 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / September 2004doe's concern with iron.
Iron overload can be a problem, of course, but if you limit unsaturated fat consumption, the iron can't react in the usual dangerous ways. Remember that even "saturated fat" can be mostly unsaturated fatty acids. This is the case with lard, chicken, and turkey, and beef tallow is about half saturated, so it's not just oils such as sunflower, corn, vegetable, etc., that are a problem. Lard is actually used in experiments designed to measure the antioxidant capacity of select herbs and spices, because the lard oxidizes so quickly. If you tried to do this with good quality coconut oil it would take months, because coconut oil is 92% saturated, not 39% like lard, yet both these fats are classified as "saturated," which makes studies you hear about that say "saturated fat is unhealthy" rather worthless, in general. The free radical theories of aging and pathogenesis of various "diseases," particularly the chronic ones, if largely correct (and the evidence I've seen, and continue to see, I'd classify as overwhelming), suggests that one eat lots of food like fresh coconut oil, good quality butter, dark chocolate, and the like. > Iron overload can be a problem, of course, but if you limit > unsaturated fat consumption, the iron can't react in the usual [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > classify as overwhelming), suggests that one eat lots of food like > fresh coconut oil, good quality butter, dark chocolate, and the like. But what IS his concern with iron ? He posts articles saying too much is bad. He admits too little is bad. He posts articles showing bad things happening when iron levels are totally unrelated to the word "iron" in the subject line. In all honesty between the rants on iron, anti-oxidants, crackpot religions, being called a dildo, being threatened with fisticuffs, and papers that seem totally unrelated to all of this I must admit that I've rather lost the gist of the "iron hypothesis". This is the third time I've asked him to explain the iron thesis. > such as sunflower, corn, vegetable, etc., that are a problem. Lard is > actually used in experiments designed to measure the antioxidant > capacity of select herbs and spices, because the lard oxidizes so > quickly. Yes, that is why my grandparents used to prepared it and used for another year. Come on. Lard is not so quickly oxidized as you suggest. Try it yourself. It takes much longer for lard to spoil than butter. Mirek Mirek: I don’t doubt what you say about your grandparents, but what you might want to consider is that dietary fatty acids incorporate themselves into pig flesh to a larger degree than other animals that eaten in substantial amounts, at least in the West. If you go to the USDA web site and look up lard, it says the lard is about 39% saturated, whereas the lard from Tokelau island pigs was measured at over 62%. That is a huge difference, making the Tokelau lard closer to the saturated fat content of butter (see “Cholesterol, Coconuts, and diet on Polynesian atolls,” by Prior, et. al., in Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 34: 1552-1561, 1981). Aside from ethical concerns regarding “animal rights,” I would have no problem eating fresh lard from pigs that ate mostly coconut, but when you eat lard from the usual sources (at least in the USA) you are taking a big risk. Of course, using herbs and spices can help to some degree. The studies below are the kind I was referring to when I mentioned that lard is used to test antioxidant capacity because it goes rancid quickly. Animal Science Journal Volume 73 Issue 5 Page 389 - October 2002 doi:10.1046/j.1344-3941.2002.00054.x Comparison of the antioxidant activities of 22 commonly used culinary herbs and spices on the lipid oxidation of pork meat Hisako TANABE1, Masami YOSHIDA1 and Nanae TOMITA2 The antioxidant activities of 22 selected culinary herbs and spices (i.e. ginger, cinnamon, clove, bay, sage, rosemary, thyme, savory, oregano, sweet basil, parsley, coriander, tarragon, sansho, allspice, cumin, black and white peppercorns, nutmeg, caraway, dill and fennel) when they were added to pork homogenate were measured and expressed as a thiobarbituric acid (TBA) value. The addition of liquid extracts of all the herbs and spices significantly suppressed lipid oxidation of the pork, especially the extracts of sansho, sage and ginger, which showed the strongest inhibition of lipid oxidation. Food Chem Toxicol. 1996 May;34(5):449-56. An evaluation of the antioxidant and antiviral action of extracts of rosemary and Provencal herbs. Aruoma OI, Spencer JP, Rossi R, Aeschbach R, Khan A, Mahmood N, Munoz A, Murcia A, Butler J, Halliwell B. Pharmacology Group, University of London King's College, UK. Extracts of herbs and spices are increasingly of interest in the food industry because they retard oxidative degradation of lipids. There is also increasing interest in the antiviral activity of plant products. A liquid, deodorized rosemary extract and an oily extract of a mixture of Provencal herbs were tested for antioxidant and antiviral action in vitro. The rosemary extract (Herbor 025) and the extract of Provencal herbs (Spice Cocktail) inhibited peroxidation of phospholipid liposomes with 50% inhibition concentration values of 0.0009% (v/v) and 0.0035% (v/v), respectively. Herbor 025 and the spice cocktail (at 0.2%, v/v) reacted with trichloromethylperoxyl radical with calculated rates of 2.7 x 10(4) s-1 and 1.5 x 10(3) s-1, respectively. The main active components in the herbal preparations, carnosol and carnosic acid, at 0.05% (v/v) react with rate constants of (1-3) x 10(6) M-1 sec-1 and 2.7 x 10(7) M-1 sec-1, respectively. Both extracts show good antioxidant activity in the Rancimat test, especially in lard. Herbor 025 and the spice cocktail inhibited human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection at very low concentrations which were also cytotoxic. However, purified carnosol exhibited definite anti-HIV activity at a concentration (8 microM) which was not cytotoxic. Both preparations promoted some DNA damage in the copper-phenanthroline and the bleomycin-iron systems. The two herbal preparations possess antioxidant properties that may make them useful in the food matrix. > > such as sunflower, corn, vegetable, etc., that are a problem. Lard is > > actually used in experiments designed to measure the antioxidant [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Mirek > I don’t doubt what you say about your grandparents, but what you Well, if it is not enough, last time I have prepared lard in autumn 2003 and used it to fry things since july 2004. I just do not use as large amount for as long as my grands... Mirek > > I don’t doubt what you say about your grandparents, but what you > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Mirek While lard is certainly not bad as anyone can see from real world evidence like your grand parent and other very old people who ate lard there entire lives I would still say it is obviously better and healthier to use coconut oil over lard or any other cooking fat/oil for that matter. It is just far superior in so many ways. > > > I don’t doubt what you say about your grandparents, but what you > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > While lard is certainly not bad as anyone can see from real world > evidence like your grand parent and other very old people who ate lard Just to correct your information, they did not lived as long as you might expect - and my grandfather dies at 72 because of stroke. OTOH, they were not using as huge amount as you think. > there entire lives I would still say it is obviously better and > healthier to use coconut oil over lard or any other cooking fat/oil > for that matter. It is just far superior in so many ways. I used lard for my occassional frying as it greatly enchances taste. The real amount was so small that I am not interested about any health benefits or cons. Mirek > Remember that even "saturated fat" can be mostly > unsaturated fatty acids. This is the case with lard, chicken, and > turkey, and beef tallow is about half saturated, so it's not just oils > such as sunflower, corn, vegetable, etc., that are a problem. I didn't remember that - I'd never heard it before. Most of the guides I've seen just list animal fat (mammal and fowl) as saturated, and leave it at that. (If it's true - I'm surprised that the beef and pork industries aren't telling me. :-) ) Can you point to an online guide that lists typical fatty acid saturation percentages for different animal fats? Thanks Adam Becker http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/552triglycerides.html Percent Fatty Acid Present in Triglycerides Fat or Oil Saturated Unsaturated Palmitic Stearic Oleic Linoleic Other Animal Origin Butter 29 9 27 4 31 Lard 30 18 41 6 5 Beef 32 25 38 3 2 Vegetable Origin Corn oil 10 4 34 48 4 Soybean 7 3 25 56 9 Peanut 7 5 60 21 7 Olive 6 4 83 7 Palmitic (C-16) and Stearic (C-18) are saturated. Oleic (C-18) is mono-unsaturated Linoleic is either di unsat c-18 or mono unsat c-16 ( I forget) a rough rule: solid at room temperature = mostly saturated, liquid at rm temp, = mostly unsat. j. >>Remember that even "saturated fat" can be mostly >>unsaturated fatty acids. This is the case with lard, chicken, and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Thanks > Adam Becker Go to usda.gov, I think (I'm not on the computer that has it bookmarked), for the searchable database. They give a breakdown of all components in common foods, as well as some not so common foods. The study I cited makes a good point, which is that if what we've been told about how "bad" "saturated fats" are, these southeast Asian atoll people should be dropping dead of heart attacks like flies, but they have almost no heart attacks on their native diets, even with high choleterol levels. What is the difference between an American who eats chicken and fish and turkey instead of pork and beef? Not much in terms of saturated fatty acid consumption, relative to peoples who eat coconut and palm kernel oil as dietary staples. The evidence, when looked at as a whole, points to free radical damage from the unsaturated fatty acids, which are not protected by antioxidants unless you use herbs and spices (assuming the meat is fresh). Those who eat chicken and fish tend to be more health conscious, in general (and often eating smaller portions) if the people I know are any indication, and there are studies that make similar points. Then there's the lying factor - it's well known that people lie quite a bit on the survey questions asked of them for an epidemiological study, which is the kind you hear about most in the mainstream media. I posted recipes from a local paper here a year or so ago, and the point I was making is that most recipes, even the vegetarian ones, had roughly the same amount of saturated fatty acids in them, certainly not enough to argue that these fatty acids are the "bad guys," in light of the evidence from people who use large amounts of saturated fatty acids and have almost no heart attacks. Only if the recipe called for chocolate, butter,/cream, or coconut does the saturated fatty acid content go way up, and there's plenty of evidence suggesting that these foods are healthy in a number of contexts. Just keep reading and being critical and you'll see what I mean. It took almost a year to figure this, and other things out, but when I finally put the pieces together, everything fell into place, scientifically. > http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/552triglycerides.html > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Thanks > > Adam Becker Go to usda.gov, I think (I'm not on the computer that has it bookmarked), for the searchable database. They give a breakdown of all components in common foods, as well as some not so common foods. The study I cited makes a good point, which is that if what we've been told about how "bad" "saturated fats" are, these southeast Asian atoll people should be dropping dead of heart attacks like flies, but they have almost no heart attacks on their native diets, even with high choleterol levels. What is the difference between an American who eats chicken and fish and turkey instead of pork and beef? Not much in terms of saturated fatty acid consumption, relative to peoples who eat coconut and palm kernel oil as dietary staples. The evidence, when looked at as a whole, points to free radical damage from the unsaturated fatty acids, which are not protected by antioxidants unless you use herbs and spices (assuming the meat is fresh). Those who eat chicken and fish tend to be more health conscious, in general (and often eating smaller portions) if the people I know are any indication, and there are studies that make similar points. Then there's the lying factor - it's well known that people lie quite a bit on the survey questions asked of them for an epidemiological study, which is the kind you hear about most in the mainstream media. I posted recipes from a local paper here a year or so ago, and the point I was making is that most recipes, even the vegetarian ones, had roughly the same amount of saturated fatty acids in them, certainly not enough to argue that these fatty acids are the "bad guys," in light of the evidence from people who use large amounts of saturated fatty acids and have almost no heart attacks. Only if the recipe called for chocolate, butter,/cream, or coconut does the saturated fatty acid content go way up, and there's plenty of evidence suggesting that these foods are healthy in a number of contexts. Just keep reading and being critical and you'll see what I mean. It took almost a year to figure this, and other things out, but when I finally put the pieces together, everything fell into place, scientifically. > http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/552triglycerides.html > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Thanks > > Adam Becker > These southeast Asian atoll > people should be dropping dead of heart attacks like flies, but they > have almost no heart attacks on their native diets, even with high > choleterol levels. Thanks both to Montygram (for the USDA site) and Say Not the Sturggle (for the Finland site.) Montygram, I'm intrigued by all this, but not quite convinced. My general impression is that if a person is very physically active and keeps the weight off, it really doesn't matterwhere they get their calories; they aren't going to have cardio problems.(*) So the Mexican agricultural laborers down in the Rio Grande Valley can eat a daily lunch of 1 can of tomato soup + 1 lb of lard, and they've still got great lipid profiles and low CHD. Because they're still skinny and burning almost 5000 calories a day. This doesn't mean that I could do so well on such a diet, even scaled back to my ~2200 calories. I'm moderately active - I'm getting in about a half an hour of exercise a day. Are there studies that show that saturated fats are irrelevant to CHD on populations more like me? Thanks again for the several responses with good info! Adam Becker (*) Assuming they don't add any other risk factors like smoking, breathing diesel exhaust, gross vitamin or mineral deficiencies, heartworms, starvation, elevated blood sugars, arseninc... > > These southeast Asian atoll > > people should be dropping dead of heart attacks like flies, but they [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > breathing diesel exhaust, gross vitamin or mineral deficiencies, > heartworms, starvation, elevated blood sugars, arseninc... Im sorry but while physical activity is indeed extremely important it is by no means some kind of miracle shield against disease. Not even close. To believe otherwise is naive wishful thinking. This is why some physically active people who are slim and exercise every day and are described as "doing all the right things" still drop dead at 50 from heart disease. The fact is it matters a lot where you get your calories from. Go to usda.gov, I think (I'm not on the computer that has it bookmarked), for the searchable database. They give a breakdown of all components in common foods, as well as some not so common foods. The study I cited makes a good point, which is that if what we've been told about how "bad" "saturated fats" are, these southeast Asian atoll people should be dropping dead of heart attacks like flies, but they have almost no heart attacks on their native diets, even with high choleterol levels. What is the difference between an American who eats chicken and fish and turkey instead of pork and beef? Not much in terms of saturated fatty acid consumption, relative to peoples who eat coconut and palm kernel oil as dietary staples. The evidence, when looked at as a whole, points to free radical damage from the unsaturated fatty acids, which are not protected by antioxidants unless you use herbs and spices (assuming the meat is fresh). Those who eat chicken and fish tend to be more health conscious, in general (and often eating smaller portions) if the people I know are any indication, and there are studies that make similar points. Then there's the lying factor - it's well known that people lie quite a bit on the survey questions asked of them for an epidemiological study, which is the kind you hear about most in the mainstream media. I posted recipes from a local paper here a year or so ago, and the point I was making is that most recipes, even the vegetarian ones, had roughly the same amount of saturated fatty acids in them, certainly not enough to argue that these fatty acids are the "bad guys," in light of the evidence from people who use large amounts of saturated fatty acids and have almost no heart attacks. Only if the recipe called for chocolate, butter,/cream, or coconut does the saturated fatty acid content go way up, and there's plenty of evidence suggesting that these foods are healthy in a number of contexts. Just keep reading and being critical and you'll see what I mean. It took almost a year to figure this, and other things out, but when I finally put the pieces together, everything fell into place, scientifically. > http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/552triglycerides.html > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Thanks > > Adam Becker The address for the USDA database is www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search , and there is shows that lard is 39.2% saturated. Turkey and chicken fat are closer to 30% saturated, whereas beef tallow is nearer 50%. Olive oil is around 17% saturated, and the fat from Brazil nuts is around 25% saturated. In contrast, coconut oil is around 92% saturated. Again, eating coconut oil as a dietary staple should drop you dead of a heart attack in no time, but the evidence just does not bear this out, and in fact suggests the opposite.h > http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/552triglycerides.html > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Thanks > > Adam Becker Go to usda.gov, I think (I'm not on the computer that has it bookmarked), for the searchable database. They give a breakdown of all components in common foods, as well as some not so common foods. The study I cited makes a good point, which is that if what we've been told about how "bad" "saturated fats" are, these southeast Asian atoll people should be dropping dead of heart attacks like flies, but they have almost no heart attacks on their native diets, even with high choleterol levels. What is the difference between an American who eats chicken and fish and turkey instead of pork and beef? Not much in terms of saturated fatty acid consumption, relative to peoples who eat coconut and palm kernel oil as dietary staples. The evidence, when looked at as a whole, points to free radical damage from the unsaturated fatty acids, which are not protected by antioxidants unless you use herbs and spices (assuming the meat is fresh). Those who eat chicken and fish tend to be more health conscious, in general (and often eating smaller portions) if the people I know are any indication, and there are studies that make similar points. Then there's the lying factor - it's well known that people lie quite a bit on the survey questions asked of them for an epidemiological study, which is the kind you hear about most in the mainstream media. I posted recipes from a local paper here a year or so ago, and the point I was making is that most recipes, even the vegetarian ones, had roughly the same amount of saturated fatty acids in them, certainly not enough to argue that these fatty acids are the "bad guys," in light of the evidence from people who use large amounts of saturated fatty acids and have almost no heart attacks. Only if the recipe called for chocolate, butter,/cream, or coconut does the saturated fatty acid content go way up, and there's plenty of evidence suggesting that these foods are healthy in a number of contexts. Just keep reading and being critical and you'll see what I mean. It took almost a year to figure this, and other things out, but when I finally put the pieces together, everything fell into place, scientifically. > http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/552triglycerides.html > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Thanks > > Adam Becker Go to usda.gov, I think (I'm not on the computer that has it bookmarked), for the searchable database. They give a breakdown of all components in common foods, as well as some not so common foods. The study I cited makes a good point, which is that if what we've been told about how "bad" "saturated fats" are, these southeast Asian atoll people should be dropping dead of heart attacks like flies, but they have almost no heart attacks on their native diets, even with high choleterol levels. What is the difference between an American who eats chicken and fish and turkey instead of pork and beef? Not much in terms of saturated fatty acid consumption, relative to peoples who eat coconut and palm kernel oil as dietary staples. The evidence, when looked at as a whole, points to free radical damage from the unsaturated fatty acids, which are not protected by antioxidants unless you use herbs and spices (assuming the meat is fresh). Those who eat chicken and fish tend to be more health conscious, in general (and often eating smaller portions) if the people I know are any indication, and there are studies that make similar points. Then there's the lying factor - it's well known that people lie quite a bit on the survey questions asked of them for an epidemiological study, which is the kind you hear about most in the mainstream media. I posted recipes from a local paper here a year or so ago, and the point I was making is that most recipes, even the vegetarian ones, had roughly the same amount of saturated fatty acids in them, certainly not enough to argue that these fatty acids are the "bad guys," in light of the evidence from people who use large amounts of saturated fatty acids and have almost no heart attacks. Only if the recipe called for chocolate, butter,/cream, or coconut does the saturated fatty acid content go way up, and there's plenty of evidence suggesting that these foods are healthy in a number of contexts. Just keep reading and being critical and you'll see what I mean. It took almost a year to figure this, and other things out, but when I finally put the pieces together, everything fell into place, scientifically. > http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/552triglycerides.html > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Thanks > > Adam Becker |
Reply to this Message |
 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.