|
Originally Posted by AnthonyG
Yes I buy from an organic butcher that I know. I'm also in Australia so a lot of grass fed beef is around even in conventional butcher stores. Valid question though as I would be concerned about the state of factory fed meat in America.
Regaring that study reference. It is pointing the finger at OXIDISED, POLYUNSATURATED lipids which is inline with the WAPF point of view. EDIT: ie, rancid, oxidised, refined polyunsaturated cooking oils are the bad fats and saturated animal fats are the good fats because they resist oxidative damage. Regards, Anthony I buy frozen grass fed beef via the internet, it gets shipped from Missouri to NYC... It's a lot safer, cleaner, more humane, etc. than feed-lot beef, but I still wouldn't eat it raw... my hat's off to ya! r |
Originally Posted by mrfreddy
if "foam cells" lead to atherosclerotic plaques, why don't they lead to plaques in other places in your body? it's the same tissue type, etc. etc. perhaps there are intelligent heart seaking cholestoral bombs lurking in my juicy steaks?
|
Originally Posted by mrfreddy
The lipid hypthesis doesn't stand on its own, so let reach and come up with ever more complicated explanations to hold it up... this is a sample of the flying buttresses on the cathederal built on the bog!
So LDL is bad. And here's why. And focusing solely on lowering cholesterol (or raising HDL) might not be enough. We've got to target that oxidative species with...antioxidants. 'Least that's how I read it. EDIT: Point being, it's mostly scientific mumbo-jumbo to me. Best I can do is recognize that there's a lot of great minds working on this subject. I don't have enough specialized medical knowledge to stay ahead of the curve on this one. All's I can do is follow the best, most commonsensical information from the most valid sources, and listen to my body. |
Originally Posted by Jarery
Heres the Nurse’s Study findings. Probably the largest study on nutrition ever done.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/337/21/1491 "The authors' claim that replacement of saturates with carbohydrates and unsaturated fats lowers CHD risk is totally contradicted by decades of non-supportive clinical research. Furthermore, after the authors adjusted for potential confounders like age, smoking, total energy intake, and percentage of calories obtained from protein and specific types of fat, neither blood cholesterol, animal fats nor saturated fat were associated with any noteworthy increase in the risk of CHD in the Nurses' Health Study. In fact, each five percent increase of energy from animal fats was associated with a 2% decrease in CHD risk. While this risk reduction was statistically insignificant, it hardly supports any contention that animal fats--the main source of saturates--are harmful!" http://www.theomnivore.com/Malmo_Study_2005.html |
A study was done.
Conclusions were made. Detractors counter with their arguments. As I pointed out before, I can scoure the net and find arguments supporting both sides of every argument in existant darn near, including the holocost and landing on the moon. Just because you find a blog site that argues against, does not make it true. I at least accept that certain aspects are still under contention. Dr Mercola who is an avid pro fat advocate even waffles back and forth on saturated fat as was pointed out above. You low carb folk sound just as adamant and rediculous as the low fat folk did last decade. Watch, down the road we'll find out there are several kinds of sat fat, good ones and bad ones, and the best recomendation will turn out to be eat with moderation. Just like every other aspect of the diet cept an odd few. |
"blog" site??!! The dude's just been published
http://www.jpands.org/vol10no3/colpo.pdf how could Hu fudge the smoking stats? That's one of the REAL contributors of CHD I must add I have no discipline to eat low carb, :) at least not while I'm doing 250 miles a week |
Who cares if he was published ?
How does that change anything I posted ? Dr Hu who did the nurse's study was published. Get the point ? Its like a make work project for medical publication printers. It doesnt matter what I post or link, people pushing the low carb crap will counter with whatever. Same as anything you post/link can be countered by crap I find. I'm not going to convince you your wrong, anymore than your gonna convince me. Eat any way you choose. At least I have people on my side who make sense, you got mrfreddy :) Edit : 250 a week ? well you got me beat by a few blocks :) |
Originally Posted by Jarery
Who cares if he was published ?
How does that change anything I posted ?
Originally Posted by Jarery
At least I have people on my side who make sense, you got mrfreddy ?
You're obviously not gunna change your mind until the cholesterol myth is picked up by the popular press in subsequent years, so; while you probably won't harm yourself in the short term with your diet, at least eat some eggs because there's some interesting stuff coming out suggesting that a lack of consumed cholesterol may adversely effect us -- for eg: http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/...tE&keytype=ref . Even our extremely conservative Heart Foundation has recently stated that eggs are ok: "Fresh hen eggs now carry the Heart Foundation Tick, as they are a highly nutritious food containing good quality protein. Egg facts at a glance: Eggs are a highly nutritious food containing good quality protein, 10 vitamins and minerals. The healthy population can include cholesterol rich foods such as offal (eg liver, brains, kidney e tc) and egg yolks as part of a healthy eating pattern." |
Originally Posted by Jarery
Edit : 250 a week ? well you got me beat by a few blocks :)
those are summer miles ( I'll crack 320 in a good week :)) -- it drops to about 180 through winter. :( |
Originally Posted by 531Aussie
at least eat some eggs because there's some interesting stuff coming out suggesting that a lack of consumed cholesterol may adversely effect us
And even if I didnt eat eggs, am I supposed to switch because "there's some interesting stuff coming out suggesting ". Thats half the problem with 'fad' and 'fringe' and people on the ends of the diet spectrum. Every time someone reports a 'new' finding they change their tune and jump from low fat, to low carb, to extra sat fat, etc, etc. Even Dr Mercola has shown in this thread to switch from sat fats are bad, to 'no wait now i think their good". Meanwhile us 'balanced' eaters who disregarded the low fat craze, and disregarded the low carb faze, have not had to change our diet at every change of the wind or new announcement. When your smack dab in the center of the food spectrum, you dont need to change much. Its called common sense, and it plays out quite well ;) Edit: and yes, im at 180 miles a week, mid winter, but then again we just had 29 days of rain out of a 31 day month. Hard to stay motivated in pouring rain 5 degrees above freezing every day :eek: |
Umm Jarey,
How can you suggest that you don't do "Fad" diets but still think that fat or saturated fat could be in ANY way harmful. Thats what the WAPF is all about. Going back to serious traditions and not following the latest food craze to the point where It seems to become a craze because everyone else is following the latest FAD ;) . It was only 50 years ago that the majority of people would be consuming animal fats unless they were too poor to obtain them and in the 50 years since the steady to rapid growth of refined vegetable fats in our diet (although refined vegetable fats go back to the turn of the century), as our health has declined we still somehow get told that its a FAD to consume traditional animal fats and of course the proliferation of refined vegetable fats has NOTHING to do with the worsening health of the general public. :eek: Regards, Anthony |
Originally Posted by AnthonyG
Umm Jarey,
How can you suggest that you don't do "Fad" diets but still think that fat or saturated fat could be in ANY way harmful. My definition of fad isnt the same as yours. And i've explained my definition, its removing one whole aspect of the food chain, like no fat, or no carb, or no protein. And the reason I consider sat fat as harmfull, is because that is what the majority of health , nutrition, cancer, diabetes, heart, etc profesionals recomend. Edit : point out where i ever said fat was bad also ? And sorry, if going back to tradition means eating liver pate, sour whole milk, and raw animal meat, i'l skip regardless if it proves to be the correct one :D |
Originally Posted by AnthonyG
as our health has declined we still somehow get told that its a FAD to consume traditional animal fats and of course the proliferation of refined vegetable fats has NOTHING to do with the worsening health of the general public
|
Originally Posted by Jarery
Its real simple.
My definition of fad isnt the same as yours. And i've explained my definition, its removing one whole aspect of the food chain, like no fat, or no carb, or no protein. And the reason I consider sat fat as harmfull, is because that is what the majority of health , nutrition, cancer, diabetes, heart, etc profesionals recomend. Edit : point out where i ever said fat was bad also ? And sorry, if going back to tradition means eating liver pate, sour whole milk, and raw animal meat, i'l skip regardless if it proves to be the correct one :D This removing a whole aspect of the food chain thing. OK lets go over it, Low carb is not NO carb, Low carb is not NO carb, Low carb is not NO carb, Low carb is not NO carb, Low carb is not NO carb, Low carb is not NO carb, Low carb is not NO carb, Low carb is not NO carb, Low carb is not NO carb, Low carb is not NO carb, Low carb is not NO carb, Low carb is not NO carb, Low carb is not NO carb. Got it? Let me know if we need to do revision again. I consume more antioxidants from low carb vegetables than those who eat mostly bread and starch yet when you consider macro-nutrient ratio's only my level of carbs is quite low and there's are high yet that figure doesn't say anything about the nutrient/antioxidant content of the foods consumed. Oh yeah, and by the way our health opinion leaders telling us that sat fat is bad is a fad, OK. Regards, Anthony |
oh look, apparently jarey has found one or two flimsy studies and thinks he's proved something. how amusing. Jarery, let us know when you've found actual conclusive evidence, ok?
so you want to stick with the mainstream, fine, fine. just remember, the mainstream once thought the earth was flat, that the sun circled the earth, etc. etc. just remember, eat what you like, but you have to find better scientific backing if you want to criticize other peoples approach to fueling their workouts. and leave the rants and insults out, the grown ups are talking here, ok? until then, you're insult filled nonsense posts will remain on my ignore list. life is too short, you know. |
Originally Posted by mrfreddy
oh look, apparently jarey has found one or two flimsy studies and thinks he's proved something. how amusing. Jarery, let us know when you've found actual conclusive evidence, ok?
so you want to stick with the mainstream, fine, fine. just remember, the mainstream once thought the earth was flat, that the sun circled the earth, etc. etc. just remember, eat what you like, but you have to find better scientific backing if you want to criticize other peoples approach to fueling their workouts. and leave the rants and insults out, the grown ups are talking here, ok? until then, you're insult filled nonsense posts will remain on my ignore list. life is too short, you know. Your super diet is so fullfiling and satisfying that when you go on holidays you take a break from it. A 84,000 person study of 14 years is flimsy, but your hero who is discredited by his own sources as misconstruing the truth is solid evidence. And the whole reason people tend to insult you (if you look back 20 pages im not the only one) is because you think your way is better, and yet your a failure at it. Your still overweight, and have just begun to exercise, but you sit there and tell people who succedded at beating obesety, succedded at getting fit enough to race, succedded at beating diabeties, that they are doing it wrong, and your method is better. Why look at the shinning example you are as proof ! If you dont like being insulted, stop telling people who succedded that they are wrong untill you yourself leave the ranks of failure. Untill then, keep flapping, your entertainment. And your supposed to be ignoring me, yet you make a post to me, then stick your fingers back in your ears so I cant reply? Ya thats grown up all right lol. Talk about childish.... |
Chicken liver pate, a glass of sour whole milk, and chewing on some raw cow isnt a lifestyle, its an episode of fear factor.
Edit : Anthony, actually a lot of my way of eating falls within the wap system. We agree on a lot, but I eat medium carbs, you eat more fat and lower carbs, we both eat as little refined foods as possible. Just the foods I enjoy keeps me on a level that has more carbs than fat. If you want to keep arguing over what exact percentage numbers are, go ahead, I dont live by set numbers and could care less what any study claims is ‘best’. The main area of contention we disagree on is saturated fat. Your willing/able to get meat you know is grain fed and organic. I shop at large city supermarkets. Doesn’t the wap foundation recommend not eating a lot of beef that’s full of antibiotics? Anyways, show me where I ever said your diet was wrong, or bad for you? |
If you want to see how you should eat, look at man's evolutionary roots.
|
Originally Posted by obsidian
If you want to see how you should eat, look at man's evolutionary roots.
please explain... |
For eons, human (and their ancestors) were hunter-gatherer types. Cereal grains, legumes, and other type of foods were not as available to us. Our diets were naturally low glycemic index, low glycemic load, high fiber, nuts, whatever fruits and vegetables could be gathered, meats, especially organ meats, marrow, fat meats and so on.
|
Depends on who you want to believe..Obsesian and Mr freddy follow that man is a meat hunter and gatherer.. This has its roots in those pushing a high fat high protein meat eating diet.. Its what our ancestors did so it must be right.Thye claim that mans first big problem with food was when he started farming grains...Many on the otherside of the aisle believe just the opposite..And cite that mans jaws teeth and digestive system have not been made nor designed to eat large quantities of meat...They cite the jawbone and digestive system of predators such as big cats and other predatory flesh eating animals as proof that mans digestive system was not set up to primarily eat flesh food... but rather have been designed primarily to eat fruits,nuts, greens, vegetables, along with small quantities of flesh foods.They claim that fire was mans first big downfall when it came to eating..
It would be interesting to have one schooled in biology and anthropology give us some background on mans historic eating habits rather than have to listen to the propaganda of those on either side of the issue.. Good luck with your continued weight loss.. |
Originally Posted by Barese Rider
It would be interesting to have one schooled in biology and anthropology give us some background on mans historic eating habits rather than have to listen to the propaganda of those on either side of the issue.. |
Originally Posted by obsidian
For eons, human (and their ancestors) were hunter-gatherer types. Cereal grains, legumes, and other type of foods were not as available to us. Our diets were naturally low glycemic index, low glycemic load, high fiber, nuts, whatever fruits and vegetables could be gathered, meats, especially organ meats, marrow, fat meats and so on.
I've heard that very early humans weren't really hunters so much as scavengers, they ate mostly carion. |
Originally Posted by obsidian
For eons, human (and their ancestors) were hunter-gatherer types. Cereal grains, legumes, and other type of foods were not as available to us. Our diets were naturally low glycemic index, low glycemic load, high fiber, nuts, whatever fruits and vegetables could be gathered, meats, especially organ meats, marrow, fat meats and so on.
|
here's an interesting bit I found in pub med regarding ancestral human diets...
The ancestral human diet: what was it and should it be a paradigm for contemporary nutrition? Eaton SB. Awareness of the ancestral human diet might advance traditional nutrition science. The human genome has hardly changed since the emergence of behaviourally-modern humans in East Africa 100-50x10(3) years ago; genetically, man remains adapted for the foods consumed then. The best available estimates suggest that those ancestors obtained about 35% of their dietary energy from fats, 35% from carbohydrates and 30% from protein. Saturated fats contributed approximately 7.5% total energy and harmful trans-fatty acids contributed negligible amounts. Polyunsaturated fat intake was high, with n-6:n-3 approaching 2:1 (v. 10:1 today). Cholesterol consumption was substantial, perhaps 480 mg/d. Carbohydrate came from uncultivated fruits and vegetables, approximately 50% energy intake as compared with the present level of 16% energy intake for Americans. High fruit and vegetable intake and minimal grain and dairy consumption made ancestral diets base-yielding, unlike today's acid-producing pattern. Honey comprised 2-3% energy intake as compared with the 15% added sugars contribute currently. Fibre consumption was high, perhaps 100 g/d, but phytate content was minimal. Vitamin, mineral and (probably) phytochemical intake was typically 1.5 to eight times that of today except for that of Na, generally <1000 mg/d, i.e. much less than that of K. The field of nutrition science suffers from the absence of a unifying hypothesis on which to build a dietary strategy for prevention; there is no Kuhnian paradigm, which some researchers believe to be a prerequisite for progress in any scientific discipline. An understanding of human evolutionary experience and its relevance to contemporary nutritional requirements may address this critical deficiency. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:45 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.