"Rick Strong" <rstrong> wrote:

>> Bruce:
>> They used the general population to represent the "non-vegetarian"
>> lifestyle. They wouldn't dare to compare vegetarians against folks
>> eating Paleo, Weston Price, Sally Fallon, or other diets based on
>> evolution. It makes good headlines to compare SAD food against a
>> health-conscious "vegetarian" diet (which might include sea food,
>> eggs, dairy, the occasional red meat and poultry...).
>
> Are you aware of any studies that do ascribe relative
> longevity to "folks eating Paleo, Weston Price, Sally Fallon, or
> other diets based on evolution.?"  Is it worth considering that the
> points in the article re colorful vegetables (antioxidants) may be
> important.

Sure, it's worth considering if you happen to like vegetables.
But claiming that we need to avoid meat or animal products to
achieve health is junk science. "Correlation equals causality"
logic with extreme flaws in methods and interpretation.

http://www.powerhealth.net/selected_articles.htm
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/naiveveg.html

> Could the veg groups studied actually be practicing a
> relative form of calorie restriction?? As one who really loads up
> on protein (meat, fish, fowl, and eggs, I have a very open mind to
> this issue.

Calorie restriction is not healthy. Roy Walford, the leading
proponent, was recently diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's Disease,
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS). So much for the CR diet
preventing chronic degenerative disease. Of course, we might
be able to explain this by the low-fat, non-paleo foods Roy
promotes (pasteurized fortified skim milk, egg whites, lean
meat, and so forth). We can get all the benefits of Calorie
Restriction, WITHOUT constant hunger, simply by eating less
frequently (once a day or every other day) and eating larger
quantities of food at a time. Even if we eat the same amount
overall, spreading it out more slows aging.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993668

> I am also concerned that the imbalance of our omega 3
> fat to omega 6 in our (readily available vs grass fed) meat and
> poultry supply may loom as a large negative.  Rick

Many centenarians drank wine, smoked cigarettes, hated vegetables,
ate dark chocolate, and never exercised. The theory of "essential"
omega-3 and omega-6 has never been proven. If you look at studies
that claim we need these polyunsaturated fats, you will find that
they only created "fat deficiencies" by feeding people or animals
refined carbohydrates, highly processed oils, and other junk. NOT
by feeding whole foods. One study claimed that eating coconut oil
caused EFA deficiencies. They fed subjects REFINED & HYDROGENATED
coconut oil. Hardly a natural or wholesome food.

http://www.aspartame.ca/page_oho2c.htm

Ask yourself what political motivation began the idea that we
need unnatural polyunsaturated oils for our health. This idea
began around the time the processed oil industry began trying
to discredit butter, lard, beef tallow, coconut oil, and other
naturally saturated fats. They wanted to sell hydrogenated oil
full of trans fat and other "new chemical compounds" that have
never been studied scientifically. Today, we have the same old
lies telling us to eat cod liver oil, canola oil, soybean oil,
corn oil, and cottonseed oil.

http://www.canola.com/

They have no proof that we need such oils or that they're SAFE
to eat at ANY level. All of their studies on "Essential Fatty
Acids" only prove that refined, processed, fractionated foods
cause deficiencies. Except for dated studies, we have precious
little nutritional science utilizing whole foods. Why? Because
they don't make a profit for anybody. No drugs or surgeries or
supplements or fake "foods" to sell us.

http://www.efn.org/~raypeat/efatox.rtf
http://www.efn.org/~raypeat/oils.rtf

-Bruce Kleisner