Re: Do you eat fish?

[Guest guest]

Mercury (last I heard) is only a danger for very young children and pregnant

women. In any case, I eat canned salmon and sardines and wild salmon as

well. Since the mercury level is low in salmon, exactly what is the catch

22?

BTW, I stock up at sales on the canned salmon and have gotten it as low as

..99 a can :-)))0

on 10/23/2004 8:32 PM, freebird5005 at freebird5005@... wrote:

>

> Unfortunately in these times Mercury is a concern when choosing to

> eat fish. According to these tables SALMON tests very low to non-

> existent for mercury contamination. The levels in canned/fresh/frozen

> were not detectable in all samples tested. I used to eat a LOT of

> Tuna (fancy Albacore nontheless) until much to my astonishment and

> chagrin I discovered it was full of it. What I am getting around to

> here is I want to eat more fish for the obvious health reasons but I

> don't want to load up on mercury (also for obvious reasons). This is

> like a catch-22.. darned if you do darned if you don't :-|

>

> So, my question to all of you is what do you do? Do you eat fish? If

> so, what kind and how much? If not, why, and what do you do to 'make

> up for the difference'?

>

> Canned Salmon would be very very convenient and inexpensive (I think

> it was who said about buck and half per can). The

> problem I have is why does Salmon measure so low in mercury? I find

> it hard to believe but on other hand I have no reason to dis-

> believe. ;-)

>

> Again, what do YOU do?

>

> TIA.

[Guest guest]

I am not sure how much of a risk tuna really is. There seems to be a Pissing

contest between two government agencies confusing the advice. It's always

hard to suggest that maybe a pregnant woman might want to moderate their

consumption without scaring everybody. Tuna would probably do far more good

than bad for 99.99999% of SAD eaters.

If we chose to eat a lot more than is typical our risk will be

proportionately greater.

These days I usually skip the tuna for a modest dose of salmon in a regular

lunch recipe.

My understanding is that a fish's mercury content is a function of feeding

behavior and age. Tuna and swordfish apparently eat lots of smaller fish who

in turn have eaten even smaller fish, so they get a multiplicative effect on

mercury absorbed from the environment. Salmon apparently don't follow the

same feeding behavior.

I seem to recall an earlier mercury scare that took swordfish off our dinner

tables ('50s-'60s ?). I loved swordfish and still do. I just don't see much

around these days.

JR

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

From: freebird5005 [mailto:freebird5005@...]

Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004 7:33 PM

Subject: [ ] Do you eat fish?

Unfortunately in these times Mercury is a concern when choosing to

eat fish. According to these tables SALMON tests very low to non-

existent for mercury contamination. The levels in canned/fresh/frozen

were not detectable in all samples tested. I used to eat a LOT of

Tuna (fancy Albacore nontheless) until much to my astonishment and

chagrin I discovered it was full of it. What I am getting around to

here is I want to eat more fish for the obvious health reasons but I

don't want to load up on mercury (also for obvious reasons). This is

like a catch-22.. darned if you do darned if you don't :-|

So, my question to all of you is what do you do? Do you eat fish? If

so, what kind and how much? If not, why, and what do you do to 'make

up for the difference'?

Canned Salmon would be very very convenient and inexpensive (I think

it was who said about buck and half per can). The

problem I have is why does Salmon measure so low in mercury? I find

it hard to believe but on other hand I have no reason to dis-

believe. ;-)

Again, what do YOU do?

TIA.

[Guest guest]

, what two govt agencies are at odds?? Also, do you know AT what

level of Mercury becomes harmful? Is ANY level safe? What are the

tradeoffs as you see them?

--- In , " " <crjohnr@b...>

wrote:

> I am not sure how much of a risk tuna really is. There seems to be

a Pissing

> contest between two government agencies confusing the advice. It's

always

> hard to suggest that maybe a pregnant woman might want to moderate

their

> consumption without scaring everybody. Tuna would probably do far

more good

> than bad for 99.99999% of SAD eaters.

>

> If we chose to eat a lot more than is typical our risk will be

> proportionately greater.

>

> These days I usually skip the tuna for a modest dose of salmon in a

regular

> lunch recipe.

>

> My understanding is that a fish's mercury content is a function of

feeding

> behavior and age. Tuna and swordfish apparently eat lots of smaller

fish who

> in turn have eaten even smaller fish, so they get a multiplicative

effect on

> mercury absorbed from the environment. Salmon apparently don't

follow the

> same feeding behavior.

>

> I seem to recall an earlier mercury scare that took swordfish off

our dinner

> tables ('50s-'60s ?). I loved swordfish and still do. I just don't

see much

> around these days.

>

> JR

>

>

>

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

> From: freebird5005 [mailto:freebird5005@y...]

> Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004 7:33 PM

>

> Subject: [ ] Do you eat fish?

>

>

>

>

> Unfortunately in these times Mercury is a concern when choosing to

> eat fish. According to these tables SALMON tests very low to non-

> existent for mercury contamination. The levels in

canned/fresh/frozen

> were not detectable in all samples tested. I used to eat a LOT of

> Tuna (fancy Albacore nontheless) until much to my astonishment and

> chagrin I discovered it was full of it. What I am getting around to

> here is I want to eat more fish for the obvious health reasons but I

> don't want to load up on mercury (also for obvious reasons). This is

> like a catch-22.. darned if you do darned if you don't :-|

>

> So, my question to all of you is what do you do? Do you eat fish? If

> so, what kind and how much? If not, why, and what do you do to 'make

> up for the difference'?

>

> Canned Salmon would be very very convenient and inexpensive (I think

> it was who said about buck and half per can). The

> problem I have is why does Salmon measure so low in mercury? I find

> it hard to believe but on other hand I have no reason to dis-

> believe. ;-)

>

> Again, what do YOU do?

>

> TIA.

[Guest guest]

Hi Freebird:

I eat a little (~100 g?) fish almost every day. But I DIVERSIFY my

intake. Most is canned - salmon, herring, mackerel, 'sardines', tuna

occasionally, oysters. Frozen, including alaskan flounder fillets,

which should be poached (water boiling hard before you put it in and

not permitted to boil after) for two to three minutes. Fresh fish

occasionally - any type including a whole farmed salmon

infrequently. (The PCB contamination in them is measured in parts

per TTTrillion! Which I consider to be not a problem). Shrimps,

when I go for my three-monthly all-you-can-eat chinese dinner. I did

it thursday night. I put on 5.5 pounds! (90% of that temporary, of

course). No signs of anorexia!!!

My best fish recipes are 'meuniere', yes I know it requires butter -

one of the very rare occasions I eat butter. Poached, with some kind

of white (Pritikin?) sauce. Or broiled split fish, a wonderfully

tasty way to eat any fish, but especially mackerel.

I eat about half as much fish as the japanese, and they have a pretty

good lifespan. But not as good, of course, as we here are going to

have.

IIRC the Physicians Health Study gave fish oil capsules to a sample

of their subjects and found that it had no effect at all on heart

disease. That is the reason I go for the fish, not the oil capsules.

Rodney.

>

> Unfortunately in these times Mercury is a concern when choosing to

> eat fish. According to these tables SALMON tests very low to non-

> existent for mercury contamination. The levels in

canned/fresh/frozen

> were not detectable in all samples tested. I used to eat a LOT of

> Tuna (fancy Albacore nontheless) until much to my astonishment and

> chagrin I discovered it was full of it. What I am getting around to

> here is I want to eat more fish for the obvious health reasons but I

> don't want to load up on mercury (also for obvious reasons). This is

> like a catch-22.. darned if you do darned if you don't :-|

>

> So, my question to all of you is what do you do? Do you eat fish? If

> so, what kind and how much? If not, why, and what do you do to 'make

> up for the difference'?

>

> Canned Salmon would be very very convenient and inexpensive (I think

> it was who said about buck and half per can). The

> problem I have is why does Salmon measure so low in mercury? I find

> it hard to believe but on other hand I have no reason to dis-

> believe. ;-)

>

> Again, what do YOU do?

>

> TIA.

>

>

> Here are tables (very well laid out i might add):

>

> http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~frf/sea-mehg.html

[Guest guest]

EPA and FDA.... I think they finally made up and agreed to a joint

statement.

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/admehg3.html

Mercury is bad stuff. Especially for developing fetus. Since mercury is

stored in our body I suspect women of child bearing age and inclination

should be stricter than other adults about consumption. For the rest of us

there may be a hormetic effect but I wouldn't count on any level being

" good " . One concern I have may be knowing what is actual level in specific

tins of tuna.

I am sure I consumed my share as a child (swordfish was a regular family

meal probably once every two weeks at least). Ate lots of canned tuna as an

adult (gee maybe that explains.... :-). While I am not afraid of mercury

poisoning from eating tuna, it doesn't hurt that canned wild salmon is far

cheaper and looks better on paper...

I suspect better communication of tuna's risk to pregnant women will end up

scaring men and women away from eating fish entirely. I wish the public

could be more thoughtful about how and what they eat but it's not in our

nature.

JR

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

From: freebird5005 [mailto:freebird5005@...]

Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004 10:08 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Do you eat fish?

, what two govt agencies are at odds?? Also, do you know AT what

level of Mercury becomes harmful? Is ANY level safe? What are the

tradeoffs as you see them?

--- In , " " <crjohnr@b...>

wrote:

> I am not sure how much of a risk tuna really is. There seems to be

a Pissing

> contest between two government agencies confusing the advice. It's

always

> hard to suggest that maybe a pregnant woman might want to moderate

their

> consumption without scaring everybody. Tuna would probably do far

more good

> than bad for 99.99999% of SAD eaters.

>

> If we chose to eat a lot more than is typical our risk will be

> proportionately greater.

>

> These days I usually skip the tuna for a modest dose of salmon in a

regular

> lunch recipe.

>

> My understanding is that a fish's mercury content is a function of

feeding

> behavior and age. Tuna and swordfish apparently eat lots of smaller

fish who

> in turn have eaten even smaller fish, so they get a multiplicative

effect on

> mercury absorbed from the environment. Salmon apparently don't

follow the

> same feeding behavior.

>

> I seem to recall an earlier mercury scare that took swordfish off

our dinner

> tables ('50s-'60s ?). I loved swordfish and still do. I just don't

see much

> around these days.

>

> JR

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

If this issue really matters to you, check it out for yourself. As,

of course, with anything else.

My UNDERSTANDING is that, as mentioned earlier, it is the large fish

at the top of the food chain that have the highest levels of

mercury. CANNED tuna is supposed to come mostly from smaller tuna.

The large tuna are kept for steaks, sashimi etc.. And in addition,

when tested, the canned tuna has been found to have not enough

mercury for adults to be concerned about. But sure, there are very

good reasons why children, and women of child bearing age, should be

extra cautious.

And on top of the above, I have also read recently that it is now

realized that the form of the mercury in fish is much less harmful -

less absorbed - than had previously been thought. Sorry, can't give

sources for this. Read it about three months ago.

If it really matters, check it out for yourself.

Rodney.

> > I am not sure how much of a risk tuna really is. There seems to be

> a Pissing

> > contest between two government agencies confusing the advice. It's

> always

> > hard to suggest that maybe a pregnant woman might want to moderate

> their

> > consumption without scaring everybody. Tuna would probably do far

> more good

> > than bad for 99.99999% of SAD eaters.

> >

> > If we chose to eat a lot more than is typical our risk will be

> > proportionately greater.

> >

> > These days I usually skip the tuna for a modest dose of salmon in

a

> regular

> > lunch recipe.

> >

> > My understanding is that a fish's mercury content is a function of

> feeding

> > behavior and age. Tuna and swordfish apparently eat lots of

smaller

> fish who

> > in turn have eaten even smaller fish, so they get a multiplicative

> effect on

> > mercury absorbed from the environment. Salmon apparently don't

> follow the

> > same feeding behavior.

> >

> > I seem to recall an earlier mercury scare that took swordfish off

> our dinner

> > tables ('50s-'60s ?). I loved swordfish and still do. I just don't

> see much

> > around these days.

> >

> > JR

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

If I may ask a provocative question.. why eat fish at all? Why not

eat a completely plant based diet or maybe supplement with a few

grams of fish oil caps? (At least you know the FO caps are completely

free of mercury)

Check out nutitriondata's results for Salmon. Specifically, note the

Cholesterol content of Salmon:

http://nutritiondata.com/facts-001-02s039j.html

Nutritiondata says Salmon (and all other fish I looked up) is high in

Cholesterol.

Also, Dean Ornish's 'Heart Disease Reversal Diet' allows only TEN mgs

daily. At the very least we know this protocol produces measurable

results, so why exceed them? IOW, I reiterate.. why eat fish at all?

Why not stick with a wholly Plant based diet and perhaps supplement a

few grams FO?? We know what results THIS particular protocol

produces, don' we? So why don't we all follow THIS plan?

I am curious as to your reasons.

> >

> > Unfortunately in these times Mercury is a concern when choosing to

> > eat fish. According to these tables SALMON tests very low to non-

> > existent for mercury contamination. The levels in

> canned/fresh/frozen

> > were not detectable in all samples tested. I used to eat a LOT of

> > Tuna (fancy Albacore nontheless) until much to my astonishment and

> > chagrin I discovered it was full of it. What I am getting around

to

> > here is I want to eat more fish for the obvious health reasons

but I

> > don't want to load up on mercury (also for obvious reasons). This

is

> > like a catch-22.. darned if you do darned if you don't :-|

> >

> > So, my question to all of you is what do you do? Do you eat fish?

If

> > so, what kind and how much? If not, why, and what do you do

to 'make

> > up for the difference'?

> >

> > Canned Salmon would be very very convenient and inexpensive (I

think

> > it was who said about buck and half per can). The

> > problem I have is why does Salmon measure so low in mercury? I

find

> > it hard to believe but on other hand I have no reason to dis-

> > believe. ;-)

> >

> > Again, what do YOU do?

> >

> > TIA.

> >

> >

> > Here are tables (very well laid out i might add):

> >

> > http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~frf/sea-mehg.html

[Guest guest]

Like many others posting, I eat a variety of fish. Predominantly

herring and wild Alaskan salmon, with some occasional tuna, haddock,

etc. and very rarely, swordfish (about once a year at most.)

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 03:50:54 -0000, Rodney <perspect1111@...> wrote:

>

>

> Hi folks:

>

> If this issue really matters to you, check it out for yourself. As,

> of course, with anything else.

>

> My UNDERSTANDING is that, as mentioned earlier, it is the large fish

> at the top of the food chain that have the highest levels of

> mercury. CANNED tuna is supposed to come mostly from smaller tuna.

> The large tuna are kept for steaks, sashimi etc.. And in addition,

> when tested, the canned tuna has been found to have not enough

> mercury for adults to be concerned about. But sure, there are very

> good reasons why children, and women of child bearing age, should be

> extra cautious.

>

> And on top of the above, I have also read recently that it is now

> realized that the form of the mercury in fish is much less harmful -

> less absorbed - than had previously been thought. Sorry, can't give

> sources for this. Read it about three months ago.

>

> If it really matters, check it out for yourself.

>

> Rodney.

>

>

> > > I am not sure how much of a risk tuna really is. There seems to be

> > a Pissing

> > > contest between two government agencies confusing the advice. It's

> > always

> > > hard to suggest that maybe a pregnant woman might want to moderate

> > their

> > > consumption without scaring everybody. Tuna would probably do far

> > more good

> > > than bad for 99.99999% of SAD eaters.

> > >

> > > If we chose to eat a lot more than is typical our risk will be

> > > proportionately greater.

> > >

> > > These days I usually skip the tuna for a modest dose of salmon in

> a

> > regular

> > > lunch recipe.

> > >

> > > My understanding is that a fish's mercury content is a function of

> > feeding

> > > behavior and age. Tuna and swordfish apparently eat lots of

> smaller

> > fish who

> > > in turn have eaten even smaller fish, so they get a multiplicative

> > effect on

> > > mercury absorbed from the environment. Salmon apparently don't

> > follow the

> > > same feeding behavior.

> > >

> > > I seem to recall an earlier mercury scare that took swordfish off

> > our dinner

> > > tables ('50s-'60s ?). I loved swordfish and still do. I just don't

> > see much

> > > around these days.

> > >

> > > JR

> > >

> > >

> > >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>>>

From: " freebird5005 " <freebird5005@y...>

Date: Sun Oct 24, 2004 12:22 am

Subject: Re: Do you eat fish?

If I may ask a provocative question.. why eat fish at all? Why not

eat a completely plant based diet or maybe supplement with a few

grams of fish oil caps?

....

Also, Dean Ornish's 'Heart Disease Reversal Diet' allows only TEN mgs

daily. At the very least we know this protocol produces measurable

results, so why exceed them? IOW, I reiterate.. why eat fish at all?

Why not stick with a wholly Plant based diet and perhaps supplement a

few grams FO?? We know what results THIS particular protocol

produces, don' we? So why don't we all follow THIS plan?

I am curious as to your reasons.

>>>

Freebird,

You ask " why don't we all follow THIS plan? " It has been said that

most good things are either illegal, immoral, or unhealthy. While

there is a lot to be said for a long, healthy life, there are many

arguments in favor of living an enjoyable, exciting life with tasty

food.

The Ornish diet may be good at reversing heart disease and it may be a

way for people who have eaten the wrong things to mend their ways and

get a chance to live longer (maybe) by improving cardiovascular

health. The Ornish diet is one way of managing fat metabolism, but it

is not the only way.

I have seen my cholesterol readings drop from 223 to 164 over several

years by making gradual improvements to my diet. The most important

improvement was to cut out all hydrogenated fats and partially

hydrogenated fats from my food. The second one was to apply the

knowledge of the effect of dietary fats on serum cholesterol as

discussed in Messages 14624 and 14645. Understanding the quantitative

proportions by which serum cholesterol is increased by myristic acid

and decreased by linoleic acid makes it possible to design diets that

reduce cholesterol and maintain healthy lipid levels even when meats

are consumed. The recipe is simple: for every fat-trimmed, 8 oz

steak that you eat, consume 2 teaspoons of grape seed oil or safflower

oil in your salad.

Moderate caloric restriction (10%) also helps, but I measure caloric

restriction based on what is required by the -Benedict equation

based on my height, weight, and age, multiplied by my activity factor.

So, if I calculate 2235 kcal, I eat a 2000-calorie diet.

The Ornish diet is a vegan diet which may not be suitable for

everybody.

Tony

[Guest guest]

1. The majority of epidemiological studies showing benefits of fish

consumption have studied fish consumption, not just fish oils.

2. My most recent blood lipid analysis results: TC= 111 mg/dl; LDL =

34 mg/dl; HDL = 67 mg/dl.

There are those who aver my total cholesterol level is too low. And

this is on a high fish diet. I don't think I need worry 'bout the

cholesterol in seafood.

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 14:56:58 -0000, citpeks <citpeks@...> wrote:

>

>

> >>>

> From: " freebird5005 " <freebird5005@y...>

> Date: Sun Oct 24, 2004 12:22 am

> Subject: Re: Do you eat fish?

>

> If I may ask a provocative question.. why eat fish at all? Why not

> eat a completely plant based diet or maybe supplement with a few

> grams of fish oil caps?

> ...

> Also, Dean Ornish's 'Heart Disease Reversal Diet' allows only TEN mgs

> daily. At the very least we know this protocol produces measurable

> results, so why exceed them? IOW, I reiterate.. why eat fish at all?

> Why not stick with a wholly Plant based diet and perhaps supplement a

> few grams FO?? We know what results THIS particular protocol

> produces, don' we? So why don't we all follow THIS plan?

>

> I am curious as to your reasons.

> >>>

>

> Freebird,

>

> You ask " why don't we all follow THIS plan? " It has been said that

> most good things are either illegal, immoral, or unhealthy. While

> there is a lot to be said for a long, healthy life, there are many

> arguments in favor of living an enjoyable, exciting life with tasty

> food.

>

> The Ornish diet may be good at reversing heart disease and it may be a

> way for people who have eaten the wrong things to mend their ways and

> get a chance to live longer (maybe) by improving cardiovascular

> health. The Ornish diet is one way of managing fat metabolism, but it

> is not the only way.

>

> I have seen my cholesterol readings drop from 223 to 164 over several

> years by making gradual improvements to my diet. The most important

> improvement was to cut out all hydrogenated fats and partially

> hydrogenated fats from my food. The second one was to apply the

> knowledge of the effect of dietary fats on serum cholesterol as

> discussed in Messages 14624 and 14645. Understanding the quantitative

> proportions by which serum cholesterol is increased by myristic acid

> and decreased by linoleic acid makes it possible to design diets that

> reduce cholesterol and maintain healthy lipid levels even when meats

> are consumed. The recipe is simple: for every fat-trimmed, 8 oz

> steak that you eat, consume 2 teaspoons of grape seed oil or safflower

> oil in your salad.

>

> Moderate caloric restriction (10%) also helps, but I measure caloric

> restriction based on what is required by the -Benedict equation

> based on my height, weight, and age, multiplied by my activity factor.

> So, if I calculate 2235 kcal, I eat a 2000-calorie diet.

>

> The Ornish diet is a vegan diet which may not be suitable for

> everybody.

>

> Tony

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

If I may ask a provocative question.. why eat fish at all? Why not eat a completely plant based diet or maybe supplement with a few grams of fish oil caps?

This may well be a workable option for some. After two years as a vegan, however, even though I was using dwidp and getting plenty of balanced protein, my fingernails and toenails were tearing like cardboard, and my energy was low. When I added skim milk and egg white protein, (Ornish) my fingernails toughened up. The Omega Plan appeared. I exchanged a few emails with Jo (co author) and, in fact, she was a member of the cr society list for a while. I added salmon, sardines, tuna. I felt better. My triglycerides, which had dropped from 1000 plus eating ad lib to about 300 on Ornish, dropped into the 60's and 70's. I found more specific information re: Lyon Study, the original Cretan diet, and the okinawan's diet. Al Pater provided us with information on some studies comparing the life spans of a nearly vegan groups with fish eating groups. The people eating fish live a little longer. Living longer is an end point. Not proof, but good enough for me. for now. I'm always open to more information, but speculation doesn't attract me any more.

Ed S.

[Guest guest]

Hi Freebird:

Provocative questions get along much better here than provocative

statements ;; ^ )))

Since you ask ............... perhaps you would like to correct me

if I have gotten any of my facts wrong in the following. My

impression is - it is a long time since I read the Ornish stuff -

that he has a clinically proven method for reversing atherosclerosis

and metabolic syndrome, based to a large extent on the work Pritikin

did in the 1970s. That is great. But not everyone has metabolic

syndrome. Not everyone weighs 350 pounds. Not everyone has total

cholesterol of 325. If I had ever had any of these problems I

would already have promptly adopted a Pritikin/Ornish approach to

life. But I haven't, perhaps because I went on a very low fat diet

(a bit too low probably) in 1974, long before I had even heard of

Pritikin, and my lipids values have reflected that ever since. (I am

now eating a lot more nuts and fish than I used to so my fat intake

is up around 20% of total calories these days).

So, first of all, in my case, and I would guess in the case of most

people who become interested in caloric restriction (if we weren't

members of the small minority who are interested in protecting their

health we wouldn't be here) I can see no reason to believe I need to

adopt a radical approach to reverse a set of diseases I don't have.

But, second, even if I *did* have a need to fix such problems,

caloric restriction, in and of itself, appears to pretty much

eliminate the chances of suffering CVD, metabolic syndrome or

diabetes in anyone who, for whatever reason, *does* feel a need to

take action on any of those fronts. So if my schedule, or anyone

else's, is to be down to 10% BF a year or two from now, why would

they feel a need to go on a (Ornish-type) crusade to solve a problem

that does not exist - or will no longer exist, twelve months out?

Third, the benefits of fish are not confined to fixing the diseases

that the Ornish/vegetarian program is designed to prevent/cure. Here

are a few examples: fatty fish were shown to reduce incidence of

prostate cancer by 26% in a AJCN article in July 2004, and

the 'Prostate Cancer Prevention Plan' recommends eating fish three or

four times a week; a major risk factor for hemorrhagic stroke is

atrial fibrillation, fish protect against it (Circulation,

2004;110:368-73); fish provides 60% protection against alzheimer's

disease (PMID: 12873849); DHA, a significant component of fish,

appears to confer 69% protection against breast cancer (PMID:

11857389); .................

I doubt the above are the only other benefits to be gained from fish

against diseases people on CR *are* likely to suffer from eventually.

So I eat fish.

Rodney.

PS: Canned pink salmon here (213g) is availble for 59 cents (US)

from time to time, and for 74 cents most of the time.

> > >

> > > Unfortunately in these times Mercury is a concern when choosing

to

> > > eat fish. According to these tables SALMON tests very low to

non-

> > > existent for mercury contamination. The levels in

> > canned/fresh/frozen

> > > were not detectable in all samples tested. I used to eat a LOT

of

> > > Tuna (fancy Albacore nontheless) until much to my astonishment

and

> > > chagrin I discovered it was full of it. What I am getting

around

> to

> > > here is I want to eat more fish for the obvious health reasons

> but I

> > > don't want to load up on mercury (also for obvious reasons).

This

> is

> > > like a catch-22.. darned if you do darned if you don't :-|

> > >

> > > So, my question to all of you is what do you do? Do you eat

fish?

> If

> > > so, what kind and how much? If not, why, and what do you do

> to 'make

> > > up for the difference'?

> > >

> > > Canned Salmon would be very very convenient and inexpensive (I

> think

> > > it was who said about buck and half per can). The

> > > problem I have is why does Salmon measure so low in mercury? I

> find

> > > it hard to believe but on other hand I have no reason to dis-

> > > believe. ;-)

> > >

> > > Again, what do YOU do?

> > >

> > > TIA.

> > >

> > >

> > > Here are tables (very well laid out i might add):

> > >

> > > http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~frf/sea-mehg.html

[Guest guest]

While Ornish may be the Gold Standard to freebird, the " Platinum

Standard " is for now " Okinawa " - SIMPLE FACT.

show me some 90 year old vegans, who never cheat, I would love to

talk to just five who have reached that age after a vegan life. The

fact is that when you look at those people who have reached 90 plus,

they are never vegan. Vegans NEVER live healthy long lives, never,

never, never. Full Stop.

There has always been mercury in the sea, we haven't just polluted

every ocean in the last 50 or so years, its mainly the inland

waterways near factories and dumping grounds that get contaminated

and the fish that live long lives (sardines are the safest bet, but

not as tasty as wild pacific salmon which is also damn cheap and

very low mercury). So even the Okinawans will be eating contaminated

fish.

if you want to make 100 plus you would be very foolish to avoid oily

fish. Whatever Ornish and Pritkin say, they are unproven as far as

serious longevity is concerned, but the Okinawa study is a proven

fact, those okinawa elders who reached 100 all had a few things in

common: They ate fish, loads of veg, some fruit, plenty of

grains/legumes, some dairy, some meat. Notice I say Okinawa elders,

not the other okinawans who have started eating more western foods.

Okinawa has the highest number of centarians, three times more than

Mediterranean per hundred thousand people.

the data on actual cholesterol in foods (not the fat) being bad for

you is weak in my opinion, and there is counter data suggesting some

cholesterol in the diet may help emotion levels (I for one feel

wretched on a low fat vegan diet, it makes life dull and not worth

living, just my increased happiness on a medium fat diet with some

animal protein will help my longevity).

OKINAWANS also calorie restricted (maybe 10 percent based on their

size).

richard ...

[Guest guest]

I don't wish to speculate on your criticism of vegetarianism, but I would

observe that to live to 100, you first have to make it to 90, 80, 70, etc.

If you are at risk for some lifestyle disease, that should be the primary

focus. Only after all those puppies are in the pen, should we speculate

about life after 100 :-).

JR

PS: Are Whales vegetarian?

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

From: rwalkerad1970 [mailto:rwalkerad1970@...]

Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 1:08 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Do you eat fish?

While Ornish may be the Gold Standard to freebird, the " Platinum

Standard " is for now " Okinawa " - SIMPLE FACT.

show me some 90 year old vegans, who never cheat, I would love to

talk to just five who have reached that age after a vegan life. The

fact is that when you look at those people who have reached 90 plus,

they are never vegan. Vegans NEVER live healthy long lives, never,

never, never. Full Stop.

There has always been mercury in the sea, we haven't just polluted

every ocean in the last 50 or so years, its mainly the inland

waterways near factories and dumping grounds that get contaminated

and the fish that live long lives (sardines are the safest bet, but

not as tasty as wild pacific salmon which is also damn cheap and

very low mercury). So even the Okinawans will be eating contaminated

fish.

if you want to make 100 plus you would be very foolish to avoid oily

fish. Whatever Ornish and Pritkin say, they are unproven as far as

serious longevity is concerned, but the Okinawa study is a proven

fact, those okinawa elders who reached 100 all had a few things in

common: They ate fish, loads of veg, some fruit, plenty of

grains/legumes, some dairy, some meat. Notice I say Okinawa elders,

not the other okinawans who have started eating more western foods.

Okinawa has the highest number of centarians, three times more than

Mediterranean per hundred thousand people.

the data on actual cholesterol in foods (not the fat) being bad for

you is weak in my opinion, and there is counter data suggesting some

cholesterol in the diet may help emotion levels (I for one feel

wretched on a low fat vegan diet, it makes life dull and not worth

living, just my increased happiness on a medium fat diet with some

animal protein will help my longevity).

OKINAWANS also calorie restricted (maybe 10 percent based on their

size).

richard ...

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

Mackerel is not an expensive fish. Just the opposite. Yet, imo, it

is probably the tastiest fish I know. Here is what you do.

Buy a fresh or frozen whole mackerel. Clean it. Remove the tail.

Those who get upset if a fish winks to them from the plate can remove

the head too if they like. Then split the fish lengthwise, down one

side of the backbone, but not all the way to the skin side so that it

is still one piece. Wash thoroughly. Drain. Grease the surface of

the broiler pan. Sprinkle the surface of the flesh side of the fish

with a dusting of seasoned flour, enough to just cover the entire

surface. Place skin side down on the greased pan surface. Broil

about three inches from the heat for eight to ten minutes one side

only. DO NOT TURN.

Eat what you want with it. But it is fine on its own.

The bones will have to be removed of course. Remember that apart

from those that are attached to the backbone, the others are on the

end of the fins. Any place there is a fin you will find bones

attached to them underneath.

DELICIOUS.

Rodney.

> > > >

> > > > Unfortunately in these times Mercury is a concern when

choosing

> to

> > > > eat fish. According to these tables SALMON tests very low to

> non-

> > > > existent for mercury contamination. The levels in

> > > canned/fresh/frozen

> > > > were not detectable in all samples tested. I used to eat a

LOT

> of

> > > > Tuna (fancy Albacore nontheless) until much to my

astonishment

> and

> > > > chagrin I discovered it was full of it. What I am getting

> around

> > to

> > > > here is I want to eat more fish for the obvious health

reasons

> > but I

> > > > don't want to load up on mercury (also for obvious reasons).

> This

> > is

> > > > like a catch-22.. darned if you do darned if you don't :-|

> > > >

> > > > So, my question to all of you is what do you do? Do you eat

> fish?

> > If

> > > > so, what kind and how much? If not, why, and what do you do

> > to 'make

> > > > up for the difference'?

> > > >

> > > > Canned Salmon would be very very convenient and inexpensive

(I

> > think

> > > > it was who said about buck and half per can). The

> > > > problem I have is why does Salmon measure so low in mercury?

I

> > find

> > > > it hard to believe but on other hand I have no reason to dis-

> > > > believe. ;-)

> > > >

> > > > Again, what do YOU do?

> > > >

> > > > TIA.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Here are tables (very well laid out i might add):

> > > >

> > > > http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~frf/sea-mehg.html

[Guest guest]

Hi :

You might be interested to know that, as has been discussed here

before, the average lifespan of the okinawan male is only three years

more than that of the average american male, even with the dreadful

diet that is consumed by the average american male. So, since

okinawan food is supposed to be so healthy, they supposedly eat fewer

calories and they supposedly get plenty of exercise, what is it they

are doing to screw things up?

But you are right, they do live a bit longer than most of the rest of

the world.

Rodney.

>

>

> While Ornish may be the Gold Standard to freebird, the " Platinum

> Standard " is for now " Okinawa " - SIMPLE FACT.

>

> show me some 90 year old vegans, who never cheat, I would love to

> talk to just five who have reached that age after a vegan life. The

> fact is that when you look at those people who have reached 90

plus,

> they are never vegan. Vegans NEVER live healthy long lives, never,

> never, never. Full Stop.

>

> There has always been mercury in the sea, we haven't just polluted

> every ocean in the last 50 or so years, its mainly the inland

> waterways near factories and dumping grounds that get contaminated

> and the fish that live long lives (sardines are the safest bet, but

> not as tasty as wild pacific salmon which is also damn cheap and

> very low mercury). So even the Okinawans will be eating

contaminated

> fish.

>

> if you want to make 100 plus you would be very foolish to avoid

oily

> fish. Whatever Ornish and Pritkin say, they are unproven as far as

> serious longevity is concerned, but the Okinawa study is a proven

> fact, those okinawa elders who reached 100 all had a few things in

> common: They ate fish, loads of veg, some fruit, plenty of

> grains/legumes, some dairy, some meat. Notice I say Okinawa elders,

> not the other okinawans who have started eating more western

foods.

> Okinawa has the highest number of centarians, three times more than

> Mediterranean per hundred thousand people.

>

> the data on actual cholesterol in foods (not the fat) being bad for

> you is weak in my opinion, and there is counter data suggesting

some

> cholesterol in the diet may help emotion levels (I for one feel

> wretched on a low fat vegan diet, it makes life dull and not worth

> living, just my increased happiness on a medium fat diet with some

> animal protein will help my longevity).

>

> OKINAWANS also calorie restricted (maybe 10 percent based on their

> size).

>

> richard ...

[Guest guest]

What I should have stressed is NOT to look at current Okinawa

mortality figures (that would be pointless, their eating habits have

changed), that is like comparing CRONIES with junk food eaters.

CRONIES are a select group of Americans following a different eating

pattern and I am sure they will outlive the normal american

mortality statistics. The Okinawan centarians were a select group

who were studied, not the same as all okinawans. This group were

brought up until after world war 2 on a very basic diet (fish, sweet

potats etc) and then naturally added healthier foods pre-war once

available. But many of the okinawans (their children) who now make

up the mortality statistics started to eat from the newer (but less

healthy foods and fats) post war, so the younger generation became

less healthy than the old and in a few years their mortality

statistics will not be at all special. So Wilcox and Suzuki are

talking about what the elders ate, not the general okinawa

population. If all okinawa had followed the elders eating patterns

then I think the overall statistics would be much more impressive,

so until us cronies reach out hundreds the okinawa standard is still

the best.

But, after saying that, I do see the point that maybe okinawa has to

be followed all of life, not just once you turn 50 with clogged

arteries and high blood sugar, if you take a standard unhealthy

american at say age 50 then perhaps okinawa would not be enough. ie

put Bill Clinton on okinawa and he would not get as heart healthy

than if he were on pritkin/ornish. But I am looking at this from

the view that you would not abuse your body at all, then okinawa is

the best standard. But if you have eaten far too many calories

regular, have a high BMI then you are a " medical problem " that will

need the powerful edge of pritkin/ornish to sear away the mess you

have created in your body. But I am lucky to have never abused my

body and therefore the best standard for me is okinawa/walford (both

books are pritty much in the same vein as to what is safe and not

safe to eat and ratios of fats/carbs/proteins).

So okinawa for a person who has not abused themselves and,

Pritkin/ornish for those who have been on self-destruct for too many

years of their life.

...

[Guest guest]

What of the [majority] Okinawins that didn't live to see 100?? If fish

is their saving grace why did they die 'prematurely'?

IMO many of you are missing my point, ie the dietary goal is CRON,

right? Restriction of calories with OPTIMUM nutrition. A part of

optimum nutrition is choosing foods that cause the least amount of

necessary harm to the physiology. Many studies [i posted four here. I

saw more..] suggest fish INCREASES lipid peroxidation and one

consequence of this is potential damage to arterial walls.

Furthermore, a vegan diet such as the 'Dean Ornish model' which

excludes all fish and nut consumption holding all fats to less than

10% and cholesterol to less than 10mg daily, produces considerable

MEASUREABLE improvement in cardiac risk factors and measureable

improvement in aterial angiograms etc.

What I am suggesting is we now have a successful model that stops or

even reverses atherosclerosis, so why speculate on fish?

So, my question remains, assuming half of one's goal to be optimum

nutrition [the other half - caloric restriction], and speaking to the

physiology only.. Why place fish in the equation at all??

>

>

> While Ornish may be the Gold Standard to freebird, the " Platinum

> Standard " is for now " Okinawa " - SIMPLE FACT.

>

> show me some 90 year old vegans, who never cheat, I would love to

> talk to just five who have reached that age after a vegan life. The

> fact is that when you look at those people who have reached 90 plus,

> they are never vegan. Vegans NEVER live healthy long lives, never,

> never, never. Full Stop.

>

> There has always been mercury in the sea, we haven't just polluted

> every ocean in the last 50 or so years, its mainly the inland

> waterways near factories and dumping grounds that get contaminated

> and the fish that live long lives (sardines are the safest bet, but

> not as tasty as wild pacific salmon which is also damn cheap and

> very low mercury). So even the Okinawans will be eating contaminated

> fish.

>

> if you want to make 100 plus you would be very foolish to avoid oily

> fish. Whatever Ornish and Pritkin say, they are unproven as far as

> serious longevity is concerned, but the Okinawa study is a proven

> fact, those okinawa elders who reached 100 all had a few things in

> common: They ate fish, loads of veg, some fruit, plenty of

> grains/legumes, some dairy, some meat. Notice I say Okinawa elders,

> not the other okinawans who have started eating more western foods.

> Okinawa has the highest number of centarians, three times more than

> Mediterranean per hundred thousand people.

>

> the data on actual cholesterol in foods (not the fat) being bad for

> you is weak in my opinion, and there is counter data suggesting some

> cholesterol in the diet may help emotion levels (I for one feel

> wretched on a low fat vegan diet, it makes life dull and not worth

> living, just my increased happiness on a medium fat diet with some

> animal protein will help my longevity).

>

> OKINAWANS also calorie restricted (maybe 10 percent based on their

> size).

>

> richard ...

[Guest guest]

With all due respect, your final conclusion doesn't add up.

" So okinawa for a person who has not abused themselves and,

Pritkin/ornish for those who have been on self-destruct for too many

years of their life. "

What you are suggesting here is exactly my point: Pritikin/Ornish are

better superior diets and that they do less harm. :-)

>

>

> What I should have stressed is NOT to look at current Okinawa

> mortality figures (that would be pointless, their eating habits have

> changed), that is like comparing CRONIES with junk food eaters.

> CRONIES are a select group of Americans following a different eating

> pattern and I am sure they will outlive the normal american

> mortality statistics. The Okinawan centarians were a select group

> who were studied, not the same as all okinawans. This group were

> brought up until after world war 2 on a very basic diet (fish, sweet

> potats etc) and then naturally added healthier foods pre-war once

> available. But many of the okinawans (their children) who now make

> up the mortality statistics started to eat from the newer (but less

> healthy foods and fats) post war, so the younger generation became

> less healthy than the old and in a few years their mortality

> statistics will not be at all special. So Wilcox and Suzuki are

> talking about what the elders ate, not the general okinawa

> population. If all okinawa had followed the elders eating patterns

> then I think the overall statistics would be much more impressive,

> so until us cronies reach out hundreds the okinawa standard is still

> the best.

>

> But, after saying that, I do see the point that maybe okinawa has to

> be followed all of life, not just once you turn 50 with clogged

> arteries and high blood sugar, if you take a standard unhealthy

> american at say age 50 then perhaps okinawa would not be enough. ie

> put Bill Clinton on okinawa and he would not get as heart healthy

> than if he were on pritkin/ornish. But I am looking at this from

> the view that you would not abuse your body at all, then okinawa is

> the best standard. But if you have eaten far too many calories

> regular, have a high BMI then you are a " medical problem " that will

> need the powerful edge of pritkin/ornish to sear away the mess you

> have created in your body. But I am lucky to have never abused my

> body and therefore the best standard for me is okinawa/walford (both

> books are pritty much in the same vein as to what is safe and not

> safe to eat and ratios of fats/carbs/proteins).

>

> So okinawa for a person who has not abused themselves and,

> Pritkin/ornish for those who have been on self-destruct for too many

> years of their life.

>

> ...

[Guest guest]

You seem to be suggesting that you allow yourself a 'slightly less'

than optimum diet (at least cardiovascular wise) because you don't

have any problems. But that if you DID you would adopt a 'better

diet', ie one proven to produce results.

Is this what you are saying? :-)

Also, yes caloric restriction ALONE helps immensely, however, I submit

that serious Cronies who decide for whatever reason to eat a single

hambuger each day would do almost as well as you fish eaters but is

this optimum nutrition?

Maybe we don't need fish except maybe for a few grams of fish oil per

day. Maybe we don't even need that. maybe we can get sufficient

quantities from our plants and avoid this whole issue of potential

additional stressor from fish cunsumption.

My thoughts anyway...

> > > >

> > > > Unfortunately in these times Mercury is a concern when choosing

> to

> > > > eat fish. According to these tables SALMON tests very low to

> non-

> > > > existent for mercury contamination. The levels in

> > > canned/fresh/frozen

> > > > were not detectable in all samples tested. I used to eat a LOT

> of

> > > > Tuna (fancy Albacore nontheless) until much to my astonishment

> and

> > > > chagrin I discovered it was full of it. What I am getting

> around

> > to

> > > > here is I want to eat more fish for the obvious health reasons

> > but I

> > > > don't want to load up on mercury (also for obvious reasons).

> This

> > is

> > > > like a catch-22.. darned if you do darned if you don't :-|

> > > >

> > > > So, my question to all of you is what do you do? Do you eat

> fish?

> > If

> > > > so, what kind and how much? If not, why, and what do you do

> > to 'make

> > > > up for the difference'?

> > > >

> > > > Canned Salmon would be very very convenient and inexpensive (I

> > think

> > > > it was who said about buck and half per can). The

> > > > problem I have is why does Salmon measure so low in mercury? I

> > find

> > > > it hard to believe but on other hand I have no reason to dis-

> > > > believe. ;-)

> > > >

> > > > Again, what do YOU do?

> > > >

> > > > TIA.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Here are tables (very well laid out i might add):

> > > >

> > > > http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~frf/sea-mehg.html

[Guest guest]

Hi :

I certainly do not have all (any?) of the answers here. But I do

have a couple of the questions.

First: if the average okinawan lifespan is not extraordinary why

focus only on the okinawan centenarians? My guess is that Okinawa's

centenarians have become well known primarily because a group of

people have made some money 'marketing' them through a book.

Certainly it is a good idea to look at the lifestyles of

centenarians. So why not *also* look at a study called the New

England Centenarian study going on in Boston and looking at american

centenarians:

http://www.bumc.bu.edu/Dept/Home.aspx?DepartmentID=361

and any other studies looking at centenarians elsewhere.

Second: I think it is a little difficult to attribute the somewhat

longer lifespan of okinawans to the earlier dietary habits of

okinawans in general, when the data show that between 1960 and 1996

the life expectancy in Okinawa increased from 72 years to 82 years.

If they had such a great diet in earlier years, and people are now

shifting to a worse diet, then why are they living longer now than

they used to?

http://okinawaprogram.com/ Look at the chart on the first page.

You will see that japanese lifespans in general have advanced faster

than those of the US and Sweden despite the supposed deterioration in

eating habits in Japan and Okinawa. Are they now eating much more

fish than they used to? More tofu? More buckwheat noodles? Less

mercury? Who knows?

I wish there was a simple answer to all this. Perhaps there is. But

I do not think Okinawa in isolation is the answer. If you do find

out what it is please don't forget to tell us : ^ )))

CRON does seem to stand a chance at being one very important factor

which may shift the endpoint of the survival curve rightwards. But I

am very openminded to serious evidence supporting additional

strategies.

Rodney.

>

> What I should have stressed is NOT to look at current Okinawa

> mortality figures (that would be pointless, their eating habits

have

> changed), that is like comparing CRONIES with junk food eaters.

> CRONIES are a select group of Americans following a different

eating

> pattern and I am sure they will outlive the normal american

> mortality statistics. The Okinawan centarians were a select group

> who were studied, not the same as all okinawans. This group were

> brought up until after world war 2 on a very basic diet (fish,

sweet

> potats etc) and then naturally added healthier foods pre-war once

> available. But many of the okinawans (their children) who now make

> up the mortality statistics started to eat from the newer (but less

> healthy foods and fats) post war, so the younger generation became

> less healthy than the old and in a few years their mortality

> statistics will not be at all special. So Wilcox and Suzuki are

> talking about what the elders ate, not the general okinawa

> population. If all okinawa had followed the elders eating patterns

> then I think the overall statistics would be much more impressive,

> so until us cronies reach out hundreds the okinawa standard is

still

> the best.

>

> But, after saying that, I do see the point that maybe okinawa has

to

> be followed all of life, not just once you turn 50 with clogged

> arteries and high blood sugar, if you take a standard unhealthy

> american at say age 50 then perhaps okinawa would not be enough. ie

> put Bill Clinton on okinawa and he would not get as heart healthy

> than if he were on pritkin/ornish. But I am looking at this from

> the view that you would not abuse your body at all, then okinawa is

> the best standard. But if you have eaten far too many calories

> regular, have a high BMI then you are a " medical problem " that will

> need the powerful edge of pritkin/ornish to sear away the mess you

> have created in your body. But I am lucky to have never abused my

> body and therefore the best standard for me is okinawa/walford

(both

> books are pritty much in the same vein as to what is safe and not

> safe to eat and ratios of fats/carbs/proteins).

>

> So okinawa for a person who has not abused themselves and,

> Pritkin/ornish for those who have been on self-destruct for too

many

> years of their life.

>

> ...

[Guest guest]

Hi Freebird:

So how does that square with:

" Conclusions: Consumption of fish is associated with a significantly

reduced progression of coronary artery atherosclerosis in women with

coronary artery disease. "

Source: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 80, No. 3, 626-

632, September 2004

Rodney.

> >

> >

> > While Ornish may be the Gold Standard to freebird, the " Platinum

> > Standard " is for now " Okinawa " - SIMPLE FACT.

> >

> > show me some 90 year old vegans, who never cheat, I would love to

> > talk to just five who have reached that age after a vegan life.

The

> > fact is that when you look at those people who have reached 90

plus,

> > they are never vegan. Vegans NEVER live healthy long lives,

never,

> > never, never. Full Stop.

> >

> > There has always been mercury in the sea, we haven't just

polluted

> > every ocean in the last 50 or so years, its mainly the inland

> > waterways near factories and dumping grounds that get

contaminated

> > and the fish that live long lives (sardines are the safest bet,

but

> > not as tasty as wild pacific salmon which is also damn cheap and

> > very low mercury). So even the Okinawans will be eating

contaminated

> > fish.

> >

> > if you want to make 100 plus you would be very foolish to avoid

oily

> > fish. Whatever Ornish and Pritkin say, they are unproven as far

as

> > serious longevity is concerned, but the Okinawa study is a proven

> > fact, those okinawa elders who reached 100 all had a few things

in

> > common: They ate fish, loads of veg, some fruit, plenty of

> > grains/legumes, some dairy, some meat. Notice I say Okinawa

elders,

> > not the other okinawans who have started eating more western

foods.

> > Okinawa has the highest number of centarians, three times more

than

> > Mediterranean per hundred thousand people.

> >

> > the data on actual cholesterol in foods (not the fat) being bad

for

> > you is weak in my opinion, and there is counter data suggesting

some

> > cholesterol in the diet may help emotion levels (I for one feel

> > wretched on a low fat vegan diet, it makes life dull and not

worth

> > living, just my increased happiness on a medium fat diet with

some

> > animal protein will help my longevity).

> >

> > OKINAWANS also calorie restricted (maybe 10 percent based on

their

> > size).

> >

> > richard ...

[Guest guest]

And maybe we DO need fish. Previous posters in this thread have mentioned

some of the many benefits. To those benefits I might add that fatty fish

has the elusive Vit D which we have noted in many past posts may be much

more important than previously thought. And who knows what else is in fish

that we dont know about?

I try to eat fish several times a week. I also eat meat every so often,

maybe once a month. In the past people have suggested cutting out grains,

fruit, starch, and now fish.

Extremism can be dangerous.

Moderation and Variety.

on 10/24/2004 6:28 PM, freebird5005 at freebird5005@... wrote:

> Maybe we don't need fish except maybe for a few grams of fish oil per

> day. Maybe we don't even need that. maybe we can get sufficient

> quantities from our plants and avoid this whole issue of potential

> additional stressor from fish cunsumption.

>

> My thoughts anyway...

>

[Guest guest]

What I am suggesting is we now have a successful model that stops or

even reverses atherosclerosis, so why speculate on fish? > because

vegans never live long lives, so why is that? - its because they

don't eat fish and dairy. - we are not sure yet what it is in fish

and dairy and maybe meat that is protective, but its there, VEGANS

DO NOT HAVE VERY LONG LIVES show me some long lived vegans.

What you are suggesting here is exactly my point: Pritikin/Ornish are

better superior diets and that they do less harm > They do not do

less harm, they are protective against CHD, that is not the same as

less harm, whats the point of surviving CHD if cancer kills you. The

okinawan elders beat all the odds with only a little calorie

restriction but fish, fish, fish.

You seem to be suggesting that you allow yourself a 'slightly less'

than optimum diet (at least cardiovascular wise) because you don't

have any problems. But that if you DID you would adopt a 'better

diet', ie one proven to produce results > Ornish may be the best to

protect from CHD, but if you are not at risk of CHD then why bother

with ornish ?

[Guest guest]

I eat almost no fish. I do eat shellfish occasionally shrimp/oysters. If the Hg is gonna kill me, it will be something I like to eat. Salmon and tuna make really good cat food. This Is not because I'm mostly vegetarian. it's simply that I believe that calories is the issue for LE not the type of food.

All the articles pro/con for food P/C/F distribution or chemical content is so unreliable, incongruent, not attainable, not scientific (as in it changes from year to year), I would be better off choosing a varying diet than betting on a single food combination.

Show me some real evidence that a food kills or causes cancer,etc., and you probably will have one banned by the FDA already. How likely is that?

And that goes for the damd coffee too.

Regards.

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

From: freebird5005

Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004 7:32 PM

Subject: [ ] Do you eat fish?

Unfortunately in these times Mercury is a concern when choosing to eat fish. According to these tables SALMON tests very low to non-existent for mercury contamination. The levels in canned/fresh/frozen were not detectable in all samples tested. I used to eat a LOT of Tuna (fancy Albacore nontheless) until much to my astonishment and chagrin I discovered it was full of it. What I am getting around to here is I want to eat more fish for the obvious health reasons but I don't want to load up on mercury (also for obvious reasons). This is like a catch-22.. darned if you do darned if you don't :-|So, my question to all of you is what do you do? Do you eat fish? If so, what kind and how much? If not, why, and what do you do to 'make up for the difference'?Canned Salmon would be very very convenient and inexpensive (I think it was who said about buck and half per can). The problem I have is why does Salmon measure so low in mercury? I find it hard to believe but on other hand I have no reason to dis-believe. ;-)Again, what do YOU do?TIA.