Nick
Fri, Oct-25-02, 23:57
One interesting point I came across in my 1989 edition of
"Diet and Health" by the National Research Council (it cites
all the studies on various nutrition-related subjects and
trys to sum everything up) is that the studies that
supposedly demonstrate that saturated fat is unhealthy
actually can just as easily be read as demonstrating that too
much complete protein is the problem (in other words,
complete protein, combined with too many calories in the
diet) that leads to such a high incidence of certain cancers
in the USA. Because saturated fat is a stable, often apoptic
(cell killing, not cell-growth promoting) this makes more
sense, physiologically. Too much omega 6 fatty acids, which
promote tumor growth, then the complete protein allows the
tumors to grow nicely - a sort of Miracle Grow for them. Jay
Whelan points this out about omega 6s in some of his studies,
but they are rather old, in the sense that the 1989 "Diet and
Health" was saying the same kinds of things about a decade
earlier. Often, studies show that vegetarians get less of the
cancers common in the USA, and this makes sense, as they
often do not eat very high quality protein, and also may eat
less calories than American omnivore humans. On the other
hand, many societies are mostly vegetarian, and eat lots of
saturated fat, such as the coconut eaters (Papuans, Thai,
Phillipinos, Sri Lankans, etc.) and they don't have very low
incidence of common cancers in the USA. Never accept the
common advice without question. When you begin to look into
these kinds of claims ("make sure you eat complete protein,"
for example), what you find is that they became popular, and
may have powerful interests behind them, but are really just
guesses, and don't make a lot of sense when you begin to put
the pieces of this nutritional puzzle together.
"Diet and Health" by the National Research Council (it cites
all the studies on various nutrition-related subjects and
trys to sum everything up) is that the studies that
supposedly demonstrate that saturated fat is unhealthy
actually can just as easily be read as demonstrating that too
much complete protein is the problem (in other words,
complete protein, combined with too many calories in the
diet) that leads to such a high incidence of certain cancers
in the USA. Because saturated fat is a stable, often apoptic
(cell killing, not cell-growth promoting) this makes more
sense, physiologically. Too much omega 6 fatty acids, which
promote tumor growth, then the complete protein allows the
tumors to grow nicely - a sort of Miracle Grow for them. Jay
Whelan points this out about omega 6s in some of his studies,
but they are rather old, in the sense that the 1989 "Diet and
Health" was saying the same kinds of things about a decade
earlier. Often, studies show that vegetarians get less of the
cancers common in the USA, and this makes sense, as they
often do not eat very high quality protein, and also may eat
less calories than American omnivore humans. On the other
hand, many societies are mostly vegetarian, and eat lots of
saturated fat, such as the coconut eaters (Papuans, Thai,
Phillipinos, Sri Lankans, etc.) and they don't have very low
incidence of common cancers in the USA. Never accept the
common advice without question. When you begin to look into
these kinds of claims ("make sure you eat complete protein,"
for example), what you find is that they became popular, and
may have powerful interests behind them, but are really just
guesses, and don't make a lot of sense when you begin to put
the pieces of this nutritional puzzle together.