 |
|
Reply
| | From:  rensielk (Original Message) | Sent: 12/19/2007 11:38 AM |
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/iron-dangers.shtml
This article has some valuable information, but many of the claims about iron are based on supplements:
"In the 1960s the World Health Organization found that when iron supplements were given to anemic people in Africa, there was a great increase in the death rate from infectious diseases, especially malaria."
"In one of Hans Selye's pioneering studies, he found that he could experimentally produce a form of scleroderma (hardening of the skin) in animals by administering large doses of iron, followed by a minor stress."
"Some researchers are concerned that the iron added to cereals is contributing to the incidence of leukemia and cancers of the lymphatic tissues in children."
"Since the custom of giving large iron supplements to pregnant women has been established, there has been an increase in jaundice of the newborn. It has been observed that women who didn't take iron supplements during pregnancy have healthy babies that don't develop jaundice."
This doesn't mean that iron in food is equally toxic. We have to distinguish between iron in supplements and food, or the scientific method is not being followed. Likewise, there may be differences in toxicity between the iron in animal foods and plants.
"Recently, the iron content of food has been identified as the major life-shortening factor, rather than the calories."
[Choi and Yu, Age vol. 17, page 93, 1994.]"
Studies on intermittent fasting with no restriction of calories show that it gives equal or greater benefits to severe calorie restriction (30-40%). Maybe if we gave our bodies time to remove toxins by not eating 16+ hours a day, we'd be immune to this age-related degeneration.
"The real issue is that you can hardly avoid getting iron, even
when you try."
This is not true. It should be noted that pure fats, like tallow and lard, have no iron. Butter and beef suet have very little iron (about 1% of the RDA in a huge 100g portion). Thus, a diet heavily based on fat (such as Dr. Jan Kwasniewski) will cause a lot less oxidative damage than a diet high in animal protein (Atkins, Protein Power). This helps explain a lot, as Jan Kwasnieski's diet is based on lard and pork. Cheese is also very low in iron. 100g has ~1% of the RDA.
"Many doctors think of anemia as necessarily indicating an iron deficiency, but that isn't correct. 100 years ago, it was customary to prescribe arsenic for anemia, and it worked to stimulate the formation of more red blood cells. The fact that arsenic, or iron, or other toxic material stimulates the formation of red blood cells doesn't indicate a "deficiency" of the toxin, but simply indicates that the body responds to a variety of harmful factors by speeding its production of blood cells. Even radiation can have this kind of stimulating effect, because growth is a natural reaction to injury."
"Between 1920 and 1950, it was common to think of "nutritional growth factors" as being the same as vitamins, but since then it has become common to use known toxins to stimulate the growth of farm animals, and as a result, it has been more difficult to define the essential nutrients. The optimal nutritional intake is now more often considered in terms of resistance to disease, longevity or rate of aging, and even mental ability."
"An excess of iron, by destroying vitamin E and oxidizing the unsaturated fats in red blood cells, can contribute to hemolytic anemia, in which red cells are so fragile that they break down too fast. In aging, red cells break down faster, and are usually produced more slowly, increasing the tendency to become anemic, but additional iron tends to be more dangerous for older people."
This is important, esp the last paragraph. We can reduce iron damage by limiting unsaturated fats (esp PUFAs), and also by eating larger amounts of pure fats and oils.
"Q: Why is there iron in most multi-vitamin and mineral
products?
"Although several researchers have demonstrated that iron destroys vitamins, there is enough wishful thinking in industry, government, and the consuming public, that such mistakes can go on for generations before anyone can mobilize the resources to bring the truth to the public."
Similar to the lies that we need "essential" fat for our health, which have persisted for almost 80 years in spite of existing and increasing proof that PUFAs are toxic.
"Decreasing your consumption of unsaturated fats makes the iron less harmful."
Eating large amounts of fat (even butter and beef suet which are not 100% fat) would reduce iron to very negligible levels. White flour (enriched or otherwise) is not healthy, nor are any other refined carbohydrates.
Many claims being made here, like the existence of iron in lard, need to be revised. There is no lard in any pure fat or oil, and there is very little in things like suet or butter or dairy products (esp cheese). I think there is some fear-mongering about iron, that is not based on credible evidence.
We may find that supplemental iron is the problem, not iron existing in foods. Or maybe animal foods are safe and plant foods (like raisins and prunes) are toxic. Regardless of any of this, we can eat lots of animal fat and not be eating a lot of iron (or PUFAs), if we focus on fat and don't eat an excess of protein (maybe 1g per kg for sedentary people, 2g per kg for highly active people, athletes, and laborers).
Bruce |
|
 First
Previous
2-7 of 7
Next
Last
|
Reply
| |
| "Ironjustice" from the other newsgroup has been saying for years that the animal iron (heme) is the dangerous one since the body cannot regulate its uptake. Plant iron should be safe because it is not adsorbed when not needed. I doubt that raisins and prunes are toxic, that's what Hans has been eating for years ... |
|
Reply
| |
Bruce is at a point where future his future posts may be rejected, because what he is stating is not consistent with current notions, and he is not supplying us with evidence that supports his claims. Yes, it is true that lard is one thing, and a pork chop is something else, for example, but the effects of iron do not seem to be poorly understood at this time. Taka is right in that "ironjustice" has posted a huge number of "anti-iron" studies on the sci.med.nutrition newsgroup. I found this interesting bit of information:
QUOTE: Many substances can reduce the amount of non-heme iron we absorb; these substances include tannins in coffee or tea, dairy, phytates (fiber), eggs and some types of chocolate. Calcium can impair the absorption of both non-heme and heme iron. Therefore if a person needs more iron, he or she should avoid these items to improve the amount of iron absorbed. But if a person has a problem of too much iron, he or she should use these items to help lower the amount of iron absorbed... UNQUOTE.
I'm glad my diet appears to be an "anti-iron" absorption one, if this statement is accurate, but I've also seen the study of Asians that perplexed the researchers, because the people studied had very high iron levels, yet none of the "diseases" they expected would accompany such levels. My guess is that this has to do with the fatty acids in the diets of the peoples studied, but of course it would be nice to have some on-point studies to confirm this possibility. Who said lard had iron in it?
The claims against "white flour" also need to be supported by some piece of evidence. Keep in mind that most flour has added folic acid along with added iron, so unless a bunch of important factors are controlled, claims against "white flour" can't be taken seriously at this point. It's acceptable to disagree with another's interpretation of the evidence, but you need to either produce your own evidence, Bruce (if you are a research scientist), or else cite some studies, and then we can continue this thread in a reasonable way.
Source of passage cited:
http://www.irondisorders.org/Disorders/about.asp |
|
Reply
| |
I've stated before that if diets like "atkins" had people boil their meats in water instead of grilling, frying, baking, or broiling that they might actually be somewhat healthy.
I don't eat very much meat, but when I do I always get the leanest cut and then boil it in water to avoid oxidise cholesterol. It might not taste as good as the meats that are grilled or fried, but my health is a little more important so I just eat the meats that do taste good boiled.
However, I do try to drink some black tea when eating food high in iron just to decrease its absorption. I used to be on the low end of normal in terms of iron levels, but after a few months of eating very little PUFA and MUFA my iron level "normalised". |
|
Reply
| |
| It's interesting how so many things "normalize" after avoid food rich in PUFAs, and UFAs in general. I'm working on a new post about the carcinogenic qualities of cooked meat, so you might want to take a look at it. |
|
Reply
| |
"not consistent with current notions"
Like the notion that saturated fat and cholesterol are bad?
"not supplying us with evidence that supports his claims"
Where is the evidence from HUMANs eating real foods that support your claim? Where is the evidence that the low-carb diet is unhealthy? There is more than one low-carb diet. So, would Jan Kwasniewski's diet be unhealthy, where proteins are limited to RDA levels and carbs are kept high enough to avoid ketosis (and gluconeogenesis)? Or, do you think your diet is the only healthy diet that is possible and you couldn't have solved your problems with another method?
Do you need "proof' that white flour and refined sugar are a form of "empty calories"? If so, what nutrients do they have, relative to fruit? Try reading Weston Price. Health declined with the introduction of sugar and white flour. This is before the days of enrichment, so none of your points are relevant. Sugar has never been enriched. Do you really think refined sugar is totally innocent with respect to disease? Hundreds of medical doctors would disagree with you.
What is going on here does not seem like scientific debate. Seems more like some kind of cult. I have asked questions and they have not been answered. I've asked for studies on humans and they have not been provided. You can interpret any study to suit your theory, but that does not mean it is the only interpretation or the right one.
Where is the evidence that the iron in red meat is unhealthy, or that raisins and prunes are healthier? You can eat as you want, but please show me evidence that someone eating a diet of 100% cooked meat would have any health problems. Maybe you could have cured your health problems long ago if you had tried eating cooked meat. Maybe you are looking for ways to rationalize your refusal to do so.
Bruce |
|
Reply
| |
Jamie, I am just curious what is the evidence that "Atkins" is unhealthy? What does that even mean, since as HSWC has noted, there is no such thing as the "Atkins Diet." There are hundreds of diet variations that could be considered Atkins. Some of them might be more healthy than others.
Also, you mention that your health is more important to you than good taste. But what health problems did you have on grilled, fried, baked, or broiled meat? Have you tried eating low-carb (or zero-carb)? Have you experimented with many ratios of fat, protein, and carbohydrates? You said your iron was low normal and now it's normal. Why does this matter? You don't mention health benefits, just markers. |
|
|
First
Previous
2-7 of 7
Next
Last
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Return to Nutrition