heart health

[Guest guest]

It's probably safer than drinking water! Seriously, Dr. Waldbott, the

guy who discovered that some people have a deadly reaction to

penicillin discovered that some also have very bad reactions to

fluoride and he fought water fluoridation. In his investigations one

of the things he found was that fluoride was found in incredibly high

amounts in the aorta. He theorized it was a case of mistaken uptake

and the heart was trying to get iodine in there - maybe to prevent

clogging; but them both being in the halide group it got the wrong

one. He believed it has a link to ateriosclerosis.

A good friend of mine had a heart attack and her MD put her on a no

salt diet. It made me realize, the number of elderly people who die of

heat exhaustion can probably blame their MD's because low salt in

weather where you sweat a lot will cause heat exhaustion. I was trying

to look up the symptoms of salt deficiency and got a lot of information

on heat exhaustion/heat stroke and low salt.

>

> after having a heart attack is it still safe to drink raw milk with

> all the fat in it? Jay

>

[Guest guest]

On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 2:18 PM, boneslane2000 <jaylane21@...> wrote:

> after having a heart attack is it still safe to drink raw milk with

> all the fat in it? Jay

This question seems to assume there is a connection between levels of

fat intake and heart health. I don't think any expert on the topic

would suggest there is any such connection, but you will find people

who will suggest there is a connection between levels of saturated fat

intake and heart health. However, you will find many convincing

arguments against this idea in the immediate vicinity of this email

group (e.g. westonaprice.org), not to mention dozens upon dozens of

posts on this very topic in this email group.

Secondly, note that there is no connection between fat levels of milk

and rawness of milk.

Thirdly, note that typical cow milk is around 50% fat by calories. If

your diet as a whole was 50% fat by calories, that would be a very

ordinary, medium level of fat intake. If you eat foods besides milk

and they are lower in fat than milk, then you might easily wind up

with a dangerously low level of fat intake. For example, suppose 25%

of your food intake was milk (about one quart per day on a diet in the

2000-2500 calorie range) and the other 75% of your diet averaged out

to 10% fat (quite possible if most of the other foods were grains,

fruits, and veggies). Or suppose you consume about a pint of milk per

day and the rest of your diet averaged out to around 20% fat. In both

of these scenarios your overall fat intake would be about 20%, which

is a dangerously low amount of fat. The point is that milk is not

high in fat!

When in doubt, pull out the calculator!

Mike

[Guest guest]

Hi, Jay

The fat protects the heart. There are differences between A1 and A2 casein,

however, which I think needs consideration. Here's a recent article that

has been making the rounds regarding this: [

http://saturn.tiser.com.au/images/AE2.gif]

<http://mercury.tiser.com.au/ADCLICK/CID=fffffffcfffffffcfffffffc/acc_ra\

ndom=64041343/SITE=TAUS/AREA=LIFE.HEALTH/AAMSZ=110X40/pageid=42730410<http://mer\

cury.tiser.com.au/ADCLICK/CID=fffffffcfffffffcfffffffc/acc_random=64041343/SITE=\

TAUS/AREA=LIFE.HEALTH/AAMSZ=110X40/pageid=42730410>

>

Basically, avoid A1 beat-casein milk (Holstein and some Jerseys) and drink

A2 beta-casein, (Guernsey and Nubian or LaMancha Goats) one can obtain the

healing and protective benefits which fat offers, while avoiding the

troublesome beta-casein. There's a great read, " Devil in the Milk " which an

American dairy science researcher told me about. He basically wouldn't

discuss A1/A2 but told me to read the book, saying, " It's all in

there.... " . The book focuses on the dangers of the WRONG type of milk. The

majority of the research linking A1 beta-casein is coming out of Australia

and Jerusalem. Americans are avoiding the issue as they'd hate to see their

Holstein-house-of-cards crumble, you know.....

Anyway, I have quite a few articles of research saved in a google notebook

if you want me to send you the pages....HTH.

Sharon

On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 2:18 PM, boneslane2000 <jaylane21@...> wrote:

> after having a heart attack is it still safe to drink raw milk with

> all the fat in it? Jay

>

>

>

--

Deut 11:15 He will put grass in the fields for your cattle, and you will

have plenty to eat.

Check out my blog - www.ericsons.net - Food for the Body and Soul

[Guest guest]

--- Jay " boneslane2000 " <jaylane21@...> wrote:

> after having a heart attack is it still safe to drink raw milk with

> all the fat in it?

Jay, raw milk should be fine as long as you don't have a casein

intolerance. For heart health, you should minimize polyunsaturated

fats (most vegetable oils - in salad dressings, sauces, fried foods,

and commercial packaged/processed foods) and minimize sugars/refined

carbs. Milk is very low in polyunsaturated fat and high in saturated

and monounsaturated fats. Since milk is the perfect food for young

mammals, I think that speaks volumes about desirable fat ratios.

Young mammals are rapidly growing and need the extra sugar in milk

(lactose). As we get older and growth stops, I suspect the need for

sugar diminishes, especially with a sedentary lifestyle. So, it may

be better for adult heart health to culture your raw milk, as in kefir

or yogurt to lower the sugar content. But you need to eat it plain,

with no sweets added, for optimal health.

[Guest guest]

Sharon, can you provide a shorter link? After copying and pasting 3 lines of

the link into the browser, I got an error page.

The first link in your email was just for an image, but still came up blank.

Thanks,

Suze

> <http://mercury.tiser.com.au/ADCLICK/CID=fffffffcfffffffcfffffffc/acc_ra\

> ndom=64041343/SITE=TAUS/AREA=LIFE.HEALTH/AAMSZ=110X40/pageid=427

>

30410<http://mercury.tiser.com.au/ADCLICK/CID=fffffffcfffffffcfffffffc/acc_r

andom=6

> 4041343/SITE=TAUS/AREA=LIFE.HEALTH/AAMSZ=110X40/pageid=42730410>

[Guest guest]

Hope this one works better for you, Suze:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23704825-23289,00.html

Sharon

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Suze Fisher <suzefisher@...> wrote:

> Sharon, can you provide a shorter link? After copying and pasting 3

> lines of

> the link into the browser, I got an error page.

>

> The first link in your email was just for an image, but still came up

> blank.

>

> Thanks,

>

> Suze

>

>

> > <

> http://mercury.tiser.com.au/ADCLICK/CID=fffffffcfffffffcfffffffc/acc_ra\

> <http://mercury.tiser.com.au/ADCLICK/CID=fffffffcfffffffcfffffffc/acc_ra>>

> ndom=64041343/SITE=TAUS/AREA=LIFE.HEALTH/AAMSZ=110X40/pageid=427

> >

> 30410<

> http://mercury.tiser.com.au/ADCLICK/CID=fffffffcfffffffcfffffffc/acc_r

> andom=6

> > 4041343/SITE=TAUS/AREA=LIFE.HEALTH/AAMSZ=110X40/pageid=42730410>

>

>

>

--

Deut 11:15 He will put grass in the fields for your cattle, and you will

have plenty to eat.

Check out my blog - www.ericsons.net - Food for the Body and Soul

[Guest guest]

Jay

Have you figured what caused the heart attack in the first place.

How long are you practising/interested in WAPF kind of eating.?

As Sharon mentioned, A2 milk is perhaps a better choice for most, with

what we know so far. If you can't get A2 cow's milk, you can try for

goat's(or sheep) milk.

Best wishes for your recovery.

-Dan.

>

> after having a heart attack is it still safe to drink raw milk with

> all the fat in it? Jay

>

[Guest guest]

Mike,

> Thirdly, note that typical cow milk is around 50% fat by calories. If

> your diet as a whole was 50% fat by calories, that would be a very

> ordinary, medium level of fat intake. If you eat foods besides milk

> and they are lower in fat than milk, then you might easily wind up

> with a dangerously low level of fat intake. For example, suppose 25%

> of your food intake was milk (about one quart per day on a diet in the

> 2000-2500 calorie range) and the other 75% of your diet averaged out

> to 10% fat (quite possible if most of the other foods were grains,

> fruits, and veggies). Or suppose you consume about a pint of milk per

> day and the rest of your diet averaged out to around 20% fat. In both

> of these scenarios your overall fat intake would be about 20%, which

> is a dangerously low amount of fat. The point is that milk is not

> high in fat!

What evidence is there that a 20% fat diet is " dangerous " ?

Chris

[Guest guest]

> What evidence is there that a 20% fat diet is " dangerous " ?

>

> Chris

Hi I'd hope you'd be able to gather more evidence than me!

I've had the consistent impression that diets in that very low fat

range don't provide enough fat for the hormonal system to work

properly. I remember seeing a specific article reporting serious

health problems of women with a saturated fat intake below a certain

amount (around 10% if I recall correctly), someone on a 20% fat diet

using common high-MUFA/PUFA fats would easily fall into unsafe SFA

levels.

Secondarily, I would expect a risk that they don't provide enough fat

for vitamin absorption.

Also, among descriptions I've seen for traditional diets around the

world, fat intakes that low are extremely rare, and the occasional

claim for certain Japanese coastal village diets being around 10%

seems to be based on selective data to defend yesteryear's

Ornish/Pritikin ideology.

You probably know much more than me on these topics, so I'd be very

interested to know if you're convinced of the safety of 20% and what

the safest lowest limit would be. My general take is that it's very

risky to play in the margins like that, so even if theoretically x%

fat would be safe if a person could regulate their diet with

sufficient precision, in practice the ebb and flow of different meal

compositions and hour-to-hour physiological needs would result in a

percentage of dips below adequate fat intake. Another problem for some

people would be inefficient digestion of fat. In other words, not

having a margin of error is dangerous. If the theoretical minimum fat

intake is, say, 15%, I would never take a chance of going below 25%.

Here's a question: Could it be true that fat intake is only needed

for vitamin absorption and that hormonal requirements for fat can be

met by stored fat? If so, then could a person with lots of body fat

theoretically be healthy on an extremely low fat diet, with fat intake

just barely high enough for vitamin absorption?

Mike

[Guest guest]

Hi Mike,

> Hi I'd hope you'd be able to gather more evidence than me!

> I've had the consistent impression that diets in that very low fat

> range don't provide enough fat for the hormonal system to work

> properly. I remember seeing a specific article reporting serious

> health problems of women with a saturated fat intake below a certain

> amount (around 10% if I recall correctly), someone on a 20% fat diet

> using common high-MUFA/PUFA fats would easily fall into unsafe SFA

> levels.

But you're not talking about a low-fat diet. The problem with a diet

low in SFA is that it's probably either high in carbohydrate

(potentially problematic) and/or PUFA (much more problematic). It's

pretty easy to make SFA out of carbohydrate and the only essential

fatty acids are PUFA, and the requirement is vastly beyond what one

could possibly restrict their diet to eating whole foods, with the

exception of a strict vegetarian diet in someone who does not convert

plant precursors efficiently. So it seems to me the main problem with

a diet very low in fat is that it may be difficult a) for some people

to get enough calories, for other people to avoid too much

calories, if fat is the main determinant of their satiety or c) by an

excess of problematic foods that might replace the fat. But I doubt a

low level of fat *per se* is dangerous.

Of course, I'm open to contrary evidence.

I would really like to know what the minimal fat intake of the

primitive groups Price studied was. Price says something in NAPD

about them getting so much nutrition in part because they had to eat

very large amounts of very low-calorie foods. That seems contrary to

the impression one gets from his emphasis on animal foods and his

failure to substantially discuss low-calorie vegetable products, and

it makes it confusing to try to figure out how common it was for these

groups to gorge on maximal amounts of fat. Certainly some of the more

vegetarian groups like the Bantu had very low levels of fat, but what

constitutes very low, and where to draw the line of " healthy " with

some of those groups, is somewhat ambiguous -- not to mention there

are confounding factors, such as lack of fat soluble vitamins. If a

group ate mainly plant products excluding oils and was thus low-fat

and another group ate a similar diet but with regular use of liver,

they might both be very low-fat but the latter have much better health

due to the vitamins.

> Secondarily, I would expect a risk that they don't provide enough fat

> for vitamin absorption.

I think it depends what the vitamin content is. Fat-soluble vitamin,

at least vitamin E, keeps going up and up as fat increases, but as a

percentage. If you absorb a small proportion of a very large amount,

you still get your requirement. Also, the matrix makes a difference.

If you consume plain liver, you probably don't need extra fat to get

the vitamin A, even if you eat it with lower-fat plant foods that

dilute the fat content, since the vitamin A is already well-associated

with the fat.

> Also, among descriptions I've seen for traditional diets around the

> world, fat intakes that low are extremely rare, and the occasional

> claim for certain Japanese coastal village diets being around 10%

> seems to be based on selective data to defend yesteryear's

> Ornish/Pritikin ideology.

Well 10% is twice as low as 20%.

> You probably know much more than me on these topics, so I'd be very

> interested to know if you're convinced of the safety of 20% and what

> the safest lowest limit would be. My general take is that it's very

> risky to play in the margins like that, so even if theoretically x%

> fat would be safe if a person could regulate their diet with

> sufficient precision, in practice the ebb and flow of different meal

> compositions and hour-to-hour physiological needs would result in a

> percentage of dips below adequate fat intake. Another problem for some

> people would be inefficient digestion of fat. In other words, not

> having a margin of error is dangerous. If the theoretical minimum fat

> intake is, say, 15%, I would never take a chance of going below 25%.

I agree there is no point in taking the risk since the benefits of

low-fat diets can probably be had just by avoiding vegetable oils,

while simultaneously reaping the benefits of high-fat diets, but I'm

just skeptical of the need for fat per se. There are certainly groups

like followers of Esselstyn and to a somewhat lesser extent Fuhrman

who have very low fat intakes and seem to be doing well. Even if they

cook the books a little in their claims, there still must be

successful people on those plans. Also, insofar as people fail with

them, it seems more likely the problem is from insufficient

micronutrient intake -- things we know are essential -- than fat

intake -- something that was essentially shown not to be essential in

lab animals until the advent of the sucrose-casein diet.

> Here's a question: Could it be true that fat intake is only needed

> for vitamin absorption and that hormonal requirements for fat can be

> met by stored fat? If so, then could a person with lots of body fat

> theoretically be healthy on an extremely low fat diet, with fat intake

> just barely high enough for vitamin absorption?

The need for fat can be met by carbohydrate, so it's a moot point.

Chris

[Guest guest]

I hope everyone is happy and healthy this holiday season.

I had my appointment with my oncologist last month. All is well with the CML. My

bloodwork was actually the best it had been in over a year.

While I was there we discussed me having a cardiac ablation done for my WPW. I

was dx 20 years ago with it. It has caused me some issues in the past. Not very

often. And now with the CML, I have heart palpitations daily.

I met with Dr. Knight at Northwestern yesterday. He is a specialist in heart

rhythm problems. I am scheduled to have the cardiac ablation done on Dec 29th.

It is an out-patient procedure with a recovery time of one week. The only

concern that I have is that they use radiation to " kill " the extra electrial

pathway in my heart. Has anyone else had this done or something similar after

your dx with CML? I have Dr. Knight checking with my oncologist to verify that

it is safe for me. Just wondering what everyone's thoughts are.

Jen