Re: Red Meat NO GOOD, Veggies no protection.... NOW WHAT?

From: Juhana Harju (shantigiri_at_despammed.com)
Date: 01/15/05 

Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 08:30:23 +0200

pearl wrote:
> "Juhana Harju" <shantigiri@despammed.com> wrote in message
> news:34q7ikF4fneqmU1@individual.net...

>> No, but globally vegetarians have higher serum homocysteine levels
>> because lack of vitamin B12, which is not healthy of cource. (This
>> does not apply to vegetarians in US because of the wide
>> supplementation.)
>> [...]
>> I know this. However, not eating any fish, which is practically the
>> only dietary source to provide substantial amounts ov vitamin D adds
>> to this deficiency *if* you don't supplement.
>
> Supplement, if needed.

The more any diet relies on supplementing, the higher are the risks
also. Everyone following a certain diet is not aware of the need of
supplementing.

>
>>> *Vegans, who eat more seeds and nuts, have twice the
>>> Omega 3 fat level of the average American.* '
>>> http://www.uea.ac.uk/~x514/HEAL/THEFATSOFLIFE.pdf
>>> * mine
>>
>> The omega-3 fatty acid status of vegetarians is far from being ideal.
>
> It can be..

But in general, it is not.

>
>> Please, look at the following study (full text available):
>>
>> Brenda C Davis and Penny M Kris-Etherton, Achieving optimal essential
>> fatty acid status in vegetarians: current knowledge and practical
>> implications. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 78, No. 3,
>> 640S-646S, September 2003
>>
>>
>
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/3/640S?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=+Kris-Etherton+&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1105715807657_5250&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=1&journalcode=ajcn
>
> 7) Consider using a direct source of DHA. Aim for 100-300 mg/d. '
>> Trying to provide omega-3 fatty acids from vegetarian sources only
>> increases the risk of prostate cancer. Also the elongation of enough
>> EPA and DHA is efficient only in young and healthy people. So
>> alpha-linolenic acid is not ideal source to provide enough EPA and
>> DHA.
>
> 'For those with increased needs for EPA and DHA (eg, pregnant and
> lactating women) or at greater risk for poor conversion (persons with
> diabetes, those with neurological disorders, premature infants, the
> elderly),
> it may be prudent to ensure that there is a direct source of EPA and
> DHA.'
>
> While they are the original sources of EPA and DHA (fish do not
> produce
> long-chain n-3 fatty acids), most are not concentrated sources
> because of
> their extremely low total fat content. An important exception is a
> DHA-rich
> microalgae that provides 10-40% DHA by dry weight and is currently
> available in supplement form. When supplementing with a direct DHA
> source, 100-300 mg/d is recommended. [...]

I know that there are direct vegetarian sources of DHA. But these
supplements are expensive, more expensive than fish oils. The more any
diet relies on supplementing, the higher are the risks also. Everyone
following a certain diet is not aware of the need of supplementing. And
not everyone can afford it and some people simply don't care.

>> I mostly agree with you, but I think we would do better by adding
>> some fish oils and/or fatty fish like the Cretans and Okinawan
>> centenarians.
>
> Please see; http://www.vegetarian.org.uk/fish/reporttext.htm

I am aware of the contamination risks but you always have to weigh which
is the risk/benefit ratio. I think the weight of evidence speaks for
using either fish oils or fatty fish. Besides fatty acids there might be
some other substances also in fish which might be important for the
cognitive functions, e.g. phosphatidylcholine:

http://www.raysahelian.com/ps.html

Mackerel is one of the richiest dietary sources of phosphatidylcholine:

http://www.degussa-bioactives.com/bioactives/html/e/products/brands/lecips/phosphat_dietary.htm 

-- 
Juhana

Relevant Pages