Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sun, 18 Mar 2007 20:06:32 EDT |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
This strikes me as hardly an argument in favor of a low fat diet. Is
Pritikin any less dead just because his arteries were clean when he killed himself?
My Paleo oriented doctor has maintained all along that Pritikin's Leukemia
resurfaced because of severe essential fatty acid deficiency. He may have also
suffered psychiatric aberrations, also due to deficiency of Omega 3 fatty
acids. Perhaps this contributed to his decision to commit suicide.
To me, this is evidence which elucidates the dangers of a low fat diet.
(Make that low beneficial fats. Obviously nobody would espouse the consumption of
trans fats, and most people of Paleo orientation also believe that excessive
vegetable oil consumption is deleterious as well.)
Maddy
In a message dated 3/18/2007 4:00:23 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Marilyn
Harris [log in to unmask] (mailto:[log in to unmask]) writes:
Hi Phil/Leonie;
Not a counter argument - but - the best argument for a low-fat diet are
the clean arteries of Nathan Pritikin on his death vs the silence from the
Atkin's camp.
Marilyn
>I think Anthony Colpo probably has some good counterarguments for most anit
>sat fat studies in his book "The Great Cholesterol Con" which I don't have
>to hand. > Leonie
************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone.
Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.
|
|
|