n6/n3 grass/grain ruminant fat

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/21/04 4:30:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, bwp@...

writes:

> I'm thinking about 100% vs 95% grass-fed here, not cases where large

> amounts of non-grass is used, resulting in blatantly unhealthy

> animals from which we'd fail to benefit from eating various organs

> and things.

Are you sure that's true? Dr. Mike posted a study the last time he showed

his face around here, comparing grain-fed and grass-fed, and the differences

weren't that significant. Grain-fed, iirc, was higher in zinc and vitamin E,

and

a couple other things, while grass-fed was higher in a few nutrients. The

only major difference was the n-3:n-6 ratio, but, as we're saying now, the pufa

content is so low it's almost insignificant.

Also, in how many of these studies can we be sure the difference is actually

due to grain vs. grass? For example, if there is a significant loss in some

nutrient, is it due to the feeding of corn, or is it due to the feeding of

*hybrid* corn, versus open-pollinated?

And even if some studies find vitamin E to be much higher in grass-fed (and

others find it not to be), is the vitamin E content in grass-fed actually

*high* in an absolute value, and not just compared to grain-fed muscle meet?

And,

if not, and I can spend a third the price on grain-fed and have a more tender

cut, and get much more vitamin E from a little palm oil and some grass-fed

butter than I'd get from grass-fed meat, why should I bother buying grass-fed

meat over grain-fed?

CLA is probably the most convincing thing-- but even there, how does the CLA

content of grass-fed muscle meat compare to the CLA content of grass-fed

milk/cream/butter?

I eat grass-fed meat. However, I'm wondering if it might not be more prudent

to purchase grain-fed meat and grass-fed milk, depending on which research we

believe.

Chris

[Guest guest]

sorry! i sent this a second ago and forgot to change the subject line!

@@@@@@@@@@@@ :

> I've said it before, but I guess it bears repeating: I think that

this

> omega-6/omega-3 thing is, as far as beef goes, way overblown. There

is so

> little polyunsaturated fat in beef (about 3% of total fat) that it

doesn't

> have much of an impact on the overall dietary n6/n3 ratio. The real

problem

> is the proliferation of vegetable oils in the modern diet.

@@@@@@@@@@@

That's SF's view too, at least as of 1997:

@@@@@@@@ http://www.scdiet.org/7archives/lutz/paleo2.html

6. We look forward to seeing your research and intriguing findings

about the varying lengths of SFAs in wild and domesticated animals.

Stearic acid (18:0) has been shown to raise cholesterol in some

studies--and in any event, the whole cholesterol issue is bogus.

There may be differences in the N6/N3 ratios in wild and domesticated

ruminant adipose tissue, but in both overall total PUFA is low. The

real imbalances come with modern farming methods (for eggs, fish,

vegetables, etc.) and with the introduction of high N6 oils into the

diet. Excess N6/N3 ratios result in profound imbalances at the

cellular level that can lead to MI, cancer and many other diseases.

(6, 7) We certainly do agree that high levels of N6 in the diet are a

problem, but the source of excess N6 is not domesticated beef and

lamb.

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

Proponents of 100% grass-fed ruminant meat like ourselves often use

this n6/n3 thing as a key argument, but if it has a negligible effect

than perhaps we would be wiser to ignore it and choose stronger

arguments?

what are the key arguments?

CLA?

health of the animal?

less bad bacteria/parasites?

I'm thinking about 100% vs 95% grass-fed here, not cases where large

amounts of non-grass is used, resulting in blatantly unhealthy

animals from which we'd fail to benefit from eating various organs

and things.

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

[Guest guest]

Proponents of 100% grass-fed ruminant meat like ourselves often use

> this n6/n3 thing as a key argument, but if it has a negligible effect

> than perhaps we would be wiser to ignore it and choose stronger

> arguments?

i just want to point out that, while it may not be a strong argument against

grain fed *ruminant* fat, it's probaly much stronger against grain-fed

*poultry* fat, since poultry tends to have a much higher fat content, and

rather high linoleic acid (omega 6) content. conventional chicken is approx.

20% fat, and approx. 20% of that is linoleic acid. i think the beef numbers

for omega 6 are much lower, although i could be remembering wrong.

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>

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

>