Re: Nurses Health Study/SFA/milk

[Guest guest]

My $.02, for what it's worth, is that the majority of our health problems

came about as natural nutrients began to be removed from the food chain and

replaced with fake nutrients and made-up " food. "

They have decided that polyunsaturated oils (PUFA) are nowhere near as good

for the human body as they wanted us to believe. The Edible Oil Institute

has play a humongous part in putting vegetable oils in the food chain in

place of the naturally saturated animal fats.

I agree that what the animals are fed will determine to a large part how

healthy or unhealthy their naturally saturated animal fats are.

I also agree with Dr. when he says that grocery store meats

(not the processed stuff) are better for us than no meat.

Judith Alta

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

@@@@@@@@@@@ Heidi:

> 2. Willett strikes me as a careful researcher. I'm betting there IS

> a real connection between saturated fat and disease in the Nurses

> Study. But sheesh, that is ALL grain fed beef and milk cows we

> are talking about. So they are catching up to us, not quite there

> yet.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Well, you might want to reconsider your choice of words here, because

if the harm is due to extrinsic properties of high-SFA foods, such as

improper animal diets, processing, etc, then SFA itself is an

innocent bystander forced along for the ride, and there is no " real

connection between saturated fat and disease " . Of course, we really

don't know at this point! Sure would love to see a thorough

critique of the NHS, by Ravnskov or any expert. Ravnskov's scope

leaves a lot to be desired, although the topics he does cover are

argued very convincingly, especially the exoneration of dietary

cholesterol, which is a no-brainer. I'm guessing the methodology of

the NHS was impeccable, but there are always issues of interpretation

and reporting. It's the closest thing to a smoking gun for the anti-

SFA crowd. (And it's probably really a water pistol...)

This reminds of a thought I've been tossing around for a while about

the NHS. It reports an advantage for PUFA over SFA, but not for SFA

over MUFA or UFA in general. According to the USDA database, the

common meats (beef, pork, chicken, turkey, tuna, salmon) eaten in

America, as well as chicken eggs, all have SFA:MUFA ratios below 1.

Since they don't report a parallel advantage for PUFA over MUFA, I

conclude that meat and eggs can not account for the purported harm of

SFA in that study. However, milk fat has a SFA:MUFA ratio over 2!

In fact, as far as I'm aware it is the *only* common food in America

with a SFA:MUFA over 1!! Note that although some tropical oils have

astronomical SFA:MUFA ratios, I'm guessing their presence in the

American food supply was too small to be significant for this study.

Now, as we all well know, Americans consume ***tons*** and ***tons***

of milk foods. Unless I'm missing something then, ANY STUDY OF A

LARGE AMERICAN COHORT THAT REPORTS ABOUT SFA IS REALLY REPORTING

ABOUT SUPERMARKET DAIRY! If so, needless to say, we can sit back,

chuckle, and have a chug of organic, grass-fed raw kefir! It

certainly doesn't need to be spelled out in this forum, but for the

sake of thoroughness, I can note that we might need the fingers from

at least two people to count the problems of supermarket milk foods.

It seems most likely to me that if there is harm coming from

supermarket milk foods, it's due to something other than SFA!

Please keep in mind I have **not read the study** and am just

generating questions, but I'd like to find out if the NHS teases this

issue apart. It's certainly been the biggest burning question I have

about the NHS other than the relative quantities of natural and

synthetic retinol in the data that show a retinol/osteo link. I

guess I need to actually read the darn thing and get some answers...

This is not relevant to the NHS since these are not quantitatively

significant in America, but I find it intriguing that in the USDA

database most of the organ meats have a SFA:MUFA ratio higher than 1

and the only non-organ meats that do are antelope, caribou, elk,

deer, and water buffalo, all wild meats! (This is assuming that data

given for those wild meats is for muscle meats. If it's a combined

average for the meat of the entire animal, which somehow seems

unlikely to me, then the numbers could be skewed by organ fats.)

(Lipid data for many other wild meats is absent. Search the USDA

database under " game " (I hate that word!).) Actually, come to think

of it, I wonder if organ meats from the common food animals in

America might be quantitatively significant via their presence in

processed meat foods? But I imagine the sheer volume of dairy

consumption would still dwarf them into insignificance.

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

[Guest guest]

>@@@@@@@@@@@ Heidi:

>> 2. Willett strikes me as a careful researcher. I'm betting there IS

>> a real connection between saturated fat and disease in the Nurses

>> Study. But sheesh, that is ALL grain fed beef and milk cows we

>> are talking about. So they are catching up to us, not quite there

>> yet.

>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>

>Well, you might want to reconsider your choice of words here, because

>if the harm is due to extrinsic properties of high-SFA foods, such as

>improper animal diets, processing, etc, then SFA itself is an

>innocent bystander forced along for the ride, and there is no " real

>connection between saturated fat and disease " .

A better choice of words might be in order. By " real " I mean " not made up

just to denigrate saturated fat " . Actually I think the statistical connection

will

be good fodder, eventually, for the folks making a case for grassfed beef.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 19:38:08 -0000

" Anton " <bwp@...> wrote:

I'm guessing the methodology of

>the NHS was impeccable, but there are always issues of interpretation

>and reporting. It's the closest thing to a smoking gun for the anti-

>SFA crowd. (And it's probably really a water pistol...)

LOL!!

>

>This reminds of a thought I've been tossing around for a while about

>the NHS. It reports an advantage for PUFA over SFA, but not for SFA

>over MUFA or UFA in general. According to the USDA database, the

>common meats (beef, pork, chicken, turkey, tuna, salmon) eaten in

>America, as well as chicken eggs, all have SFA:MUFA ratios below 1.

>Since they don't report a parallel advantage for PUFA over MUFA, I

>conclude that meat and eggs can not account for the purported harm of

>SFA in that study. However, milk fat has a SFA:MUFA ratio over 2!

>In fact, as far as I'm aware it is the *only* common food in America

>with a SFA:MUFA over 1!! Note that although some tropical oils have

>astronomical SFA:MUFA ratios, I'm guessing their presence in the

>American food supply was too small to be significant for this study.

>Now, as we all well know, Americans consume ***tons*** and ***tons***

>of milk foods. Unless I'm missing something then, ANY STUDY OF A

>LARGE AMERICAN COHORT THAT REPORTS ABOUT SFA IS REALLY REPORTING

>ABOUT SUPERMARKET DAIRY! If so, needless to say, we can sit back,

>chuckle, and have a chug of organic, grass-fed raw kefir!

Mike, this is a very very very good insight

>This is not relevant to the NHS since these are not quantitatively

>significant in America, but I find it intriguing that in the USDA

>database most of the organ meats have a SFA:MUFA ratio higher than 1

>and the only non-organ meats that do are antelope, caribou, elk,

>deer, and water buffalo, all wild meats!

Unfortunately many of these " wild " meats that are sold as food are

produced on " game " farms. So depending how close the " farm " mimics

nature, the profile might not match that which is found in the wild.

Still, they are much better than commercial meats.

Abolish the FDA!!

http://tinyurl.com/25nu8

[Guest guest]

@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Mike/:

> >This is not relevant to the NHS since these are not quantitatively

> >significant in America, but I find it intriguing that in the USDA

> >database most of the organ meats have a SFA:MUFA ratio higher than

1

> >and the only non-organ meats that do are antelope, caribou, elk,

> >deer, and water buffalo, all wild meats!

>

> Unfortunately many of these " wild " meats that are sold as food are

> produced on " game " farms. So depending how close the " farm " mimics

> nature, the profile might not match that which is found in the wild.

> Still, they are much better than commercial meats.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Good point, but the lipid profile for wild meats in the USDA data

matches the data in one of Loren Cordain's papers (free pdf's on his

website--a lot of useful information) where he gives data for wild

animals obtained through hunting. Lower total fat level, but higher

percentage of SFA.

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

[Guest guest]

>Good point, but the lipid profile for wild meats in the USDA data

>matches the data in one of Loren Cordain's papers (free pdf's on his

>website--a lot of useful information) where he gives data for wild

>animals obtained through hunting. Lower total fat level, but higher

>percentage of SFA.

oh - interesting! thanks for mentioning it. but if you look at the table on

page 6, it shows that only 4 of the wild animals had a higher SFA percentage

than the grain-fed steer, and 5 had lower SFA ratios, so it's a mixed bag

there.

other interesting notes from this table - the wild game has a higher

PUFA/SFA ratio AND higher percentage of PUFA across the board than the

grain-fed steer. the grain-fed steer has highe MUFA than all the wild

species, interestingly.

i didn't read the article yet - just scanned mostlty, but the author notes

that wild game muscle tissue is rich in the long chain PUFAs - DHA and EPA,

along with AA. although it's not so in either grain or grass-fed domestic

cattle. for inland HGs, wild game may have been a decent source of these

fatty acids that are typically associated with sea food.

here's the link for anyone that wants to see cordain's lipid profiles:

http://www.thepaleodiet.com/articles/Final%20Fatty%20Acid%20PDF.pdf

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

>

[Guest guest]

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

> >Good point, but the lipid profile for wild meats in the USDA data

> >matches the data in one of Loren Cordain's papers (free pdf's on

his

> >website--a lot of useful information) where he gives data for wild

> >animals obtained through hunting. Lower total fat level, but

higher

> >percentage of SFA.

>

> oh - interesting! thanks for mentioning it. but if you look at the

table on

> page 6, it shows that only 4 of the wild animals had a higher SFA

percentage

> than the grain-fed steer, and 5 had lower SFA ratios, so it's a

mixed bag

> there.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Yeah, you're right for the muscle tissue case. I should've said

SFA:MUFA ratio, not SFA:total percentage. SFA:MUFA ratios were the

ones I thought were relevant for mainstream lipid views ( " max the

MUFA, minimize the SFA and PUFA " ). I see that the total SFA

percentage is about the same for wild vs domesticated, with some

minor variation that makes it a mixed bag as you noted.

total SFA percentage for *muscle* tissue

39 giraffe

47 eland

49 hartebeest

51 topi

39 cape buffalo

49 white-tailed deer

43 pronghorn antelope

44 mule deer

41 elk

46 pasture-fed steer

46 grain-fed steer

But actually, if we blend muscle fat and adipose fat, the total SFA

percentage is probably higher for wild because the adipose SFA levels

are so much higher. This would be more meaningful because it would

reflect actual dietary intake. (Except for wacky 20th century people

like Cordain who wouldn't eat the adipose fat...) Unfortunately that

article doesn't give enough data to compute this, but the total SFA

percentage in adipose tissue for the elk, deer, and antelope is about

twice as high as for domesticated adipose, so depending on the

adipose:muscle ratio for the wild animals this could push the numbers

pretty far. Overall, though, total SFA percentages are probably not

dramatically different for wild vs domesticated, while SFA:MUFA

ratios are.

Mike

SE Pennsylvania