Re: Re: Prostate Cancer & Soy Products

[Guest guest]

Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2003 Dec;12(12):1422-8. Related Articles,

Links

Fatty acids and risk of prostate cancer in a nested case-control study in

male smokers.

Mannisto S, Pietinen P, Virtanen MJ, Salminen I, Albanes D, Giovannucci E,

Virtamo J.

Department of Epidemiology and Health Promotion, National Public Health

Institute, Helsinki, Finland. satu.mannisto@...

There is some evidence that alpha-linolenic acid might be positively related

to prostate cancer risk. Associations between serum fatty acid composition

as well as fatty acid intakes and prostate cancer risk were examined in the

Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention Study. The cohort included

29,133 male smokers aged 50-69 years. During 5-8 years of follow-up, 246

prostate cancer cases were diagnosed. One control was selected and matched

by age (+/- 1 month) for each case from the cohort subjects alive and free

of prostate cancer at the time the case was diagnosed. This study included

198 case-control pairs with baseline serum sample available for both. Fatty

acids of serum cholesterol esters were measured as a percentage of total

fatty acids, using capillary gas chromatography. Intakes of fatty acids were

assessed from a validated self-administered dietary questionnaire. Serum and

dietary fatty acids had no consistent association with prostate cancer risk.

Serum alpha-linolenic acid was not related to prostate cancer risk. Twofold

risk was found in the highest quartile of serum myristic acid compared with

the lowest quartile (odds ratio, 1.93; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-3.64).

alpha-Tocopherol supplementation modified the association between serum

linoleic acid and prostate cancer risk (P for interaction 0.03); odds ratio

was 0.17 (95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.68) in the highest quartile of

serum linoleic acid compared with the lowest quartile in men who received

alpha-tocopherol, whereas no association was found in men who did not

receive alpha-tocopherol. In conclusion, we found no overall association

between serum or dietary alpha-linolenic acid or any other unsaturated fatty

acid and prostate cancer risk, but high serum linoleic acid was associated

with lower risk in men supplemented with alpha-tocopherol. High serum

myristic acid associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer.

PMID: 14693732 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

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

>Reply-

>

>Subject: [ ] Re: Prostate Cancer & Soy Products

>Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 21:45:07 -0000

>

>Hi :

>

>I think JW's entertaining point may have been that if this ALA stuff

>is as bad as it looks, then perhaps the hydrogenated stuff is

>somewhat less awful.

>

>I suggest safflower oil as maybe preferable to the others for reasons

>previously mentioned. It does NOT contain the ALA, and DOES contain

>plenty (79%) of the essential fat you certainly DO need, linoleic

>acid - so you can get the RDA of linoleic with the smallest possible

>number of calories.

>

>Rodney.

>

>

> > By " hydrog " do you mean saturated? Saturated fats are associated

>with

> > increased rates of atherosclerosis, dementia, and cancer.

>How 'bout minimal

> > oil, and if that, then olive?

> >

> >

> > >From: " jwwright " <jwwright@e...>

> > >Reply-

> > >< >

> > >Subject: Re: [ ] Prostate Cancer & Soy Products

> > >Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 15:47:57 -0500

> > >

> > >Thanks, Rodney,

> > >Australia is about the same lat as mid U.S. and Mexico yet has

>half the

> > >rate of N. America.

> > >http://go.hrw.com/atlas/norm_htm/world.htm

> > >

> > >Plus Japan and N. Africa kinda blows the latitude theory, IMO.

> > >

> > >I think we consume(eat?) about 10 times as much soy oil per capita

>as the

> > >world,

> > >and 3.689 times as much fats overall. Your ALA hypothesis may be

>pretty

> > >good.

> > >Americans fry a lot of food in oil. Maybe hydrog fat is safer?

> > >

> > >http://www.unitedsoybean.org/soystats2001/page_34.htm

> > >http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

> > >

> > >

> > > U.S. Fats & Oils Edible Consumption 2000

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Million

> > > Million

> > > 2.93E+08

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Pounds

> > > Metric Tons

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > .

> > > .

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Soybean

> > >

> > > 13164

> > > 5.97

> > > 44.92833

> > > 1.00E+01

> > >

> > > Corn

> > >

> > > 586

> > > 0.27

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Canola (Rapeseed)

> > > 649

> > > 0.29

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Cottonseed

> > >

> > > 488

> > > 0.22

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Lard

> > >

> > > 249

> > > 0.11

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Edible Tallow

> > >

> > > 270

> > > 0.12

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Coconut

> > >

> > > 232

> > > 0.11

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Peanut

> > >

> > > 240

> > > 0.11

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Other 1)

> > >

> > > 411

> > > 0.19

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > .

> > > .

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Total

> > >

> > > 16289

> > > 7.39

> > > 5.56E+01

> > > 3.69E+00

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > .

> > > .

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > World Vegetable Oil Consumption 2000

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Million

> > > Million

> > > 6.39E+06

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Short Tons

> > > Metric Tons

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > .

> > > .

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Soybeans

> > >

> > > 28.6

> > > 26

> > > 4.48E+00

> > >

> > >

> > > Palm

> > >

> > > 25.7

> > > 23.3

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Rapeseed

> > >

> > > 14.5

> > > 13.1

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Sunflowerseed

> > >

> > > 9.5

> > > 8.6

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Peanut

> > >

> > > 4.6

> > > 4.2

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Cottonseed

> > >

> > > 3.9

> > > 3.6

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Coconut

> > >

> > > 3.6

> > > 3.3

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Palm Kernel

> > >

> > > 3

> > > 2.7

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Olive

> > >

> > > 2.7

> > > 2.5

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Total

> > >

> > > 96.1

> > > 87.2

> > > 1.51E+01

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > ----- Original Message -----

> > > From: Rodney

> > >

> > > Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 2:53 PM

> > > Subject: [ ] Prostate Cancer & Soy Products

> > >

> > >

> > > Hi folks:

> > >

> > > Some helpful information on the above topic:

> > >

> > > http://www.csmc.edu/pf_3421.html

> > >

> > > Rodney.

> > >

>

[Guest guest]

Also, that ref you posted yesterday:

http://www.csmc.edu/3423.html

"Laboratory and animal studies have shown that another group of fatty acids, omega-6-polyunsaturated fatty acids, promotes the growth of human prostate cancer. Specifically, two omega-6 fatty acids, which are linoleic acid (safflower oil) and arachidonic acid (found in all meats and whole dairy), have been shown to increase prostate cancer risk. In one study, Ghosh and Myers showed that linoleic acid (omega-6 fatty acid) stimulated the growth of prostate cancer cells in culture. "

FWIW.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Rodney

Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 5:01 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Prostate Cancer & Soy Products

Hi folks:Correction. Safflower oil is 76% linoleic, not the 79% I had said. http://www.freshhempfoods.com/nutrition/comp-table.htmlhttp://snipurl.com/7x82Of course Jeff's point is don't eat the oil, eat foods that contain the linoleic acid you need. But I am not sure which he would suggest.Rodney.> > By "hydrog" do you mean saturated? Saturated fats are associated > with > > increased rates of atherosclerosis, dementia, and cancer. > How 'bout minimal > > oil, and if that, then olive?> > > >

[Guest guest]

First, you tangent my statement. Second, I really don't think trans fats raise LDL more than say meats. Third,

I don't think fat regulation will buy anyone anything better than CR, which means low levels of fats to me. Fourth, you leave out the idea what happens to fats in veggies,eg, when they are heated. Clearly, IMO, the lowest level of fat is the best, but if you've dropped as low as I have you know you will need some soy (or canola oil) - a tbls, that's all. In my experience, it can be hydrogenated, fried corn chips, french fries, mayo, whatever.

I really question a test of "partially" hydrogenated oils versus hydrogenated oils. It is my understanding they are the same. The sat fatty acid doesn't get hydrogenated, ergo, "partially" hydrogenated.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: citpeks

Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 9:57 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Prostate Cancer & Soy Products

Your comments about hydrogenated fats indicate that you forgot thatdietary trans fats raise the level of LDL increasing the risk ofcoronary heart disease. Trans fats also reduce HDL and raise levels oftriglycerides in the blood. There is documentation all the way backto 1994 indicating that people who ate partially hydrogenated oils had nearly twice the risk of heart attacks compared with those who didnot consume hydrogenated oils.Choose your poisons carefully. What you eat will eventually kill you,but you will also die if you don't eat.Tony ZamoraWillett WC, Ascherio A. Trans fatty acids: Are the effects onlymarginal? Am J Public Health 1994; 84:722-724.>>>>>From: "jwwright" <jwwright@e...>Date: Mon Aug 9, 2004 4:47 pmSubject: Re: Prostate Cancer & Soy ProductsI think we consume(eat?) about 10 times as much soy oil per capita asthe world,and 3.689 times as much fats overall. Your ALA hypothesis may bepretty good. Americans fry a lot of food in oil. Maybe hydrog fat is safer? From: " Dowling" <dowlic@h...>Date: Mon Aug 9, 2004 5:27 pmBy "hydrog" do you mean saturated? Saturated fats are associated withincreased rates of atherosclerosis, dementia, and cancer.From: "Rodney" <perspect1111@y...>Date: Mon Aug 9, 2004 5:45 pmI think JW's entertaining point may have been that if this ALA stuffis as bad as it looks, then perhaps the hydrogenated stuff issomewhat less awful.>>>>>

[Guest guest]

It says omega 6.

But the science in PCa is yet to be defined. Any nutrient that feeds the body will feed the cancer. The science of finding a dietary substance that preferentially kills cancer cells, or retards their growth, is in infancy. There has been a great many of anecdotal things tried by millions of people, that don't work. But that's after they got it.

The problem remains in identification mainly, then treatment. Some day I envision they'll just remove the prostate as often as they remove uteri.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Rodney

Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 10:28 AM

Subject: [ ] Re: Prostate Cancer & Soy Products

Hi JW:I believe that must be an error. They quote Giovannucci, a lead author of the recent Physicians Health Study article on oils and prostate cancer. It (he) found that it was linoleNic acid that promotes prostate cancer, NOT linoleic.But sometime I will email them and check, and get back if I get a reply.Rodney.

[Guest guest]

So that means it's not an ALA anymore, right?

Do we digest oxidized fatty acids?

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: citpeks

Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 11:58 AM

Subject: [ ] Re: Prostate Cancer & Soy Products

Hydrogenation is done at high temperatures in the presence of metalcatalysts and hydrogen. If all the unsaturated bonds werehydrogenated (100% hydrogenation), you would end up with a hard,saturated fat. However, the reactions never go to 100% completion(because of chemical equilibrium), and commercially you don't wantshortening that looks or acts like paraffin. So by partiallyhydrogenating oil, you get a softer shortening, but the hightemperatures of the process weaken molecular attractions and changesome of the natural Cis- bonds to Trans- bonds.Hydrogenation is not the same as high-temperature cooking. First ofall, catalysts or hydrogen are not present. However, unsaturated oilscan oxidize, polymerize, or otherwise degrade under high temperatureswith a higher likelyhood of creating free radicals. Even at roomtemperature, some oils like linseed oil (flax seed oil) polymerize andform highly resistant coatings which is why they were used forcenturies for varnishing applications.Take a look at my web page on fats:http://www.scientificpsychic.com/fitness/fattyacids.htmlTony>>>>From: "jwwright" <jwwright@e...>Date: Tue Aug 10, 2004 11:00 amSubject: Re: [ ] Prostate Cancer & Soy ProductsNo I meant hydrogenation of the soy oil does something to the ALA andlinoleic, right? Those must be converted to 18:00 even though themolecule may be bent a different way. So I hypothesized that hydrogsoy oil may be better than soy oil, because it doesn't have ALA.

[Guest guest]

Are you talking PCa only which is the subject? What's the relative risk for PCa due to trans fats or ALA is the question.

I don't suggest anyone eat anything especially fats, meats, fish.

Regards

----- Original Message -----

From: old542000

Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 12:02 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Prostate Cancer & Soy Products

Hi All,I find the suggestion that trans fats are okay highly misguided.Cheers, Al Pater.> First, you tangent my statement. Second, I really don't think trans fats raise LDL more than say meats. Third, > I don't think fat regulation will buy anyone anything better than CR, which means low levels of fats to me. Fourth, you leave out the idea what happens to fats in veggies,eg, when they are heated. Clearly, IMO, the lowest level of fat is the best, but if you've dropped as low as I have you know you will need some soy (or canola oil) - a tbls, that's all. In my experience, it can be hydrogenated, fried corn chips, french fries, mayo, whatever. > I really question a test of "partially" hydrogenated oils versus hydrogenated oils. It is my understanding they are the same. The sat fatty acid doesn't get hydrogenated, ergo, "partially" hydrogenated.

[Guest guest]

On the basis of citpeks statement about oxidized oils, I wonder if trans fats are as bad as oils when either is used to deep fry food. I wonder if they've separated those items.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Rodney

Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 12:13 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Prostate Cancer & Soy Products

Hi folks:My recollection of the data from the Nurses Health Study is that trans fats were found to be many multiples of times worse, with respect to CHD, than saturated fats. I was surprised to see that the latter appeared to be only 'somewhat' harmful. I suppose that means 'somewhat harmful' relative to the average diet, which, of course, is no great claim to fame.Rodney.> > First, you tangent my statement. Second, I really don't think trans > fats raise LDL more than say meats. Third, > > I don't think fat regulation will buy anyone anything better than > CR, which means low levels of fats to me. Fourth, you leave out the > idea what happens to fats in veggies,eg, when they are heated. > Clearly, IMO, the lowest level of fat is the best, but if you've > dropped as low as I have you know you will need some soy (or canola > oil) - a tbls, that's all. In my experience, it can be hydrogenated, > fried corn chips, french fries, mayo, whatever. > > I really question a test of "partially" hydrogenated oils versus > hydrogenated oils. It is my understanding they are the same. The sat > fatty acid doesn't get hydrogenated, ergo, "partially" hydrogenated.

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Alan,

"Our knowledge of the metabolism of fats continues to increase and it will take many years of research and expensive long-term studies to establish objective facts to clarify the conflicting statements from government agencies, short-term studies, advocacy groups, commercial interests, and the latest diet fads. "

We associate sat fats with artery clogging, but the unsat fatty acids have more opportunity to oxidize in the arteries, I would think.

"Harvard University researchers have reported that people who ate partially hydrogenated oils, which are high in Trans fats, had nearly twice the risk of heart attacks compared with those who did not consume hydrogenated oils. "

I wonder where they found that group to compare with? maybe some other country?

Wish they had said something about the effect on prostate cancer.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: old542000

Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 12:38 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Prostate Cancer & Soy Products

Hi All,See the from me pdf-available:http://tinyurl.com/48tq5 ,which says that the medium chain fatty acids are heart disease risks, as opposed to the final paragraphs of:http://www.scientificpsychic.com/fitness/fattyacids.htmlCheers, Al Pater.

[Guest guest]

Let's put the question this way: if you're only going to eat the minimum fatty acids ~11 mgs of n-6 and 1-2 mgs of n-3, which fat/oil and how much do you choose? That assumes there IS a requirement for ALA, which is at the heart of the PCa problem.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: citpeks

Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 3:03 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Prostate Cancer & Soy Products

>>>>From: "old542000" <apater@m...>Date: Tue Aug 10, 2004 1:38 pmSubject: Re: Prostate Cancer & Soy ProductsHi All,See the from me pdf-available:http://tinyurl.com/48tq5 ,which says that the medium chain fatty acids are heart disease risks,as opposed to the final paragraphs of:http://www.scientificpsychic.com/fitness/fattyacids.htmlCheers, Al Pater.>>>>Hi Al,To quote the reference that you provided "CONCLUSIONS: Compared withfat high in oleic acid, MCT[Medium Chain Triglycerides] fatunfavorably affected lipid profiles in healthy young men by increasingplasma LDL cholesterol and triacylglycerol." We can ASSUME that thiswill increase heart disease risk, but the paper does not say so.

[Guest guest]

>> Let's put the question this way: if you're only going to eat the minimum fatty acids ~11 mgs of n-6 and 1-2 mgs of n-3, which fat/oil and how much do you choose?

As I said to Rodney a ways back, this statement assumes that we must consume a concentrated source of fat/oil to get these needs met. However, as I asked but never answered earlier (sorry rodney), what if it "came along for the ride" in a food that is very low in calorie density, very high in a wide range of nutrient densities, and maybe not tradionally thought of as high fat.

The answer is dark green leafy vegetables, specifically purslane.

Purslane, a vegetable used in the Mediterranean basin and in the Middle East, is the richest source of ALA of any green leafy vegetable examined . It is also one of the few plants known to be a source of EPA. Although not typically consumed in the US diet, purslane is nonetheless found in all 50 states.

Others, like romaine, are not far behind. I think it is around 500-600 calories of romaine that will provide all the Omegas 3s needed. I dont have my references material in front of me but I think it was 1000 calories of romaine that provided 2.8 of omega 3 and 6.8 of omega 6s. A good mix of most dark green leafies if consumed in this amount will do the same. After all, fish (and wild game) do not have the capacity to manufacture omega 3s and must get them from eating sea greens, or other smaller fish (or animals) that eat the sea greens or green leafies.

Simopoulos AP. Terrestrial sources of omega-3 fats: purslane. In: Quebedeaux B, Bliss F, eds. Horticulture and human health: contributions of fruits and vegetables. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1988:93-107.

Simopoulos AP, Norman HA, Gillaspy JE, Duke JA. Common purslane: a source of omega-3 fats and antioxidants. J Am Coll Nutr 1992;11:374-82 .

[Guest guest]

500 kcals of romaine is a LOT of romaine like 8 pounds. How about nuts?

I assume you're suggesting eat no fat then?

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Jeff Novick

Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 4:39 PM

Subject: RE: [ ] Re: Prostate Cancer & Soy Products

>> Let's put the question this way: if you're only going to eat the minimum fatty acids ~11 mgs of n-6 and 1-2 mgs of n-3, which fat/oil and how much do you choose?

As I said to Rodney a ways back, this statement assumes that we must consume a concentrated source of fat/oil to get these needs met. However, as I asked but never answered earlier (sorry rodney), what if it "came along for the ride" in a food that is very low in calorie density, very high in a wide range of nutrient densities, and maybe not tradionally thought of as high fat.

The answer is dark green leafy vegetables, specifically purslane.

Others, like romaine, are not far behind. I think it is around 500-600 calories of romaine that will provide all the Omegas 3s needed. I dont have my references material in front of me but I think it was 1000 calories of romaine that provided 2.8 of omega 3 and 6.8 of omega 6s. A good mix of most dark green leafies if consumed in this amount will do the same. After all, fish (and wild game) do not have the capacity to manufacture omega 3s and must get them from eating sea greens, or other smaller fish (or animals) that eat the sea greens or green leafies.

[Guest guest]

Yes, 500 kcals is a lot of lettuce and I am not recommending anyone eat that.

But, I do think eating a very large amount of a variety of green leafies and

green vegetables is a great idea. So, even if you dont get in the recommended

intake of EFAs, you can make a substantial contribution to your intake of EFAs,

of at least 50% if not 75% or more without having to worry about oxidized fats,

heated fats, ratios, etc etc.

1 oz of walnuts or about 1 TB of ground flax would also supply the recommended

intake of EFAs.

I am not suggesting anyone eat " no fat " . What I am saying is that refined

concentrated sources of fat (ie, oils, butters, margarines, etc) are not

neccessary to ensure adequate intake of EFAs or optimal nutrition. A whole

foods plant based diet, with no added concentrated fats will still be around 15%

or more. Oatmeal, spinach, romaine, strawberries, broccoli, cauliflower, chick

peas, are all examples of foods that are naturally between 12-16% fat (as a

percent of calories). Add in a very small amount of fish or walnuts or flax and

you will easily meet your EFAs, and still be about 15-20% fat at most.

Last time I ran the numbers here at the center which is a plant based whole food

diet with small amount of fish (3.5 oz cooked weight), it was 15% fat, 2.8 Omega

3s,and 6.1 Omega 6s.

In response to Rodneys last comments, the only real issue that I hear about is

ensuring the adequate intake of Omega 3s as for many it is low. The other issue

is limiting the omega 6s as for many, it is too high. While no standardized

recommedations exist, my understanding is that they ideal ratio between the two

is 1:1 or no more than 1:4 (3's to 6's). The ratio in the typical US diet

right now is said to be about 1:10 to as high as 1:18 with the main source of

Omega 6s being common vegetable oils.

I have a fairly complete analysis of a 1500 calorie simple whole food plant

based diet with 3.5 oz of fish (and no added refined concentrated

fats/oils/sugars/ or other foods) that meets all RDAs and recommended intakes

which I can post when I get back to my desk this week.

[Guest guest]

Sorry I meant gms.

Those are from the Harvard women's study which I recall you are familiar with. Other refs state 8 gms LA and 2 gm of ALA, Modern Nutrition, pg 91; and LEF org 11.1, 2.2; and the IOM is 17,12 and 1.6,1.1 for young men and young women respectively.

So they just about fit into a tbls of soy oil. 7 gm LA, 1 gm LA.

Like Jeff says we can get it from diet and I sometimes use 1 oz walnuts 9 gms LA, 1.9 gms ALA.

I don't use soy milk because it's a processed food and quite unreliable for fatty acid content.

Green soybeans seem to provide more ALA than LA, oddly, 1.188 gms/100gms, and 2.657 gms/100 gms.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Rodney

Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 8:42 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Prostate Cancer & Soy Products

Hi JW:So those numbers you quote below, the 11 mg and 1-2 mg, .................. are they pretty firm (i.e. reliable) numbers for 'RDAs' for fats? And do we really want to get seven times as much of n-6 as compared with n-3?If they are form numbers, then we can take a stab at how little fish (i.e. how few calories of fish) we can get away with eating, while still satisfying our fats' requirements.Rodney.

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Jeff, I 'd like to see it.

I've been doing walnuts, but like Rodney I'm still looking for the real req't for ALA.

And I read the book that discussed the 4:1 ratio but recall no science from it. I didn't consider it serious enough to keep the book.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Jeff Novick

Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 8:56 PM

Subject: RE: [ ] Re: Prostate Cancer & Soy Products

Yes, 500 kcals is a lot of lettuce and I am not recommending anyone eat that. But, I do think eating a very large amount of a variety of green leafies and green vegetables is a great idea. So, even if you dont get in the recommended intake of EFAs, you can make a substantial contribution to your intake of EFAs, of at least 50% if not 75% or more without having to worry about oxidized fats, heated fats, ratios, etc etc. 1 oz of walnuts or about 1 TB of ground flax would also supply the recommended intake of EFAs. I am not suggesting anyone eat "no fat". What I am saying is that refined concentrated sources of fat (ie, oils, butters, margarines, etc) are not neccessary to ensure adequate intake of EFAs or optimal nutrition. A whole foods plant based diet, with no added concentrated fats will still be around 15% or more. Oatmeal, spinach, romaine, strawberries, broccoli, cauliflower, chick peas, are all examples of foods that are naturally between 12-16% fat (as a percent of calories). Add in a very small amount of fish or walnuts or flax and you will easily meet your EFAs, and still be about 15-20% fat at most. Last time I ran the numbers here at the center which is a plant based whole food diet with small amount of fish (3.5 oz cooked weight), it was 15% fat, 2.8 Omega 3s,and 6.1 Omega 6s.In response to Rodneys last comments, the only real issue that I hear about is ensuring the adequate intake of Omega 3s as for many it is low. The other issue is limiting the omega 6s as for many, it is too high. While no standardized recommedations exist, my understanding is that they ideal ratio between the two is 1:1 or no more than 1:4 (3's to 6's). The ratio in the typical US diet right now is said to be about 1:10 to as high as 1:18 with the main source of Omega 6s being common vegetable oils.I have a fairly complete analysis of a 1500 calorie simple whole food plant based diet with 3.5 oz of fish (and no added refined concentrated fats/oils/sugars/ or other foods) that meets all RDAs and recommended intakes which I can post when I get back to my desk this week.

[Guest guest]

I think the jury is still out on that assumption.

----- Original Message -----

From: loganruns73

Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 1:40 AM

Subject: [ ] Re: Prostate Cancer & Soy Products

Whatever LA/ALA that was consumed in vegetables was in relatively small amounts. What was in significant amounts in the diet was a high ratio of ALA to LA in meat, DHA/EPA from fish and OA in olives.

[Guest guest]

I said I think, right?

No amount of paleo logic is going to convince me as a scientist that any applies today. I don't have to justify a biochemical process with some paleo thing. Provide the biochem and I'll love it. IMO, no one has any idea what they ate or what we adapted to or what diseases they suffered or what we can adapt to. It appears we can adapt to any foods.

We have few records of the veggies they ate, because veggies have no bones. We have only minor samples of who lived where and when.

There is no "paleo" food aisle at walmart.

----- Original Message -----

From: loganruns73

Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 11:35 AM

Subject: [ ] Re: Prostate Cancer & Soy Products

Is this your personal opinion or do you have something to contradict the latest findings about our warm-region paleo-diet (which is what my "assumption" is)?Logan> I think the jury is still out on that assumption.