Raw Milk vs Pasteurized [Archive]

iOWNme

22nd February 2012, 08:48 PM

Good info here about the real differences between fresh raw milk and Corporate milk. The comparisons are in depth and very informative.

Pasteurized milk 150 times more contaminated with blood, pus and feces than fresh milk

http://www.naturalnews.com/035039_raw_milk_pasteurized_CDC.html

(NaturalNews) The vaccine-pushing, disease scare-mongering agency known as the CDC has put out a stunning piece of propaganda attacking fresh milk (raw dairy), claiming it is "150 times more dangerous" than pasteurized milk. This is all part of their anti-American agenda to crush food freedom and criminalize fundamental farming practices upon which this very nation was founded. (Yes, George Washington and the founding fathers drank raw milk, grew hemp and even smoked a little weed as medicine.)

But what the CDC won't dare reveal to the public is the far more horrifying truth: Pasteurized dairy is produced in the dirtiest milk factories imaginable, where blood, pus, e.coli and other truly dangerous pathogens are routinely bottled into milk containers and fed to consumers.

That's the whole point of pasteurization, you see: To kill everything that might be alive in their ultra-dirty milk. The real purpose of pasteurization is not to simply "make milk safe" as is claimed by the CDC, but rather to allow the dairy industry to operate DIRTY. It's so much easier to just cook the crap out of the milk (yes, there's fecal matter in it) than to clean up their operations, get it?

Thanks to pasteurization, conventional (non-organic, non-raw) dairy operators have no need to thoroughly wash their milking machines, no need to sterilize any milk containers, no need to wash their hands, and no need to maintain a clean milking environment whatsoever. It's just total filth with festering diseased animals dying on the floor and being physically abused by the corporate dairy operators (see video links, below).

Dairy cows are routinely abused and left to suffer in total filth

Want to know how conventional (pasteurized) dairy cows are really treated? Here's something the CDC won't show you.

When you buy pasteurized milk at the grocery store, you are supporting an industry that tortures cows and produces a dirty, filthy product!

Of course, the dairy industry would much rather force everybody to pasteurize their milk and outlaw clean raw dairy than to clean up their own act. That's the whole point of the CDC going after raw dairy: To destroy the raw dairy industry and force everyone to drink dirty, contaminated pasteurized milk that's extracted from tortured cows.

Here are some other short videos you may want to view (WARNING):

Dairy Cow Abuse - "Mercy For Animals" hidden camera in New York:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdiwZKsrgdA

The disgusting treatment of (conventional) dairy cows:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzS8p727gvM

Dairy cows with injuries and infections:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrMj0oBdyWs

ABC Nightline - Dairy farm abuse:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIRshcfNLDk

So get it through your heads, folks: If you buy pasteurized, homogenized milk, you are supporting an industry of filth, torture, infected animals and dirty, dirty milk.

Blood, pus, bacteria and fecal matter - drink up, kiddies!

The reason all that milk has to be pasteurized is because it's strongly contaminated with:

• blood
• pus
• bacteria
• fecal matter

In addition, conventional dairy cows are:

• Pumped full of bovine growth hormones
• Fed masses of antibiotics
• Fed tons of GMOs such as corn and soy
• Heavily contaminated with chemical pesticides

That's what you get when you buy "Pasteurized" milk. Plus the feces in the milk, of course.

So the next time somebody gets mad at you in bumper-to-bumper traffic and they scream out the window: "EAT SH*T!" just hand them a glass of pasteurized milk. Let them drink it, huh?

The cleanest milk in the world? RAW, fresh milk!

You want to see a super clean dairy operation? Go to a raw dairy farm and check out their operation. It's the cleanest, most pristine dairy operation you'll ever find. And why? Because it has to be. If you want to produce clean, fresh dairy without pasteurization, you have to run a super clean facility with healthy cows, stringent cleanliness practices and a commitment to producing wholesome food.

Only raw milk dairies have this kind of commitment to cleanliness.

View this powerful comparison between pasteurized milk and raw milk:
http://organicpastures.com/whyraw.html

In fact, if you took a gallon of unpasteurized milk from a conventional dairy and you compared it to a gallon of unpasteurized milk from a quality-certified raw milk dairy, I have no doubt you would find that the conventional dairy has at least 150 times the level of blood, pus, feces and dangerous bacteria (if not more).

In contrast, raw milk from a reputable dairy operation such as Organic Pastures (www.OrganicPastures.com (http://www.organicpastures.com/)) is the cleanest milk on the planet, bar none. Sure, it has friendly bacteria in it, but that bacteria is good for you -- it's probiotics. The CDC, of course, is so clueless about infectious disease that they hate ALL bacteria and want to destroy them all with chemicals or heat.

The CDC won't dare discuss any of this, however. Instead, the CDC has resorted to what can only be called a raw milk fear mongering campaign using the exact same tactic they used to promote vaccine sales by pushing false swine flu fear.

The only thing dirtier than pasteurized milk, it seems, is the CDC itself, which has degraded from a once-respected group of actual scientists to a cabal of junk science fear mongerers and political prostitutes who drop trow and bend over for Big Business (Big Pharma, Big Dairy, etc.) at every opportunity. Instead of doing something important to stop the spread of infectious disease (like promoting vitamin D, immune-boosting nutrition and improved sanitation), the CDC is now a total sellout to the interests of the corporate giants who feed us filth and call it food.

So it's no surprise to see the CDC promoting pasteurized milk -- the very product whose digestive enzymes have been destroyed so that it causes allergic reactions in those who consume it.

Pasteurized, homogenized milk also promotes heart disease, obesity, autoimmune disorders, constipation, sinus congestion and many other chronic health conditions. It is the perfect food for the uninformed masses who the U.S. government seems to be trying to keep in a state of lifelong disease and medical enslavement.

Keep reading NaturalNews to learn more about what's wrong with conventional pasteurized dairy products. We're working on several articles covering this topic.

And remember:

Pasteurized milk is so disgustingly dirty that if they didn't kill everything in it with heat, the liquid would probably kill YOU.

Sources for this story include:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/21/feds-fresh-milk-150-t... (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/21/feds-fresh-milk-150-times-dangerous-pasteurized/)

http://organicpastures.com/

www.RealMilk.com (http://www.realmilk.com/)

www.WestonAPrice.org (http://www.westonaprice.org/)

Make sure you see all of the data compiled on this page, it is crucial:

http://organicpastures.com/whyraw.html

Gaillo

22nd February 2012, 08:53 PM

I find all milk to be equally disgusting... haven't had a DROP of milk in over 20 years.

BTW, isn't there a Bible verse that speaks out against the use of milk by any other than "babes"? Not that I believe in all that stuff... but many here do - and I'm quite certain the verse exists.

lapis

23rd February 2012, 02:10 AM

BTW, isn't there a Bible verse that speaks out against the use of milk by any other than "babes"?

I seriously doubt it. There's a TON of verses on milk (http://www.openbible.info/topics/milk) like the ones about land flowing with milk and honey. There's also non-biblical phrases like "cream of the crop," which is not exactly disparaging about dairy is it.

I find all milk to be equally disgusting.You're just swimming against the (historic and culinary) tide baby. ;D

Gaillo

23rd February 2012, 03:31 AM

BTW, isn't there a Bible verse that speaks out against the use of milk by any other than "babes"? Not that I believe in all that stuff... but many here do - and I'm quite certain the verse exists.

I seriously doubt it. There's a TON of verses on milk (http://www.openbible.info/topics/milk) like the ones about land flowing with milk and honey. There's also non-biblical phrases like "cream of the crop," which is not exactly disparaging about dairy is it.

You're just swimming against the (historic and culinary) tide baby. ;D

OK then...

Hebrews 5:13 - For everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child.

1 Corinthians 3:2 - I gave you milk to drink, not meat; for you were not able as yet. But neither indeed are you now able; for you are yet carnal.

Never argue scripture with an Atheist, baby! ;D

lapis

23rd February 2012, 04:01 AM

I could be wrong, but I think those verses refer to breast milk, hence the reference to being like a child and not being able to have meat yet.

But don't fear I'm sure we'll soon be set right about their meaning...whether you want to be or not. ;-)

Gaillo

23rd February 2012, 04:11 AM

OK then...

Never argue scripture with an Atheist, baby! ;D

I could be wrong, but I think those verses refer to breast milk, hence the reference to being like a child and not being able to have meat yet.

But don't fear I'm sure we'll soon be set right about their meaning...whether you want to be or not. ;-)

For sure!

If I'm right (about the whole lack-of-God thing), then all I have to lose is... well... NOTHING - All that I will EVER know is life (one can't be conscious of death if there's no afterlife!) ;)

If you are right, then I STILL win - eternal life in God's presence because I NEVER bent to the will of those who would use his "name in vain" and profited from his grace with false religion (which All of them are, from what I've seen...) - OR I can lead/follow the charge AGAINST him from hell, for being an injust deity who creates imperfect beings, then punishes them for BEING imperfect after the fact.

It's all good either way... ;)

iOWNme

23rd February 2012, 05:38 AM

We are the only mammal to drink the milk of another mammal, now that seems interesting.

horseshoe3

23rd February 2012, 07:40 AM

OK then...

Never argue scripture with an Atheist, baby! ;D

It's refering to them not being ready for meat. Not saying that milk is bad for adults, saying that milk is easy to digest, but not satisfying as a complete diet.

Tumbleweed

23rd February 2012, 08:03 AM

I started milking cows when I was six years old but never really liked to drink it. I've drank it straight from the tit and I didn't suck on it either. Just squirted it in my mouth and squirted it in the mouths of barn cats that were always hanging around.

I've visited some dairies and driven past them so I don't doubt that the milk we used to get was cleaner than is produced at big dairies now. Our cows were out on grass all the time except for when we milked them.

I like butter, cream and milk in cooking but I don't care to drink it. I don't see drinking milk any different than eating meat. It's a way to utilize the grass through grazing cattle.

big country

23rd February 2012, 09:02 AM

We are the only mammal to drink the milk of another mammal, now that seems interesting.

We're also the only mammals that build machines, drive cars, use computers. We're the only mammals that bury our dead and wash our hands. We're the only mammals that cook our food. We're the top of the food chain...The "elite" get to do things differently.

Also, I've seen dogs at the udders of cows lapping up anything that drips. Cats will drink a bowl of milk sat out for them. Pigs and chickens love Whey left over from cheese making...Pretty sure other mammals drink the milk of other animals too...most of them just aren't smart enough to aquire it regularly...

Old Herb Lady

23rd February 2012, 09:14 AM

horseshoe3

23rd February 2012, 09:22 AM

Serpo

23rd February 2012, 02:15 PM

Personally I dont drink cows milk but like some dairy products

Pasteurized milk 150 times more contaminated with blood, pus and feces than fresh milk - videos the CDC won't show yo

(NaturalNews) The vaccine-pushing, disease scare-mongering agency known as the CDC has put out a stunning piece of propaganda attacking fresh milk (raw dairy), claiming it is "150 times more dangerous" than pasteurized milk. This is all part of their anti-American agenda to crush food freedom and criminalize fundamental farming practices upon which this very nation was founded. (Yes, George Washington and the founding fathers drank raw milk, grew hemp and even smoked a little weed as medicine.)

But what the CDC won't dare reveal to the public is the far more horrifying truth: Pasteurized dairy is produced in the dirtiest milk factories imaginable, where blood, pus, e.coli and other truly dangerous pathogens are routinely bottled into milk containers and fed to consumers.

That's the whole point of pasteurization, you see: To kill everything that might be alive in their ultra-dirty milk. The real purpose of pasteurization is not to simply "make milk safe" as is claimed by the CDC, but rather to allow the dairy industry to operate DIRTY. It's so much easier to just cook the crap out of the milk (yes, there's fecal matter in it) than to clean up their operations, get it?

Thanks to pasteurization, conventional (non-organic, non-raw) dairy operators have no need to thoroughly wash their milking machines, no need to sterilize any milk containers, no need to wash their hands, and no need to maintain a clean milking environment whatsoever. It's just total filth with festering diseased animals dying on the floor and being physically abused by the corporate dairy operators (see video links, below).

Dairy cows are routinely abused and left to suffer in total filth
Want to know how conventional (pasteurized) dairy cows are really treated? Here's something the CDC won't show you.

Watch this highly disturbing video of dairy cows being kicked, tortured, abused and injured by conventional dairy workers. This was filmed with an undercover spy cam (WARNING: DISTURBING IMAGERY):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUmtSONLhOc

When you buy pasteurized milk at the grocery store, you are supporting an industry that tortures cows and produces a dirty, filthy product!

Of course, the dairy industry would much rather force everybody to pasteurize their milk and outlaw clean raw dairy than to clean up their own act. That's the whole point of the CDC going after raw dairy: To destroy the raw dairy industry and force everyone to drink dirty, contaminated pasteurized milk that's extracted from tortured cows.

Here are some other short videos you may want to view (WARNING):

Dairy Cow Abuse - "Mercy For Animals" hidden camera in New York:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdiwZKsrgdA

The disgusting treatment of (conventional) dairy cows:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzS8p727gvM

Dairy cows with injuries and infections:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrMj0oBdyWs

ABC Nightline - Dairy farm abuse:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIRshcfNLDk

So get it through your heads, folks: If you buy pasteurized, homogenized milk, you are supporting an industry of filth, torture, infected animals and dirty, dirty milk.

Blood, pus, bacteria and fecal matter - drink up, kiddies!
The reason all that milk has to be pasteurized is because it's strongly contaminated with:

• blood
• pus
• bacteria
• fecal matter

In addition, conventional dairy cows are:

• Pumped full of bovine growth hormones
• Fed masses of antibiotics
• Fed tons of GMOs such as corn and soy
• Heavily contaminated with chemical pesticides

That's what you get when you buy "Pasteurized" milk. Plus the feces in the milk, of course.

So the next time somebody gets mad at you in bumper-to-bumper traffic and they scream out the window: "EAT SH*T!" just hand them a glass of pasteurized milk. Let them drink it, huh?

The cleanest milk in the world? RAW, fresh milk!
You want to see a super clean dairy operation? Go to a raw dairy farm and check out their operation. It's the cleanest, most pristine dairy operation you'll ever find. And why? Because it has to be. If you want to produce clean, fresh dairy without pasteurization, you have to run a super clean facility with healthy cows, stringent cleanliness practices and a commitment to producing wholesome food.

Only raw milk dairies have this kind of commitment to cleanliness.

View this powerful comparison between pasteurized milk and raw milk:
http://organicpastures.com/whyraw.html

In fact, if you took a gallon of unpasteurized milk from a conventional dairy and you compared it to a gallon of unpasteurized milk from a quality-certified raw milk dairy, I have no doubt you would find that the conventional dairy has at least 150 times the level of blood, pus, feces and dangerous bacteria (if not more).

In contrast, raw milk from a reputable dairy operation such as Organic Pastures (www.OrganicPastures.com) is the cleanest milk on the planet, bar none. Sure, it has friendly bacteria in it, but that bacteria is good for you -- it's probiotics. The CDC, of course, is so clueless about infectious disease that they hate ALL bacteria and want to destroy them all with chemicals or heat.

The CDC won't dare discuss any of this, however. Instead, the CDC has resorted to what can only be called a raw milk fear mongering campaign using the exact same tactic they used to promote vaccine sales by pushing false swine flu fear.

The only thing dirtier than pasteurized milk, it seems, is the CDC itself, which has degraded from a once-respected group of actual scientists to a cabal of junk science fear mongerers and political prostitutes who drop trow and bend over for Big Business (Big Pharma, Big Dairy, etc.) at every opportunity. Instead of doing something important to stop the spread of infectious disease (like promoting vitamin D, immune-boosting nutrition and improved sanitation), the CDC is now a total sellout to the interests of the corporate giants who feed us filth and call it food.

So it's no surprise to see the CDC promoting pasteurized milk -- the very product whose digestive enzymes have been destroyed so that it causes allergic reactions in those who consume it.

Pasteurized, homogenized milk also promotes heart disease, obesity, autoimmune disorders, constipation, sinus congestion and many other chronic health conditions. It is the perfect food for the uninformed masses who the U.S. government seems to be trying to keep in a state of lifelong disease and medical enslavement.

Keep reading NaturalNews to learn more about what's wrong with conventional pasteurized dairy products. We're working on several articles covering this topic.

And remember:

Pasteurized milk is so disgustingly dirty that if they didn't kill everything in it with heat, the liquid would probably kill YOU.

http://www.naturalnews.com/035039_raw_milk_pasteurized_CDC.html

Serpo

23rd February 2012, 02:19 PM

muffin

23rd February 2012, 07:22 PM

"What did you expect? You don't like it when I just walk up and grab yours without a few caresses and sweet words. Why did you think a cow would be any different?"

bet she loved being compared to a cow! i'm surprised she didn't kick you like that cow kicked her!

lapis

23rd February 2012, 08:11 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcQmq3SM6Bo

muffin

23rd February 2012, 08:47 PM

and men are the pigs? !!

horseshoe3

23rd February 2012, 08:51 PM

bet she loved being compared to a cow! i'm surprised she didn't kick you like that cow kicked her!

How do you know she didn't? ;)

Anyway, I don't mind being compared to a bull. Why should she mind being compared to a cow?

johnlvs2run

2nd March 2012, 06:22 PM

Make sure you see all of the data compiled on this page, it is crucial:
http://organicpastures.com/whyraw.html

I've not drunk any milk for decades, but a friend of mine does, to keep her weight up and get enough liquid, as she was previously down to 89 pounds. So I'm interested to find a reasonably priced source of raw milk around here. Any ideas how to find one?

TraderJoe's doesn't carry raw milk, Lassen's has skim at 4.19 a half gallon, and whole milk at 8.49 a half gallon, quite pricey! I'm not sure what skim is, he said 0 percent fat, but whole milk is 50% calories from fat, way too rich. Best would be to find an alternative to milk for her.

MNeagle

2nd March 2012, 08:18 PM

They also offer 1% or 2% milk(fat) around here.

monty

2nd March 2012, 08:32 PM

I learned pretty quick not to squirt milk into a cats mouth. They figure out where it comes from and try to get it themselves. Cows don't like claws, and it's not much fun being hunched under a cow when a cat gets ahold of her teat.

On a related note, my wife once got kicked pretty good by a cow. Seems she was in a hurry and just threw the bucket under the cow and started milking. Cow took offense and let her have it. I said, "What did you expect? You don't like it when I just walk up and grab yours without a few caresses and sweet words. Why did you think a cow would be any different?"

My younger brother and I milked our cows before and after school. We had barn cats too. One day my dad's dog came into the barn when we were milking. He spotted one of the cats, chased him under the cow my brother was milking, the dog right on his tail. The cow exploded, kicked over the bucket, kicked my brother ending up standing on his arm just about in the elbow. He was only bruised, no broken bones.

I was raised on raw milk. Haven't drank milk since I got out of school.

zap

2nd March 2012, 09:10 PM

Bigjon

2nd March 2012, 09:50 PM

I am weaning my girl off of cows milk, mothers milk is for babies, cows milk is for cows, Its good to wash down chocolate cookies though, ;) but I don't think you need it like they said you did in the old days

For all you people who think milk is only for cows. Please rethink your premise and contemplate pizza without cheese.

No cheese for you.

zap

2nd March 2012, 10:02 PM

For all you people who think milk is only for cows. Please rethink your premise and contemplate pizza without cheese.

No cheese for you.

Yes Bigjon, but if your pretty healthy anyhow you don't need the extra calories, my parents thought you needed cows milk at breakfast ,lunch and dinner, kids these days don't, It is just adding weight to them.

Yes pizza !!! Mmmm .....then they should have a tall glass of milk to wash it down ? no I don't think so, they aren't working hard like the old days, (no computer games no energy expelled.

lapis

2nd March 2012, 11:33 PM

I've not drunk any milk for decades, but a friend of mine does, to keep her weight up and get enough liquid, as she was previously down to 89 pounds. So I'm interested to find a reasonably priced source of raw milk around here. Any ideas how to find one?

You can try "Where Can I Find Real Milk? (http://realmilk.com/where.html)"

TraderJoe's doesn't carry raw milk,No, but supposedly their "cream top milk" is actually the Strauss brand (http://www.strausfamilycreamery.com/) that they package under their own label.

Strauss is a good company that has mostly pastured cows, and only does the bare minimum of pasteurizing and no homogenizing.

There are noticeable changes in their milk depending on what the cows are eating. I buy it mainly when the cream at the top of the container can be shaken and dissolved back into the rest of the milk.

Sometimes the cream stays solid in chunks, and I suspect this is when they are giving their cows something other than pasture. The cream in raw milk from grass-fed cows easily dissolves back into the milk when the container it's in is shaken.

Lassen's has skim at 4.19 a half gallon, and whole milk at 8.49 a half gallon, quite pricey! I'm not sure what skim is, he said 0 percent fat, but whole milk is 50% calories from fat, way too rich.Way too rich for what? Remember, the body cannot utilize the nutrients in the milk without the dairy fat (there's a reason why vitamins A & D are called "fat-soluble"), so when people drink low or god forbid, 0% fat milk, they are wasting their money. In the past farmers considered "skim milk" food for pigs, NOT fit for human consumption.

johnlvs2run

2nd March 2012, 11:43 PM

You can try "Where Can I Find Real Milk? (http://realmilk.com/where.html)"

Thanks.

Way too rich for what?

Way too rich in fat, it being 50 percent of the calories.

Remember, the body cannot utilize the nutrients in the milk without the dairy fat

Really, why not?

(there's a reason why vitamins A & D are called "fat-soluble"), so when people drink low or god forbid, 0% fat milk, they are wasting their money. In the past farmers considered "skim milk" food for pigs, NOT fit for human consumption.

Were the pigs unhealthy?

The African people eat white corn, and feed the yellow corn to the pigs.

I was considering that 25 percent would be okay but not 50. I could always get one of each and mix them together. I've dispatched an email to Organic Pastures to ask them how the fat is separated from the milk.

lapis

3rd March 2012, 12:06 AM

but I don't think you need it like they said you did in the old days

I was just complaining about a related issue to my friends in an email, in response to information (http://www.naturalnews.com/035124_olive_oil_adulterated_canola.html)about how most pricy extra-virgin olive oil is adulterated with CON-ola oil.

The health experts claim that olive oil and other Mediterranean diet foods are supposedly healthy, and I'm sure they are...for people living in the Mediterranean. The same goes for soy; let the Asians eat it.

But for most northern European white people, meat and dairy from cows are the foods they have eaten for centuries (so not only are white people ideas and cultural values denigrated in society, but white people foods are too!).

my parents thought you needed cows milk at breakfast ,lunch and dinner, kids these days don't, It is just adding weight to them.

It seems intuitive that eating high-fat foods or drinking whole milk causes weight gain, but it may not necessarily be so, at least according to this study:

Children Who Often Drink Full-Fat Milk Weigh Less, Swedish Research Finds (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091103102347.htm)

ScienceDaily (Nov. 3, 2009) — Eight-year-old children who drink full-fat milk every day have a lower BMI than those who seldom drink milk. This is not the case for children who often drink medium-fat or low-fat milk. This is one conclusion of a thesis presented at the Sahlgrenska Academy.

The study showed that children who drink full-fat milk every day weigh on average just over 4 kg less.

"This is an interesting observation, but we don't know why it is so. It may be the case that children who drink full-fat milk tend also to eat other things that affect their weight. Another possible explanation is that children who do not drink full-fat milk drink more soft drinks instead," says dietician Susanne Eriksson, author of the thesis.

The scientists also discovered a difference between overweight children who drink full-fat milk every day and those who do not. Children who often drink milk with a fat content of 3% are less overweight. The thesis shows also that the children eat more saturated fat than recommended, but those children who have a high intake of fat have a lower BMI than the children with a lower intake of fat.

Susanne Eriksson has investigated the nutrition, body composition and bone mineralization of 120 healthy 8-year-olds. Much of the results can now be used as a standard to determine what is normal for healthy children at that age. The children recounted what they had eaten during the previous day, and answered questions concerning how often they ate certain foods.

Various risk markers in the children's blood were also measured.

"Many of these children had been examined when they were four years old, and we discovered that their eating habits were pretty much unchanged four years later. It appears to be the case that eating habits are established early," says Susanne Eriksson.

Kruger

3rd March 2012, 08:02 AM

Anyone try raw goat milk? It is smooth, creamy, and amazingly delicious. The color is so white it almost glows. The fat doesn't separate like cow milk. I've read that it digests better than cow milk and has more nutrients. Also, much of the rural parts of the world outside of the U.S. prefer goat vs cow milk.

Animal fats are good for you. Eating too many carbs (grains, HFCS) and food fried in partially hydrogenated veggie oils is what will make you fat, diabetic, and begging for a heart attack/stroke.

The scientists who declared that animal fats are bad for your heart in the 50s and 60s were nothing but a bunch of intellectual whores who used shoddy data. The cereal companies I believe pushed for this, as well as the margarine manufacturers. Then all the processed food companies jumped on board, and the market for "fat free" and "cholesterol free" products took off.

And of course, now you have all the artificial sweeteners, which are basically straight up poisons, being pushed as a healthy alternative to sugar. Last couple studies I read came to the conclusion that you will get fatter drinking diet coke than sticking with reg coke. Weird conclusion .... They think perhaps that even though diet coke has zero calories, the artificial sweetener can throw your fat/insulin metabolism out of whack. If I come across the articles I'll post them.

I think most people here know that processed food, HFCS, etc is crap. And people are starting to become aware of Monsanto's evil ways. But this shit has been going on for a while.

The whole theory that fatty meats = high cholesterol = risk for MI is based off of a couple garbage studies. But most docs buy into it and load up their pts on statin drugs, which have horrible side effects.

johnlvs2run

3rd March 2012, 09:52 AM

Anyone try raw goat milk? It is smooth, creamy, and amazingly delicious. The color is so white it almost glows. The fat doesn't separate like cow milk. I've read that it digests better than cow milk and has more nutrients. Also, much of the rural parts of the world outside of the U.S. prefer goat vs cow milk.

What is the price of raw goat's milk, compared to $8.49 half gallon for whole raw cow's milk?

Animal fats are good for you. Eating too many carbs (grains, HFCS) and food fried in partially hydrogenated veggie oils is what will make you fat, diabetic, and begging for a heart attack/stroke.

I disagree about animal fats, but why would the only alternatives be grains, hfcs, or hydrogenated oils?

The cereal companies I believe pushed for this, as well as the margarine manufacturers.

Why would cereal companies push for low fat? Margarine is 100% fat, much higher than whole milk.

Last couple studies I read came to the conclusion that you will get fatter drinking diet coke than sticking with reg coke.

Water is a good alternative.

The whole theory that fatty meats = high cholesterol = risk for MI is based off of a couple garbage studies. But most docs buy into it and load up their pts on statin drugs, which have horrible side effects.

Again I don't agree that eating fatty meats and high cholesterol would be good for anything, except heart disease and poor health. It seems to me that people with heart disease and poor health would more likely go to doctors and take their drugs, instead of taking personal responsibility for improving their health. Why not just eat healthy in the first place.

Bigjon

3rd March 2012, 01:21 PM

The studies that determined that fat was bad for us, used rabbits as the test animals. they fed animal fat and protein to an animal that is an herbivore and then when the animals died they said "see fat is bad for people".

Jewish science at its best, deceiving all.

I have high cholesterol, my mom has high cholesterol, she is 101 and looks 80, she was a registered nurse and watched doctors killing people all her life. she takes NO prescription medication only dietary supplements. High cholesterol is good for you. Sugar and high carbs are poison (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/12/06/cutting-carbohydrates-from-your-diet-can-make-you-live-longer.aspx).

Margarine is not food, it is a chemical soup that not even bugs will eat.

zap

3rd March 2012, 05:31 PM

I agree Bigjon, I was just thinking most grown up's and even lots of kids don't need gallons and gallons of milk, cause they are thirsty, Whats wrong with water plain old water, and I agree with you on sugar and carbs.

johnlvs2run

3rd March 2012, 06:48 PM

The studies that determined that fat was bad for us, used rabbits as the test animals. they fed animal fat and protein to an animal that is an herbivore and then when the animals died they said "see fat is bad for people".

I didn't realize the long term China and Framingham studies were done with rabbits, or that China was Jewish. That is indeed quite enlightening. However your link doesn't state that high cholesterol or a high fat diet are good, but does state that high cholesterol is not good.

What is your total cholesterol level by the way? The last time I checked mine it was 123, about 25 years ago. Why exactly would a high fat diet be good?

Bigjon

3rd March 2012, 07:25 PM

I didn't realize the long term China and Framingham studies were done with rabbits, or that China was Jewish. That is indeed quite enlightening. However your link doesn't state that high cholesterol or a high fat diet are good, but does state that high cholesterol is not good.

What is your total cholesterol level by the way? The last time I checked mine it was 123, about 25 years ago. Why exactly would a high fat diet be good?

The studies you cite used people and statistics and the overriding view that cholesterol is the problem. You can prove anything you want with the wrong assumptions.

They've been lowering cholesterol for about 50 years now and where is the improvement in the rate of heart disease??????

One other factor that I've noticed is the marked increase in people suffering from degenerative brain diseases. Cholesterol is very important for our brain. This is just an observation of my own, nothing to do with the doc's.

If you read that report a little closer you will find that fat is the preferred energy source.

I haven't had it checked in years, but last time I can recall it was around 375.

Bigjon

3rd March 2012, 07:39 PM

The Response-to-Injury Rabbit Model (http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Does-Cholesterol-Cause-Heart-Disease-Myth.html#injury)

Around the turn of the twentieth century, research into the cause or causes of heart disease was in full throttle. A 1933 compilation edited by E.V. Cowdry entitled Arteriosclerosis: A Survey of the Problem (New York: Macmillan) contained twenty reviews of investigations into the matter, including statistical relationships, the distribution of the disease in wild animals, the distribution in humans according to race and climate, nutritional influences, the physical and chemical nature of the changes that occur in atherosclerotic tissues, and experimental models of the disease.

Nikolai Anitschkov, who developed the cholesterol-fed rabbit model, wrote the 50-page review of experimental animal models.1 Much of this research was published in German, so Anitschkov's review is an invaluable resource.

According to Anitschkov, early ideas about the origin of arteriosclerosis — a general term for hardening and damage to the arteries, of which atherosclerosis is a specific type — saw the diseases as a response to injury. The injury was primarily seen as either a mechanical or a toxic factor, and was sometimes believed to be injury to the nerves rather than injury to the blood vessels. Researchers carried out a multitude of experiments on rabbits and other animals, including the following:

Mechanical damage to the blood vessels including ligating, pulling, pinching, and wounding them, and cauterizing them with galvanic wire or silver nitrate.
Increasing blood pressure by constricting the blood supply through the aorta, damaging the kidneys, or hanging rabbits up by their feet.
Severing or irritating certain nerves.
Injecting rabbits with adrenalin.
Injecting rabbits with a multitude of toxic factors, including digitalin, strophanthin, adonidin, ergotin, theocin, barium chloride, hydrastin, nicotine, caffeine, formalin, ergosterol, and various salts of acids and heavy metals.
Injection of diphtheria toxin and many other bacteria cultures or bacterial byproducts.

Most of these methods caused substantial damage to the arteries and resulted in a "regenerative thickening" of one or another type. So the response-to-injury concept is quite real.

~

The Cholesterol-Fed Rabbit Controversy

In 1909, a researcher at the Military Medical Academy in St. Petersburg named Ignatowski produced atherosclerosis in rabbits by feeding them a diet of meat, eggs, and milk. He was pursuing a hypothesis put forward by Nobel Prize-winning microbiologist I. Metchnikov that dietary protein accelerated aging.4

In 1913, Anitschkov and his partner Chalatov were studying at the same academy and were assigned to follow up Ignatowski's work. They progressively narrowed down the causative factor to cholesterol by feeding different foods and fractions of foods, finally producing the diease by feeding pure cholesterol dissolved in sunflower oil.4

Rabbits fed sunflower oil alone did not develop atherosclerosis. In the cholesterol-fed rabbits, however, lesions developed that exhibited a remarkable similarity to the human disease. They began as fatty streaks in the intima; circulating white blood cells then invaded the intima and engulfed the cholesterol and fat deposited there, eventually growing into large phagocytic cells that Anitschkov called xanthoma cells and we now call foam cells; eventually the developing plaque protruded into the intima in the form of a raised lesion. The lesion possessed a fatty core rich in crystalized and calcified cholesterol deposits and was covered with a fibrous cap.1

The lesions did not appear everywhere equally, but occurred in specific areas. They were most prominent in the aorta and other large arteries, especially in the areas of the artery wall that experience disturbed blood flow such as the points where the arteries branch. While they did not occur in exactly the same places as human atherosclerotic lesions, the pattern was largely similar and the underlying physiological principle dictating the location of the lesions — mainly the type of blood flow experienced by the artery wall — was the same.1

The rabbits developed cholesterol deposits all throughout their bodies, in their eyes and internal organs. Anitschkov produced a more mild form of the disease, however, by feeding the rabbits milk. In these experiments, the rabbits received a much more moderate amount of cholesterol over a much longer period of time and the resulting disease was much more focused in the arteries.1

One curious difference between rabbits and humans is that when rabbits develop atherosclerosis, their plaques never rupture and they never get heart attacks. The main determinant of plaque rupture according to the current scientific literature is the balance between collagen degradation and collagen synthesis.5 Collagen synthesis requires vitamin C. Most animals, including rabbits, make their own vitamin C, but humans do not.

Atherosclerosis itself probably diminishes the quality of life in many different ways by impeding blood flow and blood vessel function, but it clearly does not inexorably lead to heart attacks. The reason why atherosclerosis produces heart attacks in humans and not rabbits or many other animals might be that humans cannot produce their own vitamin C.

johnlvs2run

3rd March 2012, 08:01 PM

The rabbit studies sound gruesome. I consider those inhumane and never look at things like that.

They've been lowering cholesterol for about 50 years now and where is the improvement in the rate of heart disease??????

I think the average in the U.S. is 35 to 50 percent of calories from fat per day per person, which I certainly consider to be a high fat diet. Since this is the average, where indeed is the improvement in heart disease? Also, what percentage do you recommend?

Those people are not eating based on the findings of the China and Framingham long term population studies, which found populations eating low fat diets live longer healthier lives.

If you read that report a little closer you will find that fat is the preferred energy source.

I scanned again, read every sentence with the word "fat" several times, and still did not see fat mentioned as a preferred energy source.

Some people do recommend a high fat diet. However they are not top performing endurance athletes, where a healthy diet is required for long term success.

Bigjon

3rd March 2012, 08:45 PM

Here is the bombshell dropped by Mr. Moore’s book (http://www.advancedhealthplan.com/fdafraud.html)-- information which had never been public until he dug deeply into the final unpublished results of the Framingham studies:

Another surprise about cholesterol emerged from Framingham, although it was never published in a scientific journal. Buried deep in a typewritten report that is almost two feet thick is a study titled "Diet and the regulation of serum cholesterol." The Framingham researchers assumed they knew exactly why some people had higher blood cholesterol levels than others: It was their diet. To measure this link they selected 912 men and women and compared the cholesterol in their diets to the cholesterol levels in their blood. To their surprise there was no relationship. The researchers studied the intake of saturated fats, dietary cholesterol, and overall calories. None had an effect. They considered the possibility that other factors -- such as differences in physical activity -- masked the effects of diet. It didn’t make any difference. "There is, in short, no suggestion of any relation between diet and the subsequent development of CHD [coronary heart disease] in the study group . . .," the researchers concluded. Furthermore, it was not lost on the Framingham team that people were already being advised to diet to lower their cholesterol, and that more elaborate campaigns were on the drawing board. They concluded with a fateful warning:

"There is a considerable range of serum cholesterol levels within the Framingham Study Group. Something explains this inter-individual variation, but it is not diet (as measured here). Clearly if there is to be an attempt to manipulate serum cholesterol level in a general population, it would be desirable to know what these powerful but unspecified forces are."

Yet when you read books by the master planners, and their dupes, you find time after time where the author makes reference to the Framingham Study as the authority for the "truth" that high dietary cholesterol causes blood cholesterol to be high.

Bigjon

3rd March 2012, 08:50 PM

The rabbit studies sound gruesome. I consider those inhumane and never look at things like that.

I think the average in the U.S. is 35 to 50 percent of calories from fat per day per person, which I certainly consider to be a high fat diet. Since this is the average, where indeed is the improvement in heart disease? Also, what percentage do you recommend?

Those people are not eating based on the findings of the China and Framingham long term population studies, which found populations eating low fat diets live longer healthier lives.

I scanned again, read every sentence with the word "fat" several times, and still did not see fat mentioned as a preferred energy source.

Some people do recommend a high fat diet. However they are not top performing endurance athletes, where a healthy diet is required for long term success.

You are correct it doesn't say anything about fat. There are other articles along this same theme about cholesterol that advocate fat as the primary source of energy.

If you don't eat any carbs, where would the energy come from?

Fat And Cholesterol Are GOOD For You! (http://www.amazon.com/Fat-Cholesterol-are-Good-You/dp/919755538X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241727510&sr=1-1)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fat in the Diet (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2001/07/14/insulin-part-one.aspx)

Insulin and Its Metabolic Effects By Ron Rosedale, M.D.

I think you should be using fat as your primary energy source, and fat is kind of neutral when it comes to acidifying or alkalinizing. In general, over 50 percent of the calories should come from fat, but not from saturated fat. When we get to fat, the carbohydrates are clear-cut. No scientist out there is really going to dispute what I‘ve said about carbohydrates.

There is the science behind it. You can‘t dispute it. There is a little bit of a dispute as to how much protein a person requires. When you get to fat, there is a big gray area as to which fat a person requires. We just have one name for fat, we call it fat or oil. Eskimos have dozens of names for snow and east Indians have dozens of names for curry. We should have dozens of names for fat because they do many different things. And how much of which fat to take is still open to a lot of investigation and controversy.

My take on fat is that if I am treating a patient who is generally hyperinsulinemic or overweight, I want them on a low-saturated-fat diet, because most of the fat they are storing is saturated fat. When their insulin goes down and they are able to start releasing triglycerides to burn as fat, what they are going to be releasing mostly is saturated fat. So you don‘t want them to take anymore orally. There is a ration of fatty acids that is desirable if you took them from the moment you were born, but we don‘t. We are dealing with an imbalance here that we are trying to correct as rapidly as we can.

Most of us here have enough saturated fat to last the rest of our life. Truthfully. Your cell membranes require a balance of saturated and poly-unsaturated fat, and it is that balance that determines the fluidity. As I mentioned, your cells can become over-fluid if they don‘t have any saturated fat.

Saturated fat is a hard fat. We can get the fats from foods to come mostly from nuts. Nuts are a great food because it is mostly mono-unsaturated. Your primary energy source ideally would come mostly from mono-unsaturated fat. It‘s a good compromise. It is not an essential fat, but it is a more fluid fat. Your body can utilize it very well as an energy source.

Grain-Fed Animals are not Healthy

Animal proteins are good for you, but not the ones that are fed grains.

Grain-fed animals are going to make saturated fat out of the grains. Saturated fat in nature occurs to a very tiny degree. In the wild there is very little saturated fat out there. If you talk about the Paleolithic diet, we didn‘t eat a saturated fat diet. Saturated fat diets are new to mankind. We manufactured a saturated fat diet by feeding animals grains. You can consider saturated fat to be second-generation carbohydrates. We eat the saturated fats that other animals produce from

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Does This Apply to Athletes?

With athletes, think about the effect of carbohydrate loading before an event. What happens if you eat a bowl of pasta before you have to run a marathon? What does that bowl of pasta do? It raises your insulin. What is the instruction of insulin to your body?

To store energy and not burn it. I see a fair amount of athletes and this is what I tell them, you want everybody, athletes especially, to be able to burn fat efficiently. So when they train, they are on a very low-carbohydrate diet. The night before their event, they can stock up on sugar and load their glycogen if they would like.

They are not going to become insulin resistant in one day. Just enough to make sure, it has been shown that if you eat a big carbohydrate meal that you will increase your glycogen stores, that is true and that is what you want. But you don‘t want to train that way because if you do you won‘t be able to burn fat, you can only burn sugar, and if you are an athlete you want to be able to burn both.

Few people have problems burning sugar if they are athletes, but they have lots of problems burning fat, so they hit the wall. And for certain events, like sprinting, it is less important, truthfully for their health it is very important to be able to burn fat, but a sprinter will go right into burning sugar. If you are a 50-yard dash person, whether you can burn fat or not is not going to make a huge difference in your final performance.

Beyond your athletic years, if you don‘t want to become a diabetic, and don‘t want to die of heart disease and don‘t want to age quickly, it is certainly not going to do you any harm to be able to burn fat efficiently in addition to sugar.

johnlvs2run

3rd March 2012, 09:56 PM

To measure this link they selected 912 men and women and compared the cholesterol in their diets to the cholesterol levels in their blood. To their surprise there was no relationship.

I see no issue with there not being a relationship with cholesterol in the diet and cholesterol in the blood, even though I'm sure there is a relationship. For example, the level of salt (sodium) in the blood is almost always the same, regardless of how much salt people eat in their diet. The rest of the salt is stored in the tissues. I would expect much of the same to be true with cholesterol.

This being said, there must be some relationship with cholesterol in the diet and blood, as you eat a high cholesterol diet, and you have high cholesterol levels in your blood. I eat a low fat low cholesterol diet, and have low cholesterol levels in the blood. I'm pretty sure this is true of most people, as I've seen a direct relationship with myself and people I know, as have others.

Okay the point is this, if you eat a high amount of fat, then a high amount of fat is going to end up being stored in the body. Fat can be used as fuel, as can protein, but they are very slow burning. You could not run a fast 10km or marathon race burning fat. Usually fat and carbohydrates are utilized together for energy during exercise. The higher the intensity, the higher the percentage of carbs, and the lower the percentage of fat.

I do eat carbohydrates, and consider them the preferred energy source for exercise, on top of an optimum utilization of fat. I don't eat grains, salt, sugar, excess fat, oils or chemicals.

Bigjon

3rd March 2012, 10:01 PM

I see no issue with there not being a relationship with cholesterol in the diet and cholesterol in the blood, even though I'm sure there is a relationship. For example, the level of salt (sodium) in the blood is almost always the same, regardless of how much salt people eat in their diet. The rest of the salt is stored in the tissues. I would expect much of the same to be true with cholesterol.

This being said, there must be some relationship with cholesterol in the diet and blood, as you eat a high cholesterol diet, and you have high cholesterol levels in your blood. I eat a low fat low cholesterol diet, and have low cholesterol levels in the blood. I'm pretty sure this is true of most people, as I've seen a direct relationship with myself and people I know, as have others.

Okay the point is this, if you eat a high amount of fat, then a high amount of fat is going to end up being stored in the body. Fat can be used as fuel, as can protein, but they are very slow burning. You could not run a fast 10km or marathon race burning fat. Usually fat and carbohydrates are utilized together for energy during exercise. The higher the intensity, the higher the percentage of carbs, and the lower the percentage of fat.

I do eat carbohydrates, and consider them the preferred energy source for exercise, on top of an optimum utilization of fat. I don't eat grains, salt, sugar, excess fat, oils or chemicals.

from the above article:

you want everybody, athletes especially, to be able to burn fat efficiently. So when they train, they are on a very low-carbohydrate diet. The night before their event, they can stock up on sugar and load their glycogen if they would like.

If you trained as he recommends you wouldn't have a problem burning fat.

I think it's just heredity, Mom has high cholesterol and so do I, diet has very little to do with it.

How high was Jim Fixx's cholesterol?

Death

On July 20, 1984, Fixx died at the age of 52 of a fulminant heart attack, after his daily run on Vermont Route 15 in Hardwick. The autopsy revealed that atherosclerosis had blocked one coronary artery 95%, a second 85%, and a third 70%.[3] Although there were opponents of Fixx's beliefs who said this was evidence that running was harmful, medical opinion continued to uphold the link between exercise and longevity.[4] In 1986 exercise physiologist, Kenneth Cooper, published an inventory of the risk factors that might have contributed to Fixx's death.[5] Granted access to his medical records and autopsy, and after interviewing his friends and family, Cooper concluded that Fixx was genetically predisposed (his father died of a heart attack at age 43 and Fixx himself had a congenitally enlarged heart), and had several lifestyle issues. Fixx was a heavy smoker prior to beginning running at age 36, he had a stressful occupation, he had undergone a second divorce, and his weight before he took up running had ballooned to 220lbs.[6]

A carved granite monument—a book with an inscription to Jim Fixx from the people of Northeast Scotland—now stands in Hardwick Memorial Park in Hardwick. [7]

johnlvs2run

3rd March 2012, 10:13 PM

You are correct it doesn't say anything about fat. There are other articles along this same theme about cholesterol that advocate fat as the primary source of energy.

I am fully aware that some people advocate a high fat diet, and I don't agree with them. I am quite familiar with the best distance runners in the world, and none of them eat a high fat diet. In fact I believe it would not only be impossible to eat a high fat diet and be able to complete, but it would be asking for serious health problems. The Eskimos, for example, have very short life span from heart disease, due to their high (so-called healthy) fat diets.

Regarding what the M.D. said, he's a quack. Of course he's going to promote people getting sick as prescription.

Also I never eat pasta. He has no clue what top athletes eat.

Also he is totally wrong about insulin, probably purposely so. Sugar is not good but that's a coverup, because then he is prescribing diabetics eat fats, instead of sugar. The reason medical science has never cured diabetes and never will is because it is primarily caused by fats.

Regarding blood sugar levels and exercise, a decade or so ago I got a test kit and poked my finger a number of times from morning, through an intensive workout, and afterwards. After warming up, I ran hard for 2 minutes, rested 2 minutes, and continued this on for an hour, testing my blood sugar a number of times. Two things impressed me. First, that thing hurt like heck and I never used it again. Secondly it was impossible to knock my blood sugar out of whack. It stayed right in a narrow range, regardless of running flat out, or stopping and resting. Any little deviation of 5 or 10 points, and it came right back immediately. That's what happens with a good diet combined with healthy exercise.

johnlvs2run

3rd March 2012, 10:18 PM

How high was Jim Fixx's cholesterol?

Jim Fixx ate a high fat diet and had high cholesterol. He was lucky to have lived as long as he did.

The most important determinant of one's health is the diet, and exercise is complementary to this. Fixx was neither a serious runner nor serious with his health. The 52 years since his birth were his doing, not heredity.

Bigjon

3rd March 2012, 10:29 PM

I am fully aware that some people advocate a high fat diet, and I don't agree with them. I am quite familiar with the best distance runners in the world, and none of them eat a high fat diet. In fact I believe it would not only be impossible to eat a high fat diet and be able to complete, but it would be asking for serious health problems. The Eskimos, for example, have very short life span from heart disease, due to their high (so-called healthy) fat diets.

Regarding what the M.D. said, he's a quack. Of course he's going to promote people getting sick as prescription.

Also I never eat pasta. He has no clue what top athletes eat.

Also he is totally wrong about insulin, probably purposely so. Sugar is not good but that's a coverup, because then he is prescribing diabetics eat fats, instead of sugar. The reason medical science has never cured diabetes and never will is because it is primarily caused by fats.

Regarding blood sugar levels and exercise, a decade or so ago I got a test kit and poked my finger a number of times from morning, through an intensive workout, and afterwards. After warming up, I ran hard for 2 minutes, rested 2 minutes, and continued this on for an hour, testing my blood sugar a number of times. Two things impressed me. First, that thing hurt like heck and I never used it again. Secondly it was impossible to knock my blood sugar out of whack. It stayed right in a narrow range, regardless of running flat out, or stopping and resting. Any little deviation of 5 or 10 points, and it came right back immediately. That's what happens with a good diet combined with healthy exercise.

OK, so what do you consider a good diet?

Of course you have references to back up all your claims?

I think using exercise and a low carb diet stops diabetes all the time.

lapis

4th March 2012, 12:57 AM

Way too rich in fat, it being 50 percent of the calories.

So since foods like yams and bananas are mostly carbs, does that mean they are too rich in carbohydrates and shouldn't be eaten?

In the past farmers considered "skim milk" food for pigs, NOT fit for human consumption.
Were the pigs unhealthy?

The African people eat white corn, and feed the yellow corn to the pigs.

Yes, the Africans fed them corn and farmers here fed them skim milk so the pigs would....GET FAT! ;-)

lapis

4th March 2012, 01:06 AM

my mom has high cholesterol, she is 101 and looks 80

Cholesterol seems to get higher in women as they age, and it appears to have a protective factor.

Sugar and high carbs are poison (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/12/06/cutting-carbohydrates-from-your-diet-can-make-you-live-longer.aspx).That's a good article from Dr. Mercola, but I don't think eating a lot of (whole food) carbs is necessarily bad for everyone (who have not damaged their metabolism). Most Asians traditionally eat a high-carb diet, and have been pretty healthy. Personally I have to limit certain carbs or else I gain weight, which is a real bummer.

lapis

4th March 2012, 01:48 AM

I think the average in the U.S. is 35 to 50 percent of calories from fat per day per person, which I certainly consider to be a high fat diet.

According to this AJCN article (http://www.ajcn.org/content/80/3/550.full) from 2004, only 15% of fat calories were saturated out of a total fat intake of 34%.

This AHA Science Advisory (http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/100/11/1253.full) claims that 13 to 14% of Americans' fat intake is "heart-healthy" monounsaturated, leaving about 6% of the fat intake as the problematic polyunsaturated fatty acids (a.k.a. PUFAs); this is the stuff that's really bad and mostly comes from people using crap like corn oil to cook with.

There are countries where the saturated fat intake is traditionally much higher, like in France, yet their incidence of heart disease is lower (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_paradox).

Those people are not eating based on the findings of the China and Framingham long term population studies, which found populations eating low fat diets live longer healthier lives. Is this a veiled reference to The China Study book by T. Colin Campbell? Because that has been debunked by people who went through the trouble of looking at the original data from the study, instead of taking Campbell's word that people in China are healthy because they eat a low-meat low-dairy diet.

Note particularly the excellent "China Study" (http://rawfoodsos.com/the-china-study/) essays by Denise Minger; "The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? (http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/)" gives a good overview. A couple of other good essays are: "Is wheat killing us? (http://bradmarshall.blogspot.com/2005/12/is-wheat-killing-us-introduction-maybe.html)" and "The China Study: More Vegan Nonsense! (http://anthonycolpo.com/?p=129)" by abrasive and irritable nutrition researcher Anthony Colpo, who also wrote the meticulously-referenced book The Great Cholesterol Con.

For what it's worth Colpo, no longer promotes low-carb diets anymore like he used to, but he is also extremely athletic, and has one of those scarily lean and vein-y bodies.

2359

Some people do recommend a high fat diet. However they are not top performing endurance athletes, where a healthy diet is required for long term success.I think I agree with you, especially when I consider Colpo's case. But he doesn't promote a low-fat diet either.

lapis

4th March 2012, 02:29 AM

You are correct it doesn't say anything about fat. There are other articles along this same theme about cholesterol that advocate fat as the primary source of energy.

Thanks for all the references you've posted!

As for the article by Dr. Rosedale, I want to make a few observations:

Fat in the Diet (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2001/07/14/insulin-part-one.aspx)

As I mentioned, your cells can become over-fluid if they don‘t have any saturated fat.

Saturated fat is a hard fat.Yes, it is solid at room temperature, but it's strange that people forget that our bodies run more than 20 degrees higher!

Nuts are a great food because it is mostly mono-unsaturated. Your primary energy source ideally would come mostly from mono-unsaturated fat. The experts always like to promote eating nuts and olive oil because of their monounsaturated fat content, but guess what other kind of fat has a lot of it that they never bother to mention? LARD (http://www.foodandwine.com/articles/lard-the-new-health-food).

In the wild there is very little saturated fat out there. If you talk about the Paleolithic diet, we didn‘t eat a saturated fat diet. Saturated fat diets are new to mankind. That's not exactly true, when you consider that paleolithic man probably ate the brains, organs and marrow from animals:

In a recently published collection of essays, Ice Age Hunters of the Rocky Mountains, we learn that the hunter-gatherers of the North American continent ate the following animals: mammoth, camel, sloth, bison, mountain sheep, small mammals including beaver, pronghorn antelope, elk, mule deer, horse, llama and large members of the dog family.

Mammoth, sloth, mountain sheep, bison and beaver are fatty animals in the modern sense in that they have a thick layer of subcutaneous fat, as do the many species of bear and wild pig whose remains have been found at Paleolithic sites throughout the world. The bison and camel have humps composed largely of tallow. Furthermore, if the dietary patterns of present day African hunter-gatherers can serve as a guide, the Paleolithic hunter preferred the fatty portions of the carcass including organs, brains, tongue, feet and marrow. Archeological remains indicate that whereas meat from game carcasses was often left uneaten, the long bones were carried back into camps and chopped into pieces so that the marrow could be extracted. Organ meats were eaten immediately-and often raw-but muscle meat was preserved by drying, or by mixing it with tallow to make pemmican. Some investigators believe that the cave mans's preference for the fatty portions of his kill led to profligate practices-wasteful killing of mammoths simply to extract their fatty tongues, for example-and that selective hunting of the fattier animals was a prime factor leading to the extinction of large mammals such as mammoths, sloths and rhinoceros.

Bones of the bear predominate in many European sites. Archeologist Myra Shakley reports on an important Neanderthal site in Hungary where 90 percent of the remains were those of bear. Whole carcasses were brought to the site-not just portions as was the case for other animals-and the manner in which the carcasses were cut up suggests that the skins were removed. Obviously the pelts were used to protect the hunter-gatherer from the severe climate. The subcutaneous fat would not have been wasted; in fact, it could have been used for preserving other foods. Altars containing bear skulls found in caves in the Swiss Alps, and dated back as far as 75,000 years, indicated that the bear was worshiped as a sacred animal.

Present-day hunter-gatherers, as well as those of the ancient past, possess greater dietary wisdom than the majority of our modern Ph.D.'s. They understood that a diet of lean meat, lacking in fat, was the surest route to weakness, disease and death. Steffanson, who studied the Eskimos and Indians of the far north, reports that when lean caribou was the only meat available, anxiety set in. These natives knew that a month or more on such meat, without the addition of marine animals or fatty fish, would make them sick and prone to disease. The ancient tribes of the American West would not eat female bison in the Spring because nursing and pregnant bison cows burned off their fat reserves during the winter months. In fact, most bison hunts occurred in the late Summer and Fall when the bison were naturally fattened on the ripe grain of prairie grasses. Anthropologist Leon Abrams reports that the Aborigine will throw away a kangaroo he has killed if he discovers that its carcass does not contain sufficient fat. Members of Randolph Marcy's 1856 expedition to Wyoming grew weak and sick consuming a politically correct low-fat regime of six pounds of lean horse and mule meat per day; Dr. Wolfgang Lutz reports that a very efficient way of eliminating jailed political prisoners in South and Central America is to feed them a diet composed exclusively of lean meat. They soon develop severe diarrhea and succumb. The explanation is that fats contain nutrients like vitamin A that the body needs to utilize the amino acids and minerals in flesh foods; without fat in the diet, the body rapidly uses up its own stores of fat soluble vitamins. When these vital nutrients are depleted, the human organism can no longer fight off disease.

Was the cave man diet simply rich in unsaturated fats, but low in saturated fats? Antelope and caribou fat is over 50% saturated-about the same as beef-and mountain sheep fat would be the similar. Buffalo fat is 56% saturated-more saturated than beef! All ruminant animals contain lots of saturated fat because the protozoa in their capacious guts do an efficient job of saturating the oils found in plant foods-whether these oils come from dried hay or green grass, from feedlot corn or the ripe grains of prairie grasses. (Of course naturally-fed meat is richer in vitamins and minerals.) The bison were hunted in the late Summer and Fall when their fat stores would have been highest. Grazing animals spend several months eating the carbohydrate-rich seeds of wild grasses, which begin to ripen as early as the month of May-grain fattening in feedlots merely mimics this natural process.

Camel fat, from the kind of animal the Neanderthals apparently hunted to extinction, is a whooping 63% saturated! Wild boar fat is about 41% saturated, exactly the same as lard from a domestic pig. Kidney fat-which modern man avoids but which the cave man would have eaten-is highly saturated. Buffalo kidney fat is 58% saturated, antelope kidney fat is 65% saturated, elk kidney fat is 62% saturated and mountain goat kidney fat is 66 % saturated. Caribou marrow has a preponderance of monounsaturated fat, and a small amount of polyunsaturated, but still contains more than 27% saturated fat

Figures for elephant tongue are unavailable but beef tongue is 45% saturated. Bears, which yield 48% of their kilocalories as fat, have a preponderance of monounsaturated fat, the same kind found in olives, almonds and other nuts.

Seafood in coastal regions would also have provided fat for primitive man, particularly the valuable omega-3 fatty acids; insects, grubs and worms are a source of additional fat in all regions except the arctic.
~From "Caveman Cuisine (http://www.westonaprice.org/traditional-diets/caveman-cuisine)."

lapis

4th March 2012, 02:54 AM

I am quite familiar with the best distance runners in the world, and none of them eat a high fat diet. In fact I believe it would not only be impossible to eat a high fat diet and be able to complete, but it would be asking for serious health problems.

Just because long distance runners compete the best on a non-high-fat diet doesn't mean that they are necessarily healthy.

The Eskimos, for example, have very short life span from heart disease, due to their high (so-called healthy) fat diets.That's the commonly-held view, but check out the comments by nutrition researcher Chris Masterjohn to a Joel Fuhrman article about the Inuit (http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/diet-myths-are-the-inuit-healthy.html), like:

I would like to see some reliable information on exactly what the Inuit Greenlanders are [currently] eating. The Inuit and other natives in Alaska have been in the process of modernization for nearly a century, and they are not on anything remotely like a "primitive" diet.

This is what I found for native Alaskans as of the late 1980s:
According to this reference:

Nobmann ED, Byers T, Lanier AP, Hankin JH, Yvonne Jackson M. The diet
of Alaska Native adults 1987-1988. Am J Clin Nutr 1992; 55: 1024-32.

... as of the late 80s, these were the top ten foods eaten by Alaskan
natives, ranked by frequency of consumption:

1. Coffee and tea
2. Sugar
3. Whitebread, rools, crackers
4. Fish
5. Margarine
6. White rice
7. Tang and Kool-aid
8. Butter
9. Regular soft drinks
10. Milk (whole and evaporated)

Notice that the only native food in the top 10 is fish, and that it is
out-ranked in consumption by coffee, eat, sugar, and white bread.

Compared to the US population in the NHANES II data, native Alaskan
men consumed 28% more protein, 11% more fat and 7% more carbohydrate.

Native Alaskan women consumed 48% more protein, 28% more fat, and 18%
more carbohydrate.

[...]

Their intake of fat remained stable since the 1950s, at between 34%
and 39% of calories. In 1987-88, fish supplied 11% of the fat, seal
oil supplied 6%, and whale blubber supplied 3%. Rivaling fish was
agutuk or "Eskimo ice cream" at 10% of the fat contribution, which "is
currently often made with hydrogenated vegetable shortening. . . .

[...]

So it would appear that modern native Alaskans continue to eat some
native foods but have been eating highly modernized diets full of junk
food for decades.

Viljalmhur Steffanson stayed with the non-modernized Inuit for long periods of time and studied them in depth in the early part of the 20th century. He was able to obtain some statistics on life expectancy from churches. He found high infant mortality (typical of pre-industrial societies) as well as high death rates across the spectrum, but also found a fair amount of people living into their 70s and 80s.

He concluded in Cancer: A Disease of Civilization?:

"Thus the most nearly "primitive" sample group I was able
to obtain does not support Dr. Keys very strongly in his contention that "a
primitive Eskimo over the age of 50 is a great rarity." Nor does it quite
confirm Dr. Greist's statement that "the Eskimo of the North . . . lived to
a very great age."

I would really like to know WHAT they were dying from. From what I have read, the life of the native Eskimo was very dangerous. I believe I even read in one source that they would sometimes procure eggs by hanging themselves over a cliff by rope to steal them from nests. They were also subject to cyclical periods of scarcity or near starvation in many cases, and depending on the area, many of them were fairly warlike. In one analysis I read, many of them had fractures of the face and other areas that seemed to suggest warlike injuries.

If the early deaths that Steffanson found were due to cancer and heart disease and other degenerative diseases, I will grant this is evidence that their diets were harmful, but it seems to me there are numerous other explanations and no way to quantify it. I certainly wouldn't take the white bread and margarine diet they are currently eating to indicate the same just because it has a spattering of wild game in it.

[...]

From V. Steffanson, Cancer: A Disease of Civilization? Moravian Church in Labrador and the Russian Church in Alaska,1822-36 inclusive. Presented as numbers of people for each range of age of death:

Aleuts, Unalaska district
Died ages 1-4 -- 92
Died ages 4-7 -- 17
Died ages 7-15 -- 41
Died ages 15-25 -- 41
Died ages 25-45 -- 103
Died ages 45-55 -- 66
Died ages 55-60 -- 29
Died ages 60-65 -- 22
Died ages 65-70 -- 24
Died ages 70-75 -- 23
Died ages 75-80 -- 11
Died ages 80-90 -- 20
Died ages 90-100 -- 2

Labrador Eskimos
Died under 10 -- 29
Died ages 11-15 -- 9
Died ages 16-20 -- 4
Died ages 21-25 -- 6
Died ages 26-30 -- 7
Died ages 46-50 -- 10
Died ages 51-55 -- 10
Died ages 56-60 -- 4
Died ages 61-65 -- 4
Died ages 66-70 -- 8
Died ages 71-75 -- 4
Died age 79 -- 1

Labrador
1860 to 1879 -- 150 births, of which:
Died under 5 -- 79
Died age 5-10 -- 5
Died 10-60 -- 30
Died 61-81 -- 30
Died after 81 -- 1

Cape Chidley, of those (n=41) born between 1902 and 1922, inclusive.
Still living, at ages between 48 and 58, were 21.

johnlvs2run

4th March 2012, 09:24 AM

So since foods like yams and bananas are mostly carbs, does that mean they are too rich in carbohydrates and shouldn't be eaten?

You're confusing carbohydrates and fasts. They are two different things.

johnlvs2run

4th March 2012, 09:39 AM

OK, so what do you consider a good diet?

I know what a bad diet is, but am not that sure that I know with any precision what a good one is. I'm constantly experimenting, making various changes and hopefully getting there. In the context of this discussion, my mom who is 92 now and her family were subsistence farmers in Arkansas when she was growing up. It was a hard life and she has never had any inclination to live there again.

They grew all their own food, had chickens, hogs, 6 cows for milk and caught rabbits. My mom says that rabbit tastes like chicken. Her grandmother would separate the fat from the milk, and sell the cream in town once a week. So my mom drank the skim, which she said tastes the same as the whole, but her mom didn't like that "sep" (separated) skim milk. My mom's job in the morning was to churn the milk with an old wood churner in the mornings before school, to make butter and buttermilk, which she liked the taste of even more than the milk. There was no electricity, so if the milk wasn't used right away, it turned to yogurt, which they called clabbered (curdled), and ate with a spoon.

My mom says they didn't have anything, but ate well. It sounds to me that they had a lot. It wasn't easy, but they had the land, the water, the food, the animals, their family. How many people now can say the same thing.

Of course you have references to back up all your claims?

My life experiences, what makes sense and works for me, the same as you.

I think using exercise and a low carb diet stops diabetes all the time.

I disagree. A low carb diet high fat diet is a prescription for diabetes. That's why you see it prescribed by doctors constantly, at the same time as they say there's no cure, and the people have to be on medications the rest of their lives, which is total nonsense.

johnlvs2run

4th March 2012, 09:48 AM

According to this AJCN article (http://www.ajcn.org/content/80/3/550.full) from 2004, only 15% of fat calories were saturated out of a total fat intake of 34%.

So? So what. Any high fat diet is bad for one's health.

Is this a veiled reference to The China Study book by T. Colin Campbell?

No, I was outright stating the China Study itself. No veil at all. I've not read the book.

Note particularly the excellent China Study essays by Denise Minger

Here is Colin Campbell's response to Denise Minger.

http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/07/china-study-author-colin-campbell-slaps-down-critic-denise-minger.html

Bigjon

4th March 2012, 11:27 AM

I know what a bad diet is, but am not that sure that I know with any precision what a good one is. I'm constantly experimenting, making various changes and hopefully getting there. In the context of this discussion, my mom who is 92 now and her family were subsistence farmers in Arkansas when she was growing up. It was a hard life and she has never had any inclination to live there again.

They grew all their own food, had chickens, hogs, 6 cows for milk and caught rabbits. My mom says that rabbit tastes like chicken. Her grandmother would separate the fat from the milk, and sell the cream in town once a week. So my mom drank the skim, which she said tastes the same as the whole, but her mom didn't like that "sep" (separated) skim milk. My mom's job in the morning was to churn the milk with an old wood churner in the mornings before school, to make butter and buttermilk, which she liked the taste of even more than the milk. There was no electricity, so if the milk wasn't used right away, it turned to yogurt, which they called clabbered (curdled), and ate with a spoon.

My mom says they didn't have anything, but ate well. It sounds to me that they had a lot. It wasn't easy, but they had the land, the water, the food, the animals, their family. How many people now can say the same thing.

My life experiences, what makes sense and works for me, the same as you.

I disagree. A low carb diet high fat diet is a prescription for diabetes. That's why you see it prescribed by doctors constantly, at the same time as they say there's no cure, and the people have to be on medications the rest of their lives, which is total nonsense.

The guy you call a quack, is the leading doctor on curing type II diabetes. (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2005/05/31/diabetes-disease.aspx)

Here is a link to Mercola's perscription for treating diabetes. (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/09/02/diabetes-most-of-what-youve-been-told-may-be-wrong.aspx)

johnlvs2run

4th March 2012, 11:53 AM

The guy you call a quack, is the leading doctor on curing type II diabetes. (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2005/05/31/diabetes-disease.aspx)]

You're trying to disagree he's a quack, by saying he's a leading doctor? In his article, he admits that doctors are failures in curing diabetes of all types. Notice the mumbo jumbo where he says that diabetes is not a disease of blood sugar, but does not ever get around to saying what the cause is, i.e. a high fat diet. Then at the end, he recommends a high fat diet!

He says "Americans have been following (at least partially [whatever that means]), for the last 50 years, the nutritional recommendations of a high complex carbohydrate, low saturated fat", which I pointed out in response previously, is totally false. The amount of calories from fat in the average Amercan diet has been steadily increasing the last 50-100 years, and now is in the range of 35 to 50 percent of total calories solely from fat!

Bigjon

4th March 2012, 12:36 PM

You're trying to disagree he's a quack, by saying he's a leading doctor? In his article, he admits that doctors are failures in curing diabetes of all types. Notice the mumbo jumbo where he says that diabetes is not a disease of blood sugar, but does not ever get around to saying what the cause is, i.e. a high fat diet. Then at the end, he recommends a high fat diet!

He says "Americans have been following (at least partially [whatever that means]), for the last 50 years, the nutritional recommendations of a high complex carbohydrate, low saturated fat", which I pointed out in response previously, is totally false. The amount of calories from fat in the average Amercan diet has been steadily increasing the last 50-100 years, and now is in the range of 35 to 50 percent of total calories solely from fat!

The guy you are calling a quack controls his patients diabetes through diet and excercise and NO drugs.
Here is an excerpt of what he says:

Insulin May Not Even Be The Most Important Hormone In Diabetes Or Other Chronic Diseases Of Aging.

That honor likely goes to leptin.

It appears that the hormone leptin is largely responsible for the accuracy of insulin signaling and whether one becomes insulin resistant or not.

Leptin, a relatively recently discovered hormone produced by fat, tells the body and brain how much energy it has, whether it needs more (saying "be hungry"), whether it should get rid of some (and stop being hungry) and importantly what to do with the energy it has (reproduce, upregulate cellular repair, or not).

Recent compelling research reveals that the two most important organs that will determine whether one becomes (type 2, insulin resistant) diabetic or not are the liver and the brain and it is their ability to listen to leptin that will determine this.

Leptin largely influences, if not controls, the manifest functions of the hypothalamus in the brain, including:
Reproduction,
Thyroid function,
Adrenal function and the
Sympathetic nervous system.

Fat, and leptin, strongly influences chronic inflammation and therefore diseases associated with this including heart disease, Alzheimer's, and diabetes. It appears now that rather than your brain being in control of your body, fat, by way of leptin, is really in the driver's seat.

The Enemy Is Not Only Foreign To The Medical Community; It Appears To Not Even Be Recognized.

It is no wonder that (type 2) diabetes has not been conquered.

Not everyone thrives on the same diet, your best diet may be different than my best diet (http://products.mercola.com/nutritional-typing/)

johnlvs2run

4th March 2012, 01:02 PM

The guy you are calling a quack controls his patients diabetes through diet and excercise and NO drugs.

Really? Then why are they still patients, and not cured?

I read the article, there was no need to post the whole thing.

He says:
Fat, and leptin, strongly influences chronic inflammation and therefore diseases associated with this including heart disease, Alzheimer's, and diabetes. It appears now that rather than your brain being in control of your body, fat, by way of leptin, is really in the driver's seat.

Therefore, he is prescribing leptin, instead of insulin, and he's telling people to eat a high fat diet, obscuring the fact that a high fat diet is the primary cause of diabetes.

None of those sound very healthy to me. Why go to a doctor, if you want to be healthy?

At the end of your own quotation he admits:

It is no wonder that (type 2) diabetes has not been conquered.

Indeed!

Bigjon

4th March 2012, 04:20 PM

Really? Then why are they still patients, and not cured?

I read the article, there was no need to post the whole thing.

He says:

Therefore, he is prescribing leptin, instead of insulin, and he's telling people to eat a high fat diet, obscuring the fact that a high fat diet is the primary cause of diabetes.

None of those sound very healthy to me. Why go to a doctor, if you want to be healthy?

At the end of your own quotation he admits:

Indeed!

The cure is exercise and diet, if you fall off the diet or the exercise I assume the disease comes back.
A friend of mine was diagnosed as type 2 and he is now cured as long as he stays on his diet and his treadmill.

I only showed a small clip.

You can't read, he says leptin is a marker for diabetes. Your cholesterol level is too low and your brain is too small to makes sense out of the english language.

He admits that the medical industry in general has no clue, just like you have no clue.

johnlvs2run

4th March 2012, 05:35 PM

The cure is exercise and diet

You went to a doctor for that?

You can't read, he says leptin is a marker for diabetes.

Huh, I commented on that up above. And you're accusing me of not reading?

Your cholesterol level is too low and your brain is too small to makes sense out of the english language.

In fact I am quite intelligent. Apparently you've figured that out and abandoned your ship.

He admits that the medical industry in general has no clue, just like you have no clue.

He is part of the medical industry that he's admitting has no clue.
I'm not part of it, see. But you said that I am, so you're the one with no clue.
Anyway I see you're not capable of having intelligent discussion, so I'm done with you.

Bigjon

4th March 2012, 06:09 PM

You went to a doctor for that?

Huh, I commented on that up above. And you're accusing me of not reading?

In fact I am quite intelligent. Apparently you've figured that out and abandoned your ship.

He is part of the medical industry that he's admitting has no clue.
I'm not part of it, see. But you said that I am, so you're the one with no clue.
Anyway I see you're not capable of having intelligent discussion, so I'm done with you.

I haven't seen any sign of your intelligence yet. Unsubstantiated claims that fat causes diabetes are a sign of delusion.

johnlvs2run

4th March 2012, 06:35 PM

I haven't seen any sign of your intelligence yet. Unsubstantiated claims that fat causes diabetes are a sign of delusion.

You don't see. Right, I agree. The reason is because the fat is clogging your brain, your heart, your arteries and all the rest of your body. It is clouding your judgement. So you're arguing about my intelligence and the size of my brain. Honestly, that gets you nowhere.

Let's say for example, that I was dumb like you, and not really intelligent as I am. That still would prove nothing. What proves something is that you're all stressed out from your terrible diet. Just relax, man. I'm not trying to cause you any grief. I'm not saying to not eat what you want. Eat what you want. What you do with your life is your choice, and what I do is my choice. I hope you're enjoying yourself and are healthy, like you insist that you are. Well then, good for you.

I'm not really interested anyway, as I was just raising a question about milk, and didn't intend for the discussion to get all emotional and to go into other directions.

Bigjon

4th March 2012, 07:01 PM

You don't see. Right, I agree. The reason is because the fat is clogging your brain, your heart, your arteries and all the rest of your body. It is clouding your judgement. So you're arguing about my intelligence and the size of my brain. Honestly, that gets you nowhere.

Let's say for example, that I was dumb like you, and not really intelligent as I am. That still would prove nothing. What proves something is that you're all stressed out from your terrible diet. Just relax, man. I'm not trying to cause you any grief. I'm not saying to not eat what you want. Eat what you want. What you do with your life is your choice, and what I do is my choice. I hope you're enjoying yourself and are healthy, like you insist that you are. Well then, good for you.

I'm not really interested anyway, as I was just raising a question about milk, and didn't intend for the discussion to get all emotional and to go into other directions.

Unsubstantiated claims that fat causes diabetes are a sign of delusion and delusion is a sign of low cholesterol. (early stage Alzheimer's)

johnlvs2run

4th March 2012, 07:24 PM

Unsubstantiated claims that fat causes diabetes are a sign of delusion and delusion is a sign of low cholesterol. (early stage Alzheimer's)

My facts are backed up by The China Study.
Your quotation is deluded because you're making things up.

I'm still wondering what you're so worried about though. If your diet is okay, then you're fine, right? So then why do you keep freaking out.

Bigjon

4th March 2012, 08:42 PM

My facts are backed up by The China Study.
Your quotation is deluded because you're making things up.

I'm still wondering what you're so worried about though. If your diet is okay, then you're fine, right? So then why do you keep freaking out.

You said you were done 3 or 4 posts back yet your still here, complaining that I'm worried.

http://www.thegreatcholesterolcon.com/The_China_Study.html

Your evidence seems to be highly flawed, a study where the people diets are generalized ignoring the grains in their diets and claims that the fats cause all the problems.

johnlvs2run

4th March 2012, 09:12 PM

You said you were done 3 or 4 posts back yet your still here

You're still here. Learn to spell.

Yes I am done talking to you, so why are you still sending me messages?

Are you infatuated with me? Can't get enough?

Like I said, go ahead and eat your grains and fats. I don't care what you eat.

Bigjon

4th March 2012, 09:31 PM

You're still here. Learn to spell.

Yes I am done talking to you, so why are you still sending me messages?

Are you infatuated with me? Can't get enough?

Like I said, go ahead and eat your grains and fats. I don't care what you eat.

Why are you quoting me, if you're done talking to me?

In sum, “The China Study” is a compelling collection of carefully chosen data. Unfortunately for both health seekers and the scientific community, Campbell appears to exclude relevant information when it indicts plant foods as causative of disease, or when it shows potential benefits for animal products. This presents readers with a strongly misleading interpretation of the original China Study data, as well as a slanted perspective of nutritional research from other arenas (including some that Campbell himself conducted).

Cherry picked data, The one place that eats the most dairy is excluded by Campbell
Tuoli: China’s Mysterious Milk Drinkers (http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/06/23/tuoli-chinas-mysterious-milk-drinkers/)
23
06
2010

Important disclaimer: In light of new information, this post needs to be taken with a really whoppin’ huge grain of salt. It turns out Tuoli was “feasting” on the day the survey crew came for China Study I, so they were likely eating more calories, more wheat, more dairy, and so forth than they typically do the rest of the year. We can’t be completely sure what their normal diet did look at the time, but the questionnaire data (which is supposedly more reliable than the diet survey data) still suggests they were eating a lot of animal products and very little in the way of fruits or vegetables.

At any rate, I recommend not quoting this post or citing it as “evidence” for anything simply because of the uncertainty surrounding the Tuoli data in the China Study. Please see the following posts for more information on the issue of Tuoli’s accuracy:

johnlvs2run

4th March 2012, 09:45 PM

Are you infatuated with me? Can't get enough?

Bingo!

<-- Here is my favorite food... yummy!

Bigjon

5th March 2012, 06:08 AM

Nitpicking special bulletin:

Originally Posted by johnlvs2run
You're still here. Learn to spell.

You're is a contraction for you are.

You are wrong once again, I made a mistake in grammar not spelling.

last

lapis

6th March 2012, 07:48 PM

You don't see. Right, I agree. The reason is because the fat is clogging your brain, your heart, your arteries and all the rest of your body.

Since saturated fat from food is LIQUID at normal human body temperatures, how is it physically possible for it to "clog" anything? This is apart from the fact that about 50% of our cell membranes are composed of saturated fat.

I'm not really interested anyway, as I was just raising a question about milk, and didn't intend for the discussion to get all emotional and to go into other directions.Me neither, but I think the reason these discussions get heated (at least for me) is that I'm angry that I've been lied to about what an optimal diet is.

I followed the officially-approved low-fat dietary recommendation and it wrecked my emotional and physical health, but I didn't know what the problem was for years, because how could it be my diet that the "experts" claimed was so great?

One of the reasons I appreciate GSUS is that posts on alternative or even non-officially-recommended views of everything, including diet is the norm. It's nice to come here to get away from what the MSM is pushing everywhere else on the Internet. So I get a little testy if it seems like someone is promoting its dogma.

But to get back to the original argument for or against low-fat diet, the biggest red flag for me is that the same people who peddle Big Pharma drugs are the ones who are recommending it. Not to mention, I'm not the only one I know who have suffered health repercussions from following this diet.

johnlvs2run

6th March 2012, 08:22 PM

Me neither, but I think the reason these discussions get heated (at least for me) is that I'm angry that I've been lied to about what an optimal diet is.

Likewise.

I followed the officially-approved low-fat dietary recommendation and it wrecked my emotional and physical health, but I didn't know what the problem was for years, because how could it be my diet that the "experts" claimed was so great?

I'm sorry that happened to you. I've been on basically a high carb, low protein, low fat diet (approximately 80/13/7 but sometimes 88/11/2) since 1974, and feel it has saved my life many times over. The stimulus for my change was a book on diet & salad that I read by Norman Walker at that time. My life completely changed very quickly over several months from reading that book, following his diet, and completely leaving behind the conventional diet I'd been eating all my life - and which I had thought was healthy. In retrospect, there was nothing healthy about that previous diet.

From my understanding of him, Walker had no use for the medical fraternity, them having given him up for dead as they did, in his 20's. In fact they even continue to try and change the age of his death, by publishing ridiculous false stories and making up a bogus history.

I never got any information about health or diet from any medical types, ever, and it astounds me that anyone would think to do this! As you have suggested, they promote toxic drugs that make people sick. There is no reason to think they'd give any good advice about anything. I did an independent study of diet, cancer and longevity at a university long ago, and the story from physicians was that diet had no relation to cancer. Even today we see on this thread some people think health problems are caused by heredity. Like nothing else matters? That is big pharma that is pushes that program, because hopeless people go to them for advice.

One of the reasons I appreciate GSUS is that posts on alternative or even non-officially-recommended views of everything, including diet is the norm. It's nice to come here to get away from what the MSM is pushing everywhere else on the Internet.

Yes, I appreciate this too.

So I get a little testy if it seems like someone is promoting its dogma.

Indeed! I have no time or use for those who choose to be idiots.

But to get back to the original argument for or against low-fat diet, the biggest red flag for me is that the same people who peddle Big Pharma drugs are the ones who are recommending it.

I've not seen that, at all, but many of the physicians, dentists, and other big pharma peddlers, will agree with whatever people say at the start, in order to sucker them in.

Not to mention, I'm not the only one I know who have suffered health repercussions from following this diet.

I'm not sure what diet you had and that is your business. Based on this thread though, I did cook a few turkey necks a few days ago, to see how they were and also to save the bones for a stock. Well I got only partially through one of them, almost gagging with every bite, and tossed out the rest. The turkey necks are estimated to be 40 percent fat, which I cooked with high steam. How people can eat an entire diet consisting of 40 percent fat calories, is way beyond me.