat.

I'm still not sure your point? Are you suggesting that a group say

like the Masai were/are in danger because of their high

cholesterol/high red meat intake and by derivation so are we if we

follow such an eating plan?

Iron in red meat is rarely a problem except for those who suffer from

a rare disease in which iron overload becomes an issue. And again,

Price's groups covered the gamut and many ate lots of red meat. IIRC

in terms of dental health the red meat eaters were at the top of the

food chain.

> Also it depends on

> what meat you eat. Salmon is loaded with omega 3 while pork is loaded

> with omega 6. Chicken has mostly mono fats and generally low in fat

I don't know of any group that made fowl the centerpiece of their

animal food consumption. Besides the fact the chicken tends to be

*high* in PUFA's. The fat ratios of a pig are GREATLY influenced by

the diet of a pig. And again I'm not sure of any group that made

salmon their centerpiece food. The groups that Price studied varied

their seafood intakes, including the Eskimos, who almost (though not

entirely) ate animal foods. Where did they get their plant based

antioxidants? And where would/did they get them on a regular basis?

By the way, I think all the emphasis on anti-oxidants is iffy at best,

at least at the moment, and reminds me of all the emphasis on N-3's,

which IMO is out of balance.

--

" It is no crime to be ignorant of economics,

which is, after all, a specialized discipline

and one that most people consider to be a

'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible

to have a loud and vociferous opinion on

economic subjects while remaining in this

state of ignorance. "

-- Murray Rothbard