It's all about finding the so-called "upstream event" that, if removed, would not lead to the
"chronic disease." You should know this if you are any kind of "scientist." However, today, all you
hear about are statistical studies that really mean very little for a number of reasons, one of
which is that the differences are often so minimal that nobody would change his/her diet radically
to live 1.2 years longer over the course of an entire lifetime - see some of Gary Taubes' writings
about this. If you think I am fabricating my notions, just read the journals, Free Radical Biology &
Medicine and Free Radical Research for starters. There are also several good books recently about
the connection between free radical damage and chronic disease - written by research scientists, not
the Dr. Weil "guru" type of characters who show up on Larry King, etc. - look them up on Amazon.com,
for example. My point is that Americans, for example, are consuming ridiculously large amounts of
unsaturated fatty acids and very low amounts of antioxidant-rich foods. The body can't take this for
long, and that's where chronic disease comes from in most cases, though of course if you are an
athelete, for example, you can speed up the process. You can't avoid unsaturated fatty acids, and
the body makes its own anyway, just like you can't completely avoid iron, and I'm not suggesting
anyone try to do so. Instead, avoiding excessive consumption of unsaturates, iron, and a few other
things, and eating much more in the way of antioxidant-rich foods is the way to go. Do your own
research and you'll see what I mean. The problem is that the "experts" you see in the mass media are
still talking about studies from decades ago that were flawed before they began. One example is
classifying lard as a "saturated fat" when it is around 60% or more unsaturated. There is a clear
example of why people are getting ripped to shreds by excessive lipid peroxidation, and other kinds
of free radical damage that should not occur at the levels they do in most people on a "typical
Western diet." And cooking, I have said not to cook at high temperatures while exposed to air - and
that means anything. I do sometimes use butter to grease a pan, but I only warm it so that it tastes
good to me - I use the low setting on the range, never medium or higher, so your point is invalid.
And Robert, please stick to one issue at a time. If you want to give the woman advice about her
dizzy spells, go ahead, but the "experts" could not help her, so if she tries something and it
works, as it did for me (I had the same problem), why do you have a problem with that - what does
she have to lose? You don't think diet is that important, so let her give it a shot. Again, I don't
know why you are posting here, as you think it is all genetics and that diet is not significant in
terms of "chronic disease."
Robert posted:
"Doe and his friend Nick are good examples of them trying to spin interpretations on us. Iron is an
essential for humans. Oxidation as in the gaining of oxygen or the loss of hydrogen, is essential
for humans. To say that they are evil is just stupid simply because they can be involved in disease
processes. There are many independent risk factors for heart disease and to look for the biggest one
is stupid. Quite the opposite as you want to find as many risk factors as possible to find your
overall personal risk. It's like the guy who gets an EKG one week and the next week he dies of a
heart attack. Ooops, I guess he should have done other testing... Rancid means "oxidation" and it
happens even without cooking. When you apply heat in the form of energy chemical reactions will
occur with the food. Oxidation reduction occur as bonds are broken and reformed to release energy.
Any form of cooking will do this so saying that butter is good but the oxidized form is not is
bizarre as it is unavoidable if you cook with
it. Some foods have more fat than others and placing more fat as in frying is never good. There's
no need to go out on a fad limb."