[Norton AntiSpam] Butter

[Guest guest]

Ellen, just curious and wondering why your kids cannot have butter and dairy...are they lactose intolerant or is there another health issue there? Also, what kind of margarine do you find safe for them to eat? Do you avoid the ones with trans fatty acids?

 

If I'm being too nosey, forgive me. It's just friendly curiosity as my mother uses ONLY margarine, not butter (I cannot convince her otherwise), but she at least gets the trans fat free type. I'm wondering if there is a healthier one for her to use since she refuses to switch...

 

--Cee--

 

 

-

Ellen Christian

RealSimple

Saturday, December 30, 2006 11:14 PM

[Norton AntiSpam] Re: [RealSimple] Butter

 

 

 

For someone who is "healthy", butter is great. It's totally all natural and contains none of the nasty things that margarine does. I cannot have margarine. My weight, cholesterol & blood pressure are all fine to low.

 

On the other hand, the kids cannot have butter and have to have only certain types of margarine so for them healthy is different.

 

Eggs in moderation are actually healthy for you to eat.

http://www.hawaii.edu/ur/University_Report/URJuly98/Mythegg.html

 

The key for most of this is to loose weight so that you don't have the added stress of being overweight.

..

[Guest guest]

Hi Celia, Both kids have ADHD and are on gluten free and casein free diets to help control this without putting them on medication. Casein is dairy. Fleischman's unsalted margarine does not contain dairy and there are a few other brands as well. To be honest, I don't worry about fats with the kids. They are skinny little things. Sarah is 13 and wears a size 1. David is 9 and wears a 10/12slim. If anything, I need them to eat more :)Ellen LaFleche-Christian Lilac Hill Homestead / Vermont http://tinyurl.com/lpfaf Do You ?

[Guest guest]

Good point, Russ, about the difference in diet being a contributing factor. And since I have no "proof" that trans fat and other man-made fats are a major cause of this, I will back away from using this particular experience as anecdotal evidence as to the dangers of man-made fats. I tend to like things wrapped up in neat little challenge-proof packages, but this is not undeniable PROOF of anything.

 

But I will challenge you on the stance that Asians eat VERY LITTLE MEAT. They do eat much less than us westerners--especially the Japanese--using meat as an accent instead of meal focus. That said, they do eat animal products at almost every meal, whether it be chicken eggs, beef, pork or fish broth. There are many healthy diets in the world ranging from the traditional old-world Mediterranean diet (which includes pasta, olive oil, meats and cheeses) to the European/American farm diet (meats, cheeses, cream, fresh veggies, fruits and butter) to the Asian diet (Lots of fish, tropical oils, lots of grain, local vegetables and smaller amounts of other animal products). Eskimos eat a diet of 90% or more animal products due to their lack of vegetation in Alaska--most of it raw fat--yet do not suffer form the ailments of western society.

 

My point is that prior to the introduction of dangerous hydrogenated oils and trans fats, the discrepancy between American and Asian health was minimal. American farmers ate meat, cream and butter, but did NOT have cholesterol problems, cardiovascular disease that they do today. Their health and cancer rates were on par with Asians. As soon as Asians adopt TODAY'S American way of eating (not yesterday's), they become as ill as we do.

 

<shrugs shoulders> We are both apparently passionate about what we believe, so we will both just have to do what we think is right. History may prove me wrong and you right, but I doubt either one of us will live long enough to know! <smiles>

 

Warm Regards,

 

Celia

 

 

 

 

-

Bluesea

RealSimple

Monday, January 01, 2007 10:33 AM

[Norton AntiSpam] Re: [RealSimple] Butter

 

 

Hmmm, I thought the reason that Asians were healthier was that their diet consists of mostly vegetables and rice, VERY LITTLEMEAT of any kind. So in comparing an American diet to that of Asians, even in the 60s and 70s, this is a comparison of a very high fat diet with one very low in meat and animal products. This would seem to bolster the argument for not eating butter, eggs, whole milk, etc, not reasons to eat it..Russ

..

[Guest guest]

Celia, well said, you express yourself

well.

 

I avoid trans fats/hydrogenated oils, so no argument there that they

are BAD. I think you and I are actually agreeing... 'very little' and

'much less' seem close to the same point to me regarding amounts of

meat Asians eat. I believe any kind of meat being eaten at most meals

but in very small amounts is OK fat-wise, and this is what I meant by

'very little' meat in the Asian diet, not that they completely

exclude meat a majority of the time. Perhaps the main issue is that

Americans eat

SO MUCH MORE of everything, therefore would get a lot more calories

from fat than a traditional Asian diet would provide.

When 'Supersizing' came on the scene, our meals were already way

over-sized, especially in the meat department. I think portion control

is what Jenny Craig and similar companies manage in successfully

getting people to lose weight, that and

probably the carbs/glycemic thing you folks have talked about here.

 

I have heard of the research regarding eskimos and their massively high

fat diet, and I attributed that to some genetic advantage they've

evolved, the ability to process such a diet without apparent harm. I

don't think I've ever read a scientific explanation as to why they

don't have heart disease. They are hard-working peoples, and must be

so in living off

the land as they do. This may go back to my theory that farmers and

laborers in the American past were also hard workers and

burned off the bacon, eggs, butter and 'heavy on the meat' meals they

ate in those days.

 

Do we know for a fact that our population in decades gone by really did

not have heart disease issues as we do now? I have

been under the impression that today we're simply more aware, and we

are certainly more sedentary. Cancers are up,

I'm sure, but I've read in the old days stomach/intestinal cancer was

simply called consumption. So could it be that disease is just

studied and reported vastly more now. In the 40s, 50s, on average most

people died much earlier than they do today, and it was a normal

thing. So I'm wondering what was killing them so early if not heart

disease and cancers, without the medical interventions for these

diseases that we have today.

 

Heck, I'll have to admit that I'm totally brainwashed and narrow-minded

about saturated fats being the doggoned DEVIL. But I'm certainly

willing to learn from you and perhaps regroup my thoughts on the

subject. Talk to me some more girl!

 

Russ