Posted on 03/07/2011 9:06:48 PM PST by wac3rd
Editor:
The popular revolutions we are witnessing in the Middle East, while inspired by a desire for personal freedom and self-determination, are certainly sustained by a pervasive hunger pan-demic, particularly among the world’s less privileged populations.
Since last December, skyrocketing demand for food and dwindling supplies have driven the global Food Price Index to new records. Supplies have suffered from catastrophic floods and droughts linked to global warming and from gradual depletion of groundwater aquifers. Demand has been fueled by unchecked population growth and by diversion of massive amounts of grains into biofuel and meat production.
Hunger afflicts nearly one billion people worldwide, mostly women and children. It feeds massive popular migrations and unrest that, sooner or later, will affect us all.
Some of the causes of global hunger are beyond our personal control. But, as the world’s highest meat consumers, we have a special obligation to free up some grains for the hungry by limiting our own consumption.
With the broad availability of delicious and nutritious meat and dairy alternatives in every supermarket, there is no reason to delay. Entering “live vegan” in a search engine returns lots of good guidance.
—Dennis Roth, San Leandro
(Excerpt) Read more at news.ebpublishing.com ...
PS....I’ll put my Ratio’s up against yours any day...
Boy, did they! I'm reading a book about Custer's Last Stand and the author made this statement "...Sitting Bull's people, who ate on average six buffalo per person per year, were flourishing."
I don't know if they left room for broccoli.
Actually....it’s the GRASS fed that I look for...the organic isn’t important....but, usually they mark it “organic” when it IS grass fed.
Heart disease was almost unknown in America 100 years ago, the people ate a lower fat diet then. As we prospered and were able to afford “better” food we turned to eating higher fat diets. To where now the average American eats about 40% fat diet. And, as a result heart disease has skyrocketed. This is not a coincidence, there is plenty of research to back up the correlation between cholesterol, fat and high incidence of heart disease. A diet high in carbohydrates (complex carbohydrates) is proven to be the healthiest diets. Indeed, with the CHIPs program they have about an 80% success rate in helping people reduce their hypertension, and diabetes. In my first two weeks I have NEEDED to get off one of blood pressure pills and to reduce my diabetes medication by a third. This is common with those who follow the vegan lifestyle CHIPs promotes. Indeed, it is not rocket science.
Studies done during WW ll found that people who were placed in concentration camps (and lived) had reduced rates of cholesterol and hence heart disease (at least for several years). When they returned to high fat diets the incidence of heart disease went back up. Studies have shown that Japanese people, who had very low incidence of heart disease 60 years ago (they had a 10% fat diet), increase their incidence of heart disease as they increase the fat in their diet. Indeed, those who moved to Hawaii and got accustomed to the 25% fat diet common there had four times the heart disease of the 10% fat Japanese and those who moved to the mainland US who ate the normal 40% fat diet had ten times the incidence of heart disease as their brethren in Japan.
With all due respect to your educational achievement, I have to disagree with your proposition. Perhaps you will be interested in checking out Dr. Dean Ornish’s success as well as Pritikin, not to mention the CHIPs (Coronary Health Improvement Project) in controlling hypertension, diabetes, and actually reversing heart disease and diabetes...it really is fascinating.
Believe me, I am not a vegetarian, or vegan by nature. I led a meat eaters life. Right up to heart disease, diabetes and cancer. I am sick and tired of taking eight different medications (one of which I have been able to drop) and I desire to live long enough to know my future grandchildren...
In regards to what you said about organic...I will tell you a quick story I think you will like. I interviewed a fellow who owned a vineyard in Michigan. He has a PhD in some food science or agricultural. I assumed he was organic, as he was a ‘sustainable’ business. When I asked him about that, he explained that being responsible environmentally as well as health was not always being organic. Sometimes one can use 1/10th the insecticide or herbicide or what have you of the non-organic that it would take for the “organic” chemical to take care of the problem. Was really an eyeopener for me...
BTW, I have much more energy since I changed my diet and I sleep better, am more regular on my bowel movements, do not get “stuffed” at meals...and without the salt..my taste buds seem to be awakening...kind of like when you quit smoking only more pronounced.
My last meat meal...about three weeks ago now was my mother’s fried chicken...I ate seven pieces! Now I have to figure out to do with the two deer in my freezer, the 22 turkeys and geese I am raising and all those eggs I get from my ten chickens!!!
“Yes, that why all the American Indians, who ate nothing but meat, died from heart disease.”
Do you want to rewrite this??? Freebie for you before embarrassing you with facts...kind of think maize, beans, squash, not to mention forage foods, etc.
HEY...send me all that stuff.....Remember, 100 years ago people ate what they could get their hands on....including LARD, BUTTER, MEAT, CREAM, etc.....but, they did not eat fast food, flour and sugar laden snacks, etc.....I am well aware of Pritikin,....I have a few of his books....but, as I said...PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT. FAT is much better for ME than SUGAR (carbs)....and my lab tests prove it. Plus, people (usually) don’t eat as many calories when they eat more fat. It fills them up.
One last thing...I came across this from the American Diabetes Association: http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/29/8/1777.long
They had undoubtedly low fat, low sugar diets. I do not believe most were truly nomadic...the east coast and midwestern indians were not, most of the southwest and I believe northwest indians were not. The meat that they ate was low fat, not like the meat you eat. They ate a lot of fiber in the plant foods they ate, and that was their staple for most indians. Just as natives in South America, Australia, etc. were. The problem with indian health is the same as other American health problems today...they eat too much fat, cholesterol, sodium and sugar. It is that simple. A healthy diet of whole plant foods...high complex carbohydrates returns most people to health. It is truly the most powerful treatment available for heart disease and diabetes...
Perhaps you may wish to reconsider some of your opinions in light of more accurate information.
To begin with, the link you posted does not say anything that contradicts the information presented. It does in fact support much of it, and supports every claim I made if you read it critically and understand what is being talked about.
“But when cholesterol levels edge past 180 (4.6 mmol/L), LDL-cholesterol begins to attach itself to the vessel walls, causing atherosclerosis (thickening, narrowing, stiffening, and plaque formation).”
“Lately, however, the emphasis has shifted towards the pivotal role LDL cholesterol plays...”
Your article utilizes dated information, but references “new” research into the pivotal role of LDL.
Low-density lipoproteins are the key factor to look at here. The inflammatory damage to arterial walls and the accumulation of “plaque” as it’s often termed, is DRIVEN by the chemical action of LDL.
HIGH-density lipoproteins on the other hand actually reduce arteriosclerosis - HDL cholesterol counteracts some of the inflammatory effects of LDL cholesterol and, as I mentioned, LOW levels of HDL are actually associated with greater risk of arteriosclerosis.
Prior to modern research that shed light on the role of different forms of cholesterol, the only reliable metric to judge the cholesterol risk factor was merely “blood serum cholesterol”, so naturally with only one metric to measure (even though it wasn’t the most accurate metric) they focused their efforts on modifying it. And, in patients actually suffering from arteriosclerosis, it’s actually not a bad idea to reduce overall cholesterol levels (since they got to this point already by having a particularly nasty ratio of LDL cholesterol, and by dropping overall cholesterol level you’d be dropping their LDL levels by a greater factor than their HDL levels).
I’d also like to address your claim that: “Heart disease was almost unknown in America 100 years ago, the people ate a lower fat diet then.”. I’m sorry to say that the facts don’t support your claims. Heart disease was a huge killer in 1900, it was the #4 cause of death - right behind diarrhea, TB and pneumonia. You see, sir, if we didn’t have antibiotics today to deal with The Runs, TB, and pneumonia, heart disease would STILL be the #4 cause of death. (source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/lead1900_98.pdf)
To recap important points: High LDL-cholesterol levels are the primary driver of arteriosclerosis. Higher HDL-cholesterol levels actually help REDUCE arteriosclerosis. It is more important to look at the total ratio of cholesterol forms (along with other risk factors) than to merely look at total blood serum cholesterol levels. But, if you’ve already had a heart attack you’ve already got a crappy ratio of LDL/HDL and dropping your overall cholesterol level is certainly going to do some good.
I would not disagree that research shows LDL is the “evil” cholesterol and that ratios are important. And, you seem to admit that what I said was correct when you state that overall levels of 180 appear to be where plaque buildup begins for most people. Consequently, I don’t think any modern scientists would disagree that if you want to be free of heart disease you should ideally have overall cholesterol at 150 to 180. If you want a chance to reverse plaque you should target for <150 cholesterol. The fellow I was debating with when you jumped in had stated his cholesterol level was 215 but that his doctor told him not to worry about it cause his ratio was good. I think you can understand that the ratio at a cholesterol level of 215 was less important...in other words, it would obviously be dangerously high ldl in any event.
I stand by what I said about historical fat in the average American diet and the fact that heart disease was relatively unknown then (was not a major health issue). I offer this source which discusses the subject (University of Florida paper) http://irrec.ifas.ufl.edu/files/student_work/05_6_Elortondo.pdf
Perhaps you can provide some source to counter that statement...
I don’t see where you recommend a high fat diet...or a low complex carbohydrate diet...do you? I think we may not be in disagreement on the general topic, just on some of the details within.
“And, you seem to admit that what I said was correct when you state that overall levels of 180 appear to be where plaque buildup begins for most people.”
Uh no, I disagree strongly with that statement. Overall levels of cholesterol are, within reason, absolutely insignificant - absent high LDL levels. Your overall blood serum level of cholesterol could be 250mg/dl and I would not be concerned in the least, as long as your LDL concentration was in the <70 or <50 range range. I’d expect, depending on other risk factors (age, activity, other dietary factors, other biochemical markers, behavioral risk factors, etc) a correspondingly VERY low progression of atherosclerosis.
You quite frankly appear to believe unreasonably in absolute medical myths, with little if any evidence to support your position. As evidenced by your continued assertion that heart disease was unknown 100 years ago DESPITE the fact that the CDC reported it as the #4 cause of death, followed by stroke at #5. The ONLY reason heart disease and stroke are the #1 and #2 killers today is because we effectively eliminated diarrhea/TB/Pneumonia as the #3/#2/#1 killers with the advent of antibiotics.
Heart disease killed 27,427 people in 1900, whereas the #3 killer (diarrhea) killed 28,491. That is not, as you so stridently claim, UNKNOWN. Without antibiotics, heart disease and stroke would still be the #4 and #5 killers.
Do you really think someone would have an HDL of 170 or so with the LDL at 75? I don’t think so...
I do not agree with you when cholesterol is in the borderline area...150 to 180. Then, the “fine” tuned approach makes some sense. However, I would dispute that cholesterol levels over 200 can have a good enough “ratio” to prevent plaque buildup.
Perhaps I generalized about the date...you are correct 100 years ago. However, let’s go back a bit further...the point is to go back to where people generally ate a higher fiber, lower fat diet. As you can see if you go to the link...http://ulvog.wordpress.com/2010/10/21/10-leading-causes-of-death-in-1850-and-2000-2/
In 1850 heart disease did not even rank in the top ten. Then in 1900 it ranked fourth, then today it ranks first. Undoubtedly, some of that can be explained by reducing other diseases. However, one simply cannot ignore the growing prevalence of heart disease...and diabetes for that matter. Both are directly related to a high fat, high sugar diet. There have been multinational studies done that show when cultures gain prosperity and change their diets from low fat/high fiber to the high fat/low fiber and high sugar (like we enjoy) their stats on heart disease and diabetes rise just like our levels if they have the same percentage as us in terms of fat and sugar. Ratios matter, but are not necessary in the analysis...except perhaps to fine tune when overall cholesterol is marginally high. Triglycerides are also a consideration...if you eat a high fat, high sugar diet you are more likely to have high triglyceride levels.
You are simply wrong on the matter, in regards to saying cholesterol level is insignificant. You have not presented any links to any information to corroborate yourself. I think, if you choose not to be dogmatic, that you will agree that a cholesterol level say of 250 would be high...the “ratios” would not be inline most likely to make that level “safe” or healthy.
In any event, you are not going to convince me...no offense but a PhD does not mean one is correct always and I do not think you are correct. Thanks for the debate though, it was fun. But, I think we are at an end and will just be repeating what we have already stated...maybe with small differences.
My second paragraph should have read...I do not disagree with you...not...I do not agree with you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.