Re: Is Lettuce Worth Eating?

[Guest guest]

On 11/4/05, gdawson6 <gdawson6@...> wrote:

> 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.

>

> -

Hi ,

I'm not sure I buy all the hype about anti-oxidants. Its interesting

but it reminds me of all the hype about Omega 3's, which IMO, normally

do *not* need to be supplemented.

A good variety of antioxidants can be had from animal foods. That is

not to say a varied diet in terms of food groups can't be good, but it

is to say that a diet that is almost entirely animal food can work

just fine if done properly.

Just curious why you would think in todays world we can't eat an

adequate diet? What " toxicity " is preventing this?

--

" 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]

-

>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.

I agree. It's not that we don't need antioxidants or that they don't

actually exert antioxidant activity, but the antioxidant fad

mentality generally assumes that anything which exerts any kind of

antioxidant effect in vitro must be good, regardless of whether it

exerts that effect in vivo, regardless of what that effect is, and

regardless of what other effects the substance might have in

vivo. Life, after all, depends on oxidation! There surely are

antioxidants which inhibit necessary life processes, yet that issue

is virtually never looked at.

Much the same problem is true of the current emphasis on n3

fats. Yes, most people need more than they're getting, but largely

lost in the furor is the notion that there's a limit on how much

people should consume, that almost all people have to cut their n6

fat intake, that total PUFA shouldn't exceed a certain amount,

probably around 4%, that the kind of n3 matters a lot, and even that

n3 and n6 have to be in some kind of balance, whether that's 2:1

n3:n6 or 4:1 n6:n3 or somewhere between.

And of course the devil's in the details.

-

[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.

> >

> > -

>

> Hi ,

>

> I'm not sure I buy all the hype about anti-oxidants. Its interesting

> but it reminds me of all the hype about Omega 3's, which IMO, normally

> do *not* need to be supplemented.

>

> A good variety of antioxidants can be had from animal foods. That is

> not to say a varied diet in terms of food groups can't be good, but it

> is to say that a diet that is almost entirely animal food can work

> just fine if done properly.

>

> Just curious why you would think in todays world we can't eat an

> adequate diet? What " toxicity " is preventing this?

>

>

> --

> " 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

>

I was just pointing out that humans today may have more toxins to deal

with. For me, that was mainly Mercury from way too many fillings in

my teeth when I was younger. I am still struggling to get the mercury

out, but am making a lot of progress.

I feel that I need more anti-oxidants because of mercury's destructive

capacity than my body can make. I think I may get these from

turmeric, virgin palm oil, green tea, along with other things.

But otherwise, if your body is pretty much free from toxic stores,

then I think a diet of animal organs and fat could be enough to

protect you even in todays worlds.

[Guest guest]

>

> I was just pointing out that humans today may have more toxins to deal

> with. For me, that was mainly Mercury from way too many fillings in

> my teeth when I was younger. I am still struggling to get the mercury

> out, but am making a lot of progress.

>

> I feel that I need more anti-oxidants because of mercury's destructive

> capacity than my body can make. I think I may get these from

> turmeric, virgin palm oil, green tea, along with other things.

>

> But otherwise, if your body is pretty much free from toxic stores,

> then I think a diet of animal organs and fat could be enough to

> protect you even in todays worlds.

>

You'd be surprised how many toxins are in your own home such as

formaldalhyde. And then there's that whiff of car exhaust the moment

you step outside.

It should be pointed out that the Massai who eat only milk and meat

have been found to have arterial hardening at a much earlier age.

That's not a good thing to have especially since we don't live in

their more pristine environment

[Guest guest]

-

>But otherwise, if your body is pretty much free from toxic stores,

>then I think a diet of animal organs and fat could be enough to

>protect you even in todays worlds.

Don't forget that some antioxidants, at least, are much more

abundantly found in foods than in supplements. I'm thinking of

CoQ10, mainly, but there are others.

-

[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.

yes but the body can manufacture its own saturated fat -it's not an

" essential " nutrient if you are getting enough calories. Furthermore,

the amount of saturated fat in a piece of salmon isn't that small and

there are other components to prevent o-3 oxidation (what you said

would be true if you were ingesting fish oil). You don't have to douse

a piece of salmon with butter if you don't need the extra calories.

[Guest guest]

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

wrote:

>

> --- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

wrote:

> >

> > 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.

>

> yes but the body can manufacture its own saturated fat -it's not an

> " essential " nutrient if you are getting enough calories. Furthermore,

> the amount of saturated fat in a piece of salmon isn't that small and

> there are other components to prevent o-3 oxidation (what you said

> would be true if you were ingesting fish oil). You don't have to douse

> a piece of salmon with butter if you don't need the extra calories.

>

But butter contains fat-soluble activators which would help you absorb

the nutrients in the fish! That is unless your already eating it with

some cod liver oil.

Price warned against just eating the meat of any animal, including

fish. Primitives valued the heads and livers of fish much more than

the meat.

[Guest guest]

Ari-

>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!

Unfortunately, his perception of what correct fatty acid ratios

should be is completely whacked.

-

[Guest guest]

Ari-

>yes but the body can manufacture its own saturated fat -it's not an

> " essential " nutrient if you are getting enough calories.

Inasmuch as " essential " has been defined as " the body can't make it

at all " , sure, it's not essential, but that meaning of essential and

the more commonplace meaning, which is that it's really important,

are two very different things. Yes, the body can make saturated fat

from dietary carb or even dietary protein, but that's not a healthy

metabolic pathway to be settling into.

> Furthermore,

>the amount of saturated fat in a piece of salmon isn't that small

Seems small to me.

100g of raw sockeye has 9g of fat of which only 1g is

saturated. <http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-A00001-01c014J.html>

100g of smoked and brined wild Alaskan king salmon has 30g of fat of

which only 7g are

saturated. <http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-A00001-01c026z.html>

>and

>there are other components to prevent o-3 oxidation (what you said

>would be true if you were ingesting fish oil). You don't have to douse

>a piece of salmon with butter if you don't need the extra calories.

I'm completely mystified by your opposition to saturated fat. What's

your justification?

-

[Guest guest]

>

> But butter contains fat-soluble activators which would help you absorb

> the nutrients in the fish! That is unless your already eating it with

> some cod liver oil.

>

> Price warned against just eating the meat of any animal, including

> fish. Primitives valued the heads and livers of fish much more than

> the meat.

>

Well I agree with the 2nd paragraph and also if I had a choice of a

salmon fillet and calf liver or especially brains I wouldn't

necessarily go for fish. But if I'm already eating fish and

calf/chicken liver (not so easy to get fish livers unless you hang out

at the fish market)...I'm really not sure what is so special about

butter that justifies the extra calories.

So I think this topic should be changed to...Is Butter Worth Eating?

Ari

[Guest guest]

>

> Ari-

>

> >yes but the body can manufacture its own saturated fat -it's not an

> > " essential " nutrient if you are getting enough calories.

>

> Inasmuch as " essential " has been defined as " the body can't make it

> at all " , sure, it's not essential, but that meaning of essential and

> the more commonplace meaning, which is that it's really important,

> are two very different things. Yes, the body can make saturated fat

> from dietary carb or even dietary protein, but that's not a healthy

> metabolic pathway to be settling into.

Right but I'm not talking about Dr. Ornish here.

> > Furthermore,

> >the amount of saturated fat in a piece of salmon isn't that small

>

> Seems small to me.

>

> 100g of raw sockeye has 9g of fat of which only 1g is

> saturated. <http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-A00001-01c014J.html>

>

> 100g of smoked and brined wild Alaskan king salmon has 30g of fat of

> which only 7g are

> saturated. <http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-A00001-01c026z.html>

>

That's more than beef liver which is another food I'm in favor of.

> >and

> >there are other components to prevent o-3 oxidation (what you said

> >would be true if you were ingesting fish oil). You don't have to douse

> >a piece of salmon with butter if you don't need the extra calories.

>

> I'm completely mystified by your opposition to saturated fat. What's

> your justification?

>

I'm not necessarily " opposed " to saturated fat. It's more that I don't

see any strong reason to douse everything with butter or cream, which

has very little nutrition of its own except for a tiny bit of vitamin

A, *just* to get more saturated fat. I don't want to gain weight or

go into ketosis. So in a mixed diet of salmon, liver and carbs how

much extra saturated fat do I really need from food?

Ari

[Guest guest]

On 11/3/05, Lana Gibbons <lana.m.gibbons@...> wrote:

> ,

>

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

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

>

> -Lana

>

I agree and its a bad practice, one that is *not* emphasized by the

WAPF, and certainly not by WAP.

--

" 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]

On 11/16/05, arielb53 <aribhaviv@...> wrote:

>

> >

> > I was just pointing out that humans today may have more toxins to deal

> > with. For me, that was mainly Mercury from way too many fillings in

> > my teeth when I was younger. I am still struggling to get the mercury

> > out, but am making a lot of progress.

> >

> > I feel that I need more anti-oxidants because of mercury's destructive

> > capacity than my body can make. I think I may get these from

> > turmeric, virgin palm oil, green tea, along with other things.

> >

> > But otherwise, if your body is pretty much free from toxic stores,

> > then I think a diet of animal organs and fat could be enough to

> > protect you even in todays worlds.

> >

>

> You'd be surprised how many toxins are in your own home such as

> formaldalhyde. And then there's that whiff of car exhaust the moment

> you step outside.

Maybe, but natural toxins are ubiquitous, often more so than manmade

toxins. Natural carcinogens, for example, far outweigh any manmade

varieties. One would have to stop eating to keep from consuming

carcinogens, even on an all raw diet. The take away lesson - properly

nourished, the body is able to deal with most of the toxins that come

its way.

> It should be pointed out that the Massai who eat only milk and meat

> have been found to have arterial hardening at a much earlier age.

> That's not a good thing to have especially since we don't live in

> their more pristine environment

Only if you are assuming that the hardening of the arteries affected

the Masai in a negative way. It clearly did not which is one of the

points, IIRC, Dr. Mann painstakingly pointed out. Despite their milk

and meat consumption, their lifespan and quality of life was not

negatively affected. Which raises of course lots of questions

regarding the " conventional " wisdom regarding heart disease which is

gradually being shed anyway, even in conventional circles.

You are also assuming that their " pristine " environment was free of

the " onslaught " of natural toxins. That may or may not be true.

Not to mention that the Masai of Mann's day were not the Masai of

Price's day. They were separated by a generation although for the

purposes of this discussion it hardly matters.

--

" 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]

On 11/17/05, arielb53 <aribhaviv@...> wrote:

> I'm not necessarily " opposed " to saturated fat. It's more that I don't

> see any strong reason to douse everything with butter or cream, which

> has very little nutrition of its own except for a tiny bit of vitamin

> A, *just* to get more saturated fat. I don't want to gain weight or

> go into ketosis. So in a mixed diet of salmon, liver and carbs how

> much extra saturated fat do I really need from food?

>

> Ari

Again I would suggest you read " Why Butter is Better " found here:

http://www.westonaprice.org/foodfeatures/butter.html

" The notion that butter causes weight gain is a sad misconception. The

short and medium chain fatty acids in butter are not stored in the

adipose tissue, but are used for quick energy. Fat tissue in humans is

composed mainly of longer chain fatty acids.15 These come from olive

oil and polyunsaturated oils as well as from refined carbohydrates.

Because butter is rich in nutrients, it confers a feeling of

satisfaction when consumed. "

How does eating butter, and lots of it, per se cause someone either to

gain weight or go into ketosis? You have to be eating very low carb to

go into ketosis and since a calorie is not a calorie is not a calorie,

just getting more calories by eating butter doesn't at all mean you

are going to gain weight, in fact you might lost given the kind of

saturated fat predominant in butter. Same goes for coconut oil.

--

" 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]

-

>Maybe, but natural toxins are ubiquitous, often more so than manmade

>toxins. Natural carcinogens, for example, far outweigh any manmade

>varieties. One would have to stop eating to keep from consuming

>carcinogens, even on an all raw diet. The take away lesson - properly

>nourished, the body is able to deal with most of the toxins that come

>its way.

This is at least somewhat true, but regardless of what origin story

you subscribe to, the body is better at dealing with natural toxins

than with some manmade ones.

-

[Guest guest]

Ari-

>That's more than beef liver which is another food I'm in favor of.

Sure, but beef liver isn't great as a primary calorie source! It's

way too lean! It's an extremely nutritious food which people should

be eating for other reasons.

>I'm not necessarily " opposed " to saturated fat. It's more that I don't

>see any strong reason to douse everything with butter or cream, which

>has very little nutrition of its own except for a tiny bit of vitamin

>A, *just* to get more saturated fat. I don't want to gain weight or

>go into ketosis. So in a mixed diet of salmon, liver and carbs how

>much extra saturated fat do I really need from food?

I'm not even sure where to start, but I'll try to keep this brief.

First, good yellow butter from cows grazed on good pasture has a lot

more than just a little vitamin A. It's a good source of selenium,

for example, and Price observed that heart disease was negatively

correlated with its consumption.

Second, the body can burn exactly two things for energy: simple

sugars and fatty acids. All the food you eat either gets passed

through (and/or partially metabolized by gut microbes), deposited

into tissues or transformed into one of those two things. Childrens'

bodies tend to be better at rapidly switching back and forth between

the two basic energy-producing metabolic pathways, though even that's

becoming less and less true as their diets decay and as damage

accumulates through the generations, but all else being equal, the

older you get, the more your body settles into one rut or the other

and has trouble switching.

For a bunch of reasons mostly beyond the scope of this post, it's

more desirable to be a fat burner than a sugar burner. It's a

cleaner metabolic pathway with less harmful waste to deal with, and

even lean people have enough fat to keep them going for awhile,

whereas the liver and muscles can only store a very limited amount of

glycogen, meaning that people whose bodies have lost the ability to

readily shift to fat burning will actually find themselves converting

protein to sugar through gluconeogenesis, which is a disastrous

pathway to activate and get stuck in, because it means they're

robbing bone and muscle for energy.

Third, weight gain is more likely on a carb-dense diet than on a

low-carb diet even if the low-carb diet includes more calories

because of the very different metabolic effects of different dietary

components. Carbs and protein both stimulate insulin

release. Insulin spikes actually shut off fat burning and turn on

nutrient storage, and in the presence of sufficient insulin, dietary

carbs can only be stored as fat. Fat taken with insulin-stimulating

carbs therefore has a greatly increased tendency to be directly

stored instead of metabolized. This sadly common state of affairs is

actually a perversion of the usual function of insulin -- to store a

limited amount of calories and to build and rebuild muscle and other

tissues. That's why a low-carb diet primarily consisting of protein

and fat can build muscle and reduce fat at the same time, though in

order to achieve unnatural bodybuilder-like physiques, excess lean

protein and insulin stimulation are required.

Fourth, incorporating butter and fat into your diet aren't by any

means an automatic path to ketosis, but if they were, so what?

-

[Guest guest]

Ari-

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

>more vitamin A.

I'm afraid neither romaine nor kale have any vitamin A

whatsoever. This fashion of conflating vitamin A with carotenes has got to go.

-

[Guest guest]

,

OK - here I enter this learning curve too:)

What is " ketosis " ?

And - here's something else:

I have had a " skin thing " ever since about April, becoming a lot

worse since I went through incredible stress from July and less now,

but still ongoing (both.)

I called WPF in Washington, and the person said it was probably a

fungus, in which case I should stop all starches and sugars. I did.

It is very hard, because I am only 116 lbs. at the best of times

(5'7 " ) and have no processed carbs, but avoided everything, including

fruit. Well, what with the stress and the very sudden carb loss, I

lost 12 lbs unknowingly. Yes! However, regardless of that, the " skin

thing " did not go away - on the contrary, it has worsened... so...

the questions are: Even if it is not carb related, should I probably

still avoid even complex carbs and fruits in order to help the immune

system? And also avoid natural sugars ... do fruits contribute to low

immune system function? And.... (here it links to what you were

writing) - it seems that I am ALWAYS hungry. I eat a very NT diet

now, but am just always hungry. Before, I was satisfied with a lice

of homemade spelt bread and homemade mayo and a home grown tomato,

for example... and now, without the little bit of carb, I can't get

enough " INSIDE " me... It is not a hunger from little food, it is from

not enough carbs... I think you wrote about something like that in

one paragraph....

Do you have any comments/occurrences?

Lynne M

____________

On Nov 18, 2005, at 6:31 PM, Idol wrote:

> I'm not even sure where to start, but I'll try to keep this brief.

>

> First, good yellow butter from cows grazed on good pasture has a lot

> more than just a little vitamin A. .....

>

> Second, the body can burn exactly two things for energy: simple

> sugars and fatty acids. ......

>

> For a bunch of reasons mostly beyond the scope of this post, it's

> more desirable to be a fat burner than a sugar burner. .......

>

> Third, weight gain is more likely on a carb-dense diet than on a

> low-carb diet even if the low-carb diet includes more calories

> because of the very different metabolic effects of different dietary

> components. ......

>

> Fourth, incorporating butter and fat into your diet aren't by any

> means an automatic path to ketosis, but if they were, so what?

>

> -

>

--

Lynne Muelle

lynne@...

[Guest guest]

On 11/18/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> -

>

> >Maybe, but natural toxins are ubiquitous, often more so than manmade

> >toxins. Natural carcinogens, for example, far outweigh any manmade

> >varieties. One would have to stop eating to keep from consuming

> >carcinogens, even on an all raw diet. The take away lesson - properly

> >nourished, the body is able to deal with most of the toxins that come

> >its way.

>

> This is at least somewhat true, but regardless of what origin story

> you subscribe to, the body is better at dealing with natural toxins

> than with some manmade ones.

,

I agree. If you noticed in my post I said " the body is able to deal

with MOST of the toxins that come its way, " which you simply restated

in the above sentence. Clearly some manmade stuff can be a real pain

in the butt. I take that as a given. Nonetheless even many of them can

be handled although it may be more difficult as you note above.

I'm not sure how one's view of origins plays into this (unless you are

referring to adaptations over time but I'm not aware that either of

the two major origin theories extant today rule that out per se) but

my overall point is that often the impact of our " toxic " environment,

natural or manmade is overstated, and a healthy body's ability to deal

with it is understated. I think that point is independent of one's

theory of the origin of the universe.

I also think Chris's article on dioxins really opens the door to look

at the environment/pollution/toxicity issue much more closely among us

WAPers and not just vegetarians, and challenges some fundamental

assumptions that many WAPers hold, and not just vegetarians.

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

And is you read this, I found a link to your article here at

Chem Lin: http://www.chemlin.de/chemistry/dioxins.htm

--

" 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]

Lynne,

I am a featherweight who drops weight on lowering carbs too.

Once I started using coconut oil (instead of other oils), I have been

managing to maintain my weight and I am no longer always hungry. I

also increased my cholesterol intake around the same time and began

supplimentation with cod liver oil.

-Lana

On 11/18/05, Lynne Muelle <lynne@...> wrote:

> ,

>

> OK - here I enter this learning curve too:)

> What is " ketosis " ?

>

> And - here's something else:

> I have had a " skin thing " ever since about April, becoming a lot

> worse since I went through incredible stress from July and less now,

> but still ongoing (both.)

> I called WPF in Washington, and the person said it was probably a

> fungus, in which case I should stop all starches and sugars. I did.

> It is very hard, because I am only 116 lbs. at the best of times

> (5'7 " ) and have no processed carbs, but avoided everything, including

> fruit. Well, what with the stress and the very sudden carb loss, I

> lost 12 lbs unknowingly. Yes! However, regardless of that, the " skin

> thing " did not go away - on the contrary, it has worsened... so...

> the questions are: Even if it is not carb related, should I probably

> still avoid even complex carbs and fruits in order to help the immune

> system? And also avoid natural sugars ... do fruits contribute to low

> immune system function? And.... (here it links to what you were

> writing) - it seems that I am ALWAYS hungry. I eat a very NT diet

> now, but am just always hungry. Before, I was satisfied with a lice

> of homemade spelt bread and homemade mayo and a home grown tomato,

> for example... and now, without the little bit of carb, I can't get

> enough " INSIDE " me... It is not a hunger from little food, it is from

> not enough carbs... I think you wrote about something like that in

> one paragraph....

>

> Do you have any comments/occurrences?

>

> Lynne M

[Guest guest]

Dear Lana,

Thanks for replying. The thing is, I have done all that.... it all

happened concurrently... so that's why I was asking... I can't eat

anymore eggs, meat, protein, veggies and I do have Blue Ice COL and

coconut oi by the gobs....

What else can you suggest?

Lynne M

________

On Nov 19, 2005, at 12:07 PM, Lana Gibbons wrote:

> Lynne,

>

> I am a featherweight who drops weight on lowering carbs too.

>

> Once I started using coconut oil (instead of other oils), I have been

> managing to maintain my weight and I am no longer always hungry. I

> also increased my cholesterol intake around the same time and began

> supplimentation with cod liver oil.

>

> -Lana

>

--

Lynne Muelle

lynne@...