Nick
Sun, Jul-06-03, 05:11
Who cares? This is another "Mediterranean diet" scam. Can you
prove that "paleoman" lived to be 120 years old with no
"chronic disease?" Science is about developing hypotheses from
what is known. My point is that free radical damage is the key
to chronic disease, and that the foods of the "typical western
diet" are about as bad as is possible. The studies are there.
I've read hundreds of them. I suggest you do the same - learn
some physiology and biochemistry before you worry about what
"paleoman" was up to - this will never be known for sure. But
to answer your question: a balance of omega 3s and 6s in a
diet high in antioxidants is acceptable if you keep these
PUFAs fairly low (few grams or less a day). But this is not
the case in most peoples' diets today. Also, even
monounsaturates, such as erucic acid (rapeseed and canola
oils) can be really bad news (unless you believe that
scientists are part of a "conspiracy" - if so, start
researching and stop watching the X Files). Greenland Eskimos
did eat a high PUFA/low antioxidant diet, and rarely lived
beyond the age of 40. Who ate lots of saturated fats - Masai,
Sri Lankans, South Pacific Islands, Phillipinos, many Africans
(palm kernel oil), native Americans (buffalo meat), etc. As
I've said before, after realizing this, and doing plenty of
research, I knew this was the only way of viewing the
situation that was in accord with science.
Amadeus Schmidt posted:
"Nick,
humanity is not only existing since 100 years. The human body
is determined by genetics and this genetics haven't changed
since many thousand years, at least since 100,000 to 170,000
years there exist anatomically modern humans. And before that
we of course have millions of years back, where our not-so-far
anchestors lived.
All this time our anchestors had to eat and they ate what was
provided by *nature* and our genes over 1000nds of generations
were adapted to the kind of nutrition found in the wild.
You repeat to argue "against PUFA" and "for SFA". Therefore in
nature there should be a source of fat evident which is
exactely that: high in SFA and low in PUFA. Or would you
suggest that a paleolithic human was not adapted to it's
environment? Or that our genes have changed radically within
only 5 generations SFA production in agriculture? Or can you
provide any source of a high SFA percentage in nature which is
likely to have been present in the diet long enough to shape
our genes?
What I find is that in nature there are PUFA percentages of at
least 20%, very often much more. And a high SFA percentage you
only find in Coconuts or in the small kidney fat depots of
animals. You are argueing so fiercely for SFA eating and
against PUFA eating.
How can we take your postings serious if you don't consider
the aspect of nutrition in nature? What is your answer to this
observation?
regards
Amadeus
"nick" <spam@spam.net> wrote in message
news:<fG6Ma.154$603.8745@iad-read.news.verio.net>...
> The evidence is overwhelming, as I've said before. When you
> get down to
the
> "lowest common denominator" it is always about free radical
> generation (almost always from unsaturated fatty acids), or
> contributing factors,
such
> as too much iron. Forget about cholesterol levels, HDL/LDL,
> etc. and
start
> worrying about the free radical damage your diet is doing to
> you. This study seems to explain why women get less heart
> attacks than men (before menopause): ...."
prove that "paleoman" lived to be 120 years old with no
"chronic disease?" Science is about developing hypotheses from
what is known. My point is that free radical damage is the key
to chronic disease, and that the foods of the "typical western
diet" are about as bad as is possible. The studies are there.
I've read hundreds of them. I suggest you do the same - learn
some physiology and biochemistry before you worry about what
"paleoman" was up to - this will never be known for sure. But
to answer your question: a balance of omega 3s and 6s in a
diet high in antioxidants is acceptable if you keep these
PUFAs fairly low (few grams or less a day). But this is not
the case in most peoples' diets today. Also, even
monounsaturates, such as erucic acid (rapeseed and canola
oils) can be really bad news (unless you believe that
scientists are part of a "conspiracy" - if so, start
researching and stop watching the X Files). Greenland Eskimos
did eat a high PUFA/low antioxidant diet, and rarely lived
beyond the age of 40. Who ate lots of saturated fats - Masai,
Sri Lankans, South Pacific Islands, Phillipinos, many Africans
(palm kernel oil), native Americans (buffalo meat), etc. As
I've said before, after realizing this, and doing plenty of
research, I knew this was the only way of viewing the
situation that was in accord with science.
Amadeus Schmidt posted:
"Nick,
humanity is not only existing since 100 years. The human body
is determined by genetics and this genetics haven't changed
since many thousand years, at least since 100,000 to 170,000
years there exist anatomically modern humans. And before that
we of course have millions of years back, where our not-so-far
anchestors lived.
All this time our anchestors had to eat and they ate what was
provided by *nature* and our genes over 1000nds of generations
were adapted to the kind of nutrition found in the wild.
You repeat to argue "against PUFA" and "for SFA". Therefore in
nature there should be a source of fat evident which is
exactely that: high in SFA and low in PUFA. Or would you
suggest that a paleolithic human was not adapted to it's
environment? Or that our genes have changed radically within
only 5 generations SFA production in agriculture? Or can you
provide any source of a high SFA percentage in nature which is
likely to have been present in the diet long enough to shape
our genes?
What I find is that in nature there are PUFA percentages of at
least 20%, very often much more. And a high SFA percentage you
only find in Coconuts or in the small kidney fat depots of
animals. You are argueing so fiercely for SFA eating and
against PUFA eating.
How can we take your postings serious if you don't consider
the aspect of nutrition in nature? What is your answer to this
observation?
regards
Amadeus
"nick" <spam@spam.net> wrote in message
news:<fG6Ma.154$603.8745@iad-read.news.verio.net>...
> The evidence is overwhelming, as I've said before. When you
> get down to
the
> "lowest common denominator" it is always about free radical
> generation (almost always from unsaturated fatty acids), or
> contributing factors,
such
> as too much iron. Forget about cholesterol levels, HDL/LDL,
> etc. and
start
> worrying about the free radical damage your diet is doing to
> you. This study seems to explain why women get less heart
> attacks than men (before menopause): ...."