An Interview with Dr. Neal Barnard
in [Nutrition]
|
Prev: bmt
Next: low electrolytes
From: pearl on 12 Oct 2005 08:08 Excerpts from An Interview with Dr. Neal Barnard '... The key is that we have to go beyond the recommendations that most conservative medical organizations have been using. By that, I mean the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society--their recommendations will not reverse heart disease. A 30% fat diet with lean meat, chicken and fish is not going to reverse anybody's heart disease, nor will it prevent it. You can look at such a diet and know that that's the case. Chicken, fish and lean meats have cholesterol and saturated fat in them; they have no fiber or complex carbohydrates. Spectrum: Recent studies showed that fat reduction down to 30% did not help much. Because of this, some people now are saying that you don't really need to worry about fats. NB: Yes, that is actually one of the most devastating effects of poorly done research, or maybe poorly interpreted research. For example, there was a very large, and I believe well-done, study of nurses done through Harvard University, but I think that its results were so poorly interpreted as to have the effect that you've just described. The results were as follows: It has been known for a very long time that animal fat, and to a lesser extent, all fats, increase the risk of breast cancer. The reason is that fats increase the production of estrogen in the body, and that, in time, over-stimulates the cells of the breast and they become cancerous. There are other reasons, also. ... Spectrum: What about fish? NB: There are several things about fish. I don't eat fish, and there are many reasons why I don't. The good things you can say for fish is that some of the the species are lower in fat by a long shot compared to meat and even poultry, and some have a little bit less cholesterol. Some have more cholesterol, however, like lobster and shrimp. Some actually are higher in fat, while some are lower. That's the entire extent of the good news about fish. The bad news about fish is that it all has cholesterol and fat, and the fat is not the kind that anybody needs. These omega-3 fats that people talk about are also available in beans. In the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, there was a recent series of letters and commentaries saying that people should probably get their omega-3 fats from vegetables and not from fish, because the omega-3 fish oils do seem to have a variety of negative effects, one of which is that they promote the production of free radicals. Free radicals can damage your tissues and lead to cancer. There is also a contamination problem with fish. The February cover-story of Consumer Reports talked about this. The contamination problems with fish are ghastly. Salmon and other kinds of swordfish are very contaminated. There are even warnings that women who are intending to become pregnant any time in the next several years shouldn't consume several species of fish. The EDB content is so high, and it is stored up in human tissues. There was a study at Wayne State University on women who had given birth to babies. Those who never ate fish were compared to those who did eat fish. The latter group, even those who ate fish once a month or more, had a higher incidence of babies who were sluggish at birth, who had small head circumferences, or who had a variety of learning problems. Fish is a concentrated protein, and if anything we need less protein. High protein in the the diet leads to osteoporosis and kidney problems. You don't need fish. ' You can read the complete interview here: http://www.purifymind.com/InterviewBarnard.htm --
From: Doug Freese on 12 Oct 2005 10:08 "TC" <tunderbar(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1129126051.946335.313640(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > > pearl wrote: >> Excerpts from An Interview with Dr. Neal Barnard > > <snip> animal rights propaganda that does not belong in a scienctific > forum Hey for once we agree but you didn't need to repost it three times! -DF
From: TC on 12 Oct 2005 11:06 Doug Freese wrote: > "TC" <tunderbar(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1129126051.946335.313640(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > > > > pearl wrote: > >> Excerpts from An Interview with Dr. Neal Barnard > > > > <snip> animal rights propaganda that does not belong in a scienctific > > forum > > Hey for once we agree but you didn't need to repost it three times! > > -DF I posted three different articles. TC
From: pearl on 12 Oct 2005 11:26 "TC" <tunderbar(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1129126051.946335.313640(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/1948 <snip> Anti- animal rights propaganda does not belong in a scientific forum.
From: pearl on 12 Oct 2005 11:27
"TC" <tunderbar(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1129126164.263872.193820(a)g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/23 <snip> Anti- animal rights propaganda does not belong in a science forum. |