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 / March 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

More Evidence against Animal Protein and Trans Fats

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Bill - 06 Mar 2006 04:34 GMT
At age 65, my wife and I are back to good health after a nightmare
journey through my four serious cancers and her heart disease and
breast cancer.  A Few Vital Diet Improvements (a free 40-page pdf) at
http://www.curemycancer tells our story - including actual medical
records history.  Download your FREE copy now.

Based on our experience, we suspect that at least 90% of age-onset
disease is caused by excessive animal protein and trans fats in the
American diet.  We observe that hundreds of drugs are now commonly used
to cure the symptoms of just a few foods eaten to excess.  Why not
correct the mix of foods eaten rather than suffer the ever worsening
symptoms some foods in excess cause?  My booklet is our guide to
rebalancing the diet toward great health as we age.  - - Cheers, Bill
montygram - 06 Mar 2006 10:50 GMT
Sad.  You need to do some reading of the professional literature. It is
clear that the "animal protein," which contains amino acid profiles
very similar to some vegetable protein sources, is not the root cause.
If you steam salmon, for example, you create massive amounts of
oxidized cholesterol.  If you steam a vegetable source of protein that
has a similar amino acid profile, you get zero oxidized cholesterol.
Then there is the iron content, which is more bioavailaible in meat,
and the arachidonic acid, which is not present in meat, and so on.

The professional literature makes it clear that linoleic acid is the
fuel for the "common Western cancers."  "Trans fat" could be "bad," if
it has a high linoleic acid content, but something like partially
hydrogenated coconut or palm kernel oil is fine, unless there are other
things in it that are not found in the natural product, such as a toxic
nickel level.  Perhaps you would like to define "trans fat" for us all
here, but I insist on scientific precision.  Fatty acid molecules are
simple and well-known, so you should be able to tell us which molecules
are present and in what amounts, in this substance you refer to as
"trans fat."
MattLB - 06 Mar 2006 11:08 GMT
> Sad.  You need to do some reading of the professional literature. It is
> clear that the "animal protein," which contains amino acid profiles
> very similar to some vegetable protein sources, is not the root cause.

I don't think amino acid profiles are the issue.

> If you steam salmon, for example, you create massive amounts of
> oxidized cholesterol.  If you steam a vegetable source of protein that
> has a similar amino acid profile, you get zero oxidized cholesterol.

Hardly surprising since plants don't make cholesterol. Not that the
protein has any significance to oxidising cholesterol, anyway.

> Then there is the iron content, which is more bioavailaible in meat,
> and the arachidonic acid, which is not present in meat, and so on.

You used to claim meat had lots of AA, which was why it was bad.

> The professional literature makes it clear that linoleic acid is the
> fuel for the "common Western cancers."  "Trans fat" could be "bad," if
> it has a high linoleic acid content, but something like partially
> hydrogenated coconut or palm kernel oil is fine, unless there are other
> things in it that are not found in the natural product, such as a toxic
> nickel level.

Did you actually read any of it? He mentions nickel as a key issue with
hydrogenated oils. He also praises coconut oil and has a whole section
on it, which I thought you'd be jumping for joy about.

>  Perhaps you would like to define "trans fat" for us all
> here, but I insist on scientific precision.  Fatty acid molecules are
> simple and well-known, so you should be able to tell us which molecules
> are present and in what amounts, in this substance you refer to as
> "trans fat."

What is this mental block you have about trans fatty acids? You've been
told multiple times the precise chemical definition, but you still seem
to struggle with it.

MattLB
 
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.