Re: Review Casts Doubt on Soy Health Benefits



D

Doug Freese

Guest
"TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> What is it that I keep saying about soy? Hmmm...... oh yeah.....

That you think it is not a food and often say it down right unhealthy
which is not what the study is saying. It is suggesting that it does not
lower LDL and reduce heart risks as originally thought and thus should
be not tagged as such . It says nothing negative about eating it and in
fact says eating it is just fine. As usual you take half truths and
embellish until it's a myth or lie. In this case you're so obvious a
third grader could catch on.

> Still, the Heart Association statement notes that soy products like
> tofu,
> soy butter, soy nuts and some soy burgers should be heart-healthy
> because
> they contain a lot of polyunsaturated fats, fiber, vitamins and
> minerals and
> are low in saturated fat.


-DF
 
Doug Freese wrote:
> "TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > What is it that I keep saying about soy? Hmmm...... oh yeah.....
>
> That you think it is not a food and often say it down right unhealthy
> which is not what the study is saying. It is suggesting that it does not
> lower LDL and reduce heart risks as originally thought and thus should
> be not tagged as such . It says nothing negative about eating it and in
> fact says eating it is just fine. As usual you take half truths and
> embellish until it's a myth or lie. In this case you're so obvious a
> third grader could catch on.

Ok, so the "science" said that it was a very healthy and a very "heart
healthy" food. Now this study says: "Hang on a sec. It isn't as healthy
as we thought".

Maybe we ought to investigate the so-called science that originally
said it was heart healthy. This kind of **** seems to happen all the
friggin' time. How is it possible for "science" to be so contradictory
all the time? It happens because scientific researchers do biased
science because those paying for the "science" are looking for a
certain result.

Real science, good science, should bring consistent results on any
given topic being studied. That is the nature of the universe. But the
nature of man, especially American business, is to twist "science" to
suit their sales goals.

The fact is that soy is not real food. All of the alleged benefits of
tofu is nonsense and this study is only the tip of that iceberg. Soy
contains substances that man was never intended to consume in any
sizeable amounts. And it does not contain anything that is of benefit
to our diets. The proteins are incomplete and of little use to use
nutritionally.

Soy must be fermented to be useful as a food. And it has only been
traditionally eaten as a condiment. It has never been traditiobally
eaten as a source of protein except in times of starvation.

Soy is not real food.

TC

>
> > Still, the Heart Association statement notes that soy products like
> > tofu,
> > soy butter, soy nuts and some soy burgers should be heart-healthy
> > because
> > they contain a lot of polyunsaturated fats, fiber, vitamins and
> > minerals and
> > are low in saturated fat.
>
>
> -DF
 
"TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ok, so the "science" said that it was a very healthy and a very "heart
> healthy" food. Now this study says: "Hang on a sec. It isn't as
> healthy
> as we thought".

> Maybe we ought to investigate the so-called science that originally
> said it was heart healthy.

Or maybe the study that said it did not lower LDL needs to be
investigated. Do we know if this study study is of any value or simply
fits your opinion.



> This kind of **** seems to happen all the
> friggin' time. How is it possible for "science" to be so contradictory
> all the time?

Because doing studies is very expensive and many are not double blind or
the numbers of people can be counted on one hand or all the folks were
people that had massive heart congestion. I could take your typical
position that the study was secretly sponsored by PETA. It all goes back
to your knee jerk OPINION that vegetables and vegetarioans are bad. If a
study uses snail darters and concludes what fits your biasness your
happy. If not, it's sponsored by the vegetable growers of out mongolia.

> Real science, good science, should bring consistent results on any
> given topic being studied. That is the nature of the universe. But the
> nature of man, especially American business, is to twist "science" to
> suit their sales goals.

Real science? Just like Atkins? Many times they are poor or underfunded
studies and draw a tenative conclusion with a follow up statement that
more study needs to happen. A leaf needs to be turned over before big
money is spent. You seen to think every study has a bazillion dollars to
controll every aspect and come to an unimpeachable conclusion. We have a
goverment(US) that would rather spend trillions on killing people and
pennies on health and education. Until the rich start croaking
early(read, big business) we will continue to takes decades to conclude
things that could be done in years.

> The fact is that soy is not real food.

It's a vegetable. Why is not real food? Are peas, carrots, corn also
not real. More claptrap that you repeat without any notion of reality -
just your biggoted opinion.

> Soy is not real food.

If you keep repeating, will it suddenly be true. The world is flat, the
world is flat, the world is flat, the world is flat, the world is flat.
Whew after all that repetition the world now be flat, right?

-DF
 
Doug Freese wrote:
> "TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Ok, so the "science" said that it was a very healthy and a very "heart
> > healthy" food. Now this study says: "Hang on a sec. It isn't as
> > healthy
> > as we thought".
>
> > Maybe we ought to investigate the so-called science that originally
> > said it was heart healthy.
>
> Or maybe the study that said it did not lower LDL needs to be
> investigated. Do we know if this study study is of any value or simply
> fits your opinion.

Either-Or. We need to investigate why this branch of science simply
can't get its **** together.

We can put send a dust collector thru millions of miles of space and 7
years or travelling and put it down within yards of it intended landing
target, but we don't know what food is safe to eat, what food is
healthy and what food isn't.

Some scientists say that some fats are bad others say the same fat is
good. Margarine was supposed to be heart healthy, now we know the trans
fats are killing us. Some say soy is healthy others say it isn't. Some
say refined carbs are bad others say we need them to be healthy, nay to
live.

The food sciences are not sciences. They are nothing more than a
mish-mash of industry opinion.

>
>
>
> > This kind of **** seems to happen all the
> > friggin' time. How is it possible for "science" to be so contradictory
> > all the time?
>
> Because doing studies is very expensive and many are not double blind or
> the numbers of people can be counted on one hand or all the folks were
> people that had massive heart congestion. I could take your typical
> position that the study was secretly sponsored by PETA. It all goes back
> to your knee jerk OPINION that vegetables and vegetarioans are bad. If a
> study uses snail darters and concludes what fits your biasness your
> happy. If not, it's sponsored by the vegetable growers of out mongolia.

That is the problem and we agree. The state of the science in nutrition
is so poorly done and so biased by industry and single issue groups to
be pretty much worthless. And to sit here throwing studies and
abstracts around like missiles is a futile exercise is navel gazing.

And I never said that vegetables are bad. What I clearly said
repeatedly is that a diet with only plant sourced foods is bad. And I
stand by that statement.

>
> > Real science, good science, should bring consistent results on any
> > given topic being studied. That is the nature of the universe. But the
> > nature of man, especially American business, is to twist "science" to
> > suit their sales goals.
>
> Real science? Just like Atkins? Many times they are poor or underfunded
> studies and draw a tenative conclusion with a follow up statement that
> more study needs to happen. A leaf needs to be turned over before big
> money is spent. You seen to think every study has a bazillion dollars to
> controll every aspect and come to an unimpeachable conclusion. We have a
> goverment(US) that would rather spend trillions on killing people and
> pennies on health and education. Until the rich start croaking
> early(read, big business) we will continue to takes decades to conclude
> things that could be done in years.

We agree. It is time to clean house at the NIH and at the FDA and to
purge all industry funded biased pseudo-science and industry owned
"scientific" journals from doing any kind of "science".

>
> > The fact is that soy is not real food.
>
> It's a vegetable. Why is not real food? Are peas, carrots, corn also
> not real. More claptrap that you repeat without any notion of reality -
> just your biggoted opinion.

A soybean is a vegetable. And not a very nutritious one at that. It
must be fermented to be edible. To grind it up with water and call it
milk is ludicrous. To make a protein substitute is ludicrous. To ignore
the phyto-toxins and phyto-estrogens that negatively impact our health
and our childrens health is criminal.

>
> > Soy is not real food.
>
> If you keep repeating, will it suddenly be true. The world is flat, the
> world is flat, the world is flat, the world is flat, the world is flat.
> Whew after all that repetition the world now be flat, right?
>
> -DF

It is true, it has always been true and it will always continue to be
true. Regardless of the biased pseudo-science presented up by the soy
industry and the anti-real-meat idiots like yourself.

Repetition is needed in the face of the oft-repeated pseudo-science
used to support soy as a food.

Soy is not real food.

TC
 
Here is a Parthian-Shot for you.

http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/soy_studies.html

TC

Doug Freese wrote:
> "TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Ok, so the "science" said that it was a very healthy and a very "heart
> > healthy" food. Now this study says: "Hang on a sec. It isn't as
> > healthy
> > as we thought".
>
> > Maybe we ought to investigate the so-called science that originally
> > said it was heart healthy.
>
> Or maybe the study that said it did not lower LDL needs to be
> investigated. Do we know if this study study is of any value or simply
> fits your opinion.
>
>
>
> > This kind of **** seems to happen all the
> > friggin' time. How is it possible for "science" to be so contradictory
> > all the time?
>
> Because doing studies is very expensive and many are not double blind or
> the numbers of people can be counted on one hand or all the folks were
> people that had massive heart congestion. I could take your typical
> position that the study was secretly sponsored by PETA. It all goes back
> to your knee jerk OPINION that vegetables and vegetarioans are bad. If a
> study uses snail darters and concludes what fits your biasness your
> happy. If not, it's sponsored by the vegetable growers of out mongolia.
>
> > Real science, good science, should bring consistent results on any
> > given topic being studied. That is the nature of the universe. But the
> > nature of man, especially American business, is to twist "science" to
> > suit their sales goals.
>
> Real science? Just like Atkins? Many times they are poor or underfunded
> studies and draw a tenative conclusion with a follow up statement that
> more study needs to happen. A leaf needs to be turned over before big
> money is spent. You seen to think every study has a bazillion dollars to
> controll every aspect and come to an unimpeachable conclusion. We have a
> goverment(US) that would rather spend trillions on killing people and
> pennies on health and education. Until the rich start croaking
> early(read, big business) we will continue to takes decades to conclude
> things that could be done in years.
>
> > The fact is that soy is not real food.
>
> It's a vegetable. Why is not real food? Are peas, carrots, corn also
> not real. More claptrap that you repeat without any notion of reality -
> just your biggoted opinion.
>
> > Soy is not real food.
>
> If you keep repeating, will it suddenly be true. The world is flat, the
> world is flat, the world is flat, the world is flat, the world is flat.
> Whew after all that repetition the world now be flat, right?
>
> -DF
 
"TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> Either-Or. We need to investigate why this branch of science simply
> can't get its **** together.
>
> We can put send a dust collector thru millions of miles of space and 7
> years or travelling and put it down within yards of it intended
> landing
> target, but we don't know what food is safe to eat, what food is
> healthy and what food isn't.

Back to my point, it's all about the priorities of money. Ask any group
of unbiased scientists and they will contruct a definitive study of some
topic. It only takes and open check book and some time.


> Some scientists say that some fats are bad others say the same fat is
> good. Margarine was supposed to be heart healthy, now we know the
> trans
> fats are killing us. Some say soy is healthy others say it isn't. Some
> say refined carbs are bad others say we need them to be healthy, nay
> to
> live.

I just love your Pollyanna mentality. Nutrition is relatively new and
progressing at a snails pace. How come we don't have the cure for
Cancer? Are all the scientits studying cacer also on some bribe list?

> The food sciences are not sciences. They are nothing more than a
> mish-mash of industry opinion.

You call it industry opinion, I call it studies that are still peeling
the onion. Maybe you can find a planet where everything is done
perfectly and completey the first time.

-DF
 
Doug Freese wrote:
> "TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Here is a Parthian-Shot for you.
> >
> > http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/soy_studies.html
>
>
> Same old **** TC, cherry pick web page that fits your scheme. Then
> someone raises you some page that shows the opposite and that study is
> done by people on the dole. You're transparent if not obvious. I'll play
> you - the Price foundation are funded under the table by PETA.
>
> -DF

That is the state of the science. We are left no choice but to play
that game. Real science is very definitive. Nutritional science is full
of contradictory studies.

But which makes more sense? And which jibes with the real world. That
is what has led me to believe what I believe.

Vegans believe what they want to believe, and not necessarily what is
true.

Weston Price was beholden to no special interest group. He was seeking
the truth. And that is what I am seeking.

TC
 
Doug Freese wrote:
> "TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >> Either-Or. We need to investigate why this branch of science simply
> > can't get its **** together.
> >
> > We can put send a dust collector thru millions of miles of space and 7
> > years or travelling and put it down within yards of it intended
> > landing
> > target, but we don't know what food is safe to eat, what food is
> > healthy and what food isn't.
>
> Back to my point, it's all about the priorities of money. Ask any group
> of unbiased scientists and they will contruct a definitive study of some
> topic. It only takes and open check book and some time.

How many more billions is it going to take? How many more thousands of
researchers? Insulin took one guy several months.

>
>
> > Some scientists say that some fats are bad others say the same fat is
> > good. Margarine was supposed to be heart healthy, now we know the
> > trans
> > fats are killing us. Some say soy is healthy others say it isn't. Some
> > say refined carbs are bad others say we need them to be healthy, nay
> > to
> > live.
>
> I just love your Pollyanna mentality. Nutrition is relatively new and
> progressing at a snails pace. How come we don't have the cure for
> Cancer? Are all the scientits studying cacer also on some bribe list?

New? We've been eating since we've existed.

Cancer is a nutrition-related chronic disease. No food company is going
to do research to shed light on it and no pharmaceutical will make
money by doing research that shows that good real food is a better
solution than their pills.

Billions in research and it's going at a snails pace. Shouldn't it all
fall neatly into place as more and more research comes to light? But it
gets more and more confusiing, doen't it. Billions in research dollars,
thousands of researchers and it only gets murkier.

Newton came up with his findings and all kinds of things fell into
place. Einstein made his findings known and added greatly to our
knowledge and to Newtons findings and many other things fell into
place. hat is how science works. Find the truth and keep adding to it.
And it all falls neatly into place.

Unless you have billions to spend and it isn't in your best fiscal
interest for the science to actually find the truth. Then you buy your
researchers and you create your version of the truth.

>
> > The food sciences are not sciences. They are nothing more than a
> > mish-mash of industry opinion.
>
> You call it industry opinion, I call it studies that are still peeling
> the onion. Maybe you can find a planet where everything is done
> perfectly and completey the first time.
>
> -DF

Or at all. Even when science is unbiased and conplete honest mistakes
will be made made, and the system of peer review is set up specifically
to catch these *honest* mistakes. The system is also based on trusting
that the scientists are honest and unbiased, and that is its downfall.
It is wide open to abuse by unscrupulous money driven enterprises and
dishonest scientists. The entire scientific system has been completely
compromised by dishonest scientists. There is nothing in place to
counter dishonesty. And I mean nothing. Some journals have been set up
to specifically enable dishonest industry based science to be easily
published and disseminated alongside honest science.

It is a real mess.

TC
 
"TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> New? We've been eating since we've existed.
>
> Cancer is a nutrition-related chronic disease.

It is? Wow we heard it here! You better go tell the bazillions of people
looking at non-nutrition causes. Please be more nutrition specific. Soy?
Egregious grains? God awful potatoes. Please tell me I just buried a
friend that dies from cancer and I like to tell his family that we have
found the cause or better yet you know the cause and havn't told the
world. Yo, TC, knock, knock, is anyone home?

-DF
 
Doug Freese wrote:
> "TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > New? We've been eating since we've existed.
> >
> > Cancer is a nutrition-related chronic disease.
>
> It is? Wow we heard it here! You better go tell the bazillions of people
> looking at non-nutrition causes. Please be more nutrition specific. Soy?
> Egregious grains? God awful potatoes. Please tell me I just buried a
> friend that dies from cancer and I like to tell his family that we have
> found the cause or better yet you know the cause and havn't told the
> world. Yo, TC, knock, knock, is anyone home?
>
> -DF

Believe it or not, it is as simple as good nutrition. Getting the
*optimum* and needed amounts of vitamins, minerals, proteins, fats and
carbs. Plenty of vitamins C. L-Proline, L-Lysine and many other
necessary nutrients in *optimum amounts*. Getting the very best carbs,
proteins and fats according to the bodies true needs, which have
developed in the millions of years that we evolved..

No margarine or shortening. Absolutely no Soy. No highly processed
vegetable oils. No sugars and refined carbs. No fake manufactured foods
whatsoever. Little or no wheat unless it is properly soaked and/or
fermented and cooked fresh. Grains only in their freshest and wholest
state, and not very much of it at all. No overly processed foods at
all.

Only the freshest cleanest unpasteurized milk from healthy well-fed and
well-kept cows. Fresh eggs from healthy well-fed well-kept chickens.
Healthy meats from healthy animals with no mass medication. The
freshest produce from the cleanest richest soils. The freshest fish and
seafood from clean waters. Bone Broth soups rule.

Clean water without added **** like chlorine and fluoride.

Only real food. Period.

And obviously, minimized exposure to known carcinogens, either from
foods or water or air.

Good nutrition = good health. Excellent nutrition = excellent health.
They are attached at the hip. You cannot have good health without good
nutrition.

If you want more details about what a healthy diet is, go to:

http://www.westonaprice.org/splash_2.htm

That is a good start.

Cancer is a breakdown in the functions of cells. Keep the cells
properly fed and healthy and the likelihood of cancers developing
virtually disappears, except where the exposure to carcinogens is so
overwhelming as to destroy the cells ability to heal and maintain
itself.

That is right. The human body is *self healing* and *self maintaining*
as long as it has all of the *nutrients it needs* to allow it to
function properly. Absolutely mind-boggling isn't it? Radical too. The
body can actually heal itself. Awesome.

But in a state of modern chronic malnourishment the body fails to
function properly and diseases then are allowed to proliferate.

BTW, that also means that the vast majority (if not all) of
pharmaceuticals are redundant.

And I guarantee you that all communications from the food and pharma
industry, which includes more than 70% of all scientific research being
done today, the USDA, the FDA and the NIHs, along with massive amounts
of media and advertising, and entire university food and nutrition dept
staffs, will tell you otherwise.

TC
 
On 25 Jan 2006 11:20:54 -0800, TC wrote in
<news:[email protected]> on
sci.med.nutrition,sci.life-extension :

[...]

> No margarine or shortening.

I never eat either of them. I don't like their taste.

Still, I gather there are different kinds of margarine, and some are
better (or less worse) than other. Some, high in alpha-linolenic acid,
even claim to be very healty...

http://www.ag.uiuc.edu/ffh/abstracts/lyon_diet_heart_study.html


> Absolutely no Soy.

I am not an enthusiast of tofu, but it's food, isn't it?

Health Claims are made for Soy Protein: they say it lowers cholesterol
....

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2000/300_soy.html

http://www.dietbites.com/article0208.html

A review "Casts Doubt on Soy Health Benefits", as we learn from George
Cherry's post...



> No highly processed vegetable oils.

Agreed.



> No sugars

I am not fond of *added* sugar.

For me, it's addictive and not satiating.

Still, I guess that's an individual thing.

I guess there are people that can handle it better.



> and refined carbs.

A too broad definition, imho...


> No fake manufactured foods
> whatsoever.

I can't stand wax either ;-D


> Little or no wheat unless it is properly soaked and/or
> fermented and cooked fresh. Grains only in their freshest and wholest
> state, and not very much of it at all. No overly processed foods at
> all.

"Al dente" pasta is fine for me.


> Only the freshest
[...cut...]
> Only real food. Period.

Yep! Fresh food is generally better.


> And obviously, minimized exposure to known carcinogens, either from
> foods or water or air.

Or from overcooked food!





X'Posted to: sci.med.nutrition,sci.life-extension

--
Enrico C

"l'amor che move il sole e l'altre stelle"
 
On 25 Jan 2006 11:20:54 -0800, TC wrote in
<news:[email protected]> on
sci.med.nutrition,sci.life-extension :

[...]

> No margarine or shortening.

I never eat either of them. I don't like their taste.

Still, I gather there are different kinds of margarine, and some are
better (or less worse) than others. Some, high in alpha-linolenic
acid, even claim to be very healty...

http://www.ag.uiuc.edu/ffh/abstracts/lyon_diet_heart_study.html


> Absolutely no Soy.

I am not an enthusiast of tofu, but it's food, isn't it?

Health Claims are made for Soy Protein: they say it lowers
cholesterol...

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2000/300_soy.html

http://www.dietbites.com/article0208.html

A review "Casts Doubt on Soy Health Benefits", as we learn from George
Cherry's post...



> No highly processed vegetable oils.

Agreed.



> No sugars

I am not fond of *added* sugar.

For me, it's addictive and not satiating.

Still, I guess that's an individual thing.

I guess there are people that can handle it better.



> and refined carbs.

A too broad definition, imho...


> No fake manufactured foods
> whatsoever.

I can't stand wax either ;-D


> Little or no wheat unless it is properly soaked and/or
> fermented and cooked fresh. Grains only in their freshest and wholest
> state, and not very much of it at all. No overly processed foods at
> all.

"Al dente" pasta is fine for me.


> Only the freshest
[...cut...]
> Only real food. Period.

Yep! Fresh food is generally better.


> And obviously, minimized exposure to known carcinogens, either from
> foods or water or air.

Or from overcooked food!




X'Posted to: sci.med.nutrition,sci.life-extension

--
Enrico C

"l'amor che move il sole e l'altre stelle"
 
Enrico C wrote:
> On 25 Jan 2006 11:20:54 -0800, TC wrote in
> <news:[email protected]> on
> sci.med.nutrition,sci.life-extension :
>
> [...]
>
> > No margarine or shortening.
>
> I never eat either of them. I don't like their taste.
>
> Still, I gather there are different kinds of margarine, and some are
> better (or less worse) than others. Some, high in alpha-linolenic
> acid, even claim to be very healty...
>
> http://www.ag.uiuc.edu/ffh/abstracts/lyon_diet_heart_study.html

That is the marketting **** that has gotten us to where we are today.
Record levels of chronic disease. The problem is that we have to rely
on this **** science.

No margarine can come anywhere close to the healthfulness of real
butter made from real milk from real healthy grass-fed cows.

Do you guys not get it?

>
>
> > Absolutely no Soy.
>
> I am not an enthusiast of tofu, but it's food, isn't it?

NO. SOY IS NOT REAL FOOD. It has never been used as food except in
times of starvation. It has traditionally been used as a fermented
condiment only. That is *fermented* and only in *small* amounts. Tofu
and soymilk are not *fermented* and consumed in too large amounts. It
is not healthy in this way. The raw bean is ground up and packaged that
way. No fermentation. Fermentation is key and only in small amounts.

>
> Health Claims are made for Soy Protein: they say it lowers
> cholesterol...
>
> http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2000/300_soy.html
>
> http://www.dietbites.com/article0208.html
>
> A review "Casts Doubt on Soy Health Benefits", as we learn from George
> Cherry's post...

There are all kinds of bad science done by the soy industry to try to
show soy to be apparently healthy. Studies commissioned by the food
industry is not science, it is marketting. Give it up already.

>
>
>
> > No highly processed vegetable oils.
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>
> > No sugars
>
> I am not fond of *added* sugar.
>
> For me, it's addictive and not satiating.
>
> Still, I guess that's an individual thing.
>
> I guess there are people that can handle it better.

It is not an individual thing. Sugars are unhealthy to all who consume
it. If one person appears to handle it better than another it is
because his system has not been damaged as much, yet.

>
>
>
> > and refined carbs.
>
> A too broad definition, imho...

Nope. Any refined carbs will be higher in glycemic effect than any
non-refined carb. And there may be whole food carbs with a higher
glycemic load than desired, but that can be mitigated by the way it is
prepared. For example, potatoes. The Irish know how to maximize the
nutritional value of potatoes while minimizing its glycemic effects.
They steam them, rather than boil them, with the skins. The skins have
a lot of nutrition in them and steaming prevents some of the loss of
these nutrients. Then they slather on copious amounts of full fat cream
and butter to slow down the absorption of the starches and to mitigate
the glycemic effects.

But generally, and I am speaking generally, refined carbs are ****. And
any time you take a refined carb out of your diet, you are doing your
health a huge favour.

>
>
> > No fake manufactured foods
> > whatsoever.
>
> I can't stand wax either ;-D

By fake, I mean manufactured and refined. Soy, margarine, white flour,
highly refined vegetable oils, etc. They are not real foods They are
brand new to our traditional food supply and they are made in a factory
with all kinds of added sugars, binders, fillers, thickeners,
artificial flavours, colourants, etc, and they contain very little
actual nutrition.

>
>
> > Little or no wheat unless it is properly soaked and/or
> > fermented and cooked fresh. Grains only in their freshest and wholest
> > state, and not very much of it at all. No overly processed foods at
> > all.
>
> "Al dente" pasta is fine for me.

Wheat is in the top ten list of allergenic foods for a reason. It is
the major cause on Crohn's and other debilitating GI diseases. And it
has very little actual nutrition in it, especially refined white wheat
flour. Empty calories and high glycemic effects whicgh lead to disease
and obesity.

>
>
> > Only the freshest
> [...cut...]
> > Only real food. Period.
>
> Yep! Fresh food is generally better.

It is absolutely essential for good health. Being flippant about it and
not taking this concept seriously is the problem and the reason why
North Americans are so sick with disease today.

>
>
> > And obviously, minimized exposure to known carcinogens, either from
> > foods or water or air.
>
> Or from overcooked food!

To some degree, yes.

>
>
>
>
> X'Posted to: sci.med.nutrition,sci.life-extension
>
> --
> Enrico C
>
> "l'amor che move il sole e l'altre stelle"
 
TC wrote:

>
> Enrico C wrote:
>> On 25 Jan 2006 11:20:54 -0800, TC wrote in
>> <news:[email protected]> on
>> sci.med.nutrition,sci.life-extension :
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > No margarine or shortening.
>>
>> I never eat either of them. I don't like their taste.
>>
>> Still, I gather there are different kinds of margarine, and some are
>> better (or less worse) than others. Some, high in alpha-linolenic
>> acid, even claim to be very healty...
>>
>> http://www.ag.uiuc.edu/ffh/abstracts/lyon_diet_heart_study.html
>
> That is the marketting **** that has gotten us to where we are today.
> Record levels of chronic disease. The problem is that we have to rely
> on this **** science.
>
> No margarine can come anywhere close to the healthfulness of real
> butter made from real milk from real healthy grass-fed cows.

Sources? I only use butter, never margarine, but butter only from "real
healthy grass-fed cows", I've never noticed for sale anywhere. And
wouldn't you want those cows to not have received hormone treatments,
antibiotics, etc?


--

Pramesh Rutajit - [email protected] - remove tongue to reply.
 
Pramesh Rutajit wrote:
> TC wrote:
>
> >
> > Enrico C wrote:
> >> On 25 Jan 2006 11:20:54 -0800, TC wrote in
> >> <news:[email protected]> on
> >> sci.med.nutrition,sci.life-extension :
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> > No margarine or shortening.
> >>
> >> I never eat either of them. I don't like their taste.
> >>
> >> Still, I gather there are different kinds of margarine, and some are
> >> better (or less worse) than others. Some, high in alpha-linolenic
> >> acid, even claim to be very healty...
> >>
> >> http://www.ag.uiuc.edu/ffh/abstracts/lyon_diet_heart_study.html
> >
> > That is the marketting **** that has gotten us to where we are today.
> > Record levels of chronic disease. The problem is that we have to rely
> > on this **** science.
> >
> > No margarine can come anywhere close to the healthfulness of real
> > butter made from real milk from real healthy grass-fed cows.
>
> Sources? I only use butter, never margarine, but butter only from "real
> healthy grass-fed cows", I've never noticed for sale anywhere. And
> wouldn't you want those cows to not have received hormone treatments,
> antibiotics, etc?
>
>
> --
>
> Pramesh Rutajit - [email protected] - remove tongue to reply.

That kind of butter used to be the norm. Now it is impossible to get
unless you make it yourself from your own cow. And of course you want
the least amount of medication applied to them as possible. That is why
I buy my beef from a local farmer who gets it butchered in a local
butcher shop. I know what I'm getting.

TC
 
> Real science, good science, should bring consistent results on any
> given topic being studied.


Maybe the question asked is wrong.

After 2 years of being interested in nutrition and reading all those
contradictory results, one simple explanation comes to mind:

Nutrition is far less important for your health than is usually
presented. Beyond maintaining satisfatory BMI, your health and lifespan
is much more influenced by genetics and medical care rather than some
funny fat/protein/carb percents.

This is the only consistent result I can see :)

(That said, no grains/refined sugar for me, thanks :)

Mirek
 
> Real science, good science, should bring consistent results on any
> given topic being studied.


Maybe the question asked is wrong.

After 2 years of being interested in nutrition and reading all those
contradictory results, one simple explanation comes to mind:

Nutrition is far less important for your health than is usually
presented. Beyond maintaining satisfatory BMI, your health and lifespan
is much more influenced by genetics and medical care rather than some
funny fat/protein/carb percents.

This is the only consistent result I can see :)

(That said, no grains/refined sugar for me, thanks :)

Mirek
 
> Nutrition is not rocket science.

Yes. Human metabolism is far more complex that rocket science.

> All humans have the same metabolic system,

Incorrect.

> system. We all handle carbs, fats and proteins the same way. We all

Tell that to type 1 diabetic :)

Mirek
 
> Nutrition is not rocket science.

Yes. Human metabolism is far more complex that rocket science.

> All humans have the same metabolic system,

Incorrect.

> system. We all handle carbs, fats and proteins the same way. We all

Tell that to type 1 diabetic :)

Mirek
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back