RE: Re: Fodd groups and colon cancer

[Guest guest]

>From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@...>

>Reply-

>

>Subject: [ ] Re: Fodd groups and colon cancer

>Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 18:45:42 -0000

>

>Hi Al:

>

>I wonder what is included in their definition of " high refined

>carbohydrate " ? Sugar clearly. Pasta? White bread? White rice? It

>is their use of the word 'high' that causes me to wonder. It is also

>worth noting that unrefined whole grain products are 80+% white

>flour.

Not following you here: what unrefined whole grain products are 80+% white

flour. It would seem to me white flour is, by definition, refined, not

unrefined....

So if white flour is so bad, whole grain stuff is presumably

>not all that great either?

>

>Similarly with 'red meat'. Did they classify pork or veal as 'red'

>meat?

I thought pork was " the other white meat "

How about ostrich? It is at least as 'red' as beef in

>appearance (I have some in the freezer), perhaps more so.

I'd think ostrich would be quite different in composition than standard

issue typical American " red meat " (usually referring to corn/grain fed

cattle).

>

>This matters to those of us who do eat some 'meat', even if

>relatively infrequently.

Why? I'd think the frequency of consumption would be a rather important

factor....

>

>Rodney.

>

>It also occurs to me that we need to see some studies of heavy

>chicken-eaters. Or, perhaps better worded would be: those who eat

>most of their 'meat' in the form of chicken. Are they noticeably

>heathier than those who do not eat chicken? Do they tend to suffer

>certain types of illnesses more often, or less often, than non-

>chicken-eaters? Does anyone know of any such studies?

>

>

>--- In , " old542000 " <apater@m...>

>wrote:

>

>................... In Caucasians, high refined carbohydrate and red

>meat consumption

> > (amount and frequency) was associated with a statistically

> > significant 2-fold increased risk ...............

>

[Guest guest]

Rodney wrote:

Hi Al:

I wonder what is included in their definition of "high refined

carbohydrate"? Sugar clearly. Pasta? White bread? White rice? It

is their use of the word 'high' that causes me to wonder. It is also

worth noting that unrefined whole grain products are 80+% white

flour. So if white flour is so bad, whole grain stuff is presumably

not all that great either?

one of the things that surprised me was the gylcemic index of Whole Wheat

was not that different than White flour. Sugar is not that much worse than

either

positive Dennis

Similarly with 'red meat'. Did they classify pork or veal as 'red'

meat? How about ostrich? It is at least as 'red' as beef in

appearance (I have some in the freezer), perhaps more so.

This matters to those of us who do eat some 'meat', even if

relatively infrequently.

Rodney.

It also occurs to me that we need to see some studies of heavy

chicken-eaters. Or, perhaps better worded would be: those who eat

most of their 'meat' in the form of chicken. Are they noticeably

heathier than those who do not eat chicken? Do they tend to suffer

certain types of illnesses more often, or less often, than non-

chicken-eaters? Does anyone know of any such studies?

--- In , "old542000" <apater@m...>

wrote:

.................... In Caucasians, high refined carbohydrate and red

meat consumption

> (amount and frequency) was associated with a statistically

> significant 2-fold increased risk ...............