Guest guest Posted May 8, 2003 Report Share Posted May 8, 2003 Hi Dennis, Glad to have a cow knowledgee. I felt like I was all alone in my let's say "vegetarian enlightening" posts. I'm lacto-veggie now for health reasons. It looks like beef itself is only 57 mg per 4 oz. Milk runs about 100 mg Na per 8oz. I can see that the cow, like us, has to maintain it's serum sodium probably by the same mechanism that we do, so the meat wouldn't necessarily be over salted, I would think. The lab animals, probably were given sodium in their feed without choice. It would be nice to understand the longevity mechanism in relation to humans. Maybe I can find the data. Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: Dennis De Jarnette Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 10:09 AM Subject: [ ] Cows and salt. I am responding to Ed S. comment below.No cows are not encouraged to use salt, they are given free access to it. Minerals too. I doubt this results in huge overmedication. The real problem is that salt is often used as an additive to ground grain in large dosages in order to prevent the grain, which is offered free choice, from being overconsumed by the cow. I have often wondered about the side effects of this practice on the cow, the meat and the pasture where she urinates. It can not be good. In my cow raising days I used this method. As this is my first post let me say that I will for the most part be a lurker as I consider a CRON diet, but as this was to an area where I had some background I decided to post. Positive Dennisjwwright wrote: FWIW, what I ended up doing was to take my USDA database of foods and average the mineral content for each of the listed minerals and compare those to sodium to get a mineral to sodium ratio. Of course I deleted duplicates and those foods with added sodium. Those values I posted next to the RDA for each mineral and voila - they looked a lot alike. I figure the RDA folks used the same technique. Not a req'ts definition but it was the only technique I could use to evaluate the large variance in sodium rec's. In the end I just chose to not use any, and I discovered that foods tasted differently without the salt. Suddenly I could actually taste the mild flavors in steamed potatoes, squash, etc. Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: Ed Sullivan Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 11:04 PM Subject: Re: [ ] Re: Quick Salt Question Yes. Walford comments that lab animals on a high sodium diet live shorter lives than controls, although they don't necessarily die of cv related conditions. Those people who follow a faith-based paleo diet will note that the paleo diet was estimated to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 20/1. Some fish, and most meat (without seasoning, of course) come in somewhere around 2/1 to 4.5/1. Of course beef is provided with salt, and cows are encouraged to eat salt...so they tell me...so contemporary animal flesh may have a lower k/Na ratio than in days of old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2003 Report Share Posted May 9, 2003 >I'm lacto-veggie now for health reasons. What are these health reasons? I eat a lot of eggs and meat for health reasons, i.e. vitamins, minerals, quality fats, high bioavailibility of nutrients, etc. Are you familiar with the Weston A Price Foundation (www.westonaprice.org) and " Nourishing Traditions " ? best, Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2003 Report Share Posted May 9, 2003 I'm not familiar with a connection between blood pressure and meat, eggs, or fat. Blood pressure hasn't been an issue for me personally, but I'd like to know in general if there is any connection? (By the way, I eat two egg yolks everyday and throw away the whites because according the USDA data they have virtually no nutritional value, except for protein, which is so plentiful in other foods that it's not worth the trouble, especially since whites should be cooked to neutralize the anti-nutrients like anti-trypsin and avidin. All the good stuff (vit D, vit A, B vit's, cholesterol, fat, vit E, vit K, etc) is in the yolk, not to mention flavor.) Thanks, Mike --- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@e...> wrote: > I switched to low fat lacto veg (ala ornish) to get my Blood pressure down. I eat egg whites occasionally. > > Regards, > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Anton > > Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 11:50 PM > Subject: [ ] Re: Cows and salt. > > > >I'm lacto-veggie now for health reasons. > > What are these health reasons? I eat a lot of eggs and meat for > health reasons, i.e. vitamins, minerals, quality fats, high > bioavailibility of nutrients, etc. Are you familiar with the Weston > A Price Foundation (www.westonaprice.org) and " Nourishing > Traditions " ? > > best, > Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2003 Report Share Posted May 9, 2003 >Are you familiar with the Weston > A Price Foundation (www.westonaprice.org) and " Nourishing > Traditions " ? Just to let anyone who is considering checking out Weston Price know, his foundation is considered disreputable by some sources and is on QuackWatch's list of questionable organizations: http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/nonrecorg.html due I believe primarily to Weston Price's promotion of " holistic dentistry " : http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/holisticdent.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2003 Report Share Posted May 10, 2003 --- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@e...> wrote: > Hi , > You'll never find an article that says meat does anything. I set out to prove a vegetarian diet was bad and read the existing article numbering 3000 or so. I'm not sure a person who switches to a vegan diet will get any benefits in mortality. All I know is that I felt a lot better, my muscle soreness cleared up. I lost 55#, my BP went down enough to dump the betablocker which was a real drag. That allowed me to exercise again. ##### All theoretical questions aside, that's fantastic news! Of course, manipulating many variables at once in one's diet and/or lifestyle provides no insight or evidence about one of the variables, i.e. meat or no meat. It sounds to me like you increased the quality and mineral-density of your diet, which could be done whether or not a small category of foods like meat or eggs was included or excluded. I was doing essentially a CR diet at 1800kcals making sure I got all the RDA's using a spreadsheet made from the USDA database. I read all the Sears books, walfords books, Ornish and DASH, plus the Mediterranean ref's and Okinawan ref's. I also subscribe to mdconsult.com to get access to medical textbooks. I think I don't NEED meat, or egg yolks, although I'm not sure there isn't some chemical in there that promotes something - we don't know a lot about the human body. #### There's certainly no individual food substance that any person NEEDS, but any member of our species does NEED at least some animal foods because our bodies evolved to rely on certain substances only available from these sources. There are dozens and dozens choices of animal foods that could work interchangeably depending on availability, individual physiology, etc. Of course, if a person happens to live in the current era and has access to nutritional supplements, it is entirely possible to thrive on a vegan diet. Fundamentally, it seems our bodies are quite flexible and can do very well on a wide range of diets, and it's probably difficult to distinguish between optimal and " good enough " in real-time. I always felt great and never had any health problems eating more or less SAD until I " got religion " about health and started eating nutrient-dense food from quality sources, and now I still feel great and don't see any difference. I would agree that we don't know a lot about the human body, and that's why I tend to rely on the accumulated evidence of history, which shows in unequivocable terms that humans have always eaten a wide variety of animal foods, especially organs, fat, bones, eggs, etc. If these foods have resulted in robustly healthy thriving populations for many millenia, then if there's any question about how to interpret the latest contrived study on the effects of isolated substances on lab animals, I'll place my bets with the evidence of history. > But essential hypertension is child's play compared to cancer, diabetes, kidney disease so I right now I'm leaning more to looking at cancer prevents. Meat fat seems to be associated with prostate cancer. #### If that were so, then prostate cancer would be epidemic during all stages of human history. I'm sure there's a lot more to the story than the effect of just one food. " seems to be associated " is not the kind of reasoning I would use to make major dietary decisions that contradict massive bodies of empirical evidence like the absence of health problem x in previous populations that heavily consumed food y. Additionally, " meat fat " is a heterogenous set of foods, varying in fatty acid composition, almost completely overlapping with the fatty acid composition of plant fats, varying in non-fatty acid components, including nutrients and toxins, depending on type of animal, part of animal, diet of animal, environment of animal, etc. #### My approach to diet is methodologically similar to your's, although I probably have done far less reading and research, but there is a major limitation to the " USDA data number-crunching " and " research on food x " methodology, in that it deflects attention away from issues like " quality of source " , " method of preparation " , and " evidence from traditional diets " . The latter issues have come to my attention through the Weston A Price Foundation and " Nourishing Traditions " , and augment the former considerations, which came to my attention from reading Walford 2001. #### Thanks for your thoughtful and interesting posts, and congratulations of your personal success. #### Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2003 Report Share Posted May 10, 2003 > Just to let anyone who is considering checking out Weston Price know, > his foundation is considered disreputable by some sources and is on > QuackWatch's list of questionable organizations: > > http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/nonrecorg.html > > due I believe primarily to Weston Price's promotion of " holistic > dentistry " : > > http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/holisticdent.html #### Bear in mind that many organizations are considered disreputable by some sources, and that it would be better to make judgements for one's self based on a study of the huge body of literature associated with Weston A Price and the eponymous foundation instead of a small article with vague and overgeneralized criticisms written by someone who specializes in attacking alternatives to the " get sick now, take drugs later " approach to medicine, and who himself is considered disreputable by many sources. Additionally, I can't vouch for every aspect of Weston A Price's ouevre, not having studied it exhaustively myself, but his work and the work done by those he inspired has made a tremendous positive impact on many people's lives and is unquestionably filled with valid and under-represented viewpoints involving the nutritional characteristics of traditional diets and the effects of modern food processing. It is certain that any health- conscious person will find valuable and well-documented information from the dozens of articles on <www.westonaprice.org>. As much as I have benefited from Walford's writings, the conception of food and nutrition advanced by Sally Fallon and the Weston A Price Foundation is much broader and deeper. I will make a few specific remarks in support of this view. Walford completely fails to address issues like the evidence available from traditional diets, methods of preparation (soaking, fermenting, etc), anti-nutrients, healthy intestinal bacteria, quality of sources (soil fertility, diet of animal, etc), dangers of soy foods, ecological and social context, etc. Also, Walford glaringly makes the unforgiveable mistake of promoting excess omega-6 PUFA's and discouraging saturated fats and cholesterol, buying into the scandalous and corrupt campaign against these essential and healthy substances. Additionally, Walford advocates a low-fat diet, despite the fact that this flies in the face of thousands of years or human evolution and healthy populations, and overwhelming and rapidly accumulating evidence of the beneficial effects of higher fat intakes. These are big issues, and my personal gratitude to WAPF and " Nourishing Traditions " is so great that I'm taking the time to pontificate thusly. Mike 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.