Re: sat fat irrelevant?
Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2014 2:33 pm
I think Pritikin was one hundred percent plant no fat but in order to get people to eat his diet he added a pound and a half of animal food per week. Maybe he said that in the interview with dr. Mcd But I am not sure.
If there is someone who has been eating like the okinawans from birth then eating the amount of animal food those on their traditional diet ate you would be eating about 17 pounds of fish per year or less than an ounce per day and about nine pounds of pork per year which amounts to less than half an ounce per day.
Rural Chinese farmers who live to 85 and who have been autopsied have been shown to have only a 20% blockage (I am guessing on average) even on a diet which must have been very very low on animal foods. That number isn't 0.
So I am guessing that anyone who spent years on the SAD is taking a chance on "just a little bit " of animal food. And you are right. What constitutes a little bit and will people stick to that little bit?
If there is someone who has been eating like the okinawans from birth then eating the amount of animal food those on their traditional diet ate you would be eating about 17 pounds of fish per year or less than an ounce per day and about nine pounds of pork per year which amounts to less than half an ounce per day.
Rural Chinese farmers who live to 85 and who have been autopsied have been shown to have only a 20% blockage (I am guessing on average) even on a diet which must have been very very low on animal foods. That number isn't 0.
So I am guessing that anyone who spent years on the SAD is taking a chance on "just a little bit " of animal food. And you are right. What constitutes a little bit and will people stick to that little bit?