Re: A cure for diabetes from 1806?

spamfree@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote in part:

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 21:56:55 GMT, Jim Chinnis <jchinnis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

spamfee@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote in part:

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 00:41:09 GMT, Jim Chinnis <jchinnis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

"TC" <tunderbar@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in part:

Barley, oats, wheat, triticale, lupins, peas, etc. These are more
commonly used for cattle feed than corn.

Here (the US) they are used extensively during the final week or two before
slaughter, and in a phasing-out system during the calf's first week at the
feedlot. Partly, this is to kill off pathogens in the rumin that cannot
survive when the corn-induced hyperacidosis is normalized by the relatively
more normal diet.

Most countries other than the US have strict regulations on the use of
hormones and anti-biotics for cattle used in the food chain. And those
cost money, so any feedlot or producer worth his salt will avoid those
as much as possible. There are other ways to manage cattles health
without using meds.

Of course. Grass prairies and pastures are wonderful and almost eliminate
the need for antibiotics (and do eliminate the abnormal corn diet). But
feedlot animals being stuffed with number 2 field corn (manufactured into
feed by adding a bit of fiber from grains, plus hormones to shorten the
time-to-market from 4 or 5 years down to 14 months) suffer from diseases due
to the abnormal acid of the rumin, inactivity, and standing
shoulder-to-shoulder with their pen-mates in one-anothers' wastes. The usual
rule that antibiotics only be used in case of illness means that nearly all
of the feedlot animals get antibiotics almost all the time.

I am not employed in the meat industry, I just know several producers.
All of them family operations.

In my book, feedlots ought to be criminal. They cause enormous suffering to
millions of animals and then inflict suffering on the consumers of the meat
from those stressed, sick, poisoned creatures.

I agree about the cruelty to the animals, but farming has been ever
thus. Think of the Europeans stuffing geese to get the fatty livers
for their fois gras. And then the crutching (stripping the skin around
the backside of sheep to reduce fly blow) without any anaesthetic.
The old religious bull*** about only humans having souls and you can
do what you like to animals is only one step above the biblical edicts
about what you should do to infidels. Lots to answer for!!!

I watched a harrowing doco last night about a Jewish woman whose son
was rendered brain dead by a Palestinian suicide bomber, and his
organs were donated -- his kidneys to a young Palestinian girl.

The dead man's mother went to visit the young (now healthy) girl and
her family, and they looked at the devastation along the way and the
cruelty by the Israeli soldiers at the checkpoints to the
Palestininans wanting (needing) to get to hospital care.

There were mumblings of why can't we co-operate, have peace and live
together freely.

But my take on all of this is one deluded population of folk from all
corners of the world (this woman happened to be Scottish) who believed
that some mythical old man in the sky had given them the land on which
another group of deluded individuals had lived for generations, and
this second group believed that an imaginary old man in the sky told
them the only way to fight this iniquity was to blow themselves up
along with any number of the invading group, and they would instantly
go to some "old man described" wonderful paradise.

The irony of all this mahem and suffering is that the two imaginary
old men in the sky are supposedly one and the same.
Sheeesh, ain't the human species a bright bulb???

Well, I agree with you on the above.

I disagree about the quality of the meat. Any meat is nutritious, if
you can stomach it knowing how it was obtained. Then there is eating
too much of it....

The meat appears to increase cardiovascular disease.

Only in excess, and any meat will to this.

Not from what I've seen. beef seems to have a special (bad) effect.

The studies that show
the linkage have used feed-lot or at least corn-fed beef, as far as I know.
There is some evidence that grass-fed, pastured beef is healthier. It has a
different pattern of fats, being higher in omega-3 and CLA and lower in fat
overall.

Yes, in Australia, we have vaste tracts of grazing land (bigger than
some countries) and it turns out that the beef produced is eligible
for the Organic label. This has only been realsed recently, having
been in production for a century or so.

But yes, eating too much of even kangaroo (very low fat) will likely
give heart problems in the predisposed. But of course, as fat is the
biggest contributor to excess energy intake,

I'd say carbohydrate might have that honor. In the US, HFCS is king.

you could eat a lot more
kangaroo than marbled beef before you suffered from the comorbidities
of obesity.

Marbled beef in the US is from feedlots.

In terms of the "system," feedlot beef may be a lot worse for our collective
health than the probably small direct differences from the meat itself:
E-Coli, antibiotic resistance, dependence on a monoculture of field corn no.
2, dependence on petroleum, etc.

Maybe, but if consumption were resricted to three ounces, three times
a week, would we be seeing all these problems? (weight and activity
optimal).

I'm sure there is a small amount of feedlot beef that would have an
undetectible effect on health.

I keep wondering about all these "quests for silver bullets" such as
eating this proportion, of that macronutrient, or this or that
supplement, when the EITLR (elephant-in-the-loungeroom) is overeating
and ass flattening.

Well...that avoids the question, I think. It's true, but it doesn't help
answer how to solve the problem. Many "fat-assed" people have tried to lose
weight to the point of tears, without success.

It seems to me that the industrial food being produced and the dependence on
cars makes it difficult to lose weight. (I am at normal weight, BTW.) The
arguments here about low-fat vs low-carb don't help. I don't think that's
the issue for people uniformly. Avoiding processed foods of all types and
getting much more exercise is probably the answer. And that raises huge
questions that relate to national policies about agriculture, land use,
transportation, etc.

jack
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@xxxxxxxxxxxx
.

Loading