Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / September 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Good Fat?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
njb1978 - 24 Aug 2004 13:08 GMT
Hi
- this has probably been covered a thousand times but after looking around
on the net I can't seem to find 'an idiots guide' to fat. - from what I've
read and hopefully understood saturated fats are the worst (to be avoided as
much as possible?) - but some other types are ?essential.
- long story short i didn't used to care about my diet (god forbid i was
still a smoker 7ish months ago) but i'm a dad now so it's not just me i'm
responsible for.................
-trying to improve my diet but finding it all very confusing - any
recomended books web sites?

- thanks for your time and any information, regards
Gregory Toomey - 24 Aug 2004 13:29 GMT
> Hi
> - this has probably been covered a thousand times but after looking around
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> - thanks for your time and any information, regards

http://www.westonaprice.org/know_your_fats/know_your_fats.html

gtoomey
markd@toad-net.com - 24 Aug 2004 13:57 GMT
For idiot it is not, as a good survey of current science in language
easily understood:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fats.html

>Hi
>- this has probably been covered a thousand times but after looking around
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>- thanks for your time and any information, regards
njb1978 - 24 Aug 2004 17:26 GMT
> For idiot it is not, as a good survey of current science in language
> easily understood:
>
> http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fats.html

Thanks for that, exactly what i was looking for nice simple PLAIN English -
the book 'Eat, Drink and Be Healthy: The Harvard Medical School Guide to
Healthy Eating' - is cited a lot - would anyone recomend it as further
reading?
Mirek Fidler - 24 Aug 2004 21:34 GMT
> > For idiot it is not, as a good survey of current science in language
> > easily understood:
> >
> > http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fats.html
>
> Thanks for that, exactly what i was looking for nice simple PLAIN English -

Just be warned that Harvard's idea of polyunsaturated fat being a good
fat _might_ not be correct one...

Mirek
Wolfbrother - 25 Aug 2004 09:34 GMT
> > > For idiot it is not, as a good survey of current science in language
> > > easily understood:
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Mirek

Heh now there is an understatement if I ever heard one.  I would use a
much stronger statement than that considering how absolutely absurd
the notion that such fats are good for you is.  Polyunsaturated fat
from refined liquid vegetable oils is probably the single most
destructive factor of the modern diet along with their hydrogenated
versions.  The lies spouted by Harvard are nothing less than CRIMINAL.
The lies stem from the influence of their corporate pay masters like
the edible oils industry and their cronies who infiltrate medical and
government health institutes and regulatory agencies to become top
policy making officials and have resulted in countless deaths and
suffering.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is just a fool.  The facts
simply do not support the outright lies Harvard spouts.  What is even
worse is that many of these facts are so plain and simple that it is
almost unbelievable how they get away with such things.

Do people not understand that these so called healthy polyunsaturated
vegetable oils DO NOT EXIST IN NATURE in the form and amounts we
consume them now and did not exist in the human diet at all until very
recently.  To claim they are good for us is INSANE.  From less than 1
pound per person per year in 1900 to over 30 pounds per person per
year today.  Consider also that heart disease, diabetes and most other
modern degenerative conditions were RARE 100 years ago.  The increase
of these toxic oils is a direct cause of the epidemic levels of
degenerative health conditions today.  Consider also that the so
called dangerous "artery clogging" saturated animal fats and tropical
oils(regarding their use in cooking) have gone from over 20 pounds per
person per year to almost 0 and butter has gone from 18 pounds to 4
pounds per person per year, replaced by hydrogenated vegetable
shortenings and margarine.  To ignore such definitive facts is beyond
unacceptable.  To condemn animal fats as dangerous and PROMOTE the
fake man made fats as healthy while knowing these simple undeniable
facts is either incompetence or deliberate criminality.  That is the
simple truth.

It is all summed up nicely in this great quote by the world renown Dr.
Paul Dudley White, a leading authority on heart disease as well as a
pioneer in the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of diseases of the
heart and circulatory system.  Personal physician to president Dwight
Eisenhower and founder of the AHA, serving as its president for 2
years.  Not too shabby.  Makes that hack Willet look like sh.t.

When confronting proponents of the flawed and dangerous low saturated
fat low cholesterol "prudent diet" he said:

"See here, I began my practice as a cardiologist in 1921 and I never
saw an myocardial infarction patent until 1928. Back in the MI free
days before 1920, the fats were butter and lard and I think that we
would all benefit from the kind of diet that we had at a time when no
one had ever heard the word corn oil."
Lictor - 26 Aug 2004 10:03 GMT
> Do people not understand that these so called healthy polyunsaturated
> vegetable oils DO NOT EXIST IN NATURE in the form and amounts we
> consume them now and did not exist in the human diet at all until very
> recently.

It's true that walnuts have never existed, and that the half the
mediterranea has only used walnut oil (along with olive oil and mutton fat
and butter) for a mere few millenia. Anyway, it's not like these people eat
a large quantity of walnuts, they barely ever approach the things. It's also
true that India has only used home-pressed colza oil (thankfully, American
companies have explained to their government how unhealthy this was, they
are now using industrial-grade canola instead) for the past few millenia.
All that is so very recent...

> To claim they are good for us is INSANE.  From less than 1
> pound per person per year in 1900 to over 30 pounds per person per
> year today.

That's speaking for the USA. The rest of the world has been at much more
stable numbers for a long while. It's also mostly in the USA that oils mean
highly processed ones. Just compare the daily trans fat intake in the USA to
the rest of the western world... You're making generalizations based on your
own hyper-industrialized food industry. You can't compare hydrogenated
canola and cold-extracted walnut oil that is kept in the fridge and eaten
within a couple of months.

> Consider also that heart disease, diabetes and most other
> modern degenerative conditions were RARE 100 years ago.

Living longer tends to cause this kind of disease. Being the most obese
nation in the world doesn't help either. Eating tons of highly processed
food and corn syrup is probably not helping much too. No need to blame that
on oils.

> Consider also that the so
> called dangerous "artery clogging" saturated animal fats and tropical
> oils(regarding their use in cooking) have gone from over 20 pounds per
> person per year to almost 0 and butter has gone from 18 pounds to 4
> pounds per person per year, replaced by hydrogenated vegetable
> shortenings and margarine.

Trans fats are still saturated fats, they're certainly not polyunsaturated
ones... The consumption of saturated fat has not gone to 0 in the USA, it
has *increased* because everything is loaded with trans fats.
Natural animal fat is not that saturated, just check the values for farm
ducks or traditionnal pork that is fed with acorns (like old style Spanish
black pork) or even the industrial porks that are fed with flax (usually
they have a balanced 1/3 from SF,MUF and PUF along with high omega-3
content). The animal fat you have nowadays has nothing to do with the one we
had a couple of centuries ago or that traditionnal cultures still have.
Maybe it was healthy back then, but I doubt getting 100% of your fat from
modern animal fat is healthy.
Margarine replacing butter is also a very American phenomenon. Same for
using shortenings instead of plain old peanut oil to fry things.
It's not a problem with the fats, it's a problem with how you use them.
Butter is for spreading/cooking, olive oil or eventually peanut is for
cooking/seasonning/frying and walnut/colza is for seasonning (or slow
cooking in the case of colza). That's how these fats have been used for
millenia.
MattLB - 26 Aug 2004 13:55 GMT
> > Consider also that the so
> > called dangerous "artery clogging" saturated animal fats and tropical
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Trans fats are still saturated fats,

No they're not. If they're trans they have a double bond. If they have a
double bond they're unsaturated.

> they're certainly not polyunsaturated
> ones...

They probably are. If not they're monounsaturated.

MattLB
Lictor - 26 Aug 2004 15:19 GMT
> No they're not. If they're trans they have a double bond. If they have a
> double bond they're unsaturated.

Most studies put the health effects of trans fats under "saturated fats",
even if they are not chemically the same. Most nutritionnal labels also fill
them under the saturated fats category.
Saying that people moved from saturated fats to trans fat and claiming that
this is a proof that pufa are evil is completely distorted.

> They probably are. If not they're monounsaturated.

They certainly do not behave like these as far as your health is concerned.
Or are you suggesting that eating olive oil or walnut oil is exactly the
same as eating hydrogenated colza oil? Do you think they have the same
action on your cholesterol levels?
MattLB - 02 Sep 2004 14:48 GMT
> > No they're not. If they're trans they have a double bond. If they have a
> > double bond they're unsaturated.
>
> Most studies put the health effects of trans fats under "saturated fats",
> even if they are not chemically the same.

I find that hard to believe, since manufactured trans fats have no
positive health effects.

> Most nutritionnal labels also fill
> them under the saturated fats category.

Maybe so, but nutritional labelling is often used to deceive.

> Saying that people moved from saturated fats to trans fat and claiming that
> this is a proof that pufa are evil is completely distorted.

Any evil effects of PUFA are shared by the trans versions of them. The
evil presumably being the free radical chain reactions they propagate.

> > They probably are. If not they're monounsaturated.
>
> They certainly do not behave like these as far as your health is concerned.
> Or are you suggesting that eating olive oil or walnut oil is exactly the
> same as eating hydrogenated colza oil? Do you think they have the same
> action on your cholesterol levels?

I'm not suggesting any of the above. You're overreacting to a simple
correction.

MattLB
Jan - 24 Aug 2004 23:27 GMT
> > For idiot it is not, as a good survey of current science in language
> > easily understood:
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Healthy Eating' - is cited a lot - would anyone recomend it as further
> reading?

Yes, it is worth of reading. I gives very sound and solid information
about healthy nutrition. Every claim made by Willett, the author, is
backed by nutritional research.

Jan
Wolfbrother - 24 Aug 2004 23:28 GMT
> > For idiot it is not, as a good survey of current science in language
> > easily understood:
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Healthy Eating' - is cited a lot - would anyone recomend it as further
> reading?

No I would not.  Once again I would point out this kind of information
is loaded with distortions and lies.  I strongly recommend you get
some alternative sources of information before you make up your mind.

Here is a reveiw on that book

http://www.westonaprice.org/book_reviews/eatdrinkbehealthy.html
Jay Tanzman - 24 Aug 2004 17:25 GMT
> Hi
> - this has probably been covered a thousand times but after looking around
> on the net I can't seem to find 'an idiots guide' to fat.

Of course the first two responses point you in opposite directions -- one to
the Harvard University Dept. of Nutrition, the other to the writings of a 19th
Century dentist.  One of the above really is an idiot's guide.  Hopefully,
which one that is is obvious.

-Jay
Mark D. - 24 Aug 2004 21:49 GMT
> > njb1978 wrote:
> > Hi
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Century dentist.  One of the above really is an idiot's guide.  Hopefully,
> which one that is is obvious.

Umm... You wouldn't care to give us a *clue*, would you...?

M.
Wolfbrother - 25 Aug 2004 08:34 GMT
> > Hi
> > - this has probably been covered a thousand times but after looking around
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Century dentist.  One of the above really is an idiot's guide.  Hopefully,
> which one that is is obvious.

You really are an ignorant moron.  Harvard isn't worth dog sh.t to
anyone but their corporate pay masters and dumbass dupes like you.
Get your freakin head out of the sand.
Jay Tanzman - 25 Aug 2004 18:50 GMT
>>>Hi
>>>- this has probably been covered a thousand times but after looking around
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> You really are an ignorant moron.

Thank you. When an ignorant moron calls you an ignorant moron, it's actually a
compliment.  If you started to admire me, I'd start getting worried.

-Jay
Wolfbrother - 26 Aug 2004 02:31 GMT
> >>>Hi
> >>>- this has probably been covered a thousand times but after looking around
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> -Jay

Actually you displayed your ignorance with the statement you made
about the link provided by Gregory.  Weston Price is long dead and has
no "writings" in any of the articles from that link.  Most of the
information there is written by a highly regarded biochemist and lipid
researcher Mary Enig who was among the first scientists to bring the
dangers of trans fats into the mainstream.  I think she has some
authority on fats.  Certainly much more than your dumb a.s.  So why
dont you admit your remarks were either wrong and misleading or just
plain ignorant.  To calim it is an "idiots guide" is absurd and makes
you look like a fool.  She also is not a corrupt unethical industry
owned criminal like many of the so called scientists and researchers
at Harvard. It does not take a genius to decide who is credible and
who is not.  But it does take an "ignorant moron" to make the wrong
choice.

Dr. Mary G. Enig, a nutritionist/biochemist of international renown
for her research on the nutritional aspects of fats and oils, is a
consultant, clinician, and the Director of the Nutritional Sciences
Division of Enig Associates, Inc., Silver Spring, Maryland. Dr. Enig,
a consultant on nutrition to individuals, industry, and state and
federal governments, is a licensed practitioner in Maryland and the
District of Columbia. She has served as a Contributing Editor of the
scientific journal Clinical Nutrition and a Consulting Editor of the
Journal of the American College of Nutrition. Dr. Enig has authored
numerous journal publications, mainly on fats and oils research and
nutrient/drug interactions, and is a well-known invited lecturer at
scientific meetings and a popular interviewee on TV and radio shows
about nutrition. She was an early and articulate critic of the use of
trans fatty acids and advocated their inclusion in nutritional
labeling; the scientific mainstream is now challenging the food
product industry's use of trans-containing partially hydrogenated
vegetable oils. She received her Ph.D. in Nutritional Sciences from
the University of Maryland, College Park, and is a Fellow of The
American College of Nutrition, a member of The American Society for
Nutritional Sciences, and President of the Maryland Nutritionists
Association.
Jay Tanzman - 26 Aug 2004 17:34 GMT
>>>>>Hi
>>>>>- this has probably been covered a thousand times but after looking around
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> researcher Mary Enig who was among the first scientists to bring the
> dangers of trans fats into the mainstream.

Mary Enig is neither "highly regarded" nor an active researcher.  She hasn't
done a damn thing except write letters to editors and publish her nonsense on
the web since getting her doctorate.

You're still an ignorant fool.

-Jay
Wolfbrother - 27 Aug 2004 02:44 GMT
> >>>>>Hi
> >>>>>- this has probably been covered a thousand times but after looking around
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
> -Jay

Because I do not buy into the corporate controlled propaganda you call
nutritional guidelines?  Give me a break.  Why should I believe
Procter & Gamble and their cronies who call themselves health
authorities that polyunsaturated vegetable oils are good for me??  Why
don't you just trust the tobacco companies to inform you about
smoking.  What a moron.  You are the fool who allows himself to be
duped by such blatant lies and misinformation.  You are the fool who
is blinded to the obvious greed and corruption of corporations and
industries who seek only profit at any cost with the medical research
they support to achieve this goal(not out of the kindness of their
hearts as you seem to think).  You chose to ignore the obscene immoral
and unethical conflicts of interests and revolving door between
industries and medical/nutritional research and government health
policy making agencies.  You chose to give these corrupt entities the
benefit of the doubt and put your health and that of your family and
the public in their hands?  In hands that care only about the bottom
line and could not care how many people must suffer or die to achieve
the most profit possible.  This is reality.  You need to wake up.  It
is not hard to see who the ignorant naive fool is.  The only hard
thing to understand is why you so willfully chose ignorance over
enlightenment and acceptance of reality.  You are only compromising
your own health in the long run.  If you want to gulp down that yummy
soy bean and corn oil to get your daily dose of heart healthy
polyunsaturated oils while avoiding those dangerous animal fats go
right ahead.  The only people you are helping are Proctor and Gamble
and the rest of the edible oil industry.  Pretty sad how people allow
themselves to be duped to act against their own self interests and for
the interests of entities that care nothing about them except their
money.  but then again half the US population does that by voting for
republicans and against their own working class interests and for the
interests of the rich top 1% rulling class.  You really have said
little to rationalize your point of view or explain why my views are
wrong and why the facts I have presented are somehow irrelevant.
Jay Tanzman - 27 Aug 2004 23:48 GMT
>>>>>>>Hi
>>>>>>>- this has probably been covered a thousand times but after looking around
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
> Because I do not buy into the corporate controlled propaganda you call
> nutritional guidelines?

You need to learn the difference between scientific research and nutritional
guidelines.

> [blah blah blah...]

-Jay
Wolfbrother - 24 Aug 2004 19:08 GMT
> Hi
> - this has probably been covered a thousand times but after looking around
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> - thanks for your time and any information, regards

The way the mainstream condemns all saturated fats as bad and the same
is just one example of their stupidity.  There are good saturated fats
and there are bad ones.  Saturated animal fats and tropical oils are
extremely healthy.  The bad saturated fats are the hydrogenated
vegetable shortenings.  Also highly polyunsaturated fats from liquid
vegetable oils are extremely dangerous to human health.  The weston
price link given in the last post is the number one source for
TRUTHFUL information on fat.  Anything else, especially from
mainstream medical establishment(like Harvard and others) must be
taken with a grain of salt if not a bucket.  They spout many
distortions and outright lies about fat.  These lies are and have been
driven by various food industry interests for many many decades.

Here is some more good information about fat at http://coconutoil.com/

http://coconutoil.com/coconut_oil_21st_century.htm
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.