Kirt said:
>> "In Framingham, Massachusetts, the more saturated fat one ate, the
>> more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower
>> people's serum cholesterol...we found that the people who ate the
>>most cholesterol, ate the most saturated fat, ate the most calories
>>weighed the least and were the most physically active."
>> --William Castelli, Director of The Framingham Study

Jeff said:
>You didn;t say from when or where this quote came from.

The Castelli quote is from the Archives of Internal Medicine, 1992. A
friend of mine contacted Castelli about the quote but he (or one of his
associates - I forget) denied its existence.  When my friend called
back with the exact reference he never got a response. Hopefully with
your Castelli connection you can help clear up the discrepancy. The
following is something I wrote some time ago for another venue that
starts with the infamous quote:

"The people who ate the most saturated fat and the most cholesterol had
the lowest cholesterol, weighed the least and were the most physically
active." This statement flies in the face of the low fat diet that he
recommends people to eat on basis of the study. From a book by Russell
Smith Castelli is quoted with the  following two contradictory
statements 1) "Moderate serum cholesterol elevations between 250 and
350 constitute the bulk of hypercholesterolemics that appear to be
predisposing to the abundance of coronary heart disease as it appears
in the general population. About 20% of the heart attacks
occur in people who have cholesterol under 200." 2) "Half the heart
attacks in America occur at cholesterol levels between 150 and 200 ".
Again he is trying to have it both ways. According to  Sally Fallon
Castelli is often quoted as having said: "At Framingham, we found no
heart disease at cholesterol levels lower than 150..." ( A statement
being used ad nauseum by vegan proponents like Neil Bernard, MD &
Michael Klapper, MD) but the second part of the quote is always
conveniently left out : "...because we didn't find anyone with
cholesterol levels below 150." Confronted with  these contradictory
statements they were first denied and the second time,
when the sources of  quotes were cited, no response was given. All the
above can be found in the November (1996) issue of "Spectrum Magazine".

Castelli said:
>From an interview from summer 1996 with Dr. Castelli from Good
>Medicine:
>"The vegetarian societies of the world have the best diet.  They
>outlive the rest of us by 7 years and they have only 10 to 15 percent
>of our heart attack rate.  They have only 40 percent of our cancer
>rate.  If you don;t smoke you reduce your cancer risk by half, but
>they do better then that.  We like to put these people down in
>America, but actually they do better than other groups from a health
>standpoint, and if you ever see them in old age, they run circles
>around other people."

There are no pure vegetarian societies on the planet. Peasants in Third
World countries usually only have access to small amounts of animal
foods but always relish it & praise its qualities. I have read studies
done in Japan comparing the state of health of populations in fishing
villages with a relatively high animal food intake with that of
populations in peasant villages with low animal food intake and the
former came out clearly ahead with lower rates of degenerative diseases
- this certainly contradicts the conclusions of the Cornell study in
China. I believe similar results were found comparing the long-lived
Okinawans to the rest of the Japanese population. Unfortunately, I have
lost all references to the above but if I find them I will post them.

>"I think the pure vegetarians do the best.  Thats true especially with
>the men,... not as true with the women."

That is pure speculation - how does he know that even small amounts of
animal foods are not crucial to the health of most people?
The problem with comparing groups of vegetarians or populations with
low animal food intake to the average Western diet is that there is
very rarely any control for other life-style factors like exercise,
quality of life, consumption of processed foods, consumption of alcohol
and drugs - factors that all are crucial in determining health and
longevity. My belief is that any population consuming average amounts
of animal foods will as long as the diet is a whole foods diet always
be in better health than that of a population on a whole foods diet of
high carbohydrates and minimal amounts of animal foods.
Weston Price's studies of native people from all over the world showed
that the less animal foods they had in their diet the more caries they
would have in their teeth - this was found to be the case also with
populations who had not yet had any exposure to the white man's
processed foods.

Jeff said:
>What I am saying is "what matters most is what matters most". The most
>influential aspects of our diet is what we do most of the time. Lots
>of fresh raw fruits and vegetables can sometimes do more good then a
>few indulgences in other foods can do bad.  So, lets say if he was
>eating 21 meals  a week, what he ate in 18 of them is more important
>that what he ate in 3 of them. And what he ate in those three meals
>with the RAF may also be important.

No argument here.

>Having been around, experimenting with, and studying these different
>dietary and philosophical ideas for over 25 year I have come to one
>overriding conclusion, I think the most interesting study would not
>be one in any particular aspect of any one of these philosophies but
it>would be a psychological study of the people who are attracted to
>these philosophies. :) (Me included!) :)
>>Now THAT would be a VERY interesting study.

I could not agree more.

>And philosophically, the ongoing evolution and "rules" that seem to
>develop along with it, almost seem to fly in the face of its own
>theory, and just seem to complicate the whole supposedly natural and
>simple original theory.  Which is a major part of the original theory.
>But that is not only true for the Instincto's but also for the ongoing
>issues that always seem to prevail amongst the Natural Hygienists,
>Fruitarian's, Raw fooders, Sproutarians, etc., etc., .
>Excuse me, but I thought this was supposed to be the natural and
>simple, softer and easier way!

I appreciate your clear-sighted perspective. The challenge is to find
the pearls among all the dogmatism & hype and custom-make an optimum
regimen of effortless discipline for ourselves so we have the health &
energy to go about pursuing what gives our life true meaning.

Jeff, I am curious to know which compromises you have settled for in
regards to your own diet?

Best, Peter
[log in to unmask]