Re: Atkins vs South Beach vs Ornish
- From: Michael Sand <sand@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 08:44:27 +0000 (GMT)
Jackie Patti wrote:
Michael Sand wrote:
Jackie Patti wrote:
Bernstein ...
I like his book, but suspect I'd dislike him if he were my doctor. I
think we'd be having lots of arguments. ;)
So you think he is stubborn and not willing to compromise, whereas
'you, you have your own special way' (don't remember the band, damn,
my brain seems to vie with my bones for getting into the worst habit).
I do better with my internist who thinks if my bg doesn't go over 200,
that's good enough. He doesn't argue with me.
I have an appointment with an endo next week. Should be interesting as
the instrucitons are I am to bring bg readings and my meter to be
checked for accuracy. I've never had a doctor who actually paid
attention to this stuff before!
Weird. BTW, how will he check the accuracy? The usual simultaneous
one-shot lab:meter comparison?
There's a lot of possible interpretations of that data and unfortunately
no one seems to have done the research specifically comparing saturated
fat from pasture-raised animal products vs. the modern stuff, but I'm
inclined to think animal fat can't be terrible in it's more natural
state since it wasn't killing people back then.
And I suspect the research that does indicate problems with saturated
fat is because of this distinction.
It's your decision to bet on saturated fat though there's no clear
indication of any advantage even for a subvariant of it. At the risk
of repeating myself, I'd prefer a diet with an adequate ratio of
monounsaturated and polyunsaturated FAs, aiming at a low n-6:n-3
quotient, and a proportion of saturated fats as small as possible,
which is regarded to be the hemodynamically healthiest. The
consumption of SFAs is known to cause an increase in total serum
cholesterol, mainly of the low-density atherogenic fraction, whereas
PUFAs decrease total serum cholesterol and LDL cholesterol
concentrations in an efficient manner, although the latter may also
decrease the HDL fraction. Furthermore, MUFAs are more neutral,
possibly responsible for a cardioprotective effect by diminishing LDL
without touching HDL. Both groups of unsaturated fats are even
supposed to act antiatherogenic by inducing the mobilization of
already present cholesterol depots.
SFAs in moderation won't hurt. But IMHO the fatty acid profile is
crucial, what I've tried to give evidence for.
I agree the omega-3 thing is critical and as long as fish oil and flax
products are cheap, it sure can't hurt!
Yesterday I was searching the Internet for a fish / salmon oil source
(of supply of course) here in Germany. The cheapest offer I found was
a 250 ml bottle of pure salmon oil intended for veterinary use
(horses, dogs, cats) for 11 USD plus 8 USD shipping, ugh. Anyway,
let's follow the prehistoric path. :-)
Mike
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Atkins vs South Beach vs Ornish
- From: Frank t2
- Re: Atkins vs South Beach vs Ornish
- References:
- Re: Atkins vs South Beach vs Ornish
- From: Michael Sand
- Re: Atkins vs South Beach vs Ornish
- From: randy@xxxxxxx
- Re: Atkins vs South Beach vs Ornish
- From: Michael Sand
- Re: Atkins vs South Beach vs Ornish
- From: Jackie Patti
- Re: Atkins vs South Beach vs Ornish
- From: Michael Sand
- Re: Atkins vs South Beach vs Ornish
- From: Jackie Patti
- Re: Atkins vs South Beach vs Ornish
- From: Michael Sand
- Re: Atkins vs South Beach vs Ornish
- From: Jackie Patti
- Re: Atkins vs South Beach vs Ornish
- From: Michael Sand
- Re: Atkins vs South Beach vs Ornish
- From: Jackie Patti
- Re: Atkins vs South Beach vs Ornish
- Prev by Date: Re: Apathy - Ive done it again!
- Next by Date: Re: OT OT OT The Insanity of Bush Hatred
- Previous by thread: Re: Atkins vs South Beach vs Ornish
- Next by thread: Re: Atkins vs South Beach vs Ornish
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|