Re: The n-3 to n-6 ratio is nonsense
- From: MattLB <mattlb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 06:24:10 -0800 (PST)
On Nov 29, 2:50 am, "Steve Young" <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote:
<monty1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
Since omega 6s fuel cancer, and the cancer rate has
been rising dramatically as well (colon, breast, etc.), it's also
likely that a lot of people who would have died of CHD died of cancer
or other diseases caused by things like AA metabolites or lipid
peroxation.
That's a pretty slick trick.
More unsubstantiated hot air from monty1945 more like. If you look at
the most common cancer in women (breast) then you find that women are
about six times more likely to die of CHD than breast cancer (203
deaths per 1000 versus 33 deaths per thousand). He has no basis for
saying "a lot" of people would have died, it's pure bias. Also saying
omega 6s fuel cancer is typical of the inaccurate scaremongering he
indulges in. Glucose fuels cancer, not omega6.
MattLB
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The n-3 to n-6 ratio is nonsense
- From: monty1945
- Re: The n-3 to n-6 ratio is nonsense
- References:
- The n-3 to n-6 ratio is nonsense
- From: Taka
- Re: The n-3 to n-6 ratio is nonsense
- From: Steve Young
- Re: The n-3 to n-6 ratio is nonsense
- From: monty1945
- Re: The n-3 to n-6 ratio is nonsense
- From: Steve Young
- The n-3 to n-6 ratio is nonsense
- Prev by Date: Re: Taking Care of your Fertility (How's Mead score in this area?)
- Next by Date: Re: Extract Omega-6 content from USDA SR Reports?
- Previous by thread: Re: The n-3 to n-6 ratio is nonsense
- Next by thread: Re: The n-3 to n-6 ratio is nonsense
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|