Re: free radicals (sat fat vs. unsat fat vs. whole food)
- From: monty1945@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 23 Nov 2006 15:14:32 -0800
Another important point is that omega 6 PUFA consumption increased
sharply in the USA and other "advanced" nations after WW II, and that
is when all these "epidemics" began (that is, "chronic diseases"). On
my site, I have cited various nutritional experts who have pointed this
out, as early as the 1980s.
It certainly may be the case that one can eat a diet rich in omega 6s
or omega 3s, but one would also have to know exactly what radical
neutralizing foods to eat, and in what amounts, though again, I don't
want AA in my cells, so I would refrain from eating such a diet (I want
naturrally produced Mead acid in my cells).
Since most Americans and other peoples from similar nations are not
going to eat the same diet of the Okinawans of circa 1900, the question
is, what is the best practical diet in the context of what an American
can obtain from the local supermarket, and on my site I have a page
that discusses this issue? But the claim that saturated fatty acids
themselves are very dangerous has been totally refuted by the raw
demographic data alone. My claim has to do with a specific kind of
diet. It may be possible to design a diet rich in omega 6 PUFAs that
is not terribly unhealthy, but a lot of experimentation would need to
be done to determine how to acheive this. Until then, the key issue
concerns what is available to most people, how they will cook with it,
etc., and how this affects health.
Simple experiments can determine this, but one would have to compare
ther kind of diet I suggest against the "typical American diet." My
diet is one that is tasty, inexpensive, and satisfying, which means
that it is practical. Most other diets are not nearly as appealing
(such as Pritikin's). To say that the Pritikin diet is also good is
irrelevant, because the vast majority of people will not stay on it for
long.
Think about what happend, historically. The early "nutritionists"
wanted to carve out unique disciplinary territory for themselves, but
there was no need to for it, because biochemistry can explain what is
occurring better than anything else. However, now we see the effects
of this endeavor, for example, lard, at 39% saturated fatty acids is
classifed with coconut oil (at 92% saturated fatty acids) as "saturated
fats." Yet lard is much closer to chicken fat in its SFA content than
coconut oil. This is not only not scientific, it is a violation of
common sense at its most basic level. My suggestion for a few years
now has been to reorganize nutrition so that actual diets people would
consider eating for decades are studied against each other. This would
be something biochemists would not be interested in, and it would
result in a lot of very useful information.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: free radicals (sat fat vs. unsat fat vs. whole food)
- From: andrewvecsey@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: free radicals (sat fat vs. unsat fat vs. whole food)
- References:
- free radicals (sat fat vs. unsat fat vs. whole food)
- From: Davide
- Re: free radicals (sat fat vs. unsat fat vs. whole food)
- From: monty1945
- free radicals (sat fat vs. unsat fat vs. whole food)
- Prev by Date: Re: questioning Weston Price Foundation
- Next by Date: Re: questioning Weston Price Foundation
- Previous by thread: Re: free radicals (sat fat vs. unsat fat vs. whole food)
- Next by thread: Re: free radicals (sat fat vs. unsat fat vs. whole food)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|