Re: Organic pollutants in salmon

[Guest guest]

I wonder if they test the fish oils for PCB's?

Regards.

[ ] Organic pollutants in salmon

The Washington Post had a column entitled "Bear study reveals Heavycontamination of salmon". The research will be published Sept. 15 inthe American Chemical Society journal, Environmental Science andTechnology.According to the story, Ross, a scientist at Canada's Instituteof Ocean Sciences, used fat and hair samples from bears in BritishColumbia to test for persistent organic pollutants. There was a bigdifference in bears that consume mostly berries, plants and insectsand those that gorge on spawning Pacific salmon.Salmon-eating bears accounted for 90% of the PCBs, 70% of thepesticides and 85% of the brominated flame retardants. Ross notedthat much of the pollution originated in Asia.Tony

[Guest guest]

I wonder if they test the fish oils for PCB's?

Regards.

[ ] Organic pollutants in salmon

The Washington Post had a column entitled "Bear study reveals Heavycontamination of salmon". The research will be published Sept. 15 inthe American Chemical Society journal, Environmental Science andTechnology.According to the story, Ross, a scientist at Canada's Instituteof Ocean Sciences, used fat and hair samples from bears in BritishColumbia to test for persistent organic pollutants. There was a bigdifference in bears that consume mostly berries, plants and insectsand those that gorge on spawning Pacific salmon.Salmon-eating bears accounted for 90% of the PCBs, 70% of thepesticides and 85% of the brominated flame retardants. Ross notedthat much of the pollution originated in Asia.Tony

[Guest guest]

>> I wonder if they test the fish oils for PCB's?

From a recent test by consumerlabs.com

tests of omega-3 fatty acid supplements showed that all but two were fresh and

contained their claimed amounts of EPA and DHA - key omega-3 fatty acids.

None of the products were found to contain detectable levels of mercury [over 10

parts per billion (ppb)]. By comparison, mercury levels in fish generally range

from 10 ppb to 1,000 ppb, depending on the fish (see What to Look for When

Buying - Getting EPA and DHA from Food for more information). In addition, none

of the products contained unsafe levels of PCBs. PCBs have been found in several

fish including farm-raised salmon. Several of the products (footnoted below with

a " ? " symbol in the " Purity " column) were additionally tested for dioxins, which

can be found in some fish. However, none of these supplements contained unsafe

levels of dioxins. (See Testing Methods and Passing Score for more information

about how products were evaluated.)

There are several possible explanations for the lack of contaminants found in

the supplements including: the use of species of fish that are less likely to

accumulate mercury; the fact that most mercury is found in fish meat and not

fish oil; and distillation processes that can remove contaminants.

From a recent test by consumer reports...

The federal Food and Drug Administration rarely monitors the composition and

purity of dietary supplements. But our tests of 16 top-selling fish-oil

supplements were reassuring: All those pills contained roughly as much EPA and

DHA as their labels promised. None showed evidence of spoilage, and none

contained significant amounts of mercury, the worrisome PCBs, or dioxin

[Guest guest]

>> I wonder if they test the fish oils for PCB's?

From a recent test by consumerlabs.com

tests of omega-3 fatty acid supplements showed that all but two were fresh and

contained their claimed amounts of EPA and DHA - key omega-3 fatty acids.

None of the products were found to contain detectable levels of mercury [over 10

parts per billion (ppb)]. By comparison, mercury levels in fish generally range

from 10 ppb to 1,000 ppb, depending on the fish (see What to Look for When

Buying - Getting EPA and DHA from Food for more information). In addition, none

of the products contained unsafe levels of PCBs. PCBs have been found in several

fish including farm-raised salmon. Several of the products (footnoted below with

a " ? " symbol in the " Purity " column) were additionally tested for dioxins, which

can be found in some fish. However, none of these supplements contained unsafe

levels of dioxins. (See Testing Methods and Passing Score for more information

about how products were evaluated.)

There are several possible explanations for the lack of contaminants found in

the supplements including: the use of species of fish that are less likely to

accumulate mercury; the fact that most mercury is found in fish meat and not

fish oil; and distillation processes that can remove contaminants.

From a recent test by consumer reports...

The federal Food and Drug Administration rarely monitors the composition and

purity of dietary supplements. But our tests of 16 top-selling fish-oil

supplements were reassuring: All those pills contained roughly as much EPA and

DHA as their labels promised. None showed evidence of spoilage, and none

contained significant amounts of mercury, the worrisome PCBs, or dioxin

[Guest guest]

Lets not forget.....

Compared to consuming a more reasonable amount of 3-4 oz/day, a few days a week

(as I might consider healthy)........ these bears eat 50-100lbs of salmon a

day and they eat mostly the skin and fat when there are plenty of salmon. So,

it is pretty clear that the bears are consuming far more pollutants than humans

would. Even so there do not seem to be any significant health effects on the

bears so I do not see this as much of a cause for concern.

[Guest guest]

Lets not forget.....

Compared to consuming a more reasonable amount of 3-4 oz/day, a few days a week

(as I might consider healthy)........ these bears eat 50-100lbs of salmon a

day and they eat mostly the skin and fat when there are plenty of salmon. So,

it is pretty clear that the bears are consuming far more pollutants than humans

would. Even so there do not seem to be any significant health effects on the

bears so I do not see this as much of a cause for concern.

[Guest guest]

True, but allow me to examine why I want to eat fish or oil again.

I know Ornish has added a little fish, but do we have that much evidence from a biochem POV to believe we should eat fish for health or longevity? I keep hearing we don't want to leave out something we don't know about. Other than the assumed advantage in manipulating the PG's with EPA?

And that is becoming suspect in my mind.

My reason is I can't see anything advantageous for fish oil, rather bad things like bruising.

In one Mediterranean study (Greece), people interviewed said don't eat too much fish, because it causes bleeding (non specific).

Regards.

RE: [ ] Organic pollutants in salmon

Lets not forget.....Compared to consuming a more reasonable amount of 3-4 oz/day, a few days a week (as I might consider healthy)........ these bears eat 50-100lbs of salmon a day and they eat mostly the skin and fat when there are plenty of salmon. So, it is pretty clear that the bears are consuming far more pollutants than humans would. Even so there do not seem to be any significant health effects on the bears so I do not see this as much of a cause for concern.

[Guest guest]

True, but allow me to examine why I want to eat fish or oil again.

I know Ornish has added a little fish, but do we have that much evidence from a biochem POV to believe we should eat fish for health or longevity? I keep hearing we don't want to leave out something we don't know about. Other than the assumed advantage in manipulating the PG's with EPA?

And that is becoming suspect in my mind.

My reason is I can't see anything advantageous for fish oil, rather bad things like bruising.

In one Mediterranean study (Greece), people interviewed said don't eat too much fish, because it causes bleeding (non specific).

Regards.

RE: [ ] Organic pollutants in salmon

Lets not forget.....Compared to consuming a more reasonable amount of 3-4 oz/day, a few days a week (as I might consider healthy)........ these bears eat 50-100lbs of salmon a day and they eat mostly the skin and fat when there are plenty of salmon. So, it is pretty clear that the bears are consuming far more pollutants than humans would. Even so there do not seem to be any significant health effects on the bears so I do not see this as much of a cause for concern.

[Guest guest]

>>>>

--- In , " Jeff Novick " <jnovick@p...>

wrote:

> Lets not forget.....

> Compared to consuming a more reasonable amount of 3-4 oz/day, a few

days a week (as I might consider healthy)........ these bears eat

50-100lbs of salmon a day and they eat mostly the skin and fat when

there are plenty of salmon. So, it is pretty clear that the bears

are consuming far more pollutants than humans would. Even so there do

not seem to be any significant health effects on the bears so I do not

see this as much of a cause for concern.

>>>>

There is a saying in Spanish: " Poco veneno no mata " , which means " A

little poison does not kill " . However, if we are interested in

longevity we have to pay attention to little details like trans-fats,

artificial food additives, and metallic and organic pollutants.

I remember when DDT was sprayed from crop-duster airplanes to combat

cotton boll weavils in Texas. The clouds of pesticide drifted with

the wind and the smell lingered for weeks. It was only after many

years that it was discovered that DDT had estrogenic activity (PMID:

4087314) and that it affected humans as well as birds. The American

bald eagle almost became extinct as a result of pesticides.

(http://www.epa.gov/espp/poster/eagle.htm)

Small levels of organic pollutants may not have any significant effect

on mature individuals, but the young and those of reproductive age may

be most at risk of any adverse effects. I often wonder about the role

of additives and contaminants on what seem to be increasing

percentages of individuals affected by autism, Parkinson's,

Alzheimer's, etc.

Old gezzers may not need to worry about trace contaminants, but their

children and grandchildren do. It will take many years to sort out

the effects of organic pollutants. It is best to be cautious.

Tony

[Guest guest]

>>>>

--- In , " Jeff Novick " <jnovick@p...>

wrote:

> Lets not forget.....

> Compared to consuming a more reasonable amount of 3-4 oz/day, a few

days a week (as I might consider healthy)........ these bears eat

50-100lbs of salmon a day and they eat mostly the skin and fat when

there are plenty of salmon. So, it is pretty clear that the bears

are consuming far more pollutants than humans would. Even so there do

not seem to be any significant health effects on the bears so I do not

see this as much of a cause for concern.

>>>>

There is a saying in Spanish: " Poco veneno no mata " , which means " A

little poison does not kill " . However, if we are interested in

longevity we have to pay attention to little details like trans-fats,

artificial food additives, and metallic and organic pollutants.

I remember when DDT was sprayed from crop-duster airplanes to combat

cotton boll weavils in Texas. The clouds of pesticide drifted with

the wind and the smell lingered for weeks. It was only after many

years that it was discovered that DDT had estrogenic activity (PMID:

4087314) and that it affected humans as well as birds. The American

bald eagle almost became extinct as a result of pesticides.

(http://www.epa.gov/espp/poster/eagle.htm)

Small levels of organic pollutants may not have any significant effect

on mature individuals, but the young and those of reproductive age may

be most at risk of any adverse effects. I often wonder about the role

of additives and contaminants on what seem to be increasing

percentages of individuals affected by autism, Parkinson's,

Alzheimer's, etc.

Old gezzers may not need to worry about trace contaminants, but their

children and grandchildren do. It will take many years to sort out

the effects of organic pollutants. It is best to be cautious.

Tony

[Guest guest]

Hi JW:

Well is it just coincidence that Crete and Okinawa are both islands

with plentiful fish supplies and happen to have the longest lifespans

in, respectively, Europe and the world? Perhaps it is. I eat a

little fish almost every day. So you can see which side of the fence

I am on. But I am certainly open minded about evidence to the

contrary.

Rodney.

--- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@e...>

wrote:

> True, but allow me to examine why I want to eat fish or oil again.

> I know Ornish has added a little fish, but do we have that much

evidence from a biochem POV to believe we should eat fish for health

or longevity? I keep hearing we don't want to leave out something we

don't know about. Other than the assumed advantage in manipulating

the PG's with EPA?

> And that is becoming suspect in my mind.

> My reason is I can't see anything advantageous for fish oil, rather

bad things like bruising.

> In one Mediterranean study (Greece), people interviewed said don't

eat too much fish, because it causes bleeding (non specific).

>

> Regards.

>

> RE: [ ] Organic pollutants in salmon

>

>

> Lets not forget.....

>

> Compared to consuming a more reasonable amount of 3-4 oz/day, a

few days a week (as I might consider healthy)........ these bears

eat 50-100lbs of salmon a day and they eat mostly the skin and fat

when there are plenty of salmon. So, it is pretty clear that the

bears are consuming far more pollutants than humans would. Even so

there do not seem to be any significant health effects on the bears

so I do not see this as much of a cause for concern.

[Guest guest]

Hi JW:

Well is it just coincidence that Crete and Okinawa are both islands

with plentiful fish supplies and happen to have the longest lifespans

in, respectively, Europe and the world? Perhaps it is. I eat a

little fish almost every day. So you can see which side of the fence

I am on. But I am certainly open minded about evidence to the

contrary.

Rodney.

--- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@e...>

wrote:

> True, but allow me to examine why I want to eat fish or oil again.

> I know Ornish has added a little fish, but do we have that much

evidence from a biochem POV to believe we should eat fish for health

or longevity? I keep hearing we don't want to leave out something we

don't know about. Other than the assumed advantage in manipulating

the PG's with EPA?

> And that is becoming suspect in my mind.

> My reason is I can't see anything advantageous for fish oil, rather

bad things like bruising.

> In one Mediterranean study (Greece), people interviewed said don't

eat too much fish, because it causes bleeding (non specific).

>

> Regards.

>

> RE: [ ] Organic pollutants in salmon

>

>

> Lets not forget.....

>

> Compared to consuming a more reasonable amount of 3-4 oz/day, a

few days a week (as I might consider healthy)........ these bears

eat 50-100lbs of salmon a day and they eat mostly the skin and fat

when there are plenty of salmon. So, it is pretty clear that the

bears are consuming far more pollutants than humans would. Even so

there do not seem to be any significant health effects on the bears

so I do not see this as much of a cause for concern.

[Guest guest]

JW and Francesca,

As JW mentioned, fat tissue stores most of the organic toxins because

they are fat soluble (pp.78-80, 229-30 of BT120YD). And, guess what?

Page 161 says that the brain is about 60% fat.

Doesn't it seem logical that if 60% of your brain is polluted with

toxins there should be some abnormal cognitive or neurological

consequences? And the longer you live, the more likely that these

abnormalities will manifest themselves. People who die young will die

of CVD, stroke, or some of the other top five causes of death. People

who live to an old age are more likely to show results of degenerative

processes as their defenses weaken.

The amyloid plaques seen in the brains of Alzheimer's patients may

just be a defensive mechanism used by the body to bind contaminants

which unfortunately has bad side effects for the patient. The causes

of Alzheimer's are not really known, but aluminum is present in higher

concentrations in such patients. Could underarm deodorants, baking

powders, Maalox antacid, and aluminum cookware be responsible for

this? Nobody knows for sure yet.

Mercury is also known for causing mental impairment and was the source

of " mad-hatters disease " , when mercury was used to process the felt

for hats. PMID: 2672802

Tony

=======

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts22.html

Some studies show that people with Alzheimer's disease have more

aluminum than usual in their brains. We do not know whether aluminum

causes the disease or whether the buildup of aluminum happens to

people who already have the disease. Infants and adults who received

large doses of aluminum as a treatment for another problem developed

bone diseases, which suggests that aluminum may cause skeletal

problems. Some sensitive people develop skin rashes from using

aluminum chlorohydrate deodorants.

=======

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

> Walford alluded to toxins being stored in adipose, rec'd losing

weight slowly, but if the toxins were put there to begin with why

would the body route them to liver, etc, when dieting?

From: Francesca Skelton <fskelton@...> wrote:

Can't Parkinson's and Alzheimer's be attributed to people living

longer? Both are mainly diseases of aging.

[Guest guest]

JW and Francesca,

As JW mentioned, fat tissue stores most of the organic toxins because

they are fat soluble (pp.78-80, 229-30 of BT120YD). And, guess what?

Page 161 says that the brain is about 60% fat.

Doesn't it seem logical that if 60% of your brain is polluted with

toxins there should be some abnormal cognitive or neurological

consequences? And the longer you live, the more likely that these

abnormalities will manifest themselves. People who die young will die

of CVD, stroke, or some of the other top five causes of death. People

who live to an old age are more likely to show results of degenerative

processes as their defenses weaken.

The amyloid plaques seen in the brains of Alzheimer's patients may

just be a defensive mechanism used by the body to bind contaminants

which unfortunately has bad side effects for the patient. The causes

of Alzheimer's are not really known, but aluminum is present in higher

concentrations in such patients. Could underarm deodorants, baking

powders, Maalox antacid, and aluminum cookware be responsible for

this? Nobody knows for sure yet.

Mercury is also known for causing mental impairment and was the source

of " mad-hatters disease " , when mercury was used to process the felt

for hats. PMID: 2672802

Tony

=======

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts22.html

Some studies show that people with Alzheimer's disease have more

aluminum than usual in their brains. We do not know whether aluminum

causes the disease or whether the buildup of aluminum happens to

people who already have the disease. Infants and adults who received

large doses of aluminum as a treatment for another problem developed

bone diseases, which suggests that aluminum may cause skeletal

problems. Some sensitive people develop skin rashes from using

aluminum chlorohydrate deodorants.

=======

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

> Walford alluded to toxins being stored in adipose, rec'd losing

weight slowly, but if the toxins were put there to begin with why

would the body route them to liver, etc, when dieting?

From: Francesca Skelton <fskelton@...> wrote:

Can't Parkinson's and Alzheimer's be attributed to people living

longer? Both are mainly diseases of aging.

[Guest guest]

Hi JW:

Which fish? Whichever you choose. Canned is VERY convenient. The

more expensive species are often the tastiest. Atlantic Snapper or

Pompano are wonderful when you can find them. Split, lightly floured

and then broiled is one of the very best ways to cook fish -

especially, imo, mackerel. Muenière (if you do not mind a little

butter occasionally) is wonderful. And any plain white fish fillet

is a great 'vehicle' for your favorite sauce. Of course some sauces

are healthier than others. And some of the better ones survive a few

adjustments in the interests of CRON - by starting with the Pritikin

white sauce as the base.

And do not forget japanese sashimi, served in a restaurant owned by

japanese people, LOLOL.

Rodney.

> > True, but allow me to examine why I want to eat fish or oil

again.

> > I know Ornish has added a little fish, but do we have that much

> evidence from a biochem POV to believe we should eat fish for

health

> or longevity? I keep hearing we don't want to leave out something

we

> don't know about. Other than the assumed advantage in

manipulating

> the PG's with EPA?

> > And that is becoming suspect in my mind.

> > My reason is I can't see anything advantageous for fish oil,

rather

> bad things like bruising.

> > In one Mediterranean study (Greece), people interviewed said

don't

> eat too much fish, because it causes bleeding (non specific).

> >

> > Regards.

> >

> > RE: [ ] Organic pollutants in salmon

> >

> >

> > Lets not forget.....

> >

> > Compared to consuming a more reasonable amount of 3-4 oz/day,

a

> few days a week (as I might consider healthy)........ these

bears

> eat 50-100lbs of salmon a day and they eat mostly the skin and

fat

> when there are plenty of salmon. So, it is pretty clear that

the

> bears are consuming far more pollutants than humans would. Even

so

> there do not seem to be any significant health effects on the

bears

> so I do not see this as much of a cause for concern.

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi JW:

Which fish? Whichever you choose. Canned is VERY convenient. The

more expensive species are often the tastiest. Atlantic Snapper or

Pompano are wonderful when you can find them. Split, lightly floured

and then broiled is one of the very best ways to cook fish -

especially, imo, mackerel. Muenière (if you do not mind a little

butter occasionally) is wonderful. And any plain white fish fillet

is a great 'vehicle' for your favorite sauce. Of course some sauces

are healthier than others. And some of the better ones survive a few

adjustments in the interests of CRON - by starting with the Pritikin

white sauce as the base.

And do not forget japanese sashimi, served in a restaurant owned by

japanese people, LOLOL.

Rodney.

> > True, but allow me to examine why I want to eat fish or oil

again.

> > I know Ornish has added a little fish, but do we have that much

> evidence from a biochem POV to believe we should eat fish for

health

> or longevity? I keep hearing we don't want to leave out something

we

> don't know about. Other than the assumed advantage in

manipulating

> the PG's with EPA?

> > And that is becoming suspect in my mind.

> > My reason is I can't see anything advantageous for fish oil,

rather

> bad things like bruising.

> > In one Mediterranean study (Greece), people interviewed said

don't

> eat too much fish, because it causes bleeding (non specific).

> >

> > Regards.

> >

> > RE: [ ] Organic pollutants in salmon

> >

> >

> > Lets not forget.....

> >

> > Compared to consuming a more reasonable amount of 3-4 oz/day,

a

> few days a week (as I might consider healthy)........ these

bears

> eat 50-100lbs of salmon a day and they eat mostly the skin and

fat

> when there are plenty of salmon. So, it is pretty clear that

the

> bears are consuming far more pollutants than humans would. Even

so

> there do not seem to be any significant health effects on the

bears

> so I do not see this as much of a cause for concern.

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Well JW, saying you will not consider fish until someone tells you

which is the best, is like saying you will not eat any cruciferous

vegetables until comprehensive studies have been done definitively

determining which is the absolute best.

It sounds a bit like: " Well no, until you tell me which is THE best,

I will not touch cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, bok choy, kale,

kohlrabi, brussels sprouts, turnips, radishes, mustard greens, chard,

collards ........... " .

For me I do not know which cruciferous vegetable is best; I do not

know which fish is best; I do not know which nut is best; I do not

know which grain is best; I do not know which berry is

best ............. but I eat a variety of each with fairly

considerable regularity because there is evidence that suggests these

food groups are probably beneficial. I also eat green onions because

I suspect, but do not know for certain, they may be the healthiest

onions. I also eat brown mushrooms because I suspect they may be the

healthiest of all the mushroom varieties I am aware of.

But evidence about nutrition accumulates so quickly these days, and

things seem to change so often that there is little about nutrition I

feel absolutely confident about. And given some what looks like

serious evidence, I am ready to change on about 24 hours notice, or

when my current supply runs out, whichever comes last : ^ )))

Rodney.

--- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@e...>

wrote:

> Rodney,

> If they want to stress fish, they have to indicate which fish is

best for CVD AND cancer, etal. Refs are quite specific against RED

meat, eg, but generalities like " soy " , white meat, don't tell me

much. They need to come up with a specific diet and I think they have

maybe several reasonable diets, and people have written books with

menus, etc.

> Like what is soy? Is that fried soybeans, soy protein isolate,

tofu, raw, steamed green soybeans?

> I worked with a guy in 1988, that ate whitefish (again non

specific) twice every day to lower his cholesterol. He smelled like

fish. When is asked what effect - none. He didn't try something else

after 2 yrs, his answer being maybe it takes longer.

> I tend to think people eat fish mostly because they like it.

> So now we have the fish influence and no Ornish type study to show

reduction in athero. The only one I know.

> Odd the tested Ornish diet uses lacto veg.

>

> Regards.

>

> [ ] Re: Organic pollutants in salmon

>

>

> Hi JW:

>

> Which fish? Whichever you choose. Canned is VERY convenient.

The

> more expensive species are often the tastiest. Atlantic Snapper

or

> Pompano are wonderful when you can find them. Split, lightly

floured

> and then broiled is one of the very best ways to cook fish -

> especially, imo, mackerel. Muenière (if you do not mind a little

> butter occasionally) is wonderful. And any plain white fish

fillet

> is a great 'vehicle' for your favorite sauce. Of course some

sauces

> are healthier than others. And some of the better ones survive a

few

> adjustments in the interests of CRON - by starting with the

Pritikin

> white sauce as the base.

>

> And do not forget japanese sashimi, served in a restaurant owned

by

> japanese people, LOLOL.

>

> Rodney.

[Guest guest]

Well JW, saying you will not consider fish until someone tells you

which is the best, is like saying you will not eat any cruciferous

vegetables until comprehensive studies have been done definitively

determining which is the absolute best.

It sounds a bit like: " Well no, until you tell me which is THE best,

I will not touch cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, bok choy, kale,

kohlrabi, brussels sprouts, turnips, radishes, mustard greens, chard,

collards ........... " .

For me I do not know which cruciferous vegetable is best; I do not

know which fish is best; I do not know which nut is best; I do not

know which grain is best; I do not know which berry is

best ............. but I eat a variety of each with fairly

considerable regularity because there is evidence that suggests these

food groups are probably beneficial. I also eat green onions because

I suspect, but do not know for certain, they may be the healthiest

onions. I also eat brown mushrooms because I suspect they may be the

healthiest of all the mushroom varieties I am aware of.

But evidence about nutrition accumulates so quickly these days, and

things seem to change so often that there is little about nutrition I

feel absolutely confident about. And given some what looks like

serious evidence, I am ready to change on about 24 hours notice, or

when my current supply runs out, whichever comes last : ^ )))

Rodney.

--- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@e...>

wrote:

> Rodney,

> If they want to stress fish, they have to indicate which fish is

best for CVD AND cancer, etal. Refs are quite specific against RED

meat, eg, but generalities like " soy " , white meat, don't tell me

much. They need to come up with a specific diet and I think they have

maybe several reasonable diets, and people have written books with

menus, etc.

> Like what is soy? Is that fried soybeans, soy protein isolate,

tofu, raw, steamed green soybeans?

> I worked with a guy in 1988, that ate whitefish (again non

specific) twice every day to lower his cholesterol. He smelled like

fish. When is asked what effect - none. He didn't try something else

after 2 yrs, his answer being maybe it takes longer.

> I tend to think people eat fish mostly because they like it.

> So now we have the fish influence and no Ornish type study to show

reduction in athero. The only one I know.

> Odd the tested Ornish diet uses lacto veg.

>

> Regards.

>

> [ ] Re: Organic pollutants in salmon

>

>

> Hi JW:

>

> Which fish? Whichever you choose. Canned is VERY convenient.

The

> more expensive species are often the tastiest. Atlantic Snapper

or

> Pompano are wonderful when you can find them. Split, lightly

floured

> and then broiled is one of the very best ways to cook fish -

> especially, imo, mackerel. Muenière (if you do not mind a little

> butter occasionally) is wonderful. And any plain white fish

fillet

> is a great 'vehicle' for your favorite sauce. Of course some

sauces

> are healthier than others. And some of the better ones survive a

few

> adjustments in the interests of CRON - by starting with the

Pritikin

> white sauce as the base.

>

> And do not forget japanese sashimi, served in a restaurant owned

by

> japanese people, LOLOL.

>

> Rodney.