Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Heart Attacks, Cancer and strokes. Preventative approaches -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (1430)	9/29/2008 1:41:24 PM
From: Joe NYC	1 Recommendation Respond to of 39298

Lindybill, You give yourself away when you start attacking "Genetically modified" foods. You must think I am dumb enough not to know that this process is just a more efficient way of modifying plants than the methods we have been using for thousands of years. Take a look at the corn found by the Spaniards in South America and what was done with it the old fashioned modified way. I can't deny that I enjoy sweet corn on the cob that is most likely genetically modified. Like I said, I am not an absolutist. I just research things as I go, and categorize things as good, bad, neutral, and when I eat, I try to limit the bad, eat more of the good. I am by no means some kind of luddite. I also believe in evolution, but I am not for trying for an evolutionary leap during my lifetime, with me being on the receiving end of the dietary shock. Besides, I (or my wife) are past childbearing age, so if I were to evolve, overcome and adapt to the experiments the food industry throws at us, I am not going to be passing on these genes on any more. So with the food I eat, I am no longer the guinea pig for humanity, it is only about me. The risk benefit is the benefit for the humanity, if I were to develop superior genes and procreate, risk is all to me and my health. So the risk / benefit analysis is prety one sided, IMO. Therefore, with my own scoring, Canola went from good (high in Monosaturated) to neutral or even bad category (as I learned more), since there could be risks associated with it. I see 3 risks: 1. it still has 28% Omega 6 2. apparently, not stable at high heat (property shared with all unsaturated fats) 3. GMO "risks" You can use (or disregard) the info as you please. Joe

To: LindyBill who wrote (1430)	9/29/2008 1:58:25 PM
From: Joe NYC	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 39298

LB, Here is a fat rundown. It's from a "low fat" oriented source, but is still of use. That's the old theory / dogma (saturated fat = bad). The new theory is to avoid fats that are high in Omega 6 (substitute those for low Omega 6 sources) and add Omega 3 oils that have "active" Omega 3 oil EPA. That way, one can approach balance humans have evolved on (Paleoletic diet). That site is downright clueless. Dr. Davis seems to be in process of discovering (adapting to) the above theory based on his recent posts... Joe