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: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (4880)	5/3/2009 5:52:54 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39395

You left out this part that came before the but.. Because it seemed like token language, a segue more than an active point. <g> that the lower fats levels were the point.. It's hard to tell. That fat is "evil" is so much a pillar of nutritional politically correctness that it's hard to tell whether it's the point or just a rote part of the litany. When you read the propaganda on grass-fed, you get a few sentences about the added nutritional elements. Then the piece lapses into the obligatory litany about animal rights and the environment, which makes it hard to isolate the omega/cla question. Not that I don't care about animal rights and the environment, only that my brain is offended by the failure to differentiate the elements and stay on point. the amount of beef consumed may really not be worthwhile the added expense and time of grass fed sources.. Indeed. I eat beef almost every day because it's what best satisfies my hunger and scratches my appetite itch, so the question is more critical to me. If I ate beef once or twice a week, I wouldn't bother with grass-fed, at least not for nutritional reasons.