ultma Posted July 17, 2007 Posted July 17, 2007 Has anyone heard of the western price foundation http://www.westonaprice.org/ They have alot of ideas that go against modern nurtion and the advice of the USDA and FDA But alot of it makes very good sense and science Like unfermented soy is dangerous for people and babies it contains things like; phytoestrogen, phytic acid,enzyme inhibitors, antinutrients soy bean is poisonous They are very pro animal fat and offal meats from animals feed grass and allowed in the sun (sorry silly americans who rasie there animals inside on grain) Did you know american indoor dairy cows butter is actually white and has to be artifically made yellow They are also very pro RAW milk, they think pasturisation destroy proteins and cofactors that make milk good and it makes the calaium undesirable since it is easly precpitaed it ends up in veins and artiries. The fat of milk is resistant to the chemical changes cuase by heat and pressur during pastureisation Unsaturated fat is bad:eek: things like vegtable oil(not cold expressed like extra virgin olive, they say its alright in moderation) are steam cleaned to remove foul taste and colours this, makes them quite rancid when you buy them not mention destroys many of the nutrients in the oil, also cis hydrogens are easily cleaved leaving partialy stabilised radicals yum. Saturated fat dosent go rancid! What do you guys think is there truth in some of the stuff from these guys say or are they crazy orgainc nutters with a secret agenda?
SkepticLance Posted July 17, 2007 Posted July 17, 2007 My vote goes with the crazy nutters. Your comments contain some statements from them that, if true, show them to be more than nutters - becoming dangerous nutters. For example : unpasteurised milk was historically one of the causes of transmission of tuberculosis. One estimate I read suggested that in Britain alone, pasteurisation of milk saved 65,000 people per year from becoming infected. While I am sure the situation is much better today, due to vets checks of cows, it is definitely a retrograde step to recommend we stop pasteurising milk. Soy beans contain a protein that is an allergen for some people. Perhaps one person in a hundred is affected. For the other 99, soy bean is a wonderful food. If what you say about their take on fats is correct, then their followers are set for early death through heart disease. Saturated fats need to be consumed in small amounts only. Unsaturated fats are much healthier. Trans fats are bad - found in margarine and in over-used cooking oils, such as in fast food joints. Fresh olive oil, canola oil, sunflower seed oil etc are all excellent foods. They are very calorific and contribute to obesity, so should not be consumed in massive amounts. But in reasonable quantity they are excellent.
ultma Posted July 18, 2007 Author Posted July 18, 2007 they say that it was the banning of swill fed cows in cramped dirty diary sheds in the middle of towns that fixed the milk problem and that pasturisation came after this fact but yet was atributed as the solution. http://www.westonaprice.org/brochures/RealMilkTrifold.pdf soy can be used for HRT so it cant be that good i know of girls who drunk soy milk when they were small who menstarted when as early as 9. lactofermented soy is good because it destroys phytic acid unfermented is not so good. this all comes from the work of weston price in early 1900s he was dentist and was concened with the amount of dental deformities cavities so went around the world investigaeing tradional cultures. http://www.westonaprice.org/brochures/wapfbrochure.html
SkepticLance Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 ultma Eastern societies have been consuming soy products for thousands of years without early puberty. However, when those societies start consuming western diets (meaning lots of fat) early puberty becomes the norm.
ultma Posted July 18, 2007 Author Posted July 18, 2007 ultma Eastern societies have been consuming soy products for thousands of years without early puberty. However, when those societies start consuming western diets (meaning lots of fat) early puberty becomes the norm. "Myth: Asians consume large amounts of soy foods. Truth: Average consumption of soy foods in China is 10 grams (about 2 teaspoons) per day and 30 to 60 grams in Japan. Asians consume soy foods in small amounts as a condiment, and not as a replacement for animal foods. Myth: Modern soy foods confer the same health benefits as traditionally fermented soy foods. Truth: Most modern soy foods are not fermented to neutralize toxins in soybeans, and are processed in a way that denatures proteins and increases levels of carcinogens." In Asia, soy is mostly consumed in fermented form. "The most serious problem with soy formula is high levels of isoflavones. In Japan, soy foods contribute about 25-28 mg of isoflavones per day, or just less that one-half mg per kilogram of body weight. In American women, 45 mg of isoflavones or three-quarters mg per kilogram of body weight per day caused endocrine disruption after just one month. Babies fed exclusively on soy-based formula receive a dose that is four to eleven times higher, based on body weight. A recent study found that babies fed soy-based formula had 13,000 to 22,000 times more isoflavones in their blood than babies fed milk-based formula. Dr. Mike Fitzpatrick, a New Zealand toxicologist estimates that an infant exclusively fed soy formula receives the estrogenic equivalent of at least five birth control pills per day. PHYTOESTROGENS IN DIETS OF INFANTS AND ADULTS Average Isoflavones Intake----Isoflavone per Kg ofBody Weight* Japan (1996 survey) 10 mg---- 0.17 mg Japan (1998 survey) 25 mg---- 0.42 mg Japan (2000 survey) 28 mg---- 0.47 mg In Japanese women, causing thyroid suppression 38 mg---- 0.60 mg In American women, causing hormonal changes after 1 month 45 mg---- 0.75 mg FDA recommended amount for adults 75 mg---- 1.25 mg In children receiving soy formula 38 mg---- 6.25 mg * Assumed 60 kg for adults, 6 kg for infants Fitzpatrick believes that soy feeding accounts for the alarming levels of premature maturation in girls. This was the same conclusion reached in 1986 by investigators in Puerto Rico, where early maturation is commonplace. The researchers expected to find a correlation with consumption of milk and meat and were surprised to discover that the strongest correlation was with soy infant feeding. Girls who had consumed large amounts of cow's milk as children actually had lower rates of early development." "The soybean did not serve as a food until the discovery of fermentation techniques, some time during the Chou Dynasty. The first soy foods were fermented products like tempeh, natto, miso and soy sauce. At a later date, possibly in the 2nd century BC, Chinese scientists discovered that a purée of cooked soybeans could be precipitated with calcium sulfate or magnesium sulfate (plaster of Paris or Epsom salts) to make a smooth, pale curd - tofu or bean curd. The use of fermented and precipitated soy products soon spread to other parts of the Orient, notably Japan and Indonesia. The Chinese did not eat unfermented soybeans as they did other legumes such as lentils because the soybean contains large quantities of natural toxins or "antinutrients". First among them are potent enzyme inhibitors that block the action of trypsin and other enzymes needed for protein digestion. These inhibitors are large, tightly folded proteins that are not completely deactivated during ordinary cooking. They can produce serious gastric distress, reduced protein digestion and chronic deficiencies in amino acid uptake. In test animals, diets high in trypsin inhibitors cause enlargement and pathological conditions of the pancreas, including cancer. Soybeans also contain haemagglutinin, a clot-promoting substance that causes red blood cells to clump together. Trypsin inhibitors and haemagglutinin are growth inhibitors. Weanling rats fed soy containing these antinutrients fail to grow normally. Growth-depressant compounds are deactivated during the process of fermentation, so once the Chinese discovered how to ferment the soybean, they began to incorporate soy foods into their diets. In precipitated products, enzyme inhibitors concentrate in the soaking liquid rather than in the curd. Thus, in tofu and bean curd, growth depressants are reduced in quantity but not completely eliminated. Soy also contains goitrogens - substances that depress thyroid function. Soybeans are high in phytic acid, present in the bran or hulls of all seeds. It's a substance that can block the uptake of essential minerals - calcium, magnesium, copper, iron and especially zinc - in the intestinal tract. Although not a household word, phytic acid has been extensively studied; there are literally hundreds of articles on the effects of phytic acid in the current scientific literature. Scientists are in general agreement that grain- and legume-based diets high in phytates contribute to widespread mineral deficiencies in third world countries. Analysis shows that calcium, magnesium, iron and zinc are present in the plant foods eaten in these areas, but the high phytate content of soy- and grain-based diets prevents their absorption. The soybean has one of the highest phytate levels of any grain or legume that has been studied, and the phytates in soy are highly resistant to normal phytate-reducing techniques such as long, slow cooking. Only a long period of fermentation will significantly reduce the phytate content of soybeans. When precipitated soy products like tofu are consumed with meat, the mineral-blocking effects of the phytates are reduced. The Japanese traditionally eat a small amount of tofu or miso as part of a mineral-rich fish broth, followed by a serving of meat or fish"
bascule Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 I love soybeans. Edamame (steamed, salted soybeans in the pod) are one of my favorite foods. The claims about isoflavones, particularly as a "poisonous" phytoestrogen, are unfounded. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isoflavone Modern medical science regards isoflavones as an antioxidant with a potential but as yet unsubstantiated ability to prevent certain types of cancers. Modern medical science also regards the majority of animal fats, particularly consumed in large quantities, to have a negative health impact. This site seems to be criticizing science while pushing a particular agenda. It's using the tactic of "FUD" (fear, uncertainty, doubt) in order to do so.
ultma Posted July 18, 2007 Author Posted July 18, 2007 yes they do seem to challenge the norm but alot of the work is backed up( i remeber at uni the reason doctors liked polyunsaturated fats was because they were softer and easier to squash with the ballon but they also blocked artireis faster) there are many studies that say good and bad things about soy I belive low dose fermented soy to be alright but not processed soy and no soy for babies that wiki article dosent say unfounded it says there is two sides to the argument "The industry has known for years that soy contains many toxins. At first they told the public that the toxins were removed by processing. When it became apparent that processing could not get rid of them, they claimed that these substances were beneficial. Your government granted a health claim to a substance that is poisonous, and the industry lied to the public to sell more soy." it was quite interesting when weastern price went on his trip he was hoping to find a vegeterian culture that was healthy and strong but he didnt? the lowest fat diet he found was about 30% and some as high as 80% they really like codliver oil and talk alot about vitamine A D and K2(i think it was K2) in the right ratio the same with the omega fatty acids being the correct ration aparently cod liver oil has them in the correct ratio they mention liver as a great source of food gram for gram liver is one of the most nutrient rich foods all the diets had a raw componet and a lactofermented component its amazing to see the teeth of these non "westernised cultures) all striaght broad with little to no cavities the jaw and face was full and strong, they say it was to do with growing to full genetic potential they went to great efforts to feed expecting mothers rich food, people in the andes walked miles to get dried fish eggs to feed to them they claim that low cholesterol diets and anti statin drugs lead to poor cognetive function and alzheimer's. my grandmother in law went on this diet and stopped taking her anti-cholesterol drugs shes a high risk patient thats has had a bypass and after two months her blood pressure was lower than it had ever been! remember science is to question and its not infoulable least we not forget thalidimde and asbestos, particulaly when money is involved with big bussines funded science. http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnutrition/pcnutrition.html they mention salt in this link but its quality that counts did you know the anticaking agent in table salt is a Al salt, the iodine additive is potassium iodate most nitrites and nitrates in the diet come from vegtables from the fertilizer thers some good points about staurated fat what are our cell walls made off? phospholipid bilayer with the lipids mainly saturated but some of the stuff seems strange to me but maybe not others http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnutrition/dietguidelines.html see the last two points Think positive thoughts and minimize stress. Practice forgiveness. lol seems a bit religous to me http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnutrition/dietdangers.html now the microwave seemed odd to me until i rembered the branch of chemsitry that uses microwaves(reactions that would take days with heating can happen in minuets in the microwave) apparently vegtable oils are oxidised very fast by microwave radiation and almost completly to toxic aldehydes this happens with conventional cooking but much slower, it does increase with increased heat also.
SkepticLance Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 ultma It appears you have started this thread with a firm conviction that these beliefs are correct. However, many go against what good science has demonstrated. For example : While it is absolutely correct that modern youth pass through puberty at an earlier age than, say, 100 years ago, there is no evidence that this is a bad thing. According to Dr. Peter Gluckman (University of Auckland, Liggens Institute for Medical Research) earlier puberty is simply a response to better nutrition, and particularly more fat in the diet. He believes that our ancestors who lived a more primitive life, eating more meat and less grain, probably went through puberty earlier also. If he is correct, then we have simply returned to a more 'natural' pattern. There is little doubt that excess saturated fat in the diet is harmful. You also seem to have fallen into the trap of believing 'more is better' in relation to nutrients. It has been well demonstrated that those people who consume vitamin pills simply excrete the excess - they make very expensive urine! Vitamins in animal liver are treated the same way. Simply excreted. In fact, too many vitamins, and especially vitamin A, can be positively toxic. You said : its amazing to see the teeth of these non "westernised cultures) all striaght broad with little to no cavities I have personally visited a number of non western cultures living by the old ways and with the old foods, and especially Pacific Islands, and Papua New Guinea. Almost without exception, they have dreadful teeth. Most have big gaping holes in their mouths where the teeth were by the time they reach 30 years of age. Archaeologists who study the dead bodies of primitive hunter-gatherers nearly always comment on the damage to teeth at an early age. The main cause here is abrasion. If your food is often contaminated with dirt and sand, when you chew it, you are grinding your teeth over very potent abrasives. You need to be very careful about what you believe from non scientifically recognised sources. There is so much garbage written. Toxins are an example. Small amounts of all sorts of synthetic chemicals are very well tolerated by the human body. It is only larger doses that matter. In fact, the biggest doses of toxins are all natural materials. Did you know that cabbage contains more than 40 different toxic chemicals, and more than half of them are carcinogenic in high doses? And cabbage is one of the most healthy foods you will ever eat. Those toxins are simply at a low enough dose to be harmless. You should treat all claims of toxins in food with care. As a rough rule of thumb, find out what the quantity of toxin present is. Then find out how toxic it is. Usually you can work out how much toxin it would take to be fatal. If the dose is 1% or less of the minimum fatal dose, then the amount is probably not of concern. The best example is ethanol - a well known toxin. If you drink one standard glass of whiskey, you are consuming 1% of the minimum lethal dose. If you consume that amount each day, and no more, you actually improve your health.
ecoli Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 "The industry has known for years that soy contains many toxins. At first they told the public that the toxins were removed by processing. When it became apparent that processing could not get rid of them, they claimed that these substances were beneficial. Your government granted a health claim to a substance that is poisonous, and the industry lied to the public to sell more soy." smacks of a conspiracy theory to me. the lowest fat diet he found was about 30% and as high as 80% This is meaningless. Fat diet he found where? Amoung vegetarians? Where did they live... what type of fat did they eat? Are you saying that he found someone whose diet was 80% fat? I find this very hard to believe. they really like codliver oil and talk alot about vitamine A D and K2(i think it was K2) in the right ratio the same with the omega fatty acids being the correct ration aparently cod liver oil has them in the correct ratio What does that have to do with soy? I don't think even vegetarians would deny that there are sources of meat that are healthy. But, rather, with supplements and balanced dieting, the same nutrients can be found in vegetable of fungal sources. they mention liver as a great source of food gram for gram liver is one of the most nutrient rich foods Again... this is a matter of perspective. After all, if I ate the liver of an alcoholic, I doubt this would be very healthy for me. So, this statement is virtually meaningless. all the diets had a raw componet and a lactofermented component its amazing to see the teeth of these non "westernised cultures) all striaght broad with little to no cavities Were these controlled studies? For example, how do they know that the westerner teeth were worse because of the sugary drinks we consume? I want to see this study. the jaw and face was full and strong, they say it was to do with growing to full genetic potential How do they know what the genetic potential of a person is? This is not measurable, and a load of BS. That's like saying a large apple is genetically superior to a small apple. Well... not necessarily. Perhaps there's an evolutionary reason why the small apple is smaller. It's not necessarily environmental, is what I'm saying. To make a statement like that is very unscientific, I think. they went to great efforts to feed expecting mothers rich food, people in the andes walked miles to get dried fish eggs to feed to them Proving what, exactly? Today, we can get the exact same nutrients from vitamins derived from solely from plant sources, if we want to. This statement doesn't say anything about meat consumption in modern society. they claim that low cholesterol diets and anti statin drugs lead to poor cognetive function and alzheimer's. cholesterol is a vital part of the nervous and cell systems. But so what? There are different types of cholesterol, not all of which do the same things, and are derived from many different sources. So, this doesn't say anything against the vegetarian diet. And what does anti-statin drugs have to do with vegetarianism. my grandmother in law went on this diet and stopped taking her anti-cholesterol drugs shes a high risk patient thats has had a bypass and after two months her blood pressure was lower than it had ever been! What diet was that exactly? remember science is to question and its not infoulable least we not forget thalidimde and asbestos, particulaly when money is involved with big bussines funded science. Of course... but, also don't forget, the meat and dairy industry influences the government too... and tends to do so in the opposite way as the soy industry. The rumor mill says that it's they who have funded a lot of the recent anti-soy research. (can't back that up, though). http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnutrition/pcnutrition.htmlthey mention salt in this link but its quality that counts did you know the anticaking agent in table salt is a Al salt, the iodine additive is potassium iodate what's your point? most nitrites and nitrates in the diet come from vegtables from the fertilizer Even if this is true (proof please) so what? thers some good points about staurated fat what are our cell walls made off? phospholipid bilayer with the lipids mainly saturated There are plenty of unsaturated fats in membranes too (not sure of the ratio). But just because something is required for life doesn't mean an overconsumption is healthy. Too much of anything can kill you. Think positive thoughts and minimize stress. Practice forgiveness. lol seems a bit religous to me the psychology of positive thinking. It's nothing new. now the microwave seemed odd to me until i rembered the branch of chemsitry that uses microwaves(reactions that would take days with heating can happen in minuets in the microwave) apparently vegtable oils are oxidised very fast by microwave radiation and almost completly to toxic aldehydes this happens with conventional cooking but much slower, it does increase with increased heat also. not sure what this has to do with your original point, nor how accurate the research is. I don't even own a microwave, so it doesn't much matter to me, one way or the other.
bascule Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 that wiki article dosent say unfounded it says there is two sides to the argument "The industry has known for years that soy contains many toxins. At first they told the public that the toxins were removed by processing. When it became apparent that processing could not get rid of them, they claimed that these substances were beneficial. Your government granted a health claim to a substance that is poisonous, and the industry lied to the public to sell more soy." I'm sorry, I didn't read your post past here. I'm not sure why you juxtaposed these statements the way you did, but as far as I can tell: 1) The Wikipedia article does not state what you claim it does 2) My personal inference, given the juxtaposition of these statements, is that the quote is from the Wikipedia article. It's not. For all appearances you're citing a source which at least attempts to maintain a neutral point of view, but in actuality you've gone back to conspiracy theorist crap. Please examine the side of science before repeating lies, thank you.
ultma Posted July 18, 2007 Author Posted July 18, 2007 Even if this is true (proof please) so what? http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/nutrition/DJ0974.html I'm sorry, I didn't read your post past here. I'm not sure why you juxtaposed these statements the way you did, but as far as I can tell: 1) The Wikipedia article does not state what you claim it does 2) My personal inference, given the juxtaposition of these statements, is that the quote is from the Wikipedia article. It's not. For all appearances you're citing a source which at least attempts to maintain a neutral point of view, but in actuality you've gone back to conspiracy theorist crap. Please examine the side of science before repeating lies, thank you. sorry there was meant to be a full stop the only part I meant to refer to you was that the wiki article said ther were two side to the story There are plenty of unsaturated fats in membranes too (not sure of the ratio). But just because something is required for life doesn't mean an overconsumption is healthy. Too much of anything can kill you. yes true a phrase to remember is it's strictly the dose that determines the poison This is meaningless. Fat diet he found where? Amoung vegetarians? Where did they live... what type of fat did they eat? Are you saying that he found someone whose diet was 80% fat? I find this very hard to believe. I think it was the eskimos but that has alot to do with the lack of choice seal, fish or polar bear anyone and i think polar bear liver is toxic because they eat seals and it has a high amount of retinol in it another thing to remember every thing has to be working well to get the viatmines from vegtables many factors come into play for example carotene to vitamine A involves many process including absorbtion why not just get vitamine A from the source Were these controlled studies? For example, how do they know that the westerner teeth were worse because of the sugary drinks we consume? I want to see this study. It wasnt really a study W.A Price was a dentist in the early 1900s he was concerned with the amount of braces and cavities he was observing so he went around the world with a camera and took photos of peoples teeth and dental records from the cultures where roads and heavy trade hadnt come yet he noticed a trend and wrote a book http://www.amazon.com/Nutrition-Physical-Degeneration-Weston-Andrew/dp/0879838167 what's your point? just part of the theme of processed and refined food not being that great, Al is assoicated with a number of neurological disfunctions Again... this is a matter of perspective. After all, if I ate the liver of an alcoholic, I doubt this would be very healthy for me. So, this statement is virtually meaningless. you miss the point of the weston price foundation, the animal has to be outdoor free range and healthy, if you look at chicken livers say battery, "organic free range" but still indoor, and pasture feed you will find the pasture feed is the only one thats has a good sized dark healthy liver, not to mention the USDA has decided that chickens are vegeterian. lol they love insects
ecoli Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/nutrition/DJ0974.html " Based on available evidence to date, nitrite as used in meat and meat products is considered safe because known benefits outweigh potential risks." There conclusions had nothing to do with vegetables. I don't understand the point of your original statement.
ultma Posted July 18, 2007 Author Posted July 18, 2007 ^^in that link read the section on toxcitiy "It has been reported that people normally consume more nitrates from their vegetable intake than from the cured meat products they eat. Spinach, beets, radishes, celery, and cabbages are among the vegetables that generally contain very high concentrations of nitrates (J. Food Sci., 52:1632). The nitrate content of vegetables is affected by maturity, soil conditions, fertilizer, variety, etc. It has been estimated that 10 percent of the human exposure to nitrite in the digestive tract comes from cured meats and 90 percent comes from vegetables and other sources. Nitrates can be reduced to nitrites by certain microorganisms present in foods and in the gastrointestinal tract. This has resulted in nitrite toxicity in infants fed vegetables with a high nitrate level. No evidence currently exists implicating nitrite itself as a carcinogen." You also seem to have fallen into the trap of believing 'more is better' in relation to nutrients. It has been well demonstrated that those people who consume vitamin pills simply excrete the excess - they make very expensive urine! Vitamins in animal liver are treated the same way. Simply excreted. In fact, too many vitamins, and especially vitamin A, can be positively toxic. vitamine A is very much less toxic if taken with vitamine D at the same time If the dose is 1% or less of the minimum fatal dose, then the amount is probably not of concern. The best example is ethanol - a well known toxin. If you drink one standard glass of whiskey, you are consuming 1% of the minimum lethal dose. If you consume that amount each day, and no more, you actually improve your health. yes but some things at low dose that dont kill you can be quite bad like say dioxin (or phytoestrogen I dont know the fact it can be use to treat menopause freaks out my gonads)
SkepticLance Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 ultma I find it quite difficult to sort out exactly what you are saying. Can you try to make your points a bit clearer? Just a quick comment. You mention dioxins. According to USEPA, the minimum dose likely to be lethal, by means of cancer, is 20 parts per billion based on body weight. The maximum dose actually found in humans is about 50 parts per trillion. This is well outside the 1% rule. Apart from that, I find your statements a bit hard to nail down. You seem to be concerned about phytoestrogens. There is nothing new about them apart from our increased understanding. Phytoestrogens have been part of the human diet since Adam wore short pants. They seem to have done very little to harm us. Soy beans contain phytoestrogens, sure. But so do lots of other traditional foods.
ultma Posted July 18, 2007 Author Posted July 18, 2007 Just a quick comment. You mention dioxins. According to USEPA, the minimum dose likely to be lethal, by means of cancer, is 20 parts per billion based on body weight. The maximum dose actually found in humans is about 50 parts per trillion. This is well outside the 1% rule. Death by cancer from dioxin isnt a lethal poison dose dioxin that will kill you and has a LD50, water has a LD50 but any amount below that is hardly going to do you much harm. I am am trying to discuss some of the price foundations ideas, some of it seems weird and I didnt agree with much off it at the first but the more I read a lot of there ideas make sense. low amounts of tradional soy isnt really bad if you have a good diet and it is well prepared, ie. phytic acid isnt going to be a problem because you will be getting enough minerals that the chelation wont matter much. But should we be feeding it to babies, should a small boy/girl drink soy milk instead of real milk. What about all the forms of processed soy like soy protein isolate. Moving away from soy, we all know Trans fat doesnt occur in nature and that they are not good, but is high dose's of Cis-mono/polyunsatured fats good (exluding tradional cold expressed oils like extra virgin olive) as i said before the processing is harsh and allows for the formation of realitvely stablised radicals. what about this statement from them "Myth: Heart disease in America is caused by consumption of cholesterol and saturated fat from animal products. Truth: During the period of rapid increase in heart disease (1920-1960), American consumption of animal fats declined but consumption of hydrogenated and industrially processed vegetable fats increased dramatically. (USDA-HNI)" "Myth: Saturated fat clogs arteries. Truth: The fatty acids found in artery clogs are mostly unsaturated (74%) of which 41% are polyunsaturated. (Lancet 1994 344:1195)" "Myth: To avoid heart disease, we should use margarine instead of butter. Truth: Margarine eaters have twice the rate of heart disease as butter eaters. (Nutrition Week 3/22/91 21:12)" what about the way the american farmers rasie their animals, indoors no grass, while the land is used to grow soy and corn. As i said earlier about indoor dairy it is a strange grey/white colour and has to be made yellow or indoor chickens have small pale livers. The quality of what we eat has alot to do with how it is rasied or grown. why do we disreguard offal and fatty meat now days. they have to fence of the offal pits in rendering departments here in NZ because overseas the tribal people see it as a waste and break in and steal the condemend material. when a carnivore catches its prey the first things it eats is the offal and the fatty parts. but if you want ot keep talking about soy go ahead, I am ignorant when it comes to soy its not really a crop in my country(we use our land to manily grow sheep beef and dairy, not hat modern farming practise are very good for the land and animal, but still its better than indoors) and I was until you pointed out to me under the impression that if you ate a decent sized amount of raw soy beans it would be quite toxic. dont they ahve to roll soy or do something when they feed it to cows to stop it killing them?
SkepticLance Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 The LD50 of the worst dioxin is in the region of 1 to 3000 parts per billion based on body weight, depending on animal species, and method of introduction. U.S. National Toxicology Program acute toxicity studies for Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) Acute toxicity summary rating for this chemical using NTP data: Highly Toxic CAS Number: 1746-01-6 Use Type: Impurity Chem Class: Organochlorine Note: The NTP Summary rankings were calculated using only oral, dermal and inhalation studies for all mammals that are reasonable analogs for humans. See documentation for further details. Study Type Route Species Result Units Acute Toxicity Rating Used for Toxicity Rating LD50 Dermal rabbit 275.0 ug/kg Highly Toxic Yes LD50 intraperitoneal hamster 3.00 mg/kg No Rating No LD50 intraperitoneal mouse 120.0 ug/kg No Rating No LD50 intraperitoneal rabbit 252.0 ug/kg No Rating No LD50 intraperitoneal rat 60.0 ug/kg No Rating No LD50 Oral Dog 1.00 ug/kg Highly Toxic Yes LD50 Oral frog 1.00 mg/kg Highly Toxic No LD50 Oral guinea pig 500.0 ng/kg No Rating No LD50 Oral hamster 1,157 ug/kg Highly Toxic Yes LD50 Oral monkey 2.00 ug/kg Highly Toxic Yes LD50 Oral mouse 114.0 ug/kg Highly Toxic Yes LD50 Oral rat 20.0 ug/kg Highly Toxic Yes LDLo Dermal mouse 80.0 ug/kg No Rating No LDLo Oral chicken 25.0 ug/kg No Rating No LDLo Unreported mouse 200.0 ug/kg No Rating No This compares with the level in the human body, which for most of us is less than 50 parts per trillion. As I said, the USEPA regards the minimum lethal dose for humans at 20 ppb. This means that the actual amount scientists have measured as being in our bodies is quite safe. Some of the food myths you wrote are a bit debatable. Cholesterol and heart disease. There is quite a lot of good data showing a pretty close relationship. And the use of statin drugs, which lower cholesterol, are clearly correlated with a drop in chances of dying of heart disease. There are some people who argue that cholesterol has nothing to do with heart disease, but the data overall argues otherwise. Diets rich in saturated fat are also correlated with high levels of heart disease. I agree that margarine is not good. The problem with margarine is that it is very rich in trans fats. I doubt that the colour of butter made from cows kept indoors is of any great moment. Butter is a lousy food, whether yellow or white.
ultma Posted July 19, 2007 Author Posted July 19, 2007 I doubt that the colour of butter made from cows kept indoors is of any great moment. Butter is a lousy food, whether yellow or white. the butter from indoor cows that dont get grass and sulight has no vitamin K low vitamin D and good knows what else happens when the animal is sick and unhelathy butter is a lousy food? who told you that the TV, the FDA? Butter is a source of fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E and K, and important trace minerals magnesium, zinc, chromium, selenium and iodine. Purchase organic butter produced without the use of hormones, steroids and antibiotics. Raw butter from pasture-fed cows is even better. The saturated fat in butter actually enhances our immune function, protects the liver from toxins, provides nourishment for the heart in times of stress, gives stiffness and integrity to our cell membranes, and aids in the proper utilization of omega-3 essential fatty acids. Butter will add extra nutrients and flavor to your vegetables, whole grain breads, and sautéed dishes. additon of butter/raw cream to your fruit/vegtables helps you absorb more vitamines and minerals How long has butter been around for! Now if you have read studies on butter where did they get it from the USA, factory farmers who dont give the cows trace minerals and feed them quick grow nitrate grass? We have very good butter here in NZ lance, the fats in milk are resistant to pasturisation so even normal butter here in NZ. Two things that the gallbladder doesn't like are bad fats and no fats. Bad fats, like processed vegetable oils, are difficult to digest and put a lot of stress on the gallbladder. The liver produces bile, a substance made from cholesterol that emulsifies fat and makes it easier to digest. The gallbladder stores and concentrates bile, then secretes it into the small intestines when fats are present. If you don't eat fat, the gallbladder won't get any exercise and can begin to atrophy
SkepticLance Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 To ultma I am interested to see that you are a fellow Kiwi. Yet in the bit at the bottom of your messages, you say : location - hell. Now tell me; What do you really think of our fair country? My own view is that, compared to the rest of the world, I am living in paradise. On butter. The reason I call it lousy food is that it is almost 100% saturated fat. My father was a dairy farmer (I was living on that farm till I was 16) and would agree with your assessment. However, his reasons were purely emotional and mercenary. The data would suggest that over-indulgence in saturated fat is one of the major causes for early death from cardio-vascular disease.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now