Guest guest Posted January 24, 2002 Report Share Posted January 24, 2002 Hi All, Another example of stacking the decks. Look at the diet elements for the PUFA(n-3) diet (link below). http://atvb.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/16/11/1347/T1 Wonder why they added in such a high level of 18:2 (10.6 % of cals) to a diet which was supposedly designed to measure the effects of high PUFA-3 fats. I notice they didn't do this in the MUFA diet (18:2 @ 3.7 %). Just maybe they wanted to use the known negative effects of elevated 18:2 to bury any beneficial effects of the PUFA-3 diet against their Spanish Olive Oil? Also where are the starting data? ======================== Good Health & Long Life, Greg , http://optimalhealth.cia.com.au gowatson@... USDA database (food breakdown) http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/ PubMed (research papers) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi DWIDP (nutrient analysis) http://www.walford.com/dwdemo/dw2b63demo.exe Patch file for above http://www.walford.com/download/dwidp67u.exe KIM (omega analysis) http://ods.od.nih.gov/eicosanoids/KIM_Install.exe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.