 |
|
Reply
| |
I posted this on another newsgroup:
Long before I began my investigation into various nutritional and medical claims, the National Research Council of the U.S.A. completed a comprehensive review of the existing evidence (though they could not have seen every relevant study published up to that point, due to the practical constraints at that time, including the lack of the internet as it is today). This investigation resulted in the publication of the book, “Diet and Health�?in 1989. What surprised me when I came into possession of this book was how much was known at that time. I will quote several passages below that are astounding when one considers how most of the advice of “experts�?today contradicts these findings:
“Fat available in the food supply increased from an average of 124 g/day per capita in 1909 to 172 g/day in 1985. Although the chief sources of fat during that time have been fats and oils; meat, poultry, and fish, great changes within each of these groups have occurred. The proportion of animal fat declined from 83 to 58% as butter and lard use declined, whereas the proportion of vegetable fat (in margarines and cooking oils) rose from 17 to 42%�?BR>
The percentage of calories contributed by linoleic acid to total fat intake increased from 7% during 1909-1913 to about 16% in 1985, whereas the corresponding percentage from SFAs declined from approximately 42% to 34%. In 1985, linoleic acid was available at 7% of total calories, SFAs at 15%, and oleic at 17%.�?BR>
Page 160.
Why is this important?
“Native LDL does not lead to the accumulation of cholesteryl ester in many types of macrophages�?However, modified forms of LDL, such as acetyl-LDL, oxidized LDL, and malondialdehyde-LDL, do lead to massive accumulations of cholesteryl ester in cultured macrophages�?Haberland et al. (1988) found immunochemical evidence for the existence of malondialdehyde-LDL in atherosclerotic aortas. Is a byproduct of arachidonic acid metabolism, which is an active process in the arterial wall.
Pages 176-177.
And:
“…fats such as butter, coconut oil, and beef tallow have little effect on mammary carcinogenesis (Carroll et al., 1981). The requirements for omega-6 PUFAs in mammary tumor promotion have been explored systematically by Ip et al. (1985), who reported 4 to 5% of total calories as the threshold at which the yield of mammary tumors increased.�?BR>
Page 213.
“In animals, omega-6 PUFAs increase risk [of cancer] to the greatest extent, but high SFA intake also increases risk, provided that the minimum requirement for omega-6 PUFAs is satisfied.�?BR>
Page 215.
One point that this Council never addressed was how the fatty acid composition of fat sources, particularly animal ones, can vary significantly. Lard can be anywhere from about 60% to 40% saturated fatty acids, for example. Thus, it is no surprise that because lard is still classified as a “saturated fat�?(for no good reason �?on the contrary, a prime example of human stupidity provided by “experts�?, many have claimed that “saturated fat causes cancer�?or any number of other diseases. It is now known that dietary PUFAs and cooked meat are a very dangerous combination (due to HCAs), and so it is no surprise that people who eat more SFAs could have a higher incidence of cancer. The key point is whether a diet very rich in SFAs and very low in PUFAs prevents this situation, and in this instance, the evidence is clear. However, because of the horror that the phrase “saturated fat�?causes among many Westerners (especially “experts�?, this kind of diet, most likely the healthiest one possible, is deemed very dangerous.
How do most of our “experts�?deal with the horrendous mistake they made a few decades back, when they were telling people to consume large amounts of omega-6 rich foods? They now blame “trans fat,�?and simply ignore the evidence against dietary PUFAs. In fact, in order to deal with the severe damage arachidonic acid does (which is an omega 6 PUFA) they are telling people to consume large amounts of other kinds of PUFAs, which are also very dangerous (just in a different way).
As I’ve pointed out before, the recent CNN special, “America’s Killer Diet,�?included a chart showing how PUFA consumption (soybean oil in particular, which contains omega 3s too) increased significantly since the early 1960s. Before W.W. II, “heart disease�?was very rare, even though it afflicts many people in their 50s and 60s, or even younger (in other words, the lower mortality of people back then, due to infectious diseases, workplace accidents, etc., are not relevant in the heart disease context). If the claims against “saturated fat�?were true, this would not be the case, and more recent studies of Asians on very diets very rich in SFAs confirm this point. Evidence from obervations of Amish and others on “traditional diets�?are also supportive. The old recipe for “pound cake,�?which included a pound of butter and a pound of sugar, is the kind food that should lead to “heart disease,�?if the “expert�?consensus opinion of today were accurate. Instead, it is the people eating the “pound cake�?of today, rich in oils like soybean, who are obese and afflicted with all kinds of illnesses.
Some have claimed that my diet is not entirely devoid of PUFAs, and this is accurate, but meaningless. The point is to keep your dietary PUFA consumption around 3% or less, just as it was for Americans before about 1960. If you already have arachidonic acid in your cells (as is likely the case), you may want to go on a very low PUFA diet for approximately two years, and then you can go back up to about 2-3% PUFAs, if you find that to be more practical.
There is a lot more information on my free site, including an image capture of that chart from the CNN special:
http://groups.msn.com/TheScientificDebateForum-/nutrition.msnw
If anyone has specific questions, he or she can ask by posting a message on my site. |
|
 First
Previous
2-5 of 5
Next
Last
|
Reply
| |
| About the lard, is there any linoleic acid (omega-6) in it? If only oleic acid (MUFA) is responsible for the unsaturation it should be relatively harmless (of course I am not considering the cholesterol and lack of the olive oil-like antioxidants in it). |
|
Reply
| |
Correction: Is a byproduct of
arachidonic acid metabolism, which is an active process in the
arterial wall.
should read:
Malondialdehyde-LDL is a byproduct of
arachidonic acid metabolism, which is an active process in the
arterial wall. |
|
Reply
|  0 recommendations | Message 4 of 5 in Discussion |
|
| This message has been deleted by the manager or assistant manager. |
|
Reply
| |
| According to the US database I listed in the Links section, lard is more than 10% omega 6, has a little omega 3, and also contains cholesterol. About 45% is MUFAs. And think about the way most people use it, cooking it at high temperatures, and that is not even considering whether it is going rancid before you purchase it. Moreover, many people eat it with other food items that have PUFAs in them, and if it's used to cook meat while exposed to air (very likely), HCAs will be generated, probably in dangerous amounts (for long-term health). |
|
|
First
Previous
2-5 of 5
Next
Last
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Return to Nutrition