Re: Fertility study: trans fats bad, whole milk good

[Guest guest]

Thanks for posting that link. I thought it was amusing though that the study

clearly

showed the benefits of whole milk, but the author still recommends switching to

skim

after pregnancy!

The study also found that women who ate more animal protein had more difficulty

becoming pregnant, which is sort of worrying. Right now I'm following The

Schwarzbein

Principle diet, which calls for 9 to12 ounces of protein a day--way more than

the top

amounts for women in the study. It also found that women who consumed plant

protein

were more likely to achieve pregnancy, and it made me wonder if I should start

replacing

some of the animal protein in my diet with plant protein.

The tricky thing with that is finding a way to increase plant protein without

increasing

carbohydrates. Has anyone tried rice protein? Or is that treading too close to

the white

powder realm?

thanks!

Nina

>

> Study finds trans fats reduced and whole milk (opposed to skim) increased

> chances of fertility in women

>

> http://www.newsweek.com/id/73354

>

[Guest guest]

On 12/16/07, tweebot <nina@...> wrote:

> The study also found that women who ate more animal protein had more

> difficulty

> becoming pregnant, which is sort of worrying. Right now I'm following The

> Schwarzbein

> Principle diet, which calls for 9 to12 ounces of protein a day--way more

> than the top

> amounts for women in the study. It also found that women who consumed plant

> protein

> were more likely to achieve pregnancy, and it made me wonder if I should

> start replacing

> some of the animal protein in my diet with plant protein.

>

> The tricky thing with that is finding a way to increase plant protein

> without increasing

> carbohydrates. Has anyone tried rice protein? Or is that treading too close

> to the white

> powder realm?

You could eat lots of green leafy vegetables, which have a very high

percentage of their calories as protein, and provide very little

carbohydrate compared to starches.

But what makes you think it's the protein in the plants that is

causing the increase in fertility?

Chris

[Guest guest]

>It also found that women who consumed plant protein

> were more likely to achieve pregnancy,

Which means it's a bullshit study. I can structure a study to show

that the moon is made of green cheese on alternate Thursdays.

Dr. Price's work shows conclusively that we are meat/fish eaters, and

some of us do very well on higher-quality dairy. This isn't theory.

He has the photographs to prove it, and independent confirmation from

Stefansson to prove it. He also has the confirmation of thousands of

people who have changed their diets and found better health as a

result, including me. I've tried vegetarianism and veganism. I've

also tried a Price-style diet. I bet you can guess which one works

better without having to ask me.

Price did his work before big Pharma got in bed with big Ag and made

us the sick people we mostly are. Thank goodness somebody had their

head out of their rectum far enough to at least do the work he did.

[Guest guest]

>

> > The study also found that women who ate more animal protein had more

> > difficulty

> > becoming pregnant, which is sort of worrying. Right now I'm

following The

> > Schwarzbein

> > Principle diet, which calls for 9 to12 ounces of protein a day--way

more

> > than the top

> > amounts for women in the study. It also found that women who

consumed plant

> > protein

> > were more likely to achieve pregnancy, and it made me wonder if I

should

> > start replacing

> > some of the animal protein in my diet with plant protein.

> >

> > The tricky thing with that is finding a way to increase plant

protein

> > without increasing

> > carbohydrates. Has anyone tried rice protein? Or is that treading

too close

> > to the white

> > powder realm?

>

> You could eat lots of green leafy vegetables, which have a very high

> percentage of their calories as protein, and provide very little

> carbohydrate compared to starches.

>

> But what makes you think it's the protein in the plants that is

> causing the increase in fertility?

>

> Chris

>

[Guest guest]

On 12/16/07, michael grogan <tropical@...> wrote:

> >It also found that women who consumed plant protein

> > were more likely to achieve pregnancy,

> Which means it's a bullshit study. I can structure a study to show

> that the moon is made of green cheese on alternate Thursdays.

I scanned through it a bit, and as far as I can tell it didn't find

any such thing. It just lumped a bunch of unrelated factors into a

" fertility diet score " and found the score overall was associated with

fertility.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 12/16/07, tweebot <nina@...> wrote:

>

>

Looks like your post didn't go through correctly -- all I saw was my

quoted text.

Chris

[Guest guest]

oops, sorry about that. I'll try again:

Thanks for your suggestion about leafy greens. I didn't realize they were a

source of

protein--it could only be good to add more of those regardless of whether this

study has

any value.

Here's the text that talks about animal vs. plant protein (I guess the problem

is that the

study didn't list what KIND of animal protein the women were eating--it could

have been

coldcuts laced with nitrates or other harmful things, which could be the

fertility-reducing

factor):

We grouped the participants by their average daily protein intake. The

lowest-protein

group took in an average of 77 grams a day; the highest, an average of 115

grams. After

factoring in smoking, fat intake, weight and other things that can affect

fertility, we found

that women in the highest-protein group were 41 percent more likely to have

reported

problems with ovulatory infertility than women in the lowest-protein group.

When we looked at animal protein intake separately from plant protein, an

interesting

distinction appeared. Ovulatory infertility was 39 percent more likely in women

with the

highest intake of animal protein than in those with the lowest. The reverse was

true for

women with the highest intake of plant protein, who were substantially less

likely to have

had ovulatory infertility than women with the lowest plant protein intake.

Nina

>

> Looks like your post didn't go through correctly -- all I saw was my

> quoted text.

>

> Chris

>

[Guest guest]

On 12/16/07, tweebot <nina@...> wrote:

> Here's the text that talks about animal vs. plant protein

Maybe I'm looking at the wrong study? What page is it on in the .pdf,

and what is the citation?

I was looking at Chavarro, et al, in Obstetrics and Gynecology. It

was the latest thing that came out of Harvard on fertility and diet so

I just assumed that was the one from the article.

Chris

[Guest guest]

That does sound like the same study, althoug the text I pulled was from an

article by

Chavarro, et al in Newsweek. Here's the link to that page:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/73354/page/5

and here's a link to the first page too:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/73354/page/1

Nina

>

> > Here's the text that talks about animal vs. plant protein

>

> Maybe I'm looking at the wrong study? What page is it on in the .pdf,

> and what is the citation?

>

> I was looking at Chavarro, et al, in Obstetrics and Gynecology. It

> was the latest thing that came out of Harvard on fertility and diet so

> I just assumed that was the one from the article.

>

> Chris

>

[Guest guest]

Nina, I'm wondering if you saw Regina Wilshire's dissection of that

study.

http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/2007/12/dont-buy-their-snake-

oil-buy-mine.html

Wilshire has harsh things to say about the study and rushing to

publish a diet based on that study. Also Newsweek reporting one study

as if the conclusions were scientific agreement instead of just the

author's opinion.

Connie

> >

> > > Here's the text that talks about animal vs. plant protein

> >

> > Maybe I'm looking at the wrong study? What page is it on in

the .pdf,

> > and what is the citation?

> >

> > I was looking at Chavarro, et al, in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

It

> > was the latest thing that came out of Harvard on fertility and

diet so

> > I just assumed that was the one from the article.

> >

> > Chris

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Connie. Regina Wilshire does a pretty good job of debunking their

analysis--I

guess I was overawed by the 'brand name' of the Nurses' Health Study. I'm going

to

bookmark her site.

Nina

> > >

> > > > Here's the text that talks about animal vs. plant protein

> > >

> > > Maybe I'm looking at the wrong study? What page is it on in

> the .pdf,

> > > and what is the citation?

> > >

> > > I was looking at Chavarro, et al, in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

> It

> > > was the latest thing that came out of Harvard on fertility and

> diet so

> > > I just assumed that was the one from the article.

> > >

> > > Chris

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

> Thanks, Connie. Regina Wilshire does a pretty good job of debunking

their analysis--I

> guess I was overawed by the 'brand name' of the Nurses' Health Study.

I'm going to

> bookmark her site.

> Nina

Yes, that's about what Willett and Newsweek want us to do I guess.

Thank heavens for our scientists like M and Regina W and

Eades who spell it out for us.

Connie

[Guest guest]

btw, on page 6 of the Newsweek article, you find this:

The depth and detail of the Nurses' Health Study database allowed us to see

which foods had the biggest effects. The most potent fertility food from the

dairy case was, by far, whole milk, followed by ice cream. Sherbet and frozen

yogurt, followed by low-fat yogurt, topped the list as the biggest contributors

to ovulatory infertility. The more low-fat dairy products in a woman's diet, the

more likely she was to have had trouble getting pregnant. The more full-fat

dairy products in a woman's diet, the less likely she was to have had problems

getting pregnant.

Of course, they go on to warn that one should only eat full fat dairy products

temporarily, as prlonged consumption is bad for the heart.;-)

This article is falling all over itself in contradictions.

Jane

[Guest guest]

I know most of us are here because we've read Sally Fallon's works, and WAPF

information and so forth. I have done the same and believed it. I got curious

about Ancel Keys since Sally and Enig talk at length about his wrong fat

hypothesis. So I started reading about him and learned that he lived to almost

101 years old! Now someone who lives that long seems like they must have

something right. Of course, some of it is likely genetics, but it seems that it

would involve health practices/diet as well. Also, long life doesn't

necessarily mean good quality of life/health, but I find myself wondering what

is right in the saturated vs. unsaturated fat debate. Clearly trans fats have

been shown to be bad for everyone's health, so there's no issue there, but it

doesn't feel like the unsaturated vs. saturated fat issue has really been

scientifically proven either way. I begin to wonder if it isn't more an issue

of saturated fat being good for some things (like the

fertility study) and unsaturated being better for other things (all the heart

health studies). I know from personal experience that the virgin coconut oil

helps stabilize my blood sugar (I have hypoglycemia) but find that I have

periods of time where I don't want to eat any. Since I believe my body's

cravings more than anything, I have to assume that I've had enough for the

moment. I'm beginning to wonder if it isn't really best to have a balance of

both kinds of fat, rather than deifying one and vilifying the other.

le

---------------------------------

Never miss a thing. Make your homepage.

[Guest guest]

I agree with you on we need all kinds of fat.

About Keys' longevity - There's an interesting comparison of the last

picture of Ancel Keys at 100, versus Jack Lalanne at 94, at Dr. Eades'

blog. The difference is striking. Jack LaLanne by the way, all during

his life was a three-meals a day, higher protein, lower starch, no

sugar guy. Only recently has he talked about doing low fat.

Dr. Eades' post:

Jack LaLanne versus Ancel Keys

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/low-carb-diets/jack-lalanne-vs-ancel-

keys/

> he lived to almost 101 years old! Now someone who lives that long

[Guest guest]

Cheers to that!! I certainly don't have the ability to carefully analyze studies

like that and have

to rely on trusted sources.

Nina

>

> > Thanks, Connie. Regina Wilshire does a pretty good job of debunking

> their analysis--I

> > guess I was overawed by the 'brand name' of the Nurses' Health Study.

> I'm going to

> > bookmark her site.

> > Nina

>

> Yes, that's about what Willett and Newsweek want us to do I guess.

> Thank heavens for our scientists like M and Regina W and

> Eades who spell it out for us.

>

> Connie

>

[Guest guest]

Hi le,

> I know most of us are here because we've read Sally Fallon's works, and WAPF

> information and so forth. I have done the same and believed it. I got

> curious about Ancel Keys since Sally and Enig talk at length about his

> wrong fat hypothesis. So I started reading about him and learned that he

> lived to almost 101 years old! Now someone who lives that long seems like

> they must have something right. Of course, some of it is likely genetics,

> but it seems that it would involve health practices/diet as well. Also,

> long life doesn't necessarily mean good quality of life/health, but I find

> myself wondering what is right in the saturated vs. unsaturated fat debate.

> Clearly trans fats have been shown to be bad for everyone's health, so

> there's no issue there, but it doesn't feel like the unsaturated vs.

> saturated fat issue has really been scientifically proven either way. I

> begin to wonder if it isn't more an issue of saturated fat being good for

> some things (like the

> fertility study) and unsaturated being better for other things (all the

> heart health studies). I know from personal experience that the virgin

> coconut oil helps stabilize my blood sugar (I have hypoglycemia) but find

> that I have periods of time where I don't want to eat any. Since I believe

> my body's cravings more than anything, I have to assume that I've had enough

> for the moment. I'm beginning to wonder if it isn't really best to have a

> balance of both kinds of fat, rather than deifying one and vilifying the

> other.

What did Keys eat? Do we assume he ate low-fat or high-PUFA because

of his role in sparking the lipid hypothesis?

Maybe he bought into some of the other mainstream advice, like

low-salt, or lots of exercise, or low-stress, and maybe some of these

are right.

There's more to coconut oil than saturation. It has polyphenols, and

some people might get sick from too much of certain ones. It is also

high in medium-chain fats, and most people have a certain bowel

tolerance to these. Your cravings don't neccesarily indicate

something about fatty acid saturation.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Thanks for that! There is quite a remarkable difference in Jack LaLanne and

Ancel Keys at those ages. And it was fun to watch some old Jack LaLanne TV

segments. He did mention eating " lean meats " so apparently at least at that

time he believed that less animal fat was better. The other things he stressed

were eating fruits and vegetables and avoiding sugar.

le

Posted by: " cbrown2008 " cbrown2008@... cbrown2008 Tue Dec 18, 2007

9:03 am (PST) I agree with you on we need all kinds of fat.

About Keys' longevity - There's an interesting comparison of the last

picture of Ancel Keys at 100, versus Jack Lalanne at 94, at Dr. Eades'

blog. The difference is striking. Jack LaLanne by the way, all during

his life was a three-meals a day, higher protein, lower starch, no

sugar guy. Only recently has he talked about doing low fat.

Dr. Eades' post:

Jack LaLanne versus Ancel Keys

http://www.proteinp ower.com/ drmike/low- carb-diets/ jack-lalanne- vs-ancel-

keys/

---------------------------------

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

[Guest guest]

I know. I want one of those jumpsuits. And I thought it was so cute he

called us " students. " No one would do that nowadays!

Connie

> it was fun to watch some old Jack LaLanne TV segments.