On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 08:18:42 -0400, Amadeus Schmidt <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>By accident I've just reached the meat chapter in the Udo Erasmus book.
>It's very clear outlined in which way the cattle fat (regardless which
>grade) is dangerous to our health (as opposed to wild game and wild cattle).
>
>In short, the fat composition is such, that the few EFA's in it are more
>than discarded by the saturated part. It has *less* than zero EFA's.
>And the list of unhealthy (und unpaleo) effects of missing EFA's is
>veeery long.
>Including cardiovascular diseases, high cholesterol and low thyroid.

Well, there are two types of foods that are "dangerous to our health".

One is when is when the food is deficient in nutrients, such as in this case,
where the meat is deficient in EFA's.   In this case, the food is only
"dangerous" to anyone who is not aware of the deficiency.   Since this is most
people, Udo is correct in using the "dangerous" qualifier.   However, once we
realize this deficiency exists, we can supplement with - as you mention - arctic
marine fats which are high in EFA's.

The other type of dangerous food is where, instead of being deficient in
anything, rather it contains unhealthy or poisonous substances.   In my opinion,
this sort of food is more dangerous than the nutritionally deficient food,
because no supplement will help.   The most significant example of this is
grains, which cause leaky gut syndrome, autoimmune disorders, hyperinsulinemia
and so on.

Thus, at McDonald's the bun is far more dangerous than the meat could ever be.

By the way, I should mention that while I think highly of the Udo Erasmus book
(it is right next to Neanderthin in the bookshelf next to the computer), I
should caution that, like anyone else, not everything he says is 100% correct.


--
Cheers,

Ken
[log in to unmask]