What If Saturated Fats Are Essential?

[l82start]

http://www.ktxs.com/Fish-oil-helped-sav ... index.html

fish oil used for recovery from traumatic brain injury.  







{edit to fix link}

[MachineGhost]

"It was a fight," Peter Ghassemi said. "They didn't believe, and they said, 'Fine, the West Virginia miner was one case. Bring me 999 more cases, a thousand more cases ... before I can give it to your son.' "



Hyperbaric oxygen generates massive free radical damage, so the fish oil must have worked despite the further damage to the brain.

A combo of raw butter and raw honey apparantly helps heal the brain as well, but I doubt there's even 1 published, peer reviewed study for all the crony skeptics.

[MachineGhost]

To go along with the allopathic Degenerative Lipid Hypothesis (aka Chronic Endothelial Injury Hypothesis), there is the wholistic Physiological Errors Hypothesis which postulates that high cholesterol is simply a result of accumulated errors of physiology throughout a lifetime.  Between these two hypothesises, the Lipid Hypothesis of 1856 is beyond dead -- but don't tell Big Pharma!

Cholesterol is a substance with paradoxes. It does not fit into any straightforward chemical classification. It is vital to the body, yet blamed for coronary heart disease. How is it that the body produces too much of it? If cholesterol is so bad, why does it increase in pregnant women? Why is too-low cholesterol at least as bad as "too high" cholesterol? Should the acceptable total cholesterol level be 300, 200, or something intermediate? What equations do doctors use to calculate routinely total cholesterol?

Why is there no obvious relationship between the kind of diet and the level of one's cholesterol? How is it that quite a few people with low cholesterol nevertheless have heart attacks? Why do some studies suggest that, paradoxically, the highest mortality from heart attacks occurs in those with LOW cholesterol? Will the statin-treated person feel exhilarated at the news that statins can reduce heart attacks by 50%--until he/she learns that this actually constitutes a reduction from 2 in 1,000 to 1 in 1,000 incidents?

There are many problems with conventional statin therapy for lowering cholesterol. Most patients do not tolerate statins for extended periods. They can cause major side effects. By lowering cholesterol production, statins also affect the rest of the biochemical chain downstream--a domino effect that lowers the levels of important hormones. The number of new cancers induced by statin therapy may offset whatever the reduction in heart attacks. [In addition, some have suggested that statins reduce heart attacks not so much by lowering cholesterol as by reducing inflammation.] Finally, statins do not deal with the underlying cause. They only treat the symptom--high cholesterol.

There are many problems with conventional statin therapy for lowering cholesterol. Most patients do not tolerate statins for extended periods. They can cause major side effects. By lowering cholesterol production, statins also affect the rest of the biochemical chain downstream--a domino effect that lowers the levels of important hormones. The number of new cancers induced by statin therapy may offset whatever the reduction in heart attacks. [In addition, some have suggested that statins reduce heart attacks not so much by lowering cholesterol as by reducing inflammation.] Finally, statins do not deal with the underlying cause. They only treat the symptom--high cholesterol.

...

So why is there high cholesterol? The authors elaborate on their hypothesis explaining the origin of hypercholesterolemia. According to it, hypercholesterolemia is caused by the body's futile attempt to correct declining steroid hormone levels (that is, steroidopenia) by overproducing cholesterol. This raises an obvious question: Is high cholesterol correlated with coronary disease in a direct causal relation, or are high cholesterol and coronary heart disease both caused by something else--low hormone levels?

When major hormones are supplemented at youthful levels (Hormonorestorative Therapy), cholesterol will automatically drop, because the body will "see" no need to keep overproducing it. However, there is no "magic number" as to what the level of cholesterol will be once the formerly deficient hormones are replaced. It will vary from individual to individual.

http://www.amazon.com/The-DZugan-Princi ... 615334180/

[MachineGhost]

There are no written records from the period when humans invented agriculture, but if there were, they would tell a tale of woe. Agriculture, in Jared Diamond's phrase, was the “worst mistake in human history.”? The previous system of nourishment—hunting and gathering—had all but guaranteed a healthy diet, as it was defined by variety. But it made us a rootless species of nomads. Agriculture offered stability. It also transformed nature into a machine for cranking out human beings, though there was a cost. Once humans began to rely on the few crops that we knew how to grow reliably, our collective health collapsed. The remains of the first Neolithic farmers show clear signs of dramatic tooth decay, anemia, and low bone-density. Average height dropped by about 5 inches, while infant mortality rose. Diseases of deficiency like scurvy, rickets, beriberi, and pellagra were serious problems that would have been totally perplexing. We are still reeling from the change: Heart disease, diabetes, alcoholism, celiac disease, and perhaps even acne are direct results of the switch to agriculture.

Meanwhile, agriculture's alter ego, civilization, was forcing people for the first time to live in cities, which were perfect environments for the rapid spread of infectious disease. No one living through these tribulations would have had any idea that things had ever been, or could be, different. Pestilence was the water we swam in for millennia.

It was in these horrendous conditions that the lactose tolerance mutation took hold. Reconstructed migration patterns make it clear that the wave of lactose tolerance that washed over Eurasia was carried by later generations of farmers who were healthier than their milk-abstaining neighbors. Everywhere that agriculture and civilization went, lactose tolerance came along. Agriculture-plus-dairying became the backbone of Western civilization.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... ingle.html

[Gumby]

Everywhere that agriculture and civilization went, lactose tolerance came along

I'm not sure mammals ever needed a to gain a "lactose tolerance" mutation to consume dairy. Mammals, by definition, lactate and pass nutrition to their young via raw dairy. And the author and researchers seem to be oblivious to the fact that breast/raw milk already contains lots of lactase-producing bacteria in it. In other words, raw milk — from both breast milk and raw animal milk — already provides all mammals, humans and infants with the lactase enzymes necessary to digest the lactose in milk. Even a person with "Lactose Intolerance" can often digest raw milk very well thanks to its naturally occurring lactase.

In fact the phrase, "Lactose Intolerance" or "milk allergy" hardly even existed until people started pasteurizing their milk. Once you pasteurize milk, it kills off the lactase-producing bacteria that you need to digest the lactose.

[align=center][/align]

[BearBones]

I'm not sure mammals ever needed a to gain a "lactose tolerance" mutation to consume dairy. Mammals, by definition, lactate and pass nutrition to their young via raw dairy. And the author and researchers seem to be oblivious to the fact that breast/raw milk already contains lots of lactase-producing bacteria in it. In other words, raw milk — from both breast milk and raw animal milk — already provides all mammals, humans and infants with the lactase enzymes necessary to digest the lactose in milk. Even a person with "Lactose Intolerance" can often digest raw milk very well thanks to its naturally occurring lactase.

Are you sure about this? Agree about the lactase producing bacteria in raw milk, but my guess is that it takes at least 6-48 hours (under ideal conditions) for the bacteria to digest most of the lactose. By that time you have buttermilk, kefir, yogurt or the like. It would seem that there would not enough time in the proximal gut to accomplish this.

[MachineGhost]

Are you sure about this? Agree about the lactase producing bacteria in raw milk, but my guess is that it takes at least 6-48 hours (under ideal conditions) for the bacteria to digest most of the lactose. By that time you have buttermilk, kefir, yogurt or the like. It would seem that there would not enough time in the proximal gut to accomplish this.

Besides, milk allergy is not just the popular lactose intolerance angle.  It's a milk protein issue.  Now, that seems to be because the pastuerization process deranges the milk protein molecule into an alien life form.  Big difference between derangement vs denatured?

[Gumby]

I'm not sure mammals ever needed a to gain a "lactose tolerance" mutation to consume dairy. Mammals, by definition, lactate and pass nutrition to their young via raw dairy. And the author and researchers seem to be oblivious to the fact that breast/raw milk already contains lots of lactase-producing bacteria in it. In other words, raw milk — from both breast milk and raw animal milk — already provides all mammals, humans and infants with the lactase enzymes necessary to digest the lactose in milk. Even a person with "Lactose Intolerance" can often digest raw milk very well thanks to its naturally occurring lactase.

Are you sure about this? Agree about the lactase producing bacteria in raw milk, but my guess is that it takes at least 6-48 hours (under ideal conditions) for the bacteria to digest most of the lactose. By that time you have buttermilk, kefir, yogurt or the like. It would seem that there would not enough time in the proximal gut to accomplish this.

I'm definitely not an expert on how it works (very few people are, since raw milk hasn't been studied heavily) but it is well known that raw milk is more digestible than pasteurized milk.

You say that it would take 6-48 hours for the bacteria to "digest" the lactose, but the bacteria isn't really digesting anything. The bacteria is producing the enzyme, lactase. So, as long as there is an ample supply of that enzyme being produced, the lactose is digested by the enzyme. If you say that the bacteria could not possibly produce enough lactase in time, I don't know the answer. That may be true. Perhaps there is enough lactase bring produced. Perhaps the lactase has already been produced before the milk is consumed. Or perhaps one needs to populate their guts with lactase-producing bacteria — with previous consumption of raw milk — to help digest the milk going forward. I don't know. I will try to find out though.

What I do know is that milk intolerance wasn't much of a problem until we started pasteurizing milk. For whatever reason raw breast/cow's milk is widely considered to be more digestible than pasteurized milk. If I had to guess, it probably has something to do with the presence of lactase producing bacteria.

[MachineGhost]

With a result that is likely to surprise and baffle much of the mainstream medical community, a large NIH-sponsored trial has turned up the first substantial evidence in support of chelation therapy for patients with coronary disease.  Known as TACT (Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy), the highly controversial trial was presented today at the AHA by Gervasio Lamas. The trial was sponsored by two NIH institutes, the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine and the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larryhusten ... n-therapy/