MSN Home  |  My MSN  |  Hotmail
Sign in to Windows Live ID Web Search:   
go to MSNGroups 
Free Forum Hosting
 
Important Announcement Important Announcement
The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More
The Scientific Debate Forum.Contains "mature" content, but not necessarily adult.[email protected] 
  
What's New
  
  Disclaimer: Read this page first.  
  Links  
  Messages  
  General  
  Nutrition  
  "Mission Statement."  
  Why the "germ theory" is not science.  
  The Underlying Cause of "Disease."  
  The Scientific Method.  
  How dangerous are bacteria and viruses?  
  The Contributions of Hans Selye and others.  
  How direct effects are often ignored, and indirect markers used  
  Understanding "disease" at the molecular level.  
  Understanding disease at the molecular level, part II.  
  What the "common cold" can teach us about illness.  
  The AA connection to today's common "diseases."  
  How easy the key experiments would be to do.  
  The best practical diet and the explanation for it.  
  Fish oil quotes you might want to read  
  Where the "immune system" fits into this view of "disease."  
  How many 'scientific studies' violate the scientific method  
  Why you have to be careful with antioxidants.  
  Why Cancers today are more aggressive than those of the past.  
  The Latest Evidence.  
  Some studies worthy of note.  
  HSWC "in action."  
  How language can impede science.  
  How language impedes science, part II.  
  More on why "germs" don't cause "disease."  
  How a latent virus actually causes "disease."  
  A new report that "says it all."  
  The science "show" must go on?  
  Odds and ends  
  Some thoughts on a book by Robert Gallo.  
  Saturated fatty acids are the solution, not the problem.  
  It's stress, not "germs" that causes disease.  
  Epidemiology: Facts versus "factoids."  
  It's stress, not germs, part II.  
  The latest on "inflammation."  
  Why many nutritional claims make no sense  
  The use of hypotheticals in science.  
  What "viral infections" really do to the body.  
  What determines longevity?  
  An example of an anti-"saturated fat" study that is flawed.  
  A Rough Guide to a Gentle Diet.  
  A unified "AIDS" hypothsis without "HIV."  
  A unified "AIDS" hypothsis without "HIV." Part II.  
  Okay, so when is this diet going to kill me?  
  Scientific Debate Forum Pictures  
  The EFA Claim Was Refuted Long Ago  
    
  
  
  Tools  
 
Nutrition : How Saturated was Lard in 1909?
Choose another message board
 
     
Reply
 Message 1 of 2 in Discussion 
From: MSN Nicknamerensielk  (Original Message)Sent: 12/22/2007 4:35 PM
http://groups.msn.com/TheScientificDebateForum-/oddsandendspart2.msnw

In this article, you say that "the lard of 1909 was considerably higher in saturated fatty acid content than most lard sold in a nation like the USA is today."

I would like the source for that claim and the exact amount of saturated fatty acids as a percentage. To say that something was "considerably" more saturated is not scientific. Also, it's important to note that leaf lard is 25% more saturated than a normal lard. I've read that it is about 50% SFA vs 40%.

Leaf lard is fat from the kidney/loin area. Beef suet is similar. It also has 25% more SFA than beef fat (56% vs 45%).

http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-C00001-01c20u6.html

So, leaf lard is similar to palm oil. You can probably find leaf lard that has not been rendered at a farmer's market. Grass fed or pastured meat and dairy probably have slightly more SFAs, less MUFAs, and less PUFAs. Red meat is lower in PUFAs than fatty pork, fowl, and so forth.


First  Previous  2 of 2  Next  Last 
Reply
 Message 2 of 2 in Discussion 
From: MSN Nicknametaka00381Sent: 12/23/2007 1:32 AM
Some sites like Mercola.com say grass fed beef is more unsaturated than grain fed one. More Omega-6 in grain while we have more Omega-3 in green grasses.