Raising HDL

[Tomaso]

Someone told me that taking a capsule of Milk Thistle a day
could raise the level of HDL "the good cholesterol". Two
months later I found that my HDL had gone from 65 to 95. My
doctor was surprised and asked, "What the hell is milk
thistle?" I explained.

[Roman]

"Tomaso" <tomdunnNOSPAM34@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:lxiW9.8961$Fj2.5171690@news2.news.adelphia.net...
> Someone told me that taking a capsule of Milk Thistle a day
> could raise
the
> level of HDL "the good cholesterol". Two months later I
> found that my HDL had gone from 65 to 95. My doctor was
> surprised and asked, "What the hell is milk thistle?" I
> explained.

And what was the doc's reaction to that?

Roman

[Sandy]

On Sun, 2 Feb 2003 17:41:13 -0600, "Roman"
<r_rom@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Tomaso" <tomdunnNOSPAM34@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:lxiW9.8961$Fj2.5171690@news2.news.adelphia.net...
>> Someone told me that taking a capsule of Milk Thistle a day
>> could raise
>the
>> level of HDL "the good cholesterol". Two months later I
>> found that my HDL had gone from 65 to 95. My doctor was
>> surprised and asked, "What the hell is milk thistle?" I
>> explained.
>
>And what was the doc's reaction to that?

Polite aquiescense, I would guess :)

Sandy

[Katra]

Want to raise HDL???

Eat a lot of shrimp. :-)

There was a close out on groceries from a store nearby here
that was going out of business. I have a PASSION for shrimp
and other sea food, but especially crustaceans. ;-d

Shrimp was $2.00 per lb. for 5 lb frozen bricks. I bought 50
lbs. and proceeded to pig out on shrimp for a couple of weeks.

My HDL normally runs in the high 50's to low 60's.

It went up into the high 90's after about a week of shrimp
pigout! Then, went back down into the 60's when I quit. (being
a lab tech has it's advantages on testing blood levels, <G>)

I have since reproduced the results of that experiment.

Opinions?

K.

--
>^,,^< Cats-haven Hobby Farm >^,,^< Katra@centurytel.net
>>^,,^<

"There are many intelligent species in the Universe, and they
are all owned by cats!" --Asimov

Custom handcrafts, Sterling silver beaded jewelry http:-
//cgi3.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewListedItems&us-
erid=katra

[Sandy]

On Sun, 02 Feb 2003 23:08:35 -0600, Katra
<Katra@centurytel.net> wrote:

>Want to raise HDL???
>
>Eat a lot of shrimp. :-)
>
>There was a close out on groceries from a store nearby here
>that was going out of business. I have a PASSION for shrimp
>and other sea food, but especially crustaceans. ;-d
>
>Shrimp was $2.00 per lb. for 5 lb frozen bricks. I bought
>50 lbs. and proceeded to pig out on shrimp for a couple
>of weeks.
>
>My HDL normally runs in the high 50's to low 60's.
>
>It went up into the high 90's after about a week of shrimp
>pigout! Then, went back down into the 60's when I quit.
>(being a lab tech has it's advantages on testing blood
>levels, <G>)
>
>I have since reproduced the results of that experiment.
>
>Opinions?
>

And what is the significance of these numbers?

Sandy

[Roman]

"Katra" <Katra@centurytel.net> wrote in message
news:3E3DF953.DC98DB59@centurytel.net...
> Want to raise HDL???
>
> Eat a lot of shrimp. :-)
>
> I have since reproduced the results of that experiment.
>
> Opinions?

If shrimps are rich in fat, then fat in them might have caused
that. Fat is known to raise HDL. Carbs tend to lower it and
raise triglycerides.

Roman

[Sandy]

On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 23:43:59 -0600, "Roman"
<r_rom@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Katra" <Katra@centurytel.net> wrote in message
>news:3E3DF953.DC98DB59@centurytel.net...
>> Want to raise HDL???
>>
>> Eat a lot of shrimp. :-)
>>
>> I have since reproduced the results of that experiment.
>>
>> Opinions?
>
>If shrimps are rich in fat, then fat in them might have
>caused that. Fat is known to raise HDL. Carbs tend to lower
>it and raise triglycerides.

In what circumstances?

Certainly not with a varied, wholefood (low GI), eucaloric
diet with moderate regular exercise.

I suggest your scenarios are pathogenic.

Sandy

[Brandon Be]

"Roman" <r_rom@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b1njof$scd$1@news.chatlink.com...
> "Katra" <Katra@centurytel.net> wrote in message
> news:3E3DF953.DC98DB59@centurytel.net...
> > Want to raise HDL???
> >
> > Eat a lot of shrimp. :-)
> >
> > I have since reproduced the results of that experiment.
> >
> > Opinions?
>
> If shrimps are rich in fat, then fat in them might have
> caused that. Fat
is
> known to raise HDL. Carbs tend to lower it and raise
> triglycerides.

Shrimp are fairly lean (about 15% fat). I can think of four
things they provide that most people are unlikely to consume
on a regular basis:

Vitamin D Selenium Cholesterol Very long chain n-3 fatty acids
(EPA, DPA, DHA, AA)

I'm not sure which, if any of these would be responsible for
raising HDL.

[Yar]

"Sandy" <S@S.S> wrote in message
news:5rtu3vcr5upvdajp6ve5ah0jvhtsod7d8k@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 23:43:59 -0600, "Roman"
> <r_rom@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >"Katra" <Katra@centurytel.net> wrote in message
> >news:3E3DF953.DC98DB59@centurytel.net...
> >> Want to raise HDL???
> >>
> >> Eat a lot of shrimp. :-)
> >>
> >> I have since reproduced the results of that experiment.
> >>
> >> Opinions?
> >
> >If shrimps are rich in fat, then fat in them might have
> >caused that. Fat
is
> >known to raise HDL. Carbs tend to lower it and raise
> >triglycerides.
>
> In what circumstances?
>
> Certainly not with a varied, wholefood (low GI), eucaloric
> diet with moderate regular exercise.
>
> I suggest your scenarios are pathogenic.
>
>
>
> Sandy

Lipid profiles are improved with natural fat, no doubt no
worries, spot on Roman.

Yar

[Roman]

"Sandy" <S@S.S> wrote in message
news:5rtu3vcr5upvdajp6ve5ah0jvhtsod7d8k@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 23:43:59 -0600, "Roman"
> <r_rom@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >"Katra" <Katra@centurytel.net> wrote in message
> >news:3E3DF953.DC98DB59@centurytel.net...
> >> Want to raise HDL???
> >>
> >> Eat a lot of shrimp. :-)
> >>
> >> I have since reproduced the results of that experiment.
> >>
> >> Opinions?
> >
> >If shrimps are rich in fat, then fat in them might have
> >caused that. Fat
is
> >known to raise HDL. Carbs tend to lower it and raise
> >triglycerides.
>
> In what circumstances?
>
> Certainly not with a varied, wholefood (low GI), eucaloric
> diet with moderate regular exercise.

Sure. What I said applies to mostly a lot of high GI,
especially refined, carb foods that I a lot of people eat. So,
recommendation to lower carb intake will (or should, at least)
result in a low GI wholesome foods. Flesh based foods that are
rich in fat soluble nutrients are a must for good health. They
will also provide high quality protein and EFA's (if their
source is good).

Roman

[Brandon Be]

"Brandon Berg" <bberg@cesmail.net> wrote in message
news:5sT%9.172141$AV4.4329@sccrnsc01...
> Very long chain n-3 fatty acids (EPA, DPA, DHA, AA)

Correction: AA is n-6, of course. I probably should just have
said very long chain fatty acids.

[Alf Christ]

On Tue, 04 Feb 2003 18:16:33 GMT, "Brandon Berg"
<bberg@cesmail.net> wrote:

>
>Shrimp are fairly lean (about 15% fat). I can think of four
>things they provide that most people are unlikely to consume
>on a regular basis:
>
>Vitamin D Selenium Cholesterol Very long chain n-3 fatty
>acids (EPA, DPA, DHA, AA)

Many types of organic osmolytes with many beneficial side
effects. Like taurine and others. Not sure about which.

Fish are rich in arsenobetaine, and most possibly also
shrimps. (Don't eat shrimps for about two weeks before doing a
scan for arsenic exposure!!)

[Katra]

Sandy wrote:
>
> On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 23:43:59 -0600, "Roman"
> <r_rom@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >"Katra" <Katra@centurytel.net> wrote in message
> >news:3E3DF953.DC98DB59@centurytel.net...
> >> Want to raise HDL???
> >>
> >> Eat a lot of shrimp. :-)
> >>
> >> I have since reproduced the results of that experiment.
> >>
> >> Opinions?
> >
> >If shrimps are rich in fat, then fat in them might have
> >caused that. Fat is known to raise HDL. Carbs tend to lower
> >it and raise triglycerides.
>
> In what circumstances?
>
> Certainly not with a varied, wholefood (low GI), eucaloric
> diet with moderate regular exercise.
>
> I suggest your scenarios are pathogenic.
>
> Sandy

Sandy, he is right. I don't know what the mechanism is
exactly, (Lyle would probably know) but SIMPLE carbs such
as sugar and refined starch tend to raise triglycerides. I
have done the blood levels on myself whilst experimenting
with diet.

The low GI wholefood diet that you recommend is ok. Carbs from
fresh veggies and the higher pectin fruits don't seem to raise
triglycerides as much as bread and refined sugar, or the juicy
fruits such as oranges.

Apples, pears, peaches, plums, nectarines, cherries, etc. are
all high in pectin and soluble fiber.

Back to the original comments:

The thing is, shrimp is NOT high in fat, at all! I'm not sure
what the mechanism was, but if you read food breakdowns,
shrimp is high in cholesterol but low in fat. It is a bit of a
conundrum. Fat is usually associated with cholesterol, but NOT
in the case of fishes and crustaceans. How can something be
practically fat free, but high in cholesterol? I'd like that
one explained as it refers to shrimps!

All I know is that shrimp can raise my HDL by 30 points in
just a few days of eating it.

I love shrimp..... <G>

One of these days, when I can afford it, I'm going to see if
crab and/or lobster will do the same thing, or I might try
crayfish. They are cheaper and a little more closely related.
All 4 animals are water bugs tho'...

K.

[Katra]

Brandon Berg wrote:
>
> "Roman" <r_rom@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:b1njof$scd$1@news.chatlink.com...
> > "Katra" <Katra@centurytel.net> wrote in message
> > news:3E3DF953.DC98DB59@centurytel.net...
> > > Want to raise HDL???
> > >
> > > Eat a lot of shrimp. :-)
> > >
> > > I have since reproduced the results of that experiment.
> > >
> > > Opinions?
> >
> > If shrimps are rich in fat, then fat in them might have
> > caused that. Fat
> is
> > known to raise HDL. Carbs tend to lower it and raise
> > triglycerides.
>
> Shrimp are fairly lean (about 15% fat). I can think of four
> things they provide that most people are unlikely to consume
> on a regular basis:
>
> Vitamin D Selenium Cholesterol Very long chain n-3 fatty
> acids (EPA, DPA, DHA, AA)
>
> I'm not sure which, if any of these would be responsible for
> raising HDL.

Hey, thanks! :-) I'm betting then that it is the last one you
mentioned that might raise HDL. Fish oils are supposed raise
HDL anyway, but shrimp seems to be almost magical in the speed
at which it does it.

If anyone else is willing, (any other lab techs on the list
that have access to the chemistry analyzer at work?) try
this on yourself and see if it works for you as well as it
did with me?

My fathers HDL tends to run in the mid to high 20's. Very low.
Next time I can afford to stock up on shrimp, I want to try it
on him. I know he will be willing, he loves shrimp as much as
I do! Hmmmmm... season is coming up, maybe I'll duck down to
Port Aransas. Some of the fisheries down there will sell
direct to the public and I can save about 40% off of store
prices and get them fresh right off of the boats. :-)

If/when I do this, I'll keep y'all posted.

J.

[Brandon Be]

"Brandon Berg" <bberg@cesmail.net> wrote in message
news:6RT%9.168023$6G4.17197@sccrnsc02...
>
> "Brandon Berg" <bberg@cesmail.net> wrote in message
> news:5sT%9.172141$AV4.4329@sccrnsc01...
> > Very long chain n-3 fatty acids (EPA, DPA, DHA, AA)
>
> Correction: AA is n-6, of course. I probably should just
> have said very
long
> chain fatty acids.

Another correction: "Very long chain" means 22 carbons or
greater. Anyway, you know what I meant.

[Gym Bob]

Shrimp?...OK What are ya' doing after the internet closes?

"Katra" <Katra@centurytel.net> wrote in message
news:3E40109F.9EB9E25D@centurytel.net...
>
>
> Brandon Berg wrote:
> >
> > "Roman" <r_rom@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:b1njof$scd$1@news.chatlink.com...
> > > "Katra" <Katra@centurytel.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3E3DF953.DC98DB59@centurytel.net...
> > > > Want to raise HDL???
> > > >
> > > > Eat a lot of shrimp. :-)
> > > >
> > > > I have since reproduced the results of that
> > > > experiment.
> > > >
> > > > Opinions?
> > >
> > > If shrimps are rich in fat, then fat in them might have
> > > caused that.
Fat
> > is
> > > known to raise HDL. Carbs tend to lower it and raise
> > > triglycerides.
> >
> > Shrimp are fairly lean (about 15% fat). I can think of
> > four things they provide that most people are unlikely to
> > consume on a regular basis:
> >
> > Vitamin D Selenium Cholesterol Very long chain n-3 fatty
> > acids (EPA, DPA, DHA, AA)
> >
> > I'm not sure which, if any of these would be responsible
> > for raising
HDL.
>
> Hey, thanks! :-) I'm betting then that it is the last one
> you mentioned that might raise HDL. Fish oils are supposed
> raise HDL anyway, but shrimp seems to be almost magical in
> the speed at which it does it.
>
> If anyone else is willing, (any other lab techs on the list
> that have access to the chemistry analyzer at work?) try
> this on yourself and see if it works for you as well as it
> did with me?
>
> My fathers HDL tends to run in the mid to high 20's. Very
> low. Next time I can afford to stock up on shrimp, I want to
> try it on him. I know he
will
> be willing, he loves shrimp as much as I do! Hmmmmm...
> season is coming up, maybe I'll duck down to Port Aransas.
> Some of the fisheries down there will sell direct to the
> public and I can save about 40% off of store prices and get
> them fresh right off of the boats. :-)
>
> If/when I do this, I'll keep y'all posted.
>
> K.

[Sandy]

On Tue, 4 Feb 2003 10:30:37 -0600, "Roman"
<r_rom@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Sure. What I said applies to mostly a lot of high GI,
>especially refined, carb foods that I a lot of people eat.
>So, recommendation to lower carb intake will (or should, at
>least) result in a low GI wholesome foods.

No need to lower carb intake to lower GI with a varied
wholefood diet.

>Flesh based foods that are rich in fat soluble nutrients are
>a must for good health.

Umm, not really. The best supply for ADKand E are leafy
vegetables.

>They will also provide high quality protein and EFA's (if
>their source is good).

The protein is good, the EFAs are needed in such minute
amount that they are virtually unavoidable in a varied
wholefood diet.

Sandy

[Sandy]

On Tue, 04 Feb 2003 13:01:36 -0600, Katra
<Katra@centurytel.net> wrote:

>
>
>Sandy wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 23:43:59 -0600, "Roman"
>> <r_rom@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"Katra" <Katra@centurytel.net> wrote in message
>> >news:3E3DF953.DC98DB59@centurytel.net...
>> >> Want to raise HDL???
>> >>
>> >> Eat a lot of shrimp. :-)
>> >>
>> >> I have since reproduced the results of that experiment.
>> >>
>> >> Opinions?
>> >
>> >If shrimps are rich in fat, then fat in them might have
>> >caused that. Fat is known to raise HDL. Carbs tend to
>> >lower it and raise triglycerides.
>>
>> In what circumstances?
>>
>> Certainly not with a varied, wholefood (low GI), eucaloric
>> diet with moderate regular exercise.
>>
>> I suggest your scenarios are pathogenic.
>>
>> Sandy
>
>Sandy, he is right. I don't know what the mechanism is
>exactly, (Lyle would probably know) but SIMPLE carbs such
>as sugar and refined starch tend to raise triglycerides. I
>have done the blood levels on myself whilst experimenting
>with diet.

Perhaps because you had full glycogen stores? I'm saying that
if you are doing a hard days work (hard labour) then simple
fast carbs won't get a chance to do this. Of course, carbs are
fat and protein sparing, which is good for survival.

>The low GI wholefood diet that you recommend is ok. Carbs
>from fresh veggies and the higher pectin fruits don't seem to
>raise triglycerides as much as bread and refined sugar, or
>the juicy fruits such as oranges.
>
>Apples, pears, peaches, plums, nectarines, cherries, etc. are
>all high in pectin and soluble fiber.

And fructose :)

Sandy

[Roman]

"Katra" <Katra@centurytel.net> wrote in message
news:3E400E10.A6C42E2C@centurytel.net...
>
> One of these days, when I can afford it, I'm going to see if
> crab and/or lobster will do the same thing, or I might try
> crayfish. They are cheaper and a little more closely
> related. All 4 animals are water bugs tho'...

Katra,

Have you experimented with other flesh based foods, e.g.
different meats (full fat and lean; raw/rare and "cooked to
death"), eggs (raw and cooked in different ways), milk (full
fat and skim; raw and pasteurized; homogenized and not), etc.?
They are relatively cheap, so I hope you like them.

Roman

[Tintinet]

"Roman" <r_rom@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<b1qaa7$odt$1@news.chatlink.com>...
> "Katra" <Katra@centurytel.net> wrote in message
> news:3E400E10.A6C42E2C@centurytel.net...
> >
> > One of these days, when I can afford it, I'm going to see
> > if crab and/or lobster will do the same thing, or I might
> > try crayfish. They are cheaper and a little more closely
> > related. All 4 animals are water bugs tho'...
>
> Katra,
>
> Have you experimented with other flesh based foods, e.g.
> different meats (full fat and lean; raw/rare and "cooked to
> death"), eggs (raw and cooked in different ways), milk (full
> fat and skim; raw and pasteurized; homogenized and not),
> etc.? They are relatively cheap, so I hope you like them.
>
> Roman

I recently switched to a low-carb type diet. I eat quite a few
nuts, high omega-3 eggs, fish (rarely shellfish), and
vegetables. I also recently had my cholesterol assessed. My
total cholesterol was 155
mg/dl and HDL was 105 mg/dl.

[Roman]

"Sandy" <S@S.S> wrote in message
news:qe814vg12m4k6ocbn0j5rlmq67k0iiou8t@4ax.com...
> >Sure. What I said applies to mostly a lot of high GI,
> >especially refined, carb foods that I a lot of people eat.
> >So, recommendation to lower carb intake will (or should, at
> >least) result in a low GI wholesome foods.
>
> No need to lower carb intake to lower GI with a varied
> wholefood diet.

What I meant is that by trying to lower carb intake, one
should switch to low GI whole foods.

> >Flesh based foods that are rich in fat soluble nutrients
> >are a must for good health.
>
> Umm, not really. The best supply for ADKand E are leafy
> vegetables.

There are NO Vitamins A or D (forms that are considered usable
by humans) in plants. Only in animals.

Roman

[Sandy]

On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 22:34:52 -0600, "Roman"
<r_rom@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Sandy" <S@S.S> wrote in message
>news:qe814vg12m4k6ocbn0j5rlmq67k0iiou8t@4ax.com...
>> >Sure. What I said applies to mostly a lot of high GI,
>> >especially refined, carb foods that I a lot of people eat.
>> >So, recommendation to lower carb intake will (or should,
>> >at least) result in a low GI wholesome foods.
>>
>> No need to lower carb intake to lower GI with a varied
>> wholefood diet.
>
>What I meant is that by trying to lower carb intake, one
>should switch to low GI whole foods.

And I'm suggesting that the two are not connected AFAICS

>> >Flesh based foods that are rich in fat soluble nutrients
>> >are a must for good health.
>>
>> Umm, not really. The best supply for ADKand E are leafy
>> vegetables.
>
>There are NO Vitamins A or D (forms that are considered
>usable by humans) in plants. Only in animals.

This is not even wrong! Please hit the books.

Sandy

[Katra]

tintinet wrote:
>
> "Roman" <r_rom@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<b1qaa7$odt$1@news.chatlink.com>...
> > "Katra" <Katra@centurytel.net> wrote in message
> > news:3E400E10.A6C42E2C@centurytel.net...
> > >
> > > One of these days, when I can afford it, I'm going to
> > > see if crab and/or lobster will do the same thing, or I
> > > might try crayfish. They are cheaper and a little more
> > > closely related. All 4 animals are water bugs tho'...
> >
> > Katra,
> >
> > Have you experimented with other flesh based foods, e.g.
> > different meats (full fat and lean; raw/rare and "cooked
> > to death"), eggs (raw and cooked in different ways),
> > milk (full fat and skim; raw and pasteurized;
> > homogenized and not), etc.? They are relatively cheap,
> > so I hope you like them.
> >
> > Roman

Considering that I've been following an Atkins type diet now
for several years and yes, I like and eat the above foods. :-)
Nothing ever affected my HDL like crustaceans did! I probably
ought to experiment with eating more fish tho'. I have not
tried that, fish is expensive unless I get it off the docks. I
got some sea bass for 99 cents per pound, but they were huge
and I had to scale or fillet them myself. That was ok. The
coast is nearly a 3 hour drive away.

I do not cook my food to death. Eggs MUST have runny yolks and
if the whites bounce, I won't eat them. My beef and emu are
always rare and pink in the middle, and I drink only skim milk
now. I eat more chicken than anything else.

>
> I recently switched to a low-carb type diet. I eat quite a
> few nuts, high omega-3 eggs, fish (rarely shellfish), and
> vegetables. I also recently had my cholesterol assessed. My
> total cholesterol was 155
> mg/dl and HDL was 105 mg/dl.

I am still having some proplems getting my total cholesterol
below 200, but I was most successful at that when I was
lifting weights. I do not excersize enough at present and I am
making efforts to change that.

I spend too much time on the internet. <G>

Your HDL is 105??? Wow! Betting it is the fish and maybe the
nuts? I'd like to see some other folks experiment with diet
and blood levels.

Are shrimp high in Omega 3's?

K.

[Brandon Be]

"Sandy" <S@S.S> wrote in message
news:dnq34vkr9kqbtr8eji9qdu6vvk2c6opc4n@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 22:34:52 -0600, "Roman"
> <r_rom@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >"Sandy" <S@S.S> wrote in message
> >> >Flesh based foods that are rich in fat soluble nutrients
> >> >are a must for good health.
> >>
> >> Umm, not really. The best supply for ADKand E are leafy
> >> vegetables.
> >
> >There are NO Vitamins A or D (forms that are considered
> >usable by humans)
in
> >plants. Only in animals.
>
> This is not even wrong!

In other words, it's right?

> Please hit the books.

I might say the same to you. You may be correct about vitamin
K (the figures I found for food sources differ wildly, so I
can't say for sure), but that's about it.

1. Vitamin A is not found in plants. What plants do contain
are carotenes, which can be converted to vitamin A in the
intestines under certain conditions (one of them being
sufficient dietary fat intake). However, the conversion is
inefficient at best, and many people have an impaired
ability to convert carotenes to vitamin A. There is some
controversy regarding the degree to which carotenes can
improve vitamin A status in humans.

2. Plants contain ergosterol, which is a precursor to vitamin
D2. I am not aware that vitamin D2 occurs naturally in
significant quantities in any food (typically it's produced
by artificially irradiating ergosterol), but if you can
prove me wrong, I'd be very interested. A different form,
D3 is found in animals. In any case, 100g of shrimp
contains 150 IU, and 100g of sardines contains 480 IU. I'm
quite sure that no plant food contains comparable
quantities of vitamin D2.

3. Green, leafy vegetables have a reputation for being rich in
vitamin E, but there's very little basis for that belief.
100g of spinach (over three cups) contains less than 2mg of
vitamin E. The same amount of turnip greens are a little
better, at just under 3mg. I think that that's about as
good as it gets for green, leafy vegetables, but feel free
to correct me. Wheat germ oil is probably the richest
source of vitamin E, at 8.7mg per teaspoon. Sunflower seeds
are also good, at 14mg per ounce. Crude palm oil is a
particularly good source, though only about half as rich as
wheat germ oil, for two reasons. The first is that it
contains about half of its vitamin E as tocotrienols, which
are not found in significant quantities in most other
sources. The second is that, unlike sunflower seeds and
wheat germ oil, it's very low in polyunsaturated fat, which
increases the body's need for vitamin
E. Egg yolk from properly-fed chickens is another good source
of vitamin E (not to mention A, D, K, several B vitamins,
folic acid, and the conditionally essential fatty acids
found in fish oils). The kind I eat have about 4mg per egg.

Anyway, hit the books. Let me know if you find any information
that contradicts anything I've said.

[Sandy]

On Thu, 06 Feb 2003 06:06:30 GMT, "Brandon Berg"
<bberg@cesmail.net> wrote:

>"Sandy" <S@S.S> wrote in message
>news:dnq34vkr9kqbtr8eji9qdu6vvk2c6opc4n@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 22:34:52 -0600, "Roman"
>> <r_rom@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"Sandy" <S@S.S> wrote in message
>> >> >Flesh based foods that are rich in fat soluble
>> >> >nutrients are a must for good health.
>> >>
>> >> Umm, not really. The best supply for ADKand E are leafy
>> >> vegetables.
>> >
>> >There are NO Vitamins A or D (forms that are considered
>> >usable by humans)
>in
>> >plants. Only in animals.
>>
>> This is not even wrong!
>
>In other words, it's right?

No, even worse than wrong.

>> Please hit the books.
>
>I might say the same to you. You may be correct about vitamin
>K (the figures I found for food sources differ wildly, so I
>can't say for sure), but that's about it.
>
>1. Vitamin A is not found in plants. What plants do contain
> are carotenes, which can be converted to vitamin A in the
> intestines under certain conditions (one of them being
> sufficient dietary fat intake). However, the conversion is
> inefficient at best, and many people have an impaired
> ability to convert carotenes to vitamin A. There is some
> controversy regarding the degree to which carotenes can
> improve vitamin A status in humans.

Garbage. Strict vegetarians have no problems. One medium
carrot (or equivalent) is all that is needed each day.

>2. Plants contain ergosterol, which is a precursor to vitamin
> D2. I am not aware that vitamin D2 occurs naturally in
> significant quantities in any food (typically it's
> produced by artificially irradiating ergosterol), but if
> you can prove me wrong, I'd be very interested. A
> different form, D3 is found in animals. In any case, 100g
> of shrimp contains 150 IU, and 100g of sardines contains
> 480 IU. I'm quite sure that no plant food contains
> comparable quantities of vitamin D2.

And five minutes in the noonday sun with your sleeves rolled
up gives you all you need each day.

>3. Green, leafy vegetables have a reputation for being rich
> in vitamin E, but there's very little basis for that
> belief. 100g of spinach (over three cups) contains less
> than 2mg of vitamin E. The same amount of turnip greens
> are a little better, at just under 3mg. I think that
> that's about as good as it gets for green, leafy
> vegetables, but feel free to correct me. Wheat germ oil is
> probably the richest source of vitamin E, at 8.7mg per
> teaspoon. Sunflower seeds are also good, at 14mg per
> ounce. Crude palm oil is a particularly good source,
> though only about half as rich as wheat germ oil, for two
> reasons. The first is that it contains about half of its
> vitamin E as tocotrienols, which are not found in
> significant quantities in most other sources. The second
> is that, unlike sunflower seeds and wheat germ oil, it's
> very low in polyunsaturated fat, which increases the
> body's need for vitamin
>E. Egg yolk from properly-fed chickens is another good
> source of vitamin E (not to mention A, D, K, several B
> vitamins, folic acid, and the conditionally essential
> fatty acids found in fish oils). The kind I eat have
> about 4mg per egg.

Why on Earth do you think you need so much? Your life seems to
revolve around how much of this nutrient or that you get. 20+
years ago, Vitamin E was not a vitamin :)

>Anyway, hit the books. Let me know if you find any
>information that contradicts anything I've said.

Not interested, sorry. The bottom line is that ADKE can easily
be gotten from vegetables and you don't need any refined or
indeed much oil in your wholefood diet to get all you need.

The fact I'm refuting is that you need to eat much animal fat
and refined fats to get your requirements for these
micronutrients.

I'm still waiting for the minerals that need fat to be
absorbed.

Sandy

[Tintinet]

Katra <Katra@centurytel.net> wrote in message
news:<3E4207AB.F2A2B335@centurytel.net>...
> tintinet wrote:
> >
> > "Roman" <r_rom@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:<b1qaa7$odt$1@news.chatlink.com>...
> > > "Katra" <Katra@centurytel.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3E400E10.A6C42E2C@centurytel.net...
> > > >
> > > > One of these days, when I can afford it, I'm going to
> > > > see if crab and/or lobster will do the same thing, or
> > > > I might try crayfish. They are cheaper and a little
> > > > more closely related. All 4 animals are water bugs
> > > > tho'...
> > >
> > > Katra,
> > >
> > > Have you experimented with other flesh based foods, e.g.
> > > different meats (full fat and lean; raw/rare and "cooked
> > > to death"), eggs (raw and cooked in different ways),
> > > milk (full fat and skim; raw and pasteurized;
> > > homogenized and not), etc.? They are relatively cheap,
> > > so I hope you like them.
> > >
> > > Roman
>
> Considering that I've been following an Atkins type diet now
> for several years and yes, I like and eat the above foods.
> :-) Nothing ever affected my HDL like crustaceans did! I
> probably ought to experiment with eating more fish tho'. I
> have not tried that, fish is expensive unless I get it off
> the docks. I got some sea bass for 99 cents per pound, but
> they were huge and I had to scale or fillet them myself.
> That was ok. The coast is nearly a 3 hour drive away.
>
> I do not cook my food to death. Eggs MUST have runny yolks
> and if the whites bounce, I won't eat them. My beef and emu
> are always rare and pink in the middle, and I drink only
> skim milk now. I eat more chicken than anything else.
>
> >
> > I recently switched to a low-carb type diet. I eat quite a
> > few nuts, high omega-3 eggs, fish (rarely shellfish), and
> > vegetables. I also recently had my cholesterol assessed.
> > My total cholesterol was 155
> > mg/dl and HDL was 105 mg/dl.
>
> I am still having some proplems getting my total cholesterol
> below 200, but I was most successful at that when I was
> lifting weights. I do not excersize enough at present and I
> am making efforts to change that.
>
> I spend too much time on the internet. <G>
>
> Your HDL is 105??? Wow! Betting it is the fish and maybe the
> nuts? I'd like to see some other folks experiment with diet
> and blood levels.
>
> Are shrimp high in Omega 3's?
>
> K.

I believe shrimp are "relatively" high in omega 3 oils, but
contain very little total fat. If you want to get significant
amounts of omega 3, you'll get more total omega 3s from fatty
fish (salmon, tuna, mackerel, herring).

[Roman]

"Sandy" <S@S.S> wrote in message
news:0qv34vs2tgfae8m4h5ujo95jp3f95gkmnf@4ax.com...
> >1. Vitamin A is not found in plants. What plants do
> > contain are
carotenes,
> >which can be converted to vitamin A in the intestines under
> >certain conditions (one of them being sufficient dietary
> >fat intake). However,
the
> >conversion is inefficient at best, and many people have an
> >impaired
ability
> >to convert carotenes to vitamin A. There is some
> >controversy regarding
the
> >degree to which carotenes can improve vitamin A status in
> >humans.
>
> Garbage. Strict vegetarians have no problems.

Actually they do. But most vegetarians consume animal fats in
some form,
e.g. dairy, eggs, etc.

>One medium carrot (or equivalent) is all that is needed
>each day.

How do you figure that?

> And five minutes in the noonday sun with your sleeves rolled
> up gives you all you need each day.

False! That is completely not enough. What is your reference
for that?
http://westonaprice.org/vitamins/nutrition_vitaminD.html:
"Only sunning between 10 am and 2 pm during summer months (or
winter months in southern latitudes) for 20-120 minutes,
depending on skin type and color, will form adequate vitamin D
before burning occurs." And the author means full body
exposure, not just face and arms as you suggest.

> Why on Earth do you think you need so much? Your life seems
> to revolve around how much of this nutrient or that you get.
> 20+ years ago, Vitamin E was not a vitamin :)

Then why do you waste your time telling people to eat whole
foods? Refined foods also have the same nutrients, only in
smaller amounts.

> >Anyway, hit the books. Let me know if you find any
> >information that contradicts anything I've said.
>
> Not interested, sorry.

And never really were, I am sure.

Roman

[Wuzzy]

"Tomaso" <tomdunnNOSPAM34@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<lxiW9.8961$Fj2.5171690@news2.news.adelphia.net>...
> Someone told me that taking a capsule of Milk Thistle a day
> could raise the level of HDL "the good cholesterol". Two
> months later I found that my HDL had gone from 65 to 95. My
> doctor was surprised and asked, "What the hell is milk
> thistle?" I explained.

Low carbohydrate diet is probably the best way to raise your
HDLs, especially by replacing carbs with MUFAs.. The problem
is this diet might lead to weight gain since it is energy
dense, the correlation between carb=-hdl is very strong when
using multiple recalls. (r=-.318)

-wuzzy

statistics note: HDL is the perfect example of why standard
multivariate (HDL=weight+sex+carb+calories) should be used.
This is because adding 10g of carb to your diet translates to
less % carb change than if you remove the carb and replace it
with something else. ie., adding 10kcal of carb to a 100kcal
meal is only a 10% addition but removing 10kcal of carb would
be a difference of 90/110 = 18% change. If you left calories
out of the model you'd just be adding grams of carb which has
a much weaker effect (statistically) than replacing it with
other calories. The effect of replacing is almost double..

[Wuzzy]

Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA wrote:

>I never have understood the "energy dense" nonsense. No
>studies have
shown
>that "energy density" (kcal/g) of an ad libitum diet
>causes weight
gain or
>loss. I replaced carbs with MUFA in my diet and my HDL rose
substantially, my
>TG fell, and my caloric intake (and weight) fell.

An example: in ketogenic diets in epileptics you are
recommended to feed high energy dense diets (mix oils into
foods etc) to trick the person to try to eat more calories to
maintain weight, otherwise their growth and weigth may be
(ie., sometimes is) less for their age..

[Wuzzy]

>I never have understood the "energy dense" nonsense. No
>studies have
shown
>that "energy density" (kcal/g) of an ad libitum diet
>causes weight
gain or
>loss. I replaced carbs with MUFA in my diet and my HDL rose
substantially, my
>TG fell, and my caloric intake (and weight) fell.
>--
>Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

I kindof agree with Jim in the sense that:
a)maybe not likely to overeat olive oil (but many
europeans do) and
b)asking people to replace their staples (potatos etc.) with
low-energy foods like carrots is not going to trick them,
except for maybe the duration of one meal - they will still
eat large amounts of calories in the long run. Much like
adding diet coke has no effect on caloric intake except for
single-days when it'll show up as very low (you can trick
yourself for one meal, that is). Obese persons tend to eat
alot of diet coke and show up as very low cal one single-day
questions. ("I eat very little and Skinny-Marie eats as much
as she wants and I still gain")

But the caution is logical and necessary to make: not to
overeat things even if they are good for you: nuts, olive oil
etc. particularly when they are energy dense. It sometimes
comes across awkward when person forgets to mention caveat not
to overeat the stuff.. -wuzzy

off topic: This month's Science magazine (not very interesting
though) is a special review on obesity and argues that only
50Kcal/day (over 10 years was it?) extra has been added to
american diet ,or equivalent sedentariness, to cause current
levels of obesity. [this is about 200-400Kcal if you tend to
overeat only on Weekends]

[Wuzzy]

Jim wrote,

>I replaced carbs with MUFA in my diet and my HDL rose
>substantially, my TG fell, and my caloric intake (and
>weight) fell.

I don't expect a reply but I'm curious whether you were
happier about the change in HDL rise or TG drop. I ask because
we know both tend to happen, but there is controversy as to
which is stronger:

-Most people think it is the triglyceride because the HDL
rises secondary to low levels of triglyceride.(triglyceride
loading of HDL causes its breakdown via hepatic lipase) -But I
tend to get the impression that HDL more visibly rises than
Trig drops. Ie., I get the impression that the trig effect is
weak compared to the benefit of HDL. I know my view is not
supported by the literature its just a hunch..

Wuzzy.

Off topic: I made an incorrect comment recently, anyway the
real reason why
a)replacing carbs with fat compared to b)just dropping the
carbs doubles the statistical visibility of the rise in
HDL is that:

carbs drop and fats raise HDL.
aa., both seem to occur independant of each other. (For HDL
its good to increase the fat and also good to lower the
carb) Thus if you just removed carbs the effect will be
about half of adding fat and removing the carbs. [see 1950
hegsted + keys equations or the more modern 1990 equations
that are often cited on sci.med.nutrition] So a model of
HDL=Carbs+calories will be more significant (almost half
the SEE) than HDL=%KcalAsCarbohydrate

[Eric Bohlm]

mypcos@hotmail.com (wuzzy) wrote in
news:d996c21a.0302080438.53c05d83@posting.google.com:

> Low carbohydrate diet is probably the best way to raise your
> HDLs, especially by replacing carbs with MUFAs.. The problem
> is this diet might lead to weight gain since it is energy
> dense, the correlation between carb=-hdl is very strong when
> using multiple recalls. (r=-.318)

Needless to say, that problem can be solved by making the
substitution isocaloric, or nearly so: replace one gram of
non-fiber carb with half a gram of MUFA.

[Eric Bohlm]

mypcos@hotmail.com (wuzzy) wrote in
news:d996c21a.0302080959.73884ddf@posting.google.com:

> This month's Science magazine (not very interesting though)
> is a special review on obesity and argues that only
> 50Kcal/day (over 10 years was it?) extra has been added to
> american diet ,or equivalent sedentariness, to cause current
> levels of obesity. [this is about 200-400Kcal if you tend to
> overeat only on Weekends]

A classic illustration of how little things can add up. An
extra 50 kcal/day, on average, translates to a gain of about
5 pounds per year if not matched by increased energy
expenditure. That doesn't *sound* like much, but over a
decade that's 50 pounds, enough to push most people from
normal weight to obesity (in reality, most people gain less
because as they gain weight, they need more calories to
maintain that weight). But it's our bias as humans to look
for dramatic changes in order to explain big effects, and so
we can miss the fact that we can end up getting nickled and
dimed to death.

[Jim Chinni]

mypcos@hotmail.com (wuzzy) wrote in part:

>Jim wrote,
>
>>I replaced carbs with MUFA in my diet and my HDL rose
>>substantially, my TG fell, and my caloric intake (and
>>weight) fell.
>
>
>I don't expect a reply but I'm curious whether you were
>happier about the change in HDL rise or TG drop. I ask
>because we know both tend to happen, but there is controversy
>as to which is stronger:
>
>-Most people think it is the triglyceride because the HDL
>rises secondary to low levels of triglyceride.(triglyceride
>loading of HDL causes its breakdown via hepatic lipase) -But
>I tend to get the impression that HDL more visibly rises than
>Trig drops. Ie., I get the impression that the trig effect is
>weak compared to the benefit of HDL. I know my view is not
>supported by the literature its just a hunch..
>
>Wuzzy.

I mostly was pleased that the TG/HDL ratio fell dramatically.
I'm not sure we quite understand as yet the roles of each
factor in atherogenesis--as your hunch indicates!
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

[Jim Chinni]

mypcos@hotmail.com (wuzzy) wrote in part:

>An example: in ketogenic diets in epileptics you are
>recommended to feed high energy dense diets (mix oils into
>foods etc) to trick the person to try to eat more calories to
>maintain weight, otherwise their growth and weigth may be
>(ie., sometimes is) less for their age..

In a ketogenic diet, one is constrained by the need to keep
carbs extremely low. That leaves protein and fat balance to
manipulate, with some constraints on protein as well. Not much
choice, is there?

Any evidence that adding oils actually increases caloric
intake, even in that special case?
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

[Tintinet]

mypcos@hotmail.com (wuzzy) wrote in message
news:<d996c21a.0302080438.53c05d83@posting.google.com>...
> "Tomaso" <tomdunnNOSPAM34@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<lxiW9.8961$Fj2.5171690@news2.news.adelphia.net>...
> > Someone told me that taking a capsule of Milk Thistle a
> > day could raise the level of HDL "the good cholesterol".
> > Two months later I found that my HDL had gone from 65 to
> > 95. My doctor was surprised and asked, "What the hell is
> > milk thistle?" I explained.
>
>
> Low carbohydrate diet is probably the best way to raise your
> HDLs, especially by replacing carbs with MUFAs.. The problem
> is this diet might lead to weight gain since it is energy
> dense, the correlation between carb=-hdl is very strong when
> using multiple recalls. (r=-.318)
>
> -wuzzy
>
> statistics note: HDL is the perfect example of why standard
> multivariate (HDL=weight+sex+carb+calories) should be used.
> This is because adding 10g of carb to your diet translates
> to less % carb change than if you remove the carb and
> replace it with something else. ie., adding 10kcal of carb
> to a 100kcal meal is only a 10% addition but removing 10kcal
> of carb would be a difference of 90/110 = 18% change. If you
> left calories out of the model you'd just be adding grams of
> carb which has a much weaker effect (statistically) than
> replacing it with other calories. The effect of replacing is
> almost double..

The low carb approach certainly seemed to have been the trick
for me. As I noted in this thread, my recent total chol. and
HDL were 155
mg/dl and 105 mg/dl respectively. My prior total chol. and
HDL, five years ago, when I was on a high carb very low fat
diet was 103 mg/dl and 55 mg/dl. Which is better?

[Tintinet]

mypcos@hotmail.com (wuzzy) wrote in message
news:<d996c21a.0302080438.53c05d83@posting.google.com>...
> "Tomaso" <tomdunnNOSPAM34@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<lxiW9.8961$Fj2.5171690@news2.news.adelphia.net>...
> > Someone told me that taking a capsule of Milk Thistle a
> > day could raise the level of HDL "the good cholesterol".
> > Two months later I found that my HDL had gone from 65 to
> > 95. My doctor was surprised and asked, "What the hell is
> > milk thistle?" I explained.
>
>
> Low carbohydrate diet is probably the best way to raise your
> HDLs, especially by replacing carbs with MUFAs.. The problem
> is this diet might lead to weight gain since it is energy
> dense, the correlation between carb=-hdl is very strong when
> using multiple recalls. (r=-.318)
>
> -wuzzy
>
> statistics note: HDL is the perfect example of why standard
> multivariate (HDL=weight+sex+carb+calories) should be used.
> This is because adding 10g of carb to your diet translates
> to less % carb change than if you remove the carb and
> replace it with something else. ie., adding 10kcal of carb
> to a 100kcal meal is only a 10% addition but removing 10kcal
> of carb would be a difference of 90/110 = 18% change. If you
> left calories out of the model you'd just be adding grams of
> carb which has a much weaker effect (statistically) than
> replacing it with other calories. The effect of replacing is
> almost double..

Also, my weight has remained unchanged from low fat to
high fat diet.

[Jim Chinni]

Eric Bohlman <ebohlman@earthlink.net> wrote in part:

>mypcos@hotmail.com (wuzzy) wrote in
>news:d996c21a.0302080438.53c05d83@posting.google.com:
>
>> Low carbohydrate diet is probably the best way to raise
>> your HDLs, especially by replacing carbs with MUFAs.. The
>> problem is this diet might lead to weight gain since it is
>> energy dense, the correlation between carb=-hdl is very
>> strong when using multiple recalls. (r=-.318)
>
>Needless to say, that problem can be solved by making the
>substitution isocaloric, or nearly so: replace one gram of
>non-fiber carb with half a gram of MUFA.

I never have understood the "energy dense" nonsense. No
studies have shown that "energy density" (kcal/g) of an ad
libitum diet causes weight gain or loss. I replaced carbs with
MUFA in my diet and my HDL rose substantially, my TG fell, and
my caloric intake (and weight) fell.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

[Eric Bohlm]

Jim Chinnis <jchinnis@SPAMalum.mit.edu> wrote in
news:7qea4vo8eisb40k2g6n4rr2mqq6r8bor17@4ax.com:

> I never have understood the "energy dense" nonsense. No
> studies have shown that "energy density" (kcal/g) of an ad
> libitum diet causes weight gain or loss. I replaced carbs
> with MUFA in my diet and my HDL rose substantially, my TG
> fell, and my caloric intake (and weight) fell. --

Nobody's seriously argued that differences between the energy
densities of foods included in isocaloric diets have any
effect on weight loss or gain. What *has* been seriously
argued is that the energy density of the foods included in a
typical person's diet has an effect on how many calories that
person consumes and that if someone includes large amounts of
energy-dense foods in their diet without taking their caloric
value into account, they can easily consume excess calories.

Or another way of putting it is that if you want to reduce the
total number of calories you're consuming, energy-dense foods
are the first place to look, since they're likely to account
for more of your total calories than less energy-dense foods.
It's like saying that if you're a programmer who wants to
speed up your program, you need to focus most of your
attention on frequently-executed sequences of code.

[Jim Chinni]

Eric Bohlman <ebohlman@earthlink.net> wrote in part:

>Or another way of putting it is that if you want to reduce
>the total number of calories you're consuming, energy-dense
>foods are the first place to look, since they're likely to
>account for more of your total calories than less
>energy-dense foods.

I found this not to be true at all in my case, and I doubt it
is a common situation. Carbs make up the largest share of most
Western diets. The only energy dense macronutrient is fat,
which makes up 30 to 45% of calories in typical Western diets,
and much less in those trying (and usually failing) to lose
weight or reduce cardiovascular risk.

The question is how to satisfy nutritional needs and the
appetite while staying at a healthy weight. Everybody seems to
have arguments for why fat should be reduced (or "energy
density") reduced. I just don't buy them. Been there, done
that, bought the T-shirt...and read the research literature.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

[Eric Bohlm]

Jim Chinnis <jchinnis@SPAMalum.mit.edu> wrote in
news:6sja4vg897l700pqvq0mptfmcnbq8nf1rm@4ax.com:

> I found this not to be true at all in my case, and I doubt
> it is a common situation. Carbs make up the largest share of
> most Western diets. The only energy dense macronutrient is
> fat, which makes up 30 to 45% of calories in typical Western
> diets, and much less in those trying (and usually failing)
> to lose weight or reduce cardiovascular risk.

Hold on a minute. Energy density isn't so much a property of
macronutrients themselves but of the foods that contain them.
Much of those carbs in Western diets are consumed in
energy-dense forms (like sweetened sodas).

[Brandon Be]

"Eric Bohlman" <ebohlman@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xns931C8D1E740AAebohlmanomsdevcom@130.133.1.4...
> Hold on a minute. Energy density isn't so much a property of
> macronutrients themselves but of the foods that contain
> them. Much of those carbs in Western diets are consumed in
> energy-dense forms (like sweetened sodas).

Sweetened soda isn't energy-dense. It contains about 40
calories per 100g, only a little more than broccoli. Steak, by
comparison, can have five or six times the energy density, yet
it contributes less to weight gain.

[Jim Chinni]

Eric Bohlman <ebohlman@earthlink.net> wrote in part:

>Jim Chinnis <jchinnis@SPAMalum.mit.edu> wrote in
>news:6sja4vg897l700pqvq0mptfmcnbq8nf1rm@4ax.com:
>
>> I found this not to be true at all in my case, and I doubt
>> it is a common situation. Carbs make up the largest share
>> of most Western diets. The only energy dense macronutrient
>> is fat, which makes up 30 to 45% of calories in typical
>> Western diets, and much less in those trying (and usually
>> failing) to lose weight or reduce cardiovascular risk.
>
>Hold on a minute. Energy density isn't so much a property of
>macronutrients themselves but of the foods that contain them.
>Much of those carbs in Western diets are consumed in
>energy-dense forms (like sweetened sodas).

Hold on a minute. ;-) What is "energy density" of a food? I
assume kcal/g. A sweetened soda is what, about half a kcal/g?
A slice of cheese is about six times as energy dense.

I think energy density is nonsense, as I said.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

[Sandy]

On 8 Feb 2003 09:59:21 -0800, mypcos@hotmail.com (wuzzy)
wrote:

>>I never have understood the "energy dense" nonsense. No
>>studies have
>shown
>>that "energy density" (kcal/g) of an ad libitum diet
>>causes weight
>gain or
>>loss. I replaced carbs with MUFA in my diet and my HDL rose
>substantially, my
>>TG fell, and my caloric intake (and weight) fell.
>>--
>>Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
>
>I kindof agree with Jim in the sense that:
>a)maybe not likely to overeat olive oil (but many europeans
> do) and
>b)asking people to replace their staples (potatos etc.) with
> low-energy foods like carrots is not going to trick them,
> except for maybe the duration of one meal - they will still
> eat large amounts of calories in the long run. Much like
> adding diet coke has no effect on caloric intake except for
> single-days when it'll show up as very low (you can trick
> yourself for one meal, that is). Obese persons tend to eat
> alot of diet coke and show up as very low cal one
> single-day questions. ("I eat very little and Skinny-Marie
> eats as much as she wants and I still gain")
>
>But the caution is logical and necessary to make: not to
>overeat things even if they are good for you: nuts, olive oil
>etc. particularly when they are energy dense. It sometimes
>comes across awkward when person forgets to mention caveat
>not to overeat the stuff.. -wuzzy
>
>off topic: This month's Science magazine (not very
>interesting though) is a special review on obesity and argues
>that only 50Kcal/day (over 10 years was it?) extra has been
>added to american diet ,or equivalent sedentariness, to cause
>current levels of obesity. [this is about 200-400Kcal if you
>tend to overeat only on Weekends]

If you must have a snack, it's much better to eat celery or
carrot stix, and if you really must, a low calorie dip.
(low fat).

Sustituting a half microwaved spud for a roasted-in-fat spud
is surely not a terrible psychological restriction, but a
significant calorie one.

Sandy

[Sandy]

On 8 Feb 2003 09:36:29 -0800, mypcos@hotmail.com (wuzzy)
wrote:

>Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA wrote:
>
>>I never have understood the "energy dense" nonsense. No
>>studies have
>shown
>>that "energy density" (kcal/g) of an ad libitum diet
>>causes weight
>gain or
>>loss. I replaced carbs with MUFA in my diet and my HDL rose
>substantially, my
>>TG fell, and my caloric intake (and weight) fell.
>
>An example: in ketogenic diets in epileptics you are
>recommended to feed high energy dense diets (mix oils into
>foods etc) to trick the person to try to eat more calories to
>maintain weight, otherwise their growth and weigth may be
>(ie., sometimes is) less for their age..

Why would they do this?

A ketogenic diet must have fat for calorie requirements.

Sandy

[Sandy]

On 8 Feb 2003 11:28:11 -0800, tintinet@altavista.com
(tintinet) wrote:

>mypcos@hotmail.com (wuzzy) wrote in message
>news:<d996c21a.0302080438.53c05d83@posting.google.com>...
>> "Tomaso" <tomdunnNOSPAM34@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:<lxiW9.8961$Fj2.5171690@news2.news.adelphia.net>...
>> > Someone told me that taking a capsule of Milk Thistle a
>> > day could raise the level of HDL "the good cholesterol".
>> > Two months later I found that my HDL had gone from 65 to
>> > 95. My doctor was surprised and asked, "What the hell is
>> > milk thistle?" I explained.
>>
>>
>> Low carbohydrate diet is probably the best way to raise
>> your HDLs, especially by replacing carbs with MUFAs.. The
>> problem is this diet might lead to weight gain since it is
>> energy dense, the correlation between carb=-hdl is very
>> strong when using multiple recalls. (r=-.318)
>>
>> -wuzzy
>>
>> statistics note: HDL is the perfect example of why standard
>> multivariate (HDL=weight+sex+carb+calories) should be used.
>> This is because adding 10g of carb to your diet translates
>> to less % carb change than if you remove the carb and
>> replace it with something else. ie., adding 10kcal of carb
>> to a 100kcal meal is only a 10% addition but removing
>> 10kcal of carb would be a difference of 90/110 = 18%
>> change. If you left calories out of the model you'd just be
>> adding grams of carb which has a much weaker effect
>> (statistically) than replacing it with other calories. The
>> effect of replacing is almost double..
>
>Also, my weight has remained unchanged from low fat to high
>fat diet.

Meaning that either your caloric intake has not changed or
your energy expenditure has, in order to compensate.

Sandy

[Sandy]

On 8 Feb 2003 11:26:06 -0800, tintinet@altavista.com
(tintinet) wrote:

>The low carb approach certainly seemed to have been the
>trick for me.

Fine, but make sure you get the micronutrients you might be
missing with such dietary distortion.

>As I noted in this thread, my recent total chol. and
>HDL were 155
>mg/dl and 105 mg/dl respectively. My prior total chol. and
> HDL, five years ago, when I was on a high carb very low
> fat diet was 103 mg/dl and 55 mg/dl. Which is better?

I don't know. Does anyone?

Sandy

[Sandy]

On Sat, 08 Feb 2003 19:03:49 GMT, Jim Chinnis
<jchinnis@SPAMalum.mit.edu> wrote:

>mypcos@hotmail.com (wuzzy) wrote in part:
>
>>An example: in ketogenic diets in epileptics you are
>>recommended to feed high energy dense diets (mix oils into
>>foods etc) to trick the person to try to eat more calories
>>to maintain weight, otherwise their growth and weigth may be
>>(ie., sometimes is) less for their age..
>
>In a ketogenic diet, one is constrained by the need to keep
>carbs extremely low. That leaves protein and fat balance to
>manipulate, with some constraints on protein as well. Not
>much choice, is there?
>
>Any evidence that adding oils actually increases caloric
>intake, even in that special case?

I don't think you meant this to come out like it did.

Adding oils not increasing calories?

Sandy

[Sandy]

On Sat, 08 Feb 2003 18:59:21 GMT, Jim Chinnis
<jchinnis@SPAMalum.mit.edu> wrote:

>mypcos@hotmail.com (wuzzy) wrote in part:
>
>>Jim wrote,
>>
>>>I replaced carbs with MUFA in my diet and my HDL rose
>>>substantially, my TG fell, and my caloric intake (and
>>>weight) fell.
>>
>>
>>I don't expect a reply but I'm curious whether you were
>>happier about the change in HDL rise or TG drop. I ask
>>because we know both tend to happen, but there is
>>controversy as to which is stronger:
>>
>>-Most people think it is the triglyceride because the HDL
>>rises secondary to low levels of triglyceride.(triglyceride
>>loading of HDL causes its breakdown via hepatic lipase) -But
>>I tend to get the impression that HDL more visibly rises
>>than Trig drops. Ie., I get the impression that the trig
>>effect is weak compared to the benefit of HDL. I know my
>>view is not supported by the literature its just a hunch..
>>
>>Wuzzy.
>
>I mostly was pleased that the TG/HDL ratio fell dramatically.
>I'm not sure we quite understand as yet the roles of each
>factor in atherogenesis--as your hunch indicates!

So I wonder why you were pleased.

Sandy

[Sandy]

On Sat, 08 Feb 2003 17:21:24 GMT, Jim Chinnis
<jchinnis@SPAMalum.mit.edu> wrote:

>Eric Bohlman <ebohlman@earthlink.net> wrote in part:
>
>>mypcos@hotmail.com (wuzzy) wrote in
>>news:d996c21a.0302080438.53c05d83@posting.google.com:
>>
>>> Low carbohydrate diet is probably the best way to raise
>>> your HDLs, especially by replacing carbs with MUFAs.. The
>>> problem is this diet might lead to weight gain since it is
>>> energy dense, the correlation between carb=-hdl is very
>>> strong when using multiple recalls. (r=-.318)
>>
>>Needless to say, that problem can be solved by making the
>>substitution isocaloric, or nearly so: replace one gram of
>>non-fiber carb with half a gram of MUFA.
>
>I never have understood the "energy dense" nonsense. No
>studies have shown that "energy density" (kcal/g) of an ad
>libitum diet causes weight gain or loss. I replaced carbs
>with MUFA in my diet and my HDL rose substantially, my TG
>fell, and my caloric intake (and weight) fell.

Great for you, but so what?

Sandy

[Brandon Be]

"Sandy" <S@S.S> wrote in message
news:c2oc4vkt0so9j28uan9f94s3oeq5bg9j4n@4ax.com...
> On 8 Feb 2003 11:26:06 -0800, tintinet@altavista.com
> (tintinet) wrote:
>
> >The low carb approach certainly seemed to have been the
> >trick for me.
>
> Fine, but make sure you get the micronutrients you might be
> missing with such dietary distortion.

Which micronutrients?

[Sandy]

On Sat, 08 Feb 2003 18:46:39 GMT, Jim Chinnis
<jchinnis@SPAMalum.mit.edu> wrote:

>Eric Bohlman <ebohlman@earthlink.net> wrote in part:
>
>>Or another way of putting it is that if you want to reduce
>>the total number of calories you're consuming, energy-dense
>>foods are the first place to look, since they're likely to
>>account for more of your total calories than less
>>energy-dense foods.
>
>I found this not to be true at all in my case, and I doubt it
>is a common situation. Carbs make up the largest share of
>most Western diets.

Are you sure of this? I thought more calories of fat were
consumed on average.

>The only energy dense macronutrient is fat, which makes up 30
>to 45% of calories in typical Western diets, and much less in
>those trying (and usually failing) to lose weight or reduce
>cardiovascular risk.

Failing coz they don't reduce their fats, in reallity?

>The question is how to satisfy nutritional needs and the
>appetite while staying at a healthy weight.

Eat as least energy-dense foods as you find enjoyable.

Satiety is blood glucose and stomach distension .

>Everybody seems to have arguments for why fat should be
>reduced (or "energy density") reduced.

Well refined fats bring along almost 9 calories for
every gram.

>I just don't buy them. Been there, done that, bought the
>T-shirt...and read the research literature.

Which research litereature? What have you been there and done?

So many folks look at a donut and say OH, look at all those
carbs, but have you looked at the fat too?

How many "healthy" breakfasters have a buttered croisssant for
brekky. How much fat?

Sandy

[Sandy]

On 8 Feb 2003 19:45:46 GMT, Eric Bohlman
<ebohlman@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Jim Chinnis <jchinnis@SPAMalum.mit.edu> wrote in
>news:6sja4vg897l700pqvq0mptfmcnbq8nf1rm@4ax.com:
>
>> I found this not to be true at all in my case, and I doubt
>> it is a common situation. Carbs make up the largest share
>> of most Western diets. The only energy dense macronutrient
>> is fat, which makes up 30 to 45% of calories in typical
>> Western diets, and much less in those trying (and usually
>> failing) to lose weight or reduce cardiovascular risk.
>
>Hold on a minute. Energy density isn't so much a property of
>macronutrients themselves but of the foods that contain them.
>Much of those carbs in Western diets are consumed in
>energy-dense forms (like sweetened sodas).

A soda is around 0.4 calories per gram.

Olive oil contains around 9 calories per gram.

Less than one twentieth.

What do you mean by energy density?

Sandy

[Sandy]

On Sat, 08 Feb 2003 20:19:40 GMT, Jim Chinnis
<jchinnis@SPAMalum.mit.edu> wrote:

>Eric Bohlman <ebohlman@earthlink.net> wrote in part:
>
>>Jim Chinnis <jchinnis@SPAMalum.mit.edu> wrote in
>>news:6sja4vg897l700pqvq0mptfmcnbq8nf1rm@4ax.com:
>>
>>> I found this not to be true at all in my case, and I doubt
>>> it is a common situation. Carbs make up the largest share
>>> of most Western diets. The only energy dense macronutrient
>>> is fat, which makes up 30 to 45% of calories in typical
>>> Western diets, and much less in those trying (and usually
>>> failing) to lose weight or reduce cardiovascular risk.
>>
>>Hold on a minute. Energy density isn't so much a property of
>>macronutrients themselves but of the foods that contain
>>them. Much of those carbs in Western diets are consumed in
>>energy-dense forms (like sweetened sodas).
>
>Hold on a minute. ;-) What is "energy density" of a food? I
>assume kcal/g. A sweetened soda is what, about half a kcal/g?
>A slice of cheese is about six times as energy dense.
>
>I think energy density is nonsense, as I said.

And i think the number 42 is nonsense.

Guess what? It doesn't give a fig either.

Sandy

[Sandy]

On Sat, 08 Feb 2003 20:17:40 GMT, "Brandon Berg"
<bberg@cesmail.net> wrote:

>
>"Eric Bohlman" <ebohlman@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:Xns931C8D1E740AAebohlmanomsdevcom@130.133.1.4...
>> Hold on a minute. Energy density isn't so much a property
>> of macronutrients themselves but of the foods that contain
>> them. Much of those carbs in Western diets are consumed in
>> energy-dense forms (like sweetened sodas).
>
>Sweetened soda isn't energy-dense. It contains about 40
>calories per 100g, only a little more than broccoli. Steak,
>by comparison, can have five or six times the energy density,
>yet it contributes less to weight gain.

If you eat a fifth or sixth of the amount.

Sandy

[Roman]

"Sandy" <S@S.S> wrote in message
news:c2oc4vkt0so9j28uan9f94s3oeq5bg9j4n@4ax.com...
> On 8 Feb 2003 11:26:06 -0800, tintinet@altavista.com
> (tintinet) wrote:
>
> >The low carb approach certainly seemed to have been the
> >trick for me.
>
> Fine, but make sure you get the micronutrients you might be
> missing with such dietary distortion.

If he consumes flesh that's been raised on fertile pastures,
he probably is not missing the micronutrients. In addition,
nonstarchy veggies and a little of fruits can be a part of low
carb diet.

> >As I noted in this thread, my recent total chol. and HDL
> >were 155
> >mg/dl and 105 mg/dl respectively. My prior total chol. and
> > HDL, five years ago, when I was on a high carb very low
> > fat diet was 103 mg/dl and 55 mg/dl. Which is better?
>
> I don't know. Does anyone?

There's correlation between low cholesterol and different
diseases (cancer, depression, etc.). Correlation doesn't prove
anything, but with this data, I'd say his current lipid
profile is better that the previous one.

Roman

[Sandy]

On Sun, 09 Feb 2003 19:58:55 GMT, "Brandon Berg"
<bberg@cesmail.net> wrote:

>"Sandy" <S@S.S> wrote in message
>news:c2oc4vkt0so9j28uan9f94s3oeq5bg9j4n@4ax.com...
>> On 8 Feb 2003 11:26:06 -0800, tintinet@altavista.com
>> (tintinet) wrote:
>>
>> >The low carb approach certainly seemed to have been the
>> >trick for me.
>>
>> Fine, but make sure you get the micronutrients you might be
>> missing with such dietary distortion.
>
>Which micronutrients?

The ones that come in grains and other carb-containing
wholefoods.

Sandy

[Sandy]

On Sun, 9 Feb 2003 22:04:14 -0600, "Roman"
<r_rom@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Sandy" <S@S.S> wrote in message
>news:c2oc4vkt0so9j28uan9f94s3oeq5bg9j4n@4ax.com...
>> On 8 Feb 2003 11:26:06 -0800, tintinet@altavista.com
>> (tintinet) wrote:
>>
>> >The low carb approach certainly seemed to have been the
>> >trick for me.
>>
>> Fine, but make sure you get the micronutrients you might be
>> missing with such dietary distortion.
>
>If he consumes flesh that's been raised on fertile pastures,
>he probably is not missing the micronutrients. In addition,
>nonstarchy veggies and a little of fruits can be a part of
>low carb diet.

Of course eating just flesh can deprive the body of an
essential non-nutrient, fibre. So as long as there are a
lot of veges and fruits consumed, one might be OK. I prefer
a much bigger variety for security. I see no value in
trying to restrict carbohydrates in wholefoods. Just like
oils in wholefoods. However refined oils and refined carbs
are to be avoided.

>> >As I noted in this thread, my recent total chol. and HDL
>> >were 155
>> >mg/dl and 105 mg/dl respectively. My prior total chol. and
>> > HDL, five years ago, when I was on a high carb very low
>> > fat diet was 103 mg/dl and 55 mg/dl. Which is better?
>>
>> I don't know. Does anyone?
>
>There's correlation between low cholesterol and different
>diseases (cancer, depression, etc.).

And? Your mate here thinks that is worthless, apparently.

>Correlation doesn't prove anything,

Neither does anything else. Afterall, all data is just
correlations, No?

>but with this data, I'd say his current lipid profile is
>better that the previous one.

Until next month? :)

Sandy

[Roman]

"Sandy" <S@S.S> wrote in message
news:c6oc4v4qlds1viho259nsatqslu4rnum92@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 08 Feb 2003 18:46:39 GMT, Jim Chinnis
> <jchinnis@SPAMalum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> >The only energy dense macronutrient is fat, which makes up
> >30 to 45% of calories
in
> >typical Western diets, and much less in those trying (and
> >usually
failing) to
> >lose weight or reduce cardiovascular risk.
>
> Failing coz they don't reduce their fats, in reallity?

Yes, they do.

> >I just don't buy them. Been there, done that, bought the
> >T-shirt...and read the research literature.
>
> Which research litereature? What have you been there
> and done?

Must be the type you want to ignore for its clash with
your dogma.

[Sandy]

On Sun, 9 Feb 2003 21:59:06 -0600, "Roman"
<r_rom@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Sandy" <S@S.S> wrote in message
>news:c6oc4v4qlds1viho259nsatqslu4rnum92@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 08 Feb 2003 18:46:39 GMT, Jim Chinnis
>> <jchinnis@SPAMalum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >The only energy dense macronutrient is fat, which makes up
>> >30 to 45% of calories
>in
>> >typical Western diets, and much less in those trying (and
>> >usually
>failing) to
>> >lose weight or reduce cardiovascular risk.
>>
>> Failing coz they don't reduce their fats, in reallity?
>
>Yes, they do.

No they don't! :)

Seriously, they may reduce the proportion of their diets that
is fat, but as their diet has grown, the absoute amount of fat
has also grown.

>> >I just don't buy them. Been there, done that, bought the
>> >T-shirt...and read the research literature.
>>
>> Which research litereature? What have you been there
>> and done?
>
>Must be the type you want to ignore for its clash with
>your dogma.

Yes, apparently. I stear clear of the many "studies"
that fringe
pseudo science web sites push. I go for the concensus of the
establishment. Yes it may be wrong once or twice in a
century, but its track record is far superior to anything
else available.

Sandy

[Sandy]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2003 23:02:48 -0600, "Roman"
<r_rom@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Sandy" <S@S.S> wrote in message
>news:0qv34vs2tgfae8m4h5ujo95jp3f95gkmnf@4ax.com...
>> >1. Vitamin A is not found in plants. What plants do
>> > contain are
>carotenes,
>> >which can be converted to vitamin A in the intestines
>> >under certain conditions (one of them being sufficient
>> >dietary fat intake). However,
>the
>> >conversion is inefficient at best, and many people have an
>> >impaired
>ability
>> >to convert carotenes to vitamin A. There is some
>> >controversy regarding
>the
>> >degree to which carotenes can improve vitamin A status in
>> >humans.
>>
>> Garbage. Strict vegetarians have no problems.
>
>Actually they do. But most vegetarians consume animal fats in
>some form,
>e.g. dairy, eggs, etc.

Strict vegans then. What problems other than B12?

>>One medium carrot (or equivalent) is all that is needed
>>each day.
>
>How do you figure that?

By looking at books -- try it!

>> And five minutes in the noonday sun with your sleeves
>> rolled up gives you all you need each day.
>
>False! That is completely not enough. What is your reference
>for that?
>http://westonaprice.org/vitamins/nutrition_vitaminD.html:
>"Only sunning between 10 am and 2 pm during summer months (or
>winter months in southern latitudes) for 20-120 minutes,
>depending on skin type and color, will form adequate vitamin
>D before burning occurs." And the author means full body
>exposure, not just face and arms as you suggest.

That's why Weston Price is a flake. Get a better reference.

>> Why on Earth do you think you need so much? Your life seems
>> to revolve around how much of this nutrient or that you
>> get. 20+ years ago, Vitamin E was not a vitamin :)
>
>Then why do you waste your time telling people to eat whole
>foods? Refined foods also have the same nutrients, only in
>smaller amounts.

Do they? Well we have evolved to be used to varied wholefoods,
so I would stay with that, if I were you.

>> >Anyway, hit the books. Let me know if you find any
>> >information that contradicts anything I've said.
>>
>> Not interested, sorry.
>
>And never really were, I am sure.

Nope. I am satisfied that I have gleaned the best knowledge
from those who have gone before me, and am not interested in
revolutionary flakes with nothing on their records.

Sandy

[Gym Bob]

Looks like their karma ran over your dogma!

"Roman" <r_rom@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b277rh$fv4$1@news.chatlink.com...
> "Sandy" <S@S.S> wrote in message
> news:c6oc4v4qlds1viho259nsatqslu4rnum92@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 08 Feb 2003 18:46:39 GMT, Jim Chinnis
> > <jchinnis@SPAMalum.mit.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >The only energy dense macronutrient is fat, which makes
> > >up 30 to 45% of calories
> in
> > >typical Western diets, and much less in those trying (and
> > >usually
> failing) to
> > >lose weight or reduce cardiovascular risk.
> >
> > Failing coz they don't reduce their fats, in reallity?
>
> Yes, they do.
>
> > >I just don't buy them. Been there, done that, bought the
> > >T-shirt...and read the research
literature.
> >
> > Which research litereature? What have you been there
> > and done?
>
> Must be the type you want to ignore for its clash with
> your dogma.
>

[Roman]

"Sandy" <S@S.S> wrote in message
news:5j2e4vcd5dkbmu7ajh3eg6ourr69csk8eb@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 09 Feb 2003 19:58:55 GMT, "Brandon Berg"
> <bberg@cesmail.net> wrote:
>
> >"Sandy" <S@S.S> wrote in message
> >news:c2oc4vkt0so9j28uan9f94s3oeq5bg9j4n@4ax.com...
> >> On 8 Feb 2003 11:26:06 -0800, tintinet@altavista.com
> >> (tintinet) wrote:
> >>
> >> >The low carb approach certainly seemed to have been the
> >> >trick for me.
> >>
> >> Fine, but make sure you get the micronutrients you might
> >> be missing with such dietary distortion.
> >
> >Which micronutrients?
>
> The ones that come in grains and other carb-containing
> wholefoods.

Which exactly?

Roman

[Roman]

"Sandy" <S@S.S> wrote in message
news:dlae4vo7q8v9hfa8lfl0cgga25mq8rkoj8@4ax.com...
> >> Garbage. Strict vegetarians have no problems.
> >
> >Actually they do. But most vegetarians consume animal fats
> >in some form,
> >e.g. dairy, eggs, etc.
>
> Strict vegans then?

What do you mean by strict vegetarians? That's what vegans
are. And what is strict vegans? "Vegan" already means
abstaining from all animal foods.

> >>One medium carrot (or equivalent) is all that is needed
> >>each day.
> >
> >How do you figure that?
>
> By looking at books -- try it!

You have got to stop reading comics book and start reading
something more serious if you are to post in this group.

> >> And five minutes in the noonday sun with your sleeves
> >> rolled up gives you all you need each day.
> >
> >False! That is completely not enough. What is your
> >reference for that?
> >http://westonaprice.org/vitamins/nutrition_vitaminD.html:
> >"Only sunning between 10 am and 2 pm during summer months
> >(or winter months in southern latitudes) for 20-120
> >minutes, depending on skin type and color, will
form
> >adequate vitamin D before burning occurs." And the author
> >means full body exposure, not just face and arms as you
> >suggest.
>
> That's why Weston Price is a flake. Get a better reference.

Because it doesn't agree with you?

You have not had any reference in any of your posts. "Common
knowledge" and the like do not count. That article has 82
references to scientific work. Come up with anything better
than "common knowledge", and we'll talk.

> >> Why on Earth do you think you need so much? Your life
> >> seems to revolve around how much of this nutrient or that
> >> you get. 20+ years ago, Vitamin E was not a vitamin :)
> >
> >Then why do you waste your time telling people to eat
> >whole foods?
Refined
> >foods also have the same nutrients, only in smaller
> >amounts.
>
> Do they? Well we have evolved to be used to varied
> wholefoods, so I would stay with that, if I were you.

Ah, so you WOULD like to get more nutrients!

> Nope. I am satisfied that I have gleaned the best knowledge
> from those who have gone before me, and am not interested in
> revolutionary flakes with nothing on their records.

You just explicitly said why you are not worth conversing
with. You claim to have a scientific knowledge, but you are a
"technician"... with a hugely inflated ego.

Roman

[Moosh:)]

On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:59:20 -0600, "Roman"
<gmtfn@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Sandy" <S@S.S> wrote in message
>news:5j2e4vcd5dkbmu7ajh3eg6ourr69csk8eb@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 09 Feb 2003 19:58:55 GMT, "Brandon Berg"
>> <bberg@cesmail.net> wrote:
>>
>> >"Sandy" <S@S.S> wrote in message
>> >news:c2oc4vkt0so9j28uan9f94s3oeq5bg9j4n@4ax.com...
>> >> On 8 Feb 2003 11:26:06 -0800, tintinet@altavista.com
>> >> (tintinet) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >The low carb approach certainly seemed to have been the
>> >> >trick for me.
>> >>
>> >> Fine, but make sure you get the micronutrients you might
>> >> be missing with such dietary distortion.
>> >
>> >Which micronutrients?
>>
>> The ones that come in grains and other carb-containing
>> wholefoods.
>
>Which exactly?

Pretty much all of them.

Especially the minerals.

Fibre is important as well, though arguably not a nutrient.

The importance of as varied a diet as possible is so you avoid
deficiencies and toxicities.

Moosh:)

[Moosh:)]

On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:55:48 -0600, "Roman"
<gmtfn@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Sandy" <S@S.S> wrote in message
>news:dlae4vo7q8v9hfa8lfl0cgga25mq8rkoj8@4ax.com...
>> >> Garbage. Strict vegetarians have no problems.
>> >
>> >Actually they do. But most vegetarians consume animal fats
>> >in some form,
>> >e.g. dairy, eggs, etc.
>>
>> Strict vegans then?
>
>What do you mean by strict vegetarians? That's what vegans
>are. And what is strict vegans? "Vegan" already means
>abstaining from all animal foods.

Vegans who don't occasionally lapse, or cheat?

>> That's why Weston Price is a flake. Get a better reference.
>
>Because it doesn't agree with you?

Or anyone else much.

>You have not had any reference in any of your posts. "Common
>knowledge" and the like do not count.

Sorry, I don't give you any flaky URLs, like Weston Price.
What would you like a reference for? What don't you
understand?

>That article has 82 references to scientific work.

Wow, it MUST be good. Have you read them all? Beware of
multiple references indicating validity. Quantity alone does
not cut it.

>Come up with anything better than "common knowledge", and
>we'll talk.

Come up with anything and we can discuss it. If you need a URL
for everything you say, we won't get far.

>> >> Why on Earth do you think you need so much? Your life
>> >> seems to revolve around how much of this nutrient or
>> >> that you get. 20+ years ago, Vitamin E was not a
>> >> vitamin :)
>> >
>> >Then why do you waste your time telling people to eat
>> >whole foods?
>Refined
>> >foods also have the same nutrients, only in smaller
>> >amounts.
>>
>> Do they? Well we have evolved to be used to varied
>> wholefoods, so I would stay with that, if I were you.
>
>Ah, so you WOULD like to get more nutrients!

Sufficient will do, and that is supplied by a varied wholefood
diet. Stripping any nutrients from this diet may lead to a
deficiency, but it may not. I suggest we err on the safe side
and stick with a varied wholefood diet.

>> Nope. I am satisfied that I have gleaned the best knowledge
>> from those who have gone before me, and am not interested
>> in revolutionary flakes with nothing on their records.
>
>You just explicitly said why you are not worth
>conversing with.

Yes, if all you have to offer is "revolutionary flakes with
nothing on their records."

>You claim to have a scientific knowledge, but you are a
>"technician"... with a hugely inflated ego.

Sorry? I don't work in the field. How could I possibly be a
technician? I'm not a scientist either. I've been interested
in science for about four decades and seen it all come and go.

Moosh:)