What I am saying, plain and simple, is that animal fats from properly

[Tunderbar]

What I am saying, plain and simple, is that animal fats from
properly raised animals are much healthier than highly
processed vegetable oils.

Is anyone prepared to dispute this statement?

TC

[monty1945]

TC:

I think I could cook the fat using certain techniques that are
common and make the fat unhealthy, though not necessarily as
bad as highly refined and highly polyunsaturated oils.
Obviously, if the person or animal ate a diet rich in
antioxidants, this might negate the problems. However, if we
took that fat and cooked it until it was most unhealthy
(steaming might do this), then fed it at 30% daily calories to
someone whose diet was devoid of antioxidant-rich foods, it
might make sense to call it "contextually unhealthy" at that
point, for example.

[Szczepan B]

"Tunderbar" <tdcomeau@gmail.com> wrote
news:1173306511.579294.90990@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> What I am saying, plain and simple, is that animal fats from
> properly raised animals are much healthier than highly
> processed vegetable oils.
>
> Is anyone prepared to dispute this statement?

In a book about chemistry of food one can find out that animal
fats are made from fresh raw material (live). Raw materials
for vegetable oils may be partially rotten and for this oils
must be refined. So you are right. S*

[Ron Peters]

On Mar 7, 4:28 pm, "Tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What I am saying, plain and simple, is that animal fats from
> properly raised animals are much healthier than highly
> processed vegetable oils.

> Is anyone prepared to dispute this statement?

Which fatty acids do you consider to be the most healthy and
which are the least healthy?

Are you addressing CVD, cancers, or some other medical
ailments?

--
Ron

[Tunderbar]

On Mar 8, 7:32 pm, Jim Chinnis <jchin...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> "Ron Peterson" <r...@shell.core.com> wrote in part:
>
> >On Mar 7, 4:28 pm, "Tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> What I am saying, plain and simple, is that animal fats
> >> from properly raised animals are much healthier than
> >> highly processed vegetable oils.
>
> >> Is anyone prepared to dispute this statement?
>
> >Which fatty acids do you consider to be the most healthy
> >and which are the least healthy?
>
> >Are you addressing CVD, cancers, or some other medical
> >ailments?
>
> Indeed, and why the effort to distinguish desirability of
> animal vs vegetable, anyway? We are omnivores, after all.
>
> Less processed is more like the food during the evolution of
> our genome, whether animal or vegetable. It is healthier.
> --
> Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchin...@alum.mit.edu

Which vegetable oils would not be highly processed?

TC

[Szczepan B]

"Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bialek@wp.pl> wrote:
> "Tunderbar" <tdcomeau@gmail.com> wrote news:1173306511.5792-
> 94.90990@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>> What I am saying, plain and simple, is that animal fats
>> from properly raised animals are much healthier than highly
>> processed vegetable oils.
>>
>> Is anyone prepared to dispute this statement?
>
> In a book about chemistry of food one can find out that
> animal fats are made from fresh raw material (live). Raw
> materials for vegetable oils may be partially rotten and for
> this oils must be refined. So you are right. S*

[Dorsy1943]

On Mar 8, 11:59 pm, "Tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 8, 7:32 pm, Jim Chinnis <jchin...@alum.mit.edu>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Ron Peterson" <r...@shell.core.com> wrote in part:
>
> > >On Mar 7, 4:28 pm, "Tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com>
> > >wrote:
> > >> What I am saying, plain and simple, is that animal fats
> > >> from properly raised animals are much healthier than
> > >> highly processed vegetable oils.
>
> > >> Is anyone prepared to dispute this statement?
>
> > >Which fatty acids do you consider to be the most healthy
> > >and which are the least healthy?
>
> > >Are you addressing CVD, cancers, or some other medical
> > >ailments?
>
> > Indeed, and why the effort to distinguish desirability of
> > animal vs vegetable, anyway? We are omnivores, after all.
>
> > Less processed is more like the food during the evolution
> > of our genome, whether animal or vegetable. It is
> > healthier.
> > --
> > Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchin...@alum.mit.edu
>
> Which vegetable oils would not be highly processed?
>
> TC- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

First cold pressed extra virgin olive oil (bottled in dark
glass) is not highly processed. Fish oil eaten as part of the
fish (which has been fished and not farmed like alaska sockeye
salmon) is not a highly processed oil. What do you think of
eating these? I seldom eat animal flesh but would if I could
afford game meat or meat from animals that were allowed to eat
their natural diet and were not pumped full of hormones and
antibiotics. Dolores

[Szczepan B]

"Jim Chinnis" <jchinnis@alum.mit.edu>wrote
news:65e1v2ldbavth69tt2t9naec8mq17n181i@4ax.com...
>
> Indeed, and why the effort to distinguish desirability of
> animal vs vegetable, anyway? We are omnivores, after all.

We are omnivores like a bear. But after winter when a bear is
weak it eats mainly dead animals graved in snow. Our old
proverb says "Farmer eats a hen when it is ill or when he is
ill. So when one is ill it is better to forget about omnivores
and eat the animal products (and some plants which contain
"animal starch" or with fine grains - this to Susan) S*

[Tunderbar]

On Mar 9, 11:15 am, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
> "Tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> >> First cold pressed extra virgin olive oil (bottled in
> >> dark glass) is not highly processed.
>
> > That is one vegetable oil that is not highly processed.
> > Any more?
>
> It it not easy to make vegetable oil that is not highly
> processed because " In a book about chemistry of food one
> can find out that animal fats are> made from fresh raw
> material (live). Raw materials for vegetable oils may
> > be partially rotten and for this the oils must be
> > refined."
>
> S*

I agree. Vegetable oils, (other than extra virgin olive oil
and possibly coconut oil), are very poor foods having required
a great deal of processing to become even somewhat edible with
very questionable nutritional profiles. Most vegetable oils
are rancid and have to be chemically treated to remove the
smell and taste before they can be marketed.

While animal sourced fats require little or no processing to
be extremely palatable and extremely nutritious. Pork fat
rules. Real whole fresh milk and butter and cheeses from grass
fed cows is an incredible food. Fish fats are great
nutritionally. Tallow is great for deep frying and is
nutritious. Etc.

TC

[Tunderbar]

On Mar 9, 12:10 pm, Jim Chinnis <jchin...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> "Tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote in part:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 8, 7:32 pm, Jim Chinnis
> ><jchin...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> >> "Ron Peterson" <r...@shell.core.com> wrote in part:
>
> >> >On Mar 7, 4:28 pm, "Tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> What I am saying, plain and simple, is that animal
> >> >> fats from properly raised animals are much healthier
> >> >> than highly processed vegetable oils.
>
> >> >> Is anyone prepared to dispute this statement?
>
> >> >Which fatty acids do you consider to be the most healthy
> >> >and which are the least healthy?
>
> >> >Are you addressing CVD, cancers, or some other medical
> >> >ailments?
>
> >> Indeed, and why the effort to distinguish desirability of
> >> animal vs vegetable, anyway? We are omnivores, after all.
>
> >> Less processed is more like the food during the evolution
> >> of our genome, whether animal or vegetable. It is
> >> healthier.
> >> --
> >> Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
> >> jchin...@alum.mit.edu
>
> >Which vegetable oils would not be highly processed?
>
> >TC
>
> I'm not disputing your original statement, just
> expressing frustration with the pointless contrast of
> vegetable with meat.
>
> To get the least processed vegetable oils, eat organic
> avocadoes, peanuts, almonds, walnuts, olives, etc., etc.
>
> To get the least processed animal fats, eat meat from
> naturally raised animals, wild-caught fish and game.
>
> No difference.
>
> You write with a bias. Maybe it's unintended. You say,
> "animal fats from properly raised animals are much healthier
> than highly processed vegetable oils." For a level playing
> field, compare a slab of naturally produced lard with a
> bottle of extra virgin olive oil. Or, compare bacon
> drippings from nitrate-laden, smoked bacon from
> industrially-raised pigs with industrially manufactured
> soybean oil.
> --
> Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchin...@alum.mit.edu-
> Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

My point is that the blanket all around recommendations by the
mainstream is for any and all vegetable oils to replace any
and all animal fats in the diet.

All vegetable oil in the supermarket (other than evoo or
possibly coconut oil), is highly processed and
nutritionally suspect.

And, as an aside to your comment, you cannot fry an egg in
peanuts or in organic avocados.

TC

[Jim Chinni]

"Tunderbar" <tdcomeau@gmail.com> wrote in part:

>On Mar 8, 7:32 pm, Jim Chinnis <jchin...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> "Ron Peterson" <r...@shell.core.com> wrote in part:
>>
>> >On Mar 7, 4:28 pm, "Tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> What I am saying, plain and simple, is that animal fats
>> >> from properly raised animals are much healthier than
>> >> highly processed vegetable oils.
>>
>> >> Is anyone prepared to dispute this statement?
>>
>> >Which fatty acids do you consider to be the most healthy
>> >and which are the least healthy?
>>
>> >Are you addressing CVD, cancers, or some other medical
>> >ailments?
>>
>> Indeed, and why the effort to distinguish desirability of
>> animal vs vegetable, anyway? We are omnivores, after all.
>>
>> Less processed is more like the food during the evolution
>> of our genome, whether animal or vegetable. It is
>> healthier.
>> --
>> Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchin...@alum.mit.edu
>
>Which vegetable oils would not be highly processed?
>
>TC

I'm not disputing your original statement, just
expressing frustration with the pointless contrast of
vegetable with meat.

To get the least processed vegetable oils, eat organic
avocadoes, peanuts, almonds, walnuts, olives, etc., etc.

To get the least processed animal fats, eat meat from
naturally raised animals, wild-caught fish and game.

No difference.

You write with a bias. Maybe it's unintended. You say, "animal
fats from properly raised animals are much healthier than
highly processed vegetable oils." For a level playing field,
compare a slab of naturally produced lard with a bottle of
extra virgin olive oil. Or, compare bacon drippings from
nitrate-laden, smoked bacon from industrially-raised pigs with
industrially manufactured soybean oil.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu

[Szczepan B]

"Tunderbar" <tdcomeau@gmail.com> wrote

>> First cold pressed extra virgin olive oil (bottled in dark
>> glass) is not highly processed.
>
> That is one vegetable oil that is not highly processed.
> Any more?

It it not easy to make vegetable oil that is not highly
processed because " In a book about chemistry of food one can
find out that animal fats are
> made from fresh raw material (live). Raw materials for
> vegetable oils may be partially rotten and for this the oils
> must be refined."
S*

[Jim Chinni]

"Tunderbar" <tdcomeau@gmail.com> wrote in part:

>> You write with a bias. Maybe it's unintended. You say,
>> "animal fats from properly raised animals are much
>> healthier than highly processed vegetable oils." For a
>> level playing field, compare a slab of naturally produced
>> lard with a bottle of extra virgin olive oil. Or, compare
>> bacon drippings from nitrate-laden, smoked bacon from
>> industrially-raised pigs with industrially manufactured
>> soybean oil.
>> --
>> Jim Chinnis

>My point is that the blanket all around recommendations by
>the mainstream is for any and all vegetable oils to replace
>any and all animal fats in the diet.

I don't think there is a "mainstream" view exactly. There's a
fair amount of disagreement. And a lot of the science doesn't
agree with either the researchers conclusions or the
journalists' stories. And most nutritionists don't advise
using highly saturated vegetable oils.

>All vegetable oil in the supermarket (other than evoo or
>possibly coconut oil), is highly processed and
>nutritionally suspect.

I think I agree with that.

>And, as an aside to your comment, you cannot fry an egg in
>peanuts or in organic avocados.

You can't fry an egg in a T-bone steak, either. If you want
fat to fry in, you're going to have to do *some* processing of
either an animal or plant-based food to get the fat. You can
use lard, bacon drippings (my favorite), or olive oil. But
none of those are exactly whole foods.

The processing involved in cutting fat off of a slab of bacon
or squeezing olives is similar, really. You are just choosing
to use a part of the whole food for a particular purpose.
Animal or plant...either way.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu

[Jim Chinni]

"Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bialek@wp.pl> wrote in part:

>
> "Jim Chinnis"
>>
>> You write with a bias. Maybe it's unintended. You say,
>> "animal fats from properly raised animals are much
>> healthier than highly processed vegetable oils." For a
>> level playing field, compare a slab of naturally produced
>> lard with a bottle of extra virgin olive oil. Or, compare
>> bacon drippings from nitrate-laden, smoked bacon from
>> industrially-raised pigs with industrially manufactured
>> soybean oil.
>
>In the both cases the winner is animal fat for the reason
>described by Ron.

I don't agree. But it looks like we are talking about frying,
and about fats for frying. I don't see why lard is healthier
than extra-virgin olive oil.

>But now is to late to analyse it. In the future all oils will
>be biofuel.

I agree with that!

It's interesting to contemplate what will happen to the price
of staples here in the US, like Ding-Dongs, Coca-Cola, etc. as
the price of the corn used for making them rises ever higher.
Maybe the obesity and diabetes epidemics will end.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu

[Szczepan B]

"Jim Chinnis" <jchinnis@alum.mit.edu> wrote
news:odq5v2h2qrcvg75nri861036iddpc41c5e@4ax.com...
> "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bialek@wp.pl> wrote in part:
>
>>
>> "Jim Chinnis"
>>>
>>> You write with a bias. Maybe it's unintended. You say,
>>> "animal fats from properly raised animals are much
>>> healthier than highly processed vegetable oils." For a
>>> level playing field, compare a slab of naturally produced
>>> lard with a bottle of extra virgin olive oil. Or, compare
>>> bacon drippings from nitrate-laden, smoked bacon from
>>> industrially-raised pigs with industrially manufactured
>>> soybean oil.
>>
>>In the both cases the winner is animal fat for the reason
>>described by Ron.
>
> I don't agree. But it looks like we are talking about
> frying, and about fats for frying. I don't see why lard is
> healthier than extra-virgin olive oil.

Because it is very easy to ensure the fresh raw material for
lard and practically impossible for oil. In mass production no
Cinderellas to pick up partially rotted grains. I assume that
we are talking about oils in a shop. Oil made in farmer house
is like orange juce made in your house. But oil in a shop is
like juce in a shop. The healthies food is served to ill and
children. I do not know what Italian people serve for such
(butter or olive).
>
>>But now is to late to analyse it. In the future all oils
>>will be biofuel.
>
> I agree with that!
>
> It's interesting to contemplate what will happen to the
> price of staples here in the US, like Ding-Dongs,
> Coca-Cola, etc. as the price of the corn used for making
> them rises ever higher. Maybe the obesity and diabetes
> epidemics will end.

According me the most important factor is fat. People grasp
staples when in the dishes is too less of fat (main source of
calories). Some grasp alcohol. Obesity and diabetes epidemics
will end when MDs understand that animal fats are NOT BAD.

But now is time to analise which carbs are healthy. Cats make
sugar and fat from protein. But we have ten fingers to pick
up green grains (dry are not edible), sprouted grains,
berries and so on. Probably we should to eat carbs. But which
and how much. S*

[Will Brink]

In article
<1173306511.579294.90990@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
"Tunderbar" <tdcomeau@gmail.com> wrote:

> What I am saying, plain and simple, is that animal fats from
> properly raised animals are much healthier than highly
> processed vegetable oils.
>
> Is anyone prepared to dispute this statement?

Are you prepared to support it? You are making the claim, so
you need to supply the support first. The burden of proof is
on those who make the claim.

>
> TC

--
Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus " - Mr Natural

[Tunderbar]

On Mar 12, 7:57 am, willbr...@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote:
> In article
> <1173306511.579294.90...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "Tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What I am saying, plain and simple, is that animal fats
> > from properly raised animals are much healthier than
> > highly processed vegetable oils.
>
> > Is anyone prepared to dispute this statement?
>
> Are you prepared to support it? You are making the claim, so
> you need to supply the support first. The burden of proof is
> on those who make the claim.
>
>
>
> > TC
>
> --
> Will @www.BrinkZone.com
>
> "It twas ever thus " - Mr Natural

Actually, my claim runs counter to two major claims by the
mainstream.

1) Animal fats are evil

and

2) vegetable oils are the fountain of youth and is the
healthiest stuff since sliced bread.

So, what I am asking is for someone to support these two
claims that are expoused by virtually all doctors and
nutritionists. So far, no one has stepped forward and quoted
Ancel Keys or any other cherry- picking fact-fudging
allopathic mainstream thought leader. How about you? Can you
convince us that the mainstream allopaths are right? Can you
show us the definitive science that proves that animals fats
cause all modern disease and that highly processed vegetable
oils are better? Huh?

TC

[Tunderbar]

On Mar 12, 8:47 am, "David Cohen"
<sammies...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> > willbr...@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote:
> >> "Tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > What I am saying, plain and simple, is that animal fats
> >> > from properly raised animals are much healthier than
> >> > highly processed vegetable oils.
>
> >> > Is anyone prepared to dispute this statement?
>
> >> Are you prepared to support it? You are making the claim,
> >> so you need to supply the support first. The burden of
> >> proof is on those who make the claim.
>
> > Actually, my claim runs counter to two major claims by the
> > mainstream.
>
> > 1) Animal fats are evil
>
> > and
>
> > 2) vegetable oils are the fountain of youth and is the
> > healthiest stuff since sliced bread.
>
> > So, what I am asking is for someone to support these two
> > claims that are expoused by virtually all doctors and
> > nutritionists. So far, no one has stepped forward and
> > quoted Ancel Keys or any other cherry- picking
> > fact-fudging allopathic mainstream thought leader. How
> > about you? Can you convince us that the mainstream
> > allopaths are right? Can you show us the definitive
> > science that proves that animals fats cause all modern
> > disease and that highly processed vegetable oils are
> > better? Huh?
>
> I don't think Will was necessarily disagreeing (or agreeing)
> with you. He was simply asking you to defend your position.
>
> Your response, above, was, plain and simple, an evasion.
>
> Have the intellectual integrity to support your claim.
>
> David- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It is not an evasion. I am asking those supporting the
mainstream paradigm to actually support their supposedly
proven theories on fats. Ancel Keyes was an idiot with his
cherry picking 7 countries study. Show me he was right. Show
me how highly refined vegetable oils are healthier than
properly raised animal fats.

The current popular beliefs are that animal fats, all animal
fats, are bad and vegetable oils, all vegetable oils, are
healthier. If you believe that, then show me the data to
support it.

TC

[Tunderbar]

On Mar 12, 11:01 am, Hobbes <khobman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
> <1173713747.743531.309...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> "Tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 12, 8:47 am, "David Cohen"
> > <sammies...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > "Tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > > > willbr...@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote:
> > > >> "Tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > What I am saying, plain and simple, is that animal
> > > >> > fats from properly raised animals are much
> > > >> > healthier than highly processed vegetable oils.
>
> > > >> > Is anyone prepared to dispute this statement?
>
> > > >> Are you prepared to support it? You are making the
> > > >> claim, so you need to supply the support first. The
> > > >> burden of proof is on those who make the claim.
>
> > > > Actually, my claim runs counter to two major claims by
> > > > the mainstream.
>
> > > > 1) Animal fats are evil
>
> > > > and
>
> > > > 2) vegetable oils are the fountain of youth and is the
> > > > healthiest stuff since sliced bread.
>
> > > > So, what I am asking is for someone to support these
> > > > two claims that are expoused by virtually all doctors
> > > > and nutritionists. So far, no one has stepped forward
> > > > and quoted Ancel Keys or any other cherry- picking
> > > > fact-fudging allopathic mainstream thought leader. How
> > > > about you? Can you convince us that the mainstream
> > > > allopaths are right? Can you show us the definitive
> > > > science that proves that animals fats cause all modern
> > > > disease and that highly processed vegetable oils are
> > > > better? Huh?
>
> > > I don't think Will was necessarily disagreeing (or
> > > agreeing) with you. He was simply asking you to defend
> > > your position.
>
> > > Your response, above, was, plain and simple, an evasion.
>
> > > Have the intellectual integrity to support your claim.
>
> > > David- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > It is not an evasion. I am asking those supporting the
> > mainstream paradigm to actually support their supposedly
> > proven theories on fats. Ancel Keyes was an idiot with his
> > cherry picking 7 countries study. Show me he was right.
> > Show me how highly refined vegetable oils are healthier
> > than properly raised animal fats.
>
> > The current popular beliefs are that animal fats, all
> > animal fats, are bad and vegetable oils, all vegetable
> > oils, are healthier. If you believe that, then show me the
> > data to support it.
>
> It isn't at all the current belief among expert nutrionists.
>
> And I'd like to know how you properly raise animal fat.
>
> --
> Keith- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Show me one mainstream expert or nutritionist or doctor or
researcher that does not subscribe to the general notion of
eating less animal fats and more vegetable oils. Show me one
article, one quote, one research paper, one news report.

Properly raised animal are grass fed animals, minimal amounts
of grains in the feed, clean water, clean air, plenty of
access to free range space. Minimal amounts meds. No hormones.
And I mean NO hormones.

Properly raised animals provide healthy proteins and fats in
our diets.

TC

[Tunderbar]

On Mar 12, 12:45 pm, JMW
<jmwilli...@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
> "Tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Properly raised animal are grass fed animals, minimal
> >amounts of grains in the feed, clean water, clean air,
> >plenty of access to free range space.
>
> It appears that you fail to recognize the real estate issues
> involved.
>
> Start raising all of them that way, and there's going to be
> a lot less meat to go around. It'll be pretty pricey, too.

Actually there is a lot of marginal farmland that is ideal for
raising cattle on or for growing forage crops which is
currently being used to raise rather poor crops of grains. The
market is skewed towards growing grains for human food. And
regardless, the topic is not about sustainability. It is about
which is healthier, good animal fats or poor vegetable oils.

TC

[Tunderbar]

On Mar 12, 12:16 pm, Hobbes <khobman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
> <1173718100.350133.298...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> "Tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 12, 11:01 am, Hobbes <khobman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > In article <1173713747.743531.309...@v33g2000cwv.google-
> > > groups.com>,
>
> > > "Tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mar 12, 8:47 am, "David Cohen"
> > > > <sammies...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > > "Tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > > > > > willbr...@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote:
> > > > > >> "Tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> > What I am saying, plain and simple, is that
> > > > > >> > animal fats from properly raised animals are
> > > > > >> > much healthier than highly processed vegetable
> > > > > >> > oils.
>
> > > > > >> > Is anyone prepared to dispute this statement?
>
> > > > > >> Are you prepared to support it? You are making
> > > > > >> the claim, so you need to supply the support
> > > > > >> first. The burden of proof is on those who make
> > > > > >> the claim.
>
> > > > > > Actually, my claim runs counter to two major
> > > > > > claims by the mainstream.
>
> > > > > > 1) Animal fats are evil
>
> > > > > > and
>
> > > > > > 2) vegetable oils are the fountain of youth and is
> > > > > > the healthiest stuff since sliced bread.
>
> > > > > > So, what I am asking is for someone to support
> > > > > > these two claims that are expoused by virtually
> > > > > > all doctors and nutritionists. So far, no one has
> > > > > > stepped forward and quoted Ancel Keys or any other
> > > > > > cherry- picking fact-fudging allopathic mainstream
> > > > > > thought leader. How about you? Can you convince us
> > > > > > that the mainstream allopaths are right? Can you
> > > > > > show us the definitive science that proves that
> > > > > > animals fats cause all modern disease and that
> > > > > > highly processed vegetable oils are better? Huh?
>
> > > > > I don't think Will was necessarily disagreeing (or
> > > > > agreeing) with you. He was simply asking you to
> > > > > defend your position.
>
> > > > > Your response, above, was, plain and simple, an
> > > > > evasion.
>
> > > > > Have the intellectual integrity to support your
> > > > > claim.
>
> > > > > David- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > It is not an evasion. I am asking those supporting the
> > > > mainstream paradigm to actually support their
> > > > supposedly proven theories on fats. Ancel Keyes was an
> > > > idiot with his cherry picking 7 countries study. Show
> > > > me he was right. Show me how highly refined vegetable
> > > > oils are healthier than properly raised animal fats.
>
> > > > The current popular beliefs are that animal fats, all
> > > > animal fats, are bad and vegetable oils, all vegetable
> > > > oils, are healthier. If you believe that, then show me
> > > > the data to support it.
>
> > > It isn't at all the current belief among expert
> > > nutrionists.
>
> > > And I'd like to know how you properly raise animal fat.
>
> > > --
> > > Keith- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Show me one mainstream expert or nutritionist or doctor or
> > researcher that does not subscribe to the general notion
> > of eating less animal fats and more vegetable oils. Show
> > me one article, one quote, one research paper, one news
> > report.
>
> "highly refined vegetable oils" was your quote. Many
> vegetable oils (such as cold-pressed olive oil) are not
> highly refined.
>
> --
> Keith- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

"Many vegetable oils (such as cold-pressed olive oil) are not
highly refined."

Many??????? One is many???? Is two a plethora??? Then three
must be a myriad. Many, my arse!!!

All vegetable oils, except for *one* - cold-pressed extra
virgin olive oil, in the market today, including modern
coconut oils are very highly processed.

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch09/final/c9s11-1.pdf

http://www.canola-council.org/meal3.html

Once processed, they 've lost all their useful food value.
Might as well use them for automotive lubricant or fuel for
their absolute lack of food value.

Yet, virtually every doctor, nutritionist and researcher just
loves the stuff. And apparently you believe this as well,
since you so bravely stepped forward to defend them.

TC

[Tunderbar]

On Mar 12, 12:52 pm, willbr...@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote:
> In article
> <1173718100.350133.298...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "Tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Show me one mainstream expert or nutritionist or doctor or
> > researcher that does not subscribe to the general notion
> > of eating less animal fats and more vegetable oils.
>
> I know a bunch of them.Guess you need to get out more often.
> I realize this "more grass fed animals less processed veg
> oils" is news to you, but it's not to others.

Oh you know some do you? Is that why you failed to give me
even one name?

So you agree with my statement, why are you disputing it?

>
> > Show me one article, one quote, one research paper, one
> > news report.
>
> So you are both lazy and ignorant? Do your own research vs
> asking others to do it for you.

Back at 'cha, boomer. Remember my original post? I present a
statement and ask people to dispute it. That involves provide
references, cites, factual and/or logical statements, etc. If
you are incapable of replying in such a manner as to respond
to the post, why are you wasting my time? Is it laziness or
ignorance? Or both?

I have done my research. My research tells me that vegetable
oils are pretty much all overly-processed nutrient-deficient
fake crap food. But most doctors, nutritionists, and you
apparently, would have us believe that animal fats are bad and
vegetable oils are the nectar of the gods. Are you going to
show me what this is based on? Or are you just going to throw
stones in a glass house?

If you're just going to make smart ass comments and refuse
to state your case, then go elsewhere and waste someone
else's time.

>
>
>
> > Properly raised animal are grass fed animals, minimal
> > amounts of grains in the feed, clean water, clean air,
> > plenty of access to free range space. Minimal amounts
> > meds. No hormones. And I mean NO hormones.
>
> And your point is? Old news here.

Then shut the f**k up. We agree. What the hell is *your*
point?

>
>
>
> > Properly raised animals provide healthy proteins and fats
> > in our diets.
>
> Brilliant. Now support the above as you keep asking
> others to do.
>
> --
> Will @www.BrinkZone.com

You seem to not understand the English language very well.

TC

[Tunderbar]

On Mar 12, 1:08 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
> "Tunderbar"
>
> >> > > >> > What I am saying, plain and simple, is that
> >> > > >> > animal fats from properly raised animals are
> >> > > >> > much healthier than highly processed vegetable
> >> > > >> > oils.
>
> Now, after long discussion (especially after Rons
> description) you can delete "from properly raised animals".
> Animals and plants are now at the same level.

Not quite at the *same* levels, IMHO. Even poor examples of
animal fat is better than the best examples of vegetable fats
(excluding EVOO).

> The last nail from me. Margarines were healthy (in that
> class) for two hundert years (200 years) and suddenly become
> unhealthy. The reason is known. Before margarine was made of
> BEEF fat (animal fat). Now it is made mainly from vegatable
> oils. Margarine will be again healthy if be made from
> animals (normally raised) fat.

Modern margarines are made of 100% vegetable oil plus
additives like hydrogen and colourants.

>
> > Show me one mainstream expert or nutritionist or doctor or
> > researcher that does not subscribe to the general notion
> > of eating less animal fats and more vegetable oils. Show
> > me one article, one quote, one research paper, one news
> > report.
>
> All old papers do it. They are in power. Evolution is so
> slow that result from last centuary will be valid 1000years.
>
>
>
> > Properly raised animal are grass fed animals, minimal
> > amounts of grains in the feed, clean water, clean air,
> > plenty of access to free range space. Minimal amounts
> > meds. No hormones. And I mean NO hormones.
>
> Such impossible requirements give your opponents argumment
> that todays oils are better than todays animals fat. BUT IT
> IS NOT TRUE. S*

In Canada, there are no hormones applied to beef or
dairy animals.

I can easily get good, and relatively inexpensive beef, pork
and chicken that matches my requirements. And if consumers
insist on it, the producers will provide it.

TC

[David Cohe]

"Will Brink" <willbrink@comcast.net> wrote
> "Tunderbar" <tdcomeau@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What I am saying, plain and simple, is that animal fats
>> from properly raised animals are much healthier than highly
>> processed vegetable oils.
>>
>> Is anyone prepared to dispute this statement?
>
> Are you prepared to support it? You are making the claim, so
> you need to supply the support first. The burden of proof is
> on those who make the claim.

Try telling that to the theists.

Oh, wait, you've done that before. Have they sent you any
evidence for the existence of God yet?

David

[David Cohe]

"Tunderbar" <tdcomeau@gmail.com> wrote
> willbr...@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote:
>> "Tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > What I am saying, plain and simple, is that animal fats
>> > from properly raised animals are much healthier than
>> > highly processed vegetable oils.
>>
>> > Is anyone prepared to dispute this statement?
>>
>> Are you prepared to support it? You are making the claim,
>> so you need to supply the support first. The burden of
>> proof is on those who make the claim.
>>
> Actually, my claim runs counter to two major claims by the
> mainstream.
>
> 1) Animal fats are evil
>
> and
>
> 2) vegetable oils are the fountain of youth and is the
> healthiest stuff since sliced bread.
>
> So, what I am asking is for someone to support these two
> claims that are expoused by virtually all doctors and
> nutritionists. So far, no one has stepped forward and quoted
> Ancel Keys or any other cherry- picking fact-fudging
> allopathic mainstream thought leader. How about you? Can you
> convince us that the mainstream allopaths are right? Can you
> show us the definitive science that proves that animals fats
> cause all modern disease and that highly processed vegetable
> oils are better? Huh?

I don't think Will was necessarily disagreeing (or agreeing)
with you. He was simply asking you to defend your position.

Your response, above, was, plain and simple, an evasion.

Have the intellectual integrity to support your claim.

David

[Will Brink]

In article
<1173708299.314508.34350@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
"Tunderbar" <tdcomeau@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Actually, my claim runs counter to two major claims by the
> mainstream.

It does not run counter for those who have bothered to look at
the research.

>
> 1) Animal fats are evil

And we know that's simply not true.

>
> and
>
> 2) vegetable oils are the fountain of youth and is the
> healthiest stuff since sliced bread.

That too is not true

>
> So, what I am asking is for someone to support these two
> claims that are expoused by virtually all doctors and
> nutritionists. So far, no one has stepped forward and quoted
> Ancel Keys or any other cherry- picking fact-fudging
> allopathic mainstream thought leader. How about you? Can you
> convince us that the mainstream allopaths are right?

Again, I don't have to. The burden of proof is on those who
make the claim. Thus, you need to supply data or other worthy
info that supports your position that animals fats are not
unhealthy and vegetable oils are not a fountain of youth.

> you show us the definitive science that proves that animals
> fats cause all modern disease and that highly processed
> vegetable oils are better? Huh?

What is your background to decide if what I supply is
"definitive"?

--
Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus " - Mr Natural

[Will Brink]

In article
<ALdJh.9070$PL.5052@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "David
Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote:

> "Will Brink" <willbrink@comcast.net> wrote
> > "Tunderbar" <tdcomeau@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> What I am saying, plain and simple, is that animal fats
> >> from properly raised animals are much healthier than
> >> highly processed vegetable oils.
> >>
> >> Is anyone prepared to dispute this statement?
> >
> > Are you prepared to support it? You are making the claim,
> > so you need to supply the support first. The burden of
> > proof is on those who make the claim.
>
> Try telling that to the theists.
>
> Oh, wait, you've done that before. Have they sent you any
> evidence for the existence of God yet?

Of course not, as there is none to be had. Now if that damn
burning bush in my yard would STFU I could get back to work...

--
Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus " - Mr Natural

[Will Brink]

In article
<VJdJh.9069$PL.2543@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "David
Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
> I don't think Will was necessarily disagreeing (or agreeing)
> with you. He was simply asking you to defend your position.
>
> Your response, above, was, plain and simple, an evasion.
>
> Have the intellectual integrity to support your claim.

Exactly. It's irrelevant whether or not I agree with him.

--
Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus " - Mr Natural

[Hobbes]

In article
<1173713747.743531.309130@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
"Tunderbar" <tdcomeau@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 12, 8:47 am, "David Cohen"
> <sammies...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > "Tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > willbr...@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote:
> > >> "Tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > What I am saying, plain and simple, is that animal
> > >> > fats from properly raised animals are much healthier
> > >> > than highly processed vegetable oils.
> >
> > >> > Is anyone prepared to dispute this statement?
> >
> > >> Are you prepared to support it? You are making the
> > >> claim, so you need to supply the support first. The
> > >> burden of proof is on those who make the claim.
> >
> > > Actually, my claim runs counter to two major claims by
> > > the mainstream.
> >
> > > 1) Animal fats are evil
> >
> > > and
> >
> > > 2) vegetable oils are the fountain of youth and is the
> > > healthiest stuff since sliced bread.
> >
> > > So, what I am asking is for someone to support these two
> > > claims that are expoused by virtually all doctors and
> > > nutritionists. So far, no one has stepped forward and
> > > quoted Ancel Keys or any other cherry- picking
> > > fact-fudging allopathic mainstream thought leader. How
> > > about you? Can you convince us that the mainstream
> > > allopaths are right? Can you show us the definitive
> > > science that proves that animals fats cause all modern
> > > disease and that highly processed vegetable oils are
> > > better? Huh?
> >
> > I don't think Will was necessarily disagreeing (or
> > agreeing) with you. He was simply asking you to defend
> > your position.
> >
> > Your response, above, was, plain and simple, an evasion.
> >
> > Have the intellectual integrity to support your claim.
> >
> > David- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> It is not an evasion. I am asking those supporting the
> mainstream paradigm to actually support their supposedly
> proven theories on fats. Ancel Keyes was an idiot with his
> cherry picking 7 countries study. Show me he was right. Show
> me how highly refined vegetable oils are healthier than
> properly raised animal fats.
>
> The current popular beliefs are that animal fats, all animal
> fats, are bad and vegetable oils, all vegetable oils, are
> healthier. If you believe that, then show me the data to
> support it.

It isn't at all the current belief among expert nutrionists.

And I'd like to know how you properly raise animal fat.

--
Keith

[Hobbes]

In article
<1173718100.350133.298590@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>,
"Tunderbar" <tdcomeau@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 12, 11:01 am, Hobbes <khobman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <1173713747.743531.309...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 12, 8:47 am, "David Cohen"
> > > <sammies...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > "Tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote
> >
> > > > > willbr...@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote:
> > > > >> "Tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> > What I am saying, plain and simple, is that
> > > > >> > animal fats from properly raised animals are much
> > > > >> > healthier than highly processed vegetable oils.
> >
> > > > >> > Is anyone prepared to dispute this statement?
> >
> > > > >> Are you prepared to support it? You are making the
> > > > >> claim, so you need to supply the support first. The
> > > > >> burden of proof is on those who make the claim.
> >
> > > > > Actually, my claim runs counter to two major claims
> > > > > by the mainstream.
> >
> > > > > 1) Animal fats are evil
> >
> > > > > and
> >
> > > > > 2) vegetable oils are the fountain of youth and is
> > > > > the healthiest stuff since sliced bread.
> >
> > > > > So, what I am asking is for someone to support these
> > > > > two claims that are expoused by virtually all
> > > > > doctors and nutritionists. So far, no one has
> > > > > stepped forward and quoted Ancel Keys or any other
> > > > > cherry- picking fact-fudging allopathic mainstream
> > > > > thought leader. How about you? Can you convince us
> > > > > that the mainstream allopaths are right? Can you
> > > > > show us the definitive science that proves that
> > > > > animals fats cause all modern disease and that
> > > > > highly processed vegetable oils are better? Huh?
> >
> > > > I don't think Will was necessarily disagreeing (or
> > > > agreeing) with you. He was simply asking you to defend
> > > > your position.
> >
> > > > Your response, above, was, plain and simple, an
> > > > evasion.
> >
> > > > Have the intellectual integrity to support your claim.
> >
> > > > David- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > It is not an evasion. I am asking those supporting the
> > > mainstream paradigm to actually support their supposedly
> > > proven theories on fats. Ancel Keyes was an idiot with
> > > his cherry picking 7 countries study. Show me he was
> > > right. Show me how highly refined vegetable oils are
> > > healthier than properly raised animal fats.
> >
> > > The current popular beliefs are that animal fats, all
> > > animal fats, are bad and vegetable oils, all vegetable
> > > oils, are healthier. If you believe that, then show me
> > > the data to support it.
> >
> > It isn't at all the current belief among expert
> > nutrionists.
> >
> > And I'd like to know how you properly raise animal fat.
> >
> > --
> > Keith- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Show me one mainstream expert or nutritionist or doctor or
> researcher that does not subscribe to the general notion of
> eating less animal fats and more vegetable oils. Show me one
> article, one quote, one research paper, one news report.

"highly refined vegetable oils" was your quote. Many vegetable
oils (such as cold-pressed olive oil) are not highly refined.

--
Keith

[Jmw]

"Tunderbar" <tdcomeau@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Properly raised animal are grass fed animals, minimal amounts
>of grains in the feed, clean water, clean air, plenty of
>access to free range space.

It appears that you fail to recognize the real estate
issues involved.

Start raising all of them that way, and there's going to be a
lot less meat to go around. It'll be pretty pricey, too.

[Will Brink]

In article
<1173718100.350133.298590@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>,
"Tunderbar" <tdcomeau@gmail.com> wrote:

> Show me one mainstream expert or nutritionist or doctor or
> researcher that does not subscribe to the general notion of
> eating less animal fats and more vegetable oils.

I know a bunch of them.Guess you need to get out more often. I
realize this "more grass fed animals less processed veg oils"
is news to you, but it's not to others.

> Show me one article, one quote, one research paper, one
> news report.

So you are both lazy and ignorant? Do your own research vs
asking others to do it for you.

>
> Properly raised animal are grass fed animals, minimal
> amounts of grains in the feed, clean water, clean air,
> plenty of access to free range space. Minimal amounts meds.
> No hormones. And I mean NO hormones.

And your point is? Old news here.

>
> Properly raised animals provide healthy proteins and fats in
> our diets.

Brilliant. Now support the above as you keep asking
others to do.

--
Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus " - Mr Natural

[Szczepan B]

"Tunderbar"
>> > > >> > What I am saying, plain and simple, is that animal
>> > > >> > fats from properly raised animals are much
>> > > >> > healthier than highly processed vegetable oils.

Now, after long discussion (especially after Rons description)
you can delete "from properly raised animals". Animals and
plants are now at the same level. The last nail from me.
Margarines were healthy (in that class) for two hundert years
(200 years) and suddenly become unhealthy. The reason is
known. Before margarine was made of BEEF fat (animal fat). Now
it is made mainly from vegatable oils. Margarine will be again
healthy if be made from animals (normally raised) fat.

> Show me one mainstream expert or nutritionist or doctor or
> researcher that does not subscribe to the general notion of
> eating less animal fats and more vegetable oils. Show me one
> article, one quote, one research paper, one news report.

All old papers do it. They are in power. Evolution is so slow
that result from last centuary will be valid 1000years.
>
> Properly raised animal are grass fed animals, minimal
> amounts of grains in the feed, clean water, clean air,
> plenty of access to free range space. Minimal amounts meds.
> No hormones. And I mean NO hormones.

Such impossible requirements give your opponents argumment
that todays oils are better than todays animals fat. BUT IT IS
NOT TRUE. S*

[Dz]

Tunderbar <tdcomeau@gmail.com> wrote:
> In Canada, there are no hormones applied to beef

Is your beef with vegetable oils about just
refining/processing, or is it also about a higher degree of
unsaturation that results in higher rates of a free radical
formation? I actually think there is some truth to the later.
There is some cancer research, but I also recall recent
observations on negative correlations of life span (across
various species) with the degree of cell membrane unsaturation
and the length of the unsaturated fatty chain.

Unfortunately, when people take that to extreme (like Dr.
Montygram, PhD about things "on the molecular level"), and
stop taking the dangerous and the "so called" EFAs completely,
their brain fills up with the omega-9 mead acid mixed with
coconut oil.

Next, they stop responding to most external stimuli and post
form letters to usenet inviting to read their "free website"
(still signed by a pseudonym) about the dangers of EFAs.

Kind of a trap, really, when the coconut takes over. You'd
have to force-feed them salmon for a year, and only then be
able to try to convince them that it was not such a good idea.

I have an almost unrelated question. Why is there a seemingly
high number of people in sci.med.nutrition group with
"non-mainstream" views about the role of HIV in the
development of AIDS? If I'm not mistaken, you also don't think
that HIV is a cause of AIDS (or that it's a trigger of events
that lead to AIDS). I wouldn't think the HIV researchers are
comparatively dumb or uninformed, so then what - are they
bought by retroviral drug peddling pharma giants? What is the
likely cause of AIDS - is it refined oils?

[Will Brink]

In article
<1173723872.369955.78650@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Tunderbar" <tdcomeau@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 12, 12:52 pm, willbr...@comcast.net (Will
> Brink) wrote:
> > In article
> > <1173718100.350133.298...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > "Tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Show me one mainstream expert or nutritionist or doctor
> > > or researcher that does not subscribe to the general
> > > notion of eating less animal fats and more vegetable
> > > oils.
> >
> > I know a bunch of them.Guess you need to get out more
> > often. I realize this "more grass fed animals less
> > processed veg oils" is news to you, but it's not to
> > others.
>
> Oh you know some do you? Is that why you failed to give me
> even one name?
>
> So you agree with my statement, why are you disputing it?
>
> >
> > > Show me one article, one quote, one research paper, one
> > > news report.
> >
> > So you are both lazy and ignorant? Do your own research vs
> > asking others to do it for you.
>
> Back at 'cha, boomer. Remember my original post?

Where you make no sense and show a total lack of any science
training? Yes.

>I present a statement and ask people to dispute it. That
>involves provide references, cites, factual and/or logical
>statements, etc.

Which you have not done.

(ignorance of basic nutrtional science snipped)

--
Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus! " - Mr Natural

[Throatslas]

On Mar 12, 10:34 am, "Tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Modern margarines are made of 100% vegetable oil plus
> additives like hydrogen...

Sure, just like table salt is made of deathly toxic chlorine
and highly flammable sodium.

[Sir Jacker]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, throatslasher wrote:

> On Mar 12, 10:34 am, "Tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Modern margarines are made of 100% vegetable oil plus
>> additives like hydrogen...
>
> Sure, just like table salt is made of deathly toxic chlorine
> and highly flammable sodium.

No, it's non toxic chloride and inert Na+ both have a noble
gas valence configuration.

--Sir Jackery

[Szczepan B]

"DZ" <32739@1758513689.393213694.6079.1520.26875> wrote
news:9057@3107716204.102067703.9462.9755.9808...
> Tunderbar <tdcomeau@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In Canada, there are no hormones applied to beef
>
> Is your beef with vegetable oils about just
> refining/processing, or is it also about a higher degree of
> unsaturation that results in higher rates of a free radical
> formation? I actually think there is some truth to the
> later. There is some cancer research, but I also recall
> recent observations on negative correlations of life span
> (across various species) with the degree of cell membrane
> unsaturation and the length of the unsaturated fatty chain.
>
> Unfortunately, when people take that to extreme (like Dr.
> Montygram, PhD about things "on the molecular level"), and
> stop taking the dangerous and the "so called" EFAs
> completely, their brain fills up with the omega-9 mead acid
> mixed with coconut oil.

It is not good go from one extreme (EFAs) to another
(saturated) especially when the both are wrong. Only animal
fats (and fresh olive oil made in farmer house) have the
proper proportions.
>
> Next, they stop responding to most external stimuli and post
> form letters to usenet inviting to read their "free website"
> (still signed by a pseudonym) about the dangers of EFAs.
>
> Kind of a trap, really, when the coconut takes over. You'd
> have to force-feed them salmon for a year, and only then
> be able to try to convince them that it was not such a
> good idea.
>
> I have an almost unrelated question. Why is there a
> seemingly high number of people in sci.med.nutrition
> group with "non-mainstream" views about the role of HIV
> in the development of AIDS? If I'm not mistaken, you also
> don't think that HIV is a cause of AIDS (or that it's a
> trigger of events that lead to AIDS). I wouldn't think
> the HIV researchers are comparatively dumb or uninformed,
> so then what - are they bought by retroviral drug
> peddling pharma giants? What is the likely cause of AIDS
> - is it refined oils?

I do not know. But I have remembered that at beginning of
"vegetable oil era" they were imported to Poland and for this
reason they were very expensive. I could not effort it. But
almost all my friend who afford (mainly husbands of MDs) dead
about fifty. Why only men? At that time butter was allowed
only for children. As mom looking after children they eat the
same (butter). For men was healthy margarine. S*

[NoOption5L]

On Mar 9, 12:51 pm, "Tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree. Vegetable oils, (other than extra virgin olive oil
> and possibly coconut oil), are very poor foods having
> required a great deal of processing to become even somewhat
> edible with very questionable nutritional profiles.

The key to quality vegetable oil is expeller-pressed
extraction.

> Most vegetable oils are rancid and have to be chemically
> treated to remove the smell and taste before they can be
> marketed.

Ever see the inside of a meat packing plant?

> While animal sourced fats require little or no processing
> to be extremely palatable and extremely nutritious. Pork
> fat rules.

> Real whole fresh milk

Has a lot of growth hormones and fat necessary to make baby
cows quickly become big cows.

> and butter and cheeses from grass fed cows is an
> incredible food.

I would go very sparingly. Way too many calories that would be
better spent eating more fruits and veggies.

> Fish fats are great nutritionally.

An important source of the _polyunsaturated_ fat known as
omega-3 fatty acid.

> Tallow is great for deep frying and is nutritious. Etc.

Deep frying what?

Too many calories. I like my 30" waist.

Patrick

[Tunderbar]

On Mar 12, 2:25 pm, DZ
<3...@1758513689.393213694.6079.1520.26875> wrote:
> Tunderbar <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In Canada, there are no hormones applied to beef
>
> Is your beef with vegetable oils about just
> refining/processing, or is

BINGO. We have a winner. That is exactly my point.

> it also about a higher degree of unsaturation that results
> in higher rates of a free radical formation? I actually
> think there is some truth to the later. There is some cancer
> research, but I also recall recent observations on negative
> correlations of life span (across various species) with the
> degree of cell membrane unsaturation and the length of the
> unsaturated fatty chain.
>
> Unfortunately, when people take that to extreme (like Dr.
> Montygram, PhD about things "on the molecular level"), and
> stop taking the dangerous and the "so called" EFAs
> completely, their brain fills up with the omega-9 mead acid
> mixed with coconut oil.
>
> Next, they stop responding to most external stimuli and post
> form letters to usenet inviting to read their "free website"
> (still signed by a pseudonym) about the dangers of EFAs.
>
> Kind of a trap, really, when the coconut takes over. You'd
> have to force-feed them salmon for a year, and only then
> be able to try to convince them that it was not such a
> good idea.
>
> I have an almost unrelated question. Why is there a
> seemingly high number of people in sci.med.nutrition group
> with "non-mainstream" views about the role of HIV in the
> development of AIDS? If I'm
not

A good bullshit detection facility?

> mistaken, you also don't think that HIV is a cause of AIDS
> (or that it's a trigger of events that lead to AIDS). I
> wouldn't think the HIV researchers are comparatively dumb or
> uninformed, so then what - are

1) Those virologists who are in a position to question the
HIV/AIDS paradigm have found that to do so is career
suicide. Let's just say that they watch what they say.
There may only be a few hundred virologists in the world
who are qualified enough in the field to express themselves
on the subject.

2) Those who are not in a position to know different, have
to accept what the authorities present as fact. The
vast majority of medical and research people are not
educated enough in the field of virology to question
what they are told.

> they bought by retroviral drug peddling pharma giants? What
> is the likely cause of AIDS - is it refined oils?

The basis of science is to ask questions. Hard questions. And
for a paradigm to survive it must survive harsh exposure to
these hard questions. If it fails to stand up to the hard
questions, it fails as a paradigm.

HIV/AIDS has been shielded from these hard questions. Anyone
questioning the HIV/AIDS paradigm is shut down immediately.
The shrillness against HIV/AIDS dissent is frightening. There
has not been an open scientific debate in the HIV/AIDS
paradigm. It was announced at a press conference and we are
compelled to accept it, period. In fact, the findings
announced at the press conference claiming that HIV cause
AIDS, has never been publiched. Ever. There is no published
study that shows that HIV causes AIDS.

Some suggest that one of the several possible factors in the
cause of AIDS is malnourishment. So refined oil may be part of
the factor. Or it may not be. We don't know because billions
and billions have been spent on studying the HIV virus and
nothing else.

TC

[Tunderbar]

On Mar 12, 8:49 pm, "throatslasher"
<implicit_differentiat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 12, 10:34 am, "Tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Modern margarines are made of 100% vegetable oil plus
> > additives like hydrogen...
>
> Sure, just like table salt is made of deathly toxic chlorine
> and highly flammable sodium.

Your point is.......?????

Converting vegetable oils into margarine does not make the
final product safer than the raw materials. In fact it
makes it worse.

The salt analogy is completely inapplicable. If not
downright stupid.

TC

[Throatslas]

On Mar 13, 6:56 am, "Tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 12, 8:49 pm, "throatslasher"
>
> <implicit_differentiat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 12, 10:34 am, "Tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Modern margarines are made of 100% vegetable oil plus
> > > additives like hydrogen...
>
> > Sure, just like table salt is made of deathly toxic
> > chlorine and highly flammable sodium.
>
> Your point is.......?????
>
> Converting vegetable oils into margarine does not make the
> final product safer than the raw materials. In fact it makes
> it worse.
>
> The salt analogy is completely inapplicable. If not
> downright stupid.

Describing hydrogenation as "additives like hydrogen and
colourants" is really misleading. Hydrogenated oil has added
hydrogen just like splenda has chlorine. You are either
intentionally misleading others by overselling your case or
you just don't have a clue what you're talking about.

[Throatslas]

On Mar 12, 7:17 pm, Sir Jackery <roeh...@cs.ucdavis.edu>
wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, throatslasher wrote:
> > On Mar 12, 10:34 am, "Tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Modern margarines are made of 100% vegetable oil plus
> >> additives like hydrogen...
>
> > Sure, just like table salt is made of deathly toxic
> > chlorine and highly flammable sodium.
>
> No, it's non toxic chloride and inert Na+ both have a noble
> gas valence configuration.

No kidding, Sherlock.

[Tunderbar]

On Mar 13, 10:14 am, "throatslasher"
<implicit_differentiat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 6:56 am, "Tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 12, 8:49 pm, "throatslasher"
>
> > <implicit_differentiat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 12, 10:34 am, "Tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Modern margarines are made of 100% vegetable oil plus
> > > > additives like hydrogen...
>
> > > Sure, just like table salt is made of deathly toxic
> > > chlorine and highly flammable sodium.
>
> > Your point is.......?????
>
> > Converting vegetable oils into margarine does not make the
> > final product safer than the raw materials. In fact it
> > makes it worse.
>
> > The salt analogy is completely inapplicable. If not
> > downright stupid.
>
> Describing hydrogenation as "additives like hydrogen and
> colourants" is really misleading. Hydrogenated oil has added
> hydrogen just like splenda has chlorine. You are either
> intentionally misleading others by overselling your case or
> you just don't have a clue what you're talking about.- Hide
> quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It does not matter. We all know that hydrogenation converts at
least some of the oils into trans-fats. Then factor in the
fact that the original vegetable oil is highly processed crap
and bereft of nutrition, and you know that margarine is crap.

TC

[Throatslas]

On Mar 13, 7:18 am, "Tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 10:14 am, "throatslasher"
>
>
>
>
>
> <implicit_differentiat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 13, 6:56 am, "Tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 12, 8:49 pm, "throatslasher"
>
> > > <implicit_differentiat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mar 12, 10:34 am, "Tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > Modern margarines are made of 100% vegetable oil
> > > > > plus additives like hydrogen...
>
> > > > Sure, just like table salt is made of deathly toxic
> > > > chlorine and highly flammable sodium.
>
> > > Your point is.......?????
>
> > > Converting vegetable oils into margarine does not make
> > > the final product safer than the raw materials. In fact
> > > it makes it worse.
>
> > > The salt analogy is completely inapplicable. If not
> > > downright stupid.
>
> > Describing hydrogenation as "additives like hydrogen and
> > colourants" is really misleading. Hydrogenated oil has
> > added hydrogen just like splenda has chlorine. You are
> > either intentionally misleading others by overselling your
> > case or you just don't have a clue what you're talking
> > about.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> It does not matter. We all know that hydrogenation converts
> at least some of the oils into trans-fats. Then factor in
> the fact that the original vegetable oil is highly
> processed crap and bereft of nutrition, and you know that
> margarine is crap.

I don't *care*. I just saw that you said something dumb and I
thought I'd call you on it.

[Tom Anders]

On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Tunderbar wrote:

> On Mar 12, 2:25 pm, DZ
> <3...@1758513689.393213694.6079.1520.26875> wrote:
>
>> I have an almost unrelated question. Why is there a
>> seemingly high number of people in sci.med.nutrition group
>> with "non-mainstream" views about the role of HIV in the
>> development of AIDS?
>
> A good bullshit detection facility?

A high level of crankdom?

>> If i'm not mistaken, you also don't think that HIV is a
>> cause of AIDS (or that it's a trigger of events that lead
>> to AIDS). I wouldn't think the HIV researchers are
>> comparatively dumb or uninformed, so then what
>> - are
>
> 1) Those virologists who are in a position to question the
> HIV/AIDS paradigm have found that to do so is career
> suicide. Let's just say that they watch what they say.

Not in itself evidence that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. You could
say the same about chemists who question the atomic theory,
for instance.

> There may only be a few hundred virologists in the world who
> are qualified enough in the field to express themselves on
> the subject.

I would guess it's more in the thousands. Unless your criteria
for 'qualified enough' are rather stricter than mine.

> 2) Those who are not in a position to know different, have
> to accept what the authorities present as fact. The vast
> majority of medical and research people are not educated
> enough in the field of virology to question what they are
> told.

True, but again, irrelevant.

>> they bought by retroviral drug peddling pharma giants? What
>> is the likely cause of AIDS - is it refined oils?
>
> The basis of science is to ask questions. Hard questions.
> And for a paradigm to survive it must survive harsh exposure
> to these hard questions. If it fails to stand up to the hard
> questions, it fails as a paradigm.

Quite so. Can you point to any hard questions to which the
HIV/AIDS hypothesis has failed to stand up? And by 'hard
questions', i mean 'experiments'.

> HIV/AIDS has been shielded from these hard questions. Anyone
> questioning the HIV/AIDS paradigm is shut down immediately.
> The shrillness against HIV/AIDS dissent is frightening.
> There has not been an open scientific debate in the HIV/AIDS
> paradigm. It was announced at a press conference and we are
> compelled to accept it, period.

I think that's a bit strong. There's a colossal amount of data
linking HIV and AIDS, in general and in detail. You can't
point to a single paper at the dawn of the field that
establishes it conclusively, but that doesn't matter;
biology's often like that.

> In fact, the findings announced at the press
> conference claiming that HIV cause AIDS, has never
> been publiched. Ever.

Hang on, are you talking about the famous press conference
held in 1984 at which the US secretary of health announced
Gallo's identification of HIV as the cause of AIDS? If so, i'm
afraid you're quite wrong - there were four papers published
back-to-back in Science:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=R-
etrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=6200935 http://www.ncbi.n-
lm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abst-
ractPlus&list_uids=6200936 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez-
/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uid-
s=6200937 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pu-
bmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=6324345

You can argue about whether these papers are any good or not,
but you can hardly claim that they were never published. Ever.

> There is no published study that shows that HIV causes AIDS.

Taking a really strict line on what showing that an agent
causes a disease means, I believe this is true. I wish it were
otherwise, but i think getting ethical approval for it would
be pretty tricky.

You can infect apes with HIV, though, and they get AIDS.
Presumably that's no good?

> Some suggest that one of the several possible factors in the
> cause of AIDS is malnourishment. So refined oil may be part
> of the factor. Or it may not be. We don't know because
> billions and billions have been spent on studying the HIV
> virus and nothing else.

And as a result, we do now have HIV-oriented treatments which
ameliorate and slow down the progress of AIDS. Pretty good for
an unsubstantiated hypothesis!

tom

--
Fitter, Happier, More Productive.

[Tunderbar]

On Mar 13, 12:11 pm, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li>
wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Tunderbar wrote:
> > On Mar 12, 2:25 pm, DZ
> > <3...@1758513689.393213694.6079.1520.26875> wrote:
>
> >> I have an almost unrelated question. Why is there a
> >> seemingly high number of people in sci.med.nutrition
> >> group with "non-mainstream" views about the role of HIV
> >> in the development of AIDS?
>
> > A good bullshit detection facility?
>
> A high level of crankdom?
>
> >> If i'm not mistaken, you also don't think that HIV is a
> >> cause of AIDS (or that it's a trigger of events that lead
> >> to AIDS). I wouldn't think the HIV researchers are
> >> comparatively dumb or uninformed, so then what
> >> - are
>
> > 1) Those virologists who are in a position to question the
> > HIV/AIDS paradigm have found that to do so is career
> > suicide. Let's just say that they watch what they say.
>
> Not in itself evidence that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. You
> could say the same about chemists who question the atomic
> theory, for instance.
>
> > There may only be a few hundred virologists in the world
> > who are qualified enough in the field to express
> > themselves on the subject.
>
> I would guess it's more in the thousands. Unless your
> criteria for 'qualified enough' are rather stricter
> than mine.
>
> > 2) Those who are not in a position to know different, have
> > to accept what the authorities present as fact. The
> > vast majority of medical and research people are not
> > educated enough in the field of virology to question
> > what they are told.
>
> True, but again, irrelevant.
>
> >> they bought by retroviral drug peddling pharma giants?
> >> What is the likely cause of AIDS - is it refined oils?
>
> > The basis of science is to ask questions. Hard questions.
> > And for a paradigm to survive it must survive harsh
> > exposure to these hard questions. If it fails to stand up
> > to the hard questions, it fails as a paradigm.
>
> Quite so. Can you point to any hard questions to which the
> HIV/AIDS hypothesis has failed to stand up? And by 'hard
> questions', i mean 'experiments'.

None have been funded. But here are a couple of questions. Why
has HIV/ AIDS not gone much further than the originally
identified high-risk groups? A virus is supposed to
non-risk-group limited entity. Where is the vaccine? It was
predicted in 18 months after the press conference. Why do some
with HIV never develop the disease? And why are there people
with AIDS symptoms and no HIV positivity? Why has the virus
not been properly isolated?

>
> > HIV/AIDS has been shielded from these hard questions.
> > Anyone questioning the HIV/AIDS paradigm is shut down
> > immediately. The shrillness against HIV/AIDS dissent is
> > frightening. There has not been an open scientific debate
> > in the HIV/AIDS paradigm. It was announced at a press
> > conference and we are compelled to accept it, period.
>
> I think that's a bit strong. There's a colossal amount of
> data linking HIV and AIDS, in general and in detail. You
> can't point to a single paper at the dawn of the field that
> establishes it conclusively, but that doesn't matter;
> biology's often like that.

There is no study published that specifically finds that HIV
is the cause of AIDS. Period. If it exists, cite it. There
was a press conference claiming this but no science
published. Cite it.

>
> > In fact, the findings announced at the press
> > conference claiming that HIV cause AIDS, has never
> > been publiched. Ever.
>
> Hang on, are you talking about the famous press conference
> held in 1984 at which the US secretary of health announced
> Gallo's identification of HIV as the cause of AIDS? If so,
> i'm afraid you're quite wrong - there were four papers
> published back-to-back in Science:
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd-
> =Retrieve&...http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?-
> db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&...http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entre-
> z/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&...http://www.ncbi.nlm.-
> nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&...
>
> You can argue about whether these papers are any good or
> not, but you can hardly claim that they were never
> published. Ever.
>
> > There is no published study that shows that HIV
> > causes AIDS.
>
> Taking a really strict line on what showing that an agent
> causes a disease means, I believe this is true. I wish it
> were otherwise, but i think getting ethical approval for it
> would be pretty tricky.
>
> You can infect apes with HIV, though, and they get AIDS.
> Presumably that's no good?

Not HIV. Supposedly a simian HIV virus. Not HIV.

>
> > Some suggest that one of the several possible factors in
> > the cause of AIDS is malnourishment. So refined oil may be
> > part of the factor. Or it may not be. We don't know
> > because billions and billions have been spent on studying
> > the HIV virus and nothing else.
>
> And as a result, we do now have HIV-oriented treatments
> which ameliorate and slow down the progress of AIDS. Pretty
> good for an unsubstantiated hypothesis!
>
> tom
>
> --
> Fitter, Happier, More Productive.

Why do we have a drug cocktail whose side effects mimic the
exact progress of AIDS? AZT. So when we start treating with
other less toxic drug cocktails, victims..... errrrr, patients
survive longer therefore the "disease" is slowed down. The
whole statistical side of the HIV/ AIDS paradigm is absolutely
rife with number fudging and statistical numbers juggling.
Definitions are changed and expanded to increase the apparent
patient population. The numbers used in the HIV/AIDS field are
a frikkin' joke.

HIV/AIDS supporters have changed and fudged numbers,
methodologies, long held virology rules, tracking methods, and
language to accomodate the whole improbable silly idea. People
with HIV who don't get the disease are called non-progressors
or long-term non-progressors, people aithout HIV positivity
with AIDS symptoms aren't sufferring from AIDS.

The term "non-progressor" was concocted to specifically denote
an HIV patient who does not develop the disease within the
predicted timeframe, and that timeframe went from originally
18 months to several years to a decade and a half to the
current 15 to indefinite number of year.

Pretty sad all around. The whole science has become a sad
shell game of rhetoric, accusations, statistics, ever changing
definitions, number fudging, and, of course, massive personal
and corporate profits.

Meanwhile, HIV hasn't been isolated, no vaccine is in sight,
victims... errrr, patients are fed deadly drug cocktails and
researchers are making billions by doing research that goes
nowhere. And drug companies are selling their wares at tens of
thousands of dollars per year per victim.... errrrr, patient.
And more billions are being made by Gallo et. al. for their
useless non-specific tests wothout any semblance of a gold
standard for comparison.

TC

[Dz]

Szczepan Bia³ek <sz.bialek@wp.pl> wrote:
>> Why is there a seemingly high number of people in
>> sci.med.nutrition group with "non-mainstream" views about
>> the role of HIV in the development of AIDS? If I'm not
>> mistaken, you also don't think that HIV is a cause of AIDS
>> (or that it's a trigger of events that lead to AIDS). I
>> wouldn't think the HIV researchers are comparatively dumb
>> or uninformed, so then what - are they bought by retroviral
>> drug peddling pharma giants? What is the likely cause of
>> AIDS - is it refined oils?
>
> I do not know.

Do you mean that you remain firmly agnostic on the issue of
HIV role in AIDS?

[Will Brink]

In article
<1173798895.761930.87550@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com>,
"throatslasher" <implicit_differentiation@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 13, 6:56 am, "Tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 12, 8:49 pm, "throatslasher"
> >
> > <implicit_differentiat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 12, 10:34 am, "Tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > Modern margarines are made of 100% vegetable oil plus
> > > > additives like hydrogen...
> >
> > > Sure, just like table salt is made of deathly toxic
> > > chlorine and highly flammable sodium.
> >
> > Your point is.......?????
> >
> > Converting vegetable oils into margarine does not make the
> > final product safer than the raw materials. In fact it
> > makes it worse.
> >
> > The salt analogy is completely inapplicable. If not
> > downright stupid.
>
> Describing hydrogenation as "additives like hydrogen and
> colourants" is really misleading. Hydrogenated oil has added
> hydrogen just like splenda has chlorine. You are either
> intentionally misleading others by overselling your case or
> you just don't have a clue what you're talking about.

I suspect it's both.

--
Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus! " - Mr Natural

[Enrico C]

On 12 Mar 2007 07:04:59 -0700, Tunderbar wrote:

> Can you convince us that the mainstream allopaths are right?
[...]

From a review of "Dr Atkins' Health Revolution" [...]
| A common myth about Dr. Atkins that could stand some
| clearing up is that he advocates a strict homeopathic
| system of medical care and an unbalanced meat-only diet.
| These misconceptions can be corrected by reading the first
| few chapters. Atkins actually gives well-reasoned
| explanations of his philosophy of Complementary medicine,
| an approach that stresses prevention via good dietary
| habits, vitamin supplements and exercise, then homeopathic
| and vitamin remedies when there is a problem, and finally
| traditional medicine when all else fails (Yeah, he's a
| quack all right!). Without going into the details and
| logistics here, I was impressed with how logical and simple
| to apply this system
| is.
[...] http://www.amazon.com/Dr-Atkins-Health-Revolution-Compl-
ementary/dp/055328360X