which veg. food contains a lot of vitamin B12 (cobalamin)?

Ingo

"Ingo Seibold" > wrote in message
...
> which veg. food contains a lot of vitamin B12 (cobalamin)?
>
> Ingo

There are fortified vegan foods such as some brands of soy milk and
breakfast cereals. However if you're going to get enough B12 on a vegan diet
you must take a supplement. You may also be missing out on some other
vitamins and minerals unless you include some eggs and milk in your diet. If
nothing else I must insist you take a good multivitamin.

Really though, instead of listening to me or to people on this group, you
should probably go talk to a nutritionist or at least a doctor to help come
up with a nutritional plan which will work for you so you can get all your
nutrients.

I've known more than one vegan (and even one vegetarian) who had to quit the
diet due to deficiencies. If you want to make it work, then spending the
time and money on some professional advice would be worth it.

-Rubystars

they had this blurb on the vrg site (below). personally, to make sure i get
my b12, i drink fortified soymilk as well as using it in cooking and in my
morning oatmeal, get a little from other fortified foods (although i try to
stay away from too much processed food), and use a fair amount of
nutritional yeast in my cooking. i also take a half-dose vegan multivitamin
every day...you're supposed to take two of them to get the full amount of
everything, but i don't want to use it as a crutch (you know, eat more junk
since i'm getting my vitamins in a pill). so i take half as a 'just incase'
safety net and that forces me to eat extra healthy to get my vitamins from
my food. so that's my strategy...mixing n' matching instead of relying on
one source for any nutrient. but yeah, good advice from rubystars on the
nutritionist thing. it's always good to hash out a diet plan with a
professional if you're worried, and either way, you should always have a
blood test each year (in a physical or whatever) to check and see if
everything is where it should be. cause even if you're eating b12 or iron
out the ears, or even if you're a meat-eater, you could still have an
absorption problem that could leave you with depleted levels. always better
to keep an eye on your health and avoid feeling crappy.
Reliable Vegan Sources of Vitamin B12
A number of reliable vegan food sources for vitamin B12 are known. One brand
of nutritional yeast, Red Star T-6635+, has been tested and shown to contain
active vitamin B12. This brand of yeast is often labeled as Vegetarian
Support Formula with or without T-6635+ in parentheses following this new
name. It is a reliable source of vitamin B12. Nutritional yeast,
Saccharomyces cerevisiae, is a food yeast, grown on a molasses solution,
which comes as yellow flakes or powder. It has a cheesy taste. Nutritional
yeast is different from brewer's yeast or torula yeast. It can often be used
by those sensitive to other yeasts.
The RDA (which includes a safety factor) for adults for vitamin B12 is 2.4
micrograms daily [4]. 2.4 micrograms of vitamin B12 are provided by a little
less than 1 Tablespoon of Vegetarian Support Formula (Red Star T-6635+)
nutritional yeast. A number of the recipes in this book contain nutritional
yeast.

Another source of vitamin B12 is fortified cereal. We recommend checking the
label of your favorite cereal since manufacturers have been known to stop
including vitamin B12.

Other sources of vitamin B12 are vitamin B12-fortified soy milk, vitamin
B12-fortified meat analogues (food made from wheat gluten or soybeans to
resemble meat, poultry or fish), and vitamin B12 supplements. There are
vitamin supplements which do not contain animal products.

Vegans who choose to use a vitamin B12 supplement, either as a single
supplement or in a multi-vitamin should use supplements at least several
times a week. Even though a supplement may contain many times the
recommended level of vitamin B12, when vitamin B12 intake is high, not as
much appears to be absorbed. This means in order to meet your needs, you
should take the vitamin several times a week.

"Ingo Seibold" > wrote in message
...
> which veg. food contains a lot of vitamin B12 (cobalamin)?
>
> Ingo
>
>

Rubystars wrote:

> There are fortified vegan foods such as some brands of soy milk and
> breakfast cereals. However if you're going to get enough B12 on a vegan diet
> you must take a supplement. You may also be missing out on some other
> vitamins and minerals unless you include some eggs and milk in your diet. If
> nothing else I must insist you take a good multivitamin.

There simply is no reason a vegan needs to be consuming eggs or milk at
all. Milk especially is *not* a wholesome food these days. I don't know
what necessary nutrients you think you get from milk or eggs that you
cannot obtain from non-animal sources, but for the record your statement
is quite inaccurate.

Re the vitamin B-12, yes it is necessary to supplement this these days,
either through fortified foods such as nutritional yeast and fortified
soy milk, or by using a supplement. In days of yore this would not have
been necessary. The ultimate source of B-12 is from bacteria, for both
humans and animals. Our clean, antiseptic society now prevents us from
getting the bacterial input that would make supplementation unnecessary.
Antibiotics, both in medications and residues in factory-raised animal
foods, kill off bacteria in our mouths and guts that would provide B-12,
and also our food is much cleaner than in our past. This is good from a
disease perspective, but it makes supplementation of this one factor
wise for long-term vegans.

Most non-vegans have enough stored B-12 to last for years, by the way,
unless they have absorption problems. The majority of B-12 deficiency
problems are due to faulty absorption, by the way. For that reason, it
may be best to supplement with sublingual B-12 tablets rather than
relying on a multi-vitamin tablet.

There are healthy vegan diets and unhealthy ones. If you concentrate on
eating a varied diet of whole, relatively unprocessed foods, such as raw
and lightly cooked vegetables of all kinds, sprouted and cooked legumes,
cooked and sprouted whole grains, raw and lightly cooked fresh fruits,
and modest amounts of nuts and seeds, you will be eating a very healthy
diet that will likely be adequate in all the nutrients you need (other
than the B-12). If, on the other hand, you eat a vegan diet that
displaces these wholesome foods with lots of oil, processed grains,
sugars, etc., then you might find yourself very unhealthy. There's no
magic in just eating a vegan diet, other than avoiding the plethora of
toxic contaminants and food-borne illness that animal foods provide.

There is a lot of great information on vegan eating out on the internet.
My favorite source of free information is found at
http://www.drmcdougall.com , particularly the science part of his
website and the newsletter archives, which are loaded with referenced
science. A good book on the subject is "Becoming Vegan", which has been
recommended on this newsgroup many times by many individuals. There's no
doubt whatsoever that a good, healthy vegan diet is possible if you
ditch the junk foods and make good choices.

Karen

"Karen K" > wrote in message
...
> Rubystars wrote:
>
> > There are fortified vegan foods such as some brands of soy milk and
> > breakfast cereals. However if you're going to get enough B12 on a vegan
diet
> > you must take a supplement. You may also be missing out on some other
> > vitamins and minerals unless you include some eggs and milk in your
diet. If
> > nothing else I must insist you take a good multivitamin.
>
> There simply is no reason a vegan needs to be consuming eggs or milk at
> all. Milk especially is *not* a wholesome food these days. I don't know
> what necessary nutrients you think you get from milk or eggs that you
> cannot obtain from non-animal sources, but for the record your statement
> is quite inaccurate.
>
> Re the vitamin B-12, yes it is necessary to supplement this these days,
> either through fortified foods such as nutritional yeast and fortified
> soy milk, or by using a supplement. In days of yore this would not have
> been necessary. The ultimate source of B-12 is from bacteria, for both
> humans and animals. Our clean, antiseptic society now prevents us from
> getting the bacterial input that would make supplementation unnecessary.
> Antibiotics, both in medications and residues in factory-raised animal
> foods, kill off bacteria in our mouths and guts that would provide B-12,
> and also our food is much cleaner than in our past. This is good from a
> disease perspective, but it makes supplementation of this one factor
> wise for long-term vegans.
>
> Most non-vegans have enough stored B-12 to last for years, by the way,
> unless they have absorption problems. The majority of B-12 deficiency
> problems are due to faulty absorption, by the way. For that reason, it
> may be best to supplement with sublingual B-12 tablets rather than
> relying on a multi-vitamin tablet.
>
> There are healthy vegan diets and unhealthy ones. If you concentrate on
> eating a varied diet of whole, relatively unprocessed foods, such as raw
> and lightly cooked vegetables of all kinds, sprouted and cooked legumes,
> cooked and sprouted whole grains, raw and lightly cooked fresh fruits,
> and modest amounts of nuts and seeds, you will be eating a very healthy
> diet that will likely be adequate in all the nutrients you need (other
> than the B-12). If, on the other hand, you eat a vegan diet that
> displaces these wholesome foods with lots of oil, processed grains,
> sugars, etc., then you might find yourself very unhealthy. There's no
> magic in just eating a vegan diet, other than avoiding the plethora of
> toxic contaminants and food-borne illness that animal foods provide.
>
> There is a lot of great information on vegan eating out on the internet.
> My favorite source of free information is found at
> http://www.drmcdougall.com ,

ooooo....i love dr. mcdougall! his books, cookbooks, and articles are
great! (still trying to ease fully into the '12-day' style of eating -
couldn't dream of doing m.w.l.!) he's such a nice guy, too. you can always
email him directly or post to him on his discussion group, and he'll
actually answer you. i'll bet that most folks who put out food-lifestyle
books aren't that accessible.

particularly the science part of his
> website and the newsletter archives, which are loaded with referenced
> science. A good book on the subject is "Becoming Vegan", which has been
> recommended on this newsgroup many times by many individuals. There's no
> doubt whatsoever that a good, healthy vegan diet is possible if you
> ditch the junk foods and make good choices.
>
> Karen

Karen K wrote:
>> There are fortified vegan foods such as some brands of soy milk and
>> breakfast cereals. However if you're going to get enough B12 on a
>> vegan diet
>> you must take a supplement. You may also be missing out on some other
>> vitamins and minerals unless you include some eggs and milk in your
>> diet. If
>> nothing else I must insist you take a good multivitamin.
>
> There simply is no reason a vegan needs to be consuming eggs or milk at
> all. Milk especially is *not* a wholesome food these days.

It depends on the source of the milk, and the kind.

> I don't know
> what necessary nutrients you think you get from milk or eggs that you
> cannot obtain from non-animal sources, but for the record your statement
> is quite inaccurate.

Her statement was fair. Dairy can be a beneficial part of one's diet, and so can
eggs. Veg-ns make as many nutritional mistakes as omnivores, and they can be
every bit as dangerous over the long term. One of the biggest misconceptions
veg-ns can have is that their diet is automatically "better" in nutritional
value (much less the ****ed up ethical notions they perpetrate) than another.

http://www.healthandage.com/Home/gid2=1871
http://www.aeb.org/food/eggs-health.html

> Re the vitamin B-12, yes it is necessary to supplement this these days,
> either through fortified foods such as nutritional yeast and fortified
> soy milk, or by using a supplement. In days of yore this would not have
> been necessary.

Because people weren't religious zealots when it came to their food. Veg-nism,
in our culture, is an historical novelty. Our bodies, though, carry the wisdom
of natural selection. Our ancestors ate meat and dairy and eggs; they didn't
suffer iron, zinc, or B12 deficiencies at the rates found in vegans. Our
ancestors also didn't eat as much saturated fats and transfats, nor as much
simple sugar, as we do today. They were a bit leaner.

[T]he present consensus is that any B12 present in plant foods is likely
to be unavailable to humans and so these foods should not be relied upon
as safe sources....

The only reliable unfortified sources of vitamin B12 are meat, dairy
products and eggs. There has been considerable research into possible
plant food sources of B12. Fermented soya products, seaweeds and algae
have all been proposed as possible sources of B12. However, analysis of
fermented soya products, including tempeh, miso, shoyu and tamari, found
no significant B12.
http://www.vegsoc.org/info/b12.html

> The ultimate source of B-12 is from bacteria, for both
> humans and animals. Our clean, antiseptic society now prevents us from
> getting the bacterial input that would make supplementation unnecessary.
> Antibiotics, both in medications and residues in factory-raised animal
> foods, kill off bacteria in our mouths and guts that would provide B-12,
> and also our food is much cleaner than in our past. This is good from a
> disease perspective, but it makes supplementation of this one factor
> wise for long-term vegans.

Which is more important: living in a society where contagions periodically wipe
out significant portions of the population or supplementing one's peculiar diet
because of its inherent deficiencies?

> Most non-vegans have enough stored B-12 to last for years, by the way,
> unless they have absorption problems.

Absorption can also affect vegans, whose livers store increasingly less B12, BY
THE WAY, in which case the vegan diet is contraindicated.

> The majority of B-12 deficiency
> problems are due to faulty absorption, by the way.

That comes from comparing deficiencies among the whole population, BY THE WAY,
not isolated groups. It would stand to reason that absorption would be a
significant reason for deficiency in those who eat a balanced diet including
meat, eggs, and dairy. It completely begs the issue for the presence of such a
condition among vegans -- you know, those whose diet is intentionally deficient.

> For that reason, it
> may be best to supplement with sublingual B-12 tablets rather than
> relying on a multi-vitamin tablet.

Or B12 injections, particularly for vegans who willfully deprive themselves of
B12 *and* who just may have a hard time absorbing it.

> There are healthy vegan diets and unhealthy ones. If you concentrate on
> eating a varied diet of whole, relatively unprocessed foods, such as raw
> and lightly cooked vegetables of all kinds, sprouted and cooked legumes,
> cooked and sprouted whole grains, raw and lightly cooked fresh fruits,
> and modest amounts of nuts and seeds, you will be eating a very healthy
> diet that will likely be adequate in all the nutrients you need (other
> than the B-12).

And iron and zinc.

> If, on the other hand, you eat a vegan diet that
> displaces these wholesome foods with lots of oil, processed grains,
> sugars, etc., then you might find yourself very unhealthy. There's no
> magic in just eating a vegan diet, other than avoiding the plethora of
> toxic contaminants and food-borne illness that animal foods provide.

Food-borne illness rates are higher for produce than for animal-derived foods.
That includes sprouts and unpasteurized juices, not to mention salads.

> There is a lot of great information on vegan eating out on the internet.
> My favorite source of free information is found at
> http://www.drmcdougall.com , particularly the science part of his
> website and the newsletter archives, which are loaded with referenced
> science. A good book on the subject is "Becoming Vegan", which has been
> recommended on this newsgroup many times by many individuals. There's no
> doubt whatsoever that a good, healthy vegan diet is possible if you
> ditch the junk foods and make good choices.

Same is true with an omnivorous diet, which isn't inherently deficient in zinc,
iron, and B12.

> Her statement was fair. Dairy can be a beneficial part of one's diet, and
so can
> eggs.

Please support this claim with evidence. Animal products contain cholesterol
which is bad for humans as we are metabolic herbivores. Animal products are
also inherently allergenic, even in tiny amounts because they are "foreign"
proteins.

> veg-ns can have is that their diet is automatically "better" in
nutritional
> value (much less the ****ed up ethical notions they perpetrate) than
another.

true

> in our culture, is an historical novelty. Our bodies, though, carry the
wisdom
> of natural selection. Our ancestors ate meat and dairy and eggs; they
didn't
> suffer iron, zinc, or B12 deficiencies at the rates found in vegans.

Maybe true, but they did suffer from atherosclerosis and arthritis, and
rarely live beyond 60. Nutrition is much more to do with how plant foods are
cultivated, and since food is cultivated for profit and not nutritional
value, it's no surprise that supermarket food is pretty wacked
nutritionally.

> The only reliable unfortified sources of vitamin B12 are meat, dairy
> products and eggs.

Actually dairy only scores really well as it is relatively uncooked. In the
Framingham Heart study, meat eating was not such a good indicator of B12
levels than milk intake. However, the only really safe way to get a really
good B12 score is to take the supplement.

> And iron and zinc.

Actually there is no evidence that eating any of the vast array of recent
culturally inspired diets, vegan or whatever, is healthy at all. Rather
there is just a lot of unsupported rhetoric, but no credible logic or facts.

John

John Coleman wrote:
>>Her statement was fair. Dairy can be a beneficial part of one's diet, and
> so can
>>eggs.
>
> Please support this claim with evidence.

http://www.healthandage.com/Home/gid2=1871

> Animal products contain cholesterol
> which is bad for humans

No, it isn't. Our own bodies produce cholesterol. Serum cholesterol is
marginally affected by dietary cholesterol; seafood, especially oily cold-water
fish, are high in cholesterol and help elevate HDL (good cholesterol) which in
turn helps lower LDL (bad cholesterol). Consumption of saturated fats (from both
plant and animal sources) is linked to elevated serum cholesterol levels.

> as we are metabolic herbivores.

Please support your own claim with evidence.

> Animal products are
> also inherently allergenic,

Ipse dixit. Please support your own claim with evidence.

> even in tiny amounts because they are "foreign"
> proteins.

No, they are not. The basic building block of proteins are amino acids. The
peptides (amino groups) found in meat are not "foreign" to our bodies. Our
physiology is sufficient to digest and make use of meat proteins.

>>veg-ns can have is that their diet is automatically "better" in
> nutritional
>>value (much less the ****ed up ethical notions they perpetrate) than
> another.
>
> true
>
>>in our culture, is an historical novelty. Our bodies, though, carry the
> wisdom
>>of natural selection. Our ancestors ate meat and dairy and eggs; they
> didn't
>>suffer iron, zinc, or B12 deficiencies at the rates found in vegans.
>
> Maybe true,

No, definitely true.

> but they did suffer from atherosclerosis and arthritis, and
> rarely live beyond 60.

Early diseases were far greater causes of death. People died earlier from
infections, diarrhea, cholera, etc., and cardiovascular diseases were far less
prevalent.

<...>

> http://www.healthandage.com/Home/gid2=1871

A link to some crappy nutritional propaganda?

> No, it isn't.

That is not the consensus of opinion.

> Our own bodies produce cholesterol.

So what, that does not infer you need to add to it.

> Serum cholesterol is
> marginally affected by dietary cholesterol;

It's a margin the wrong way.

> seafood, especially oily cold-water
> fish, are high in cholesterol and help elevate HDL (good cholesterol)
which in
> turn helps lower LDL (bad cholesterol).

I don't eat any dead animals. My TC is a shade over 2, what's yours?

> Consumption of saturated fats (from both
> plant and animal sources) is linked to elevated serum cholesterol levels.

Do oily cold water fish contain saturated fat? How much saturated fat does
the average piece of fruit contain?

> Please support your own claim with evidence.

Page 280 Harpers Biochemistry 24 Ed, a medical students text - "The rabbit,
pig , monkey, and humans are species in which atherosclerosis can be induced
by feeding cholesterol. The rat, dog and cat are resistant."

Now read this post:

"This is interesting:

Primary hyperoxaluria type 1 (PH1) is a recessive disease in which an
enzyme,
alanine:glyoxylate aminotransferase (AGT), is mistargetted from the
peroxisomes
where it functions in the glyoxylate pathway, to the mitochondia (1) where
it is
inefficient. It can be caused by defects in at least 2
glyoxylate-metabolizing
enzymes and leads to excessive urine oxalate excretion resulting in kidney
stones and/or calcification of the kidney which can occur in childhood or
adolescence. Patients used to die on average at age 36 (2), however vitamin
B12
therapy and dietary changes can help to increase lifespan in certain forms
of
the disorder.

"One molecular adaptation to diet that is spread widely across Mammalia is
the
differential intracellular targeting of the intermediary metabolic enzyme
alanine:glyoxylate aminotransferase (AGT), which tends to be mitochondrial
in
carnivores, peroxisomal in herbivores, and both mitochondrial and
peroxisomal in
omnivores." (3)

As we have seen, normal humans express the AGT gene effectively in their
peroxisomes, but when AGT is targetted to the mitchondria such as in the PH1
mutation, it cannot operate effectively. I therefore conclude that humans
evolved through the herbivorous lineage, having evolved peroxisomes,
but not mitochondria, adapted to effective glyoxylate metabolism.

Thanks to Danpure and associates for this useful research, and my friend
Laurie
for sharing it.

John Coleman
---

1) J Nephrol. 1998 Mar-Apr;11 Suppl 1:8-12. The molecular basis of alanine:
glyoxylate aminotransferase mistargeting: the most common single cause of
primary hyperoxaluria type 1. Danpure CJ.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

2) Primary Hyperoxalurias
http://mayoresearch.mayo.edu/mayo/re...eroxaluria.cfm

3) Mol. Biol. Evol. 21(4):632-646. 2004. Differential Enzyme Targeting As an
Evolutionary Adaptation to Herbivory in Carnivora. Birdsey GM, Lewin J,
Cunningham AA, Bruford MW and Danpure CJ.
http://mbe.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/21/4/632?ct"

> Ipse dixit. Please support your own claim with evidence.

When they give folk tissue transplants, they have to take meds to reduce the
immune system reaction. Common knowledge.

> No, they are not.

Yes they are!

> The basic building block of proteins are amino acids.

People eat _protein_ not amino acids, 100% of the protein does not end up as
amino acids in your stomach. Some survives into the colon where it is
reduced to various bad smelling toxins, some just goes right through your
gut wall into your circulation and innevitably triggers your immune system
for panic you can avoid.

> peptides (amino groups) found in meat are not "foreign" to our bodies. Our
> physiology is sufficient to digest and make use of meat proteins.

Dream on. Undigested meat fragments can be recovered from human urine
sediments for sequencing. Sure you can digest some of it, but that doesn't
make it a good idea.

> >>of natural selection. Our ancestors ate meat and dairy and eggs; they
> > didn't
> >>suffer iron, zinc, or B12 deficiencies at the rates found in vegans.
> >
> > Maybe true,
>
> No, definitely true.

And the evidence over millions of years is? Okay, I accept modern vegan
populations have some issues sometimes. These can be addressed with
introducing a variety of plant foods and a supplement.

> Early diseases were far greater causes of death. People died earlier from
> infections, diarrhea, cholera, etc., and cardiovascular diseases were far
less
> prevalent.

So not a very persuasive argument in terms of health.

Here is another post (about Otzi), the Neolithic corpse who had
atherosclerosis and arthirits, needless to say he was not vegan. But he was
lucky, an arrow killed him before the bad diet:

"There was a very good TV program about Otzi on last week, and they were
talking
about his last meal (as described), as well as how they think he was killed
(by
an arrow). Clearly the hair analysis researchers need to take stock of this
new
evidence. Given that the ice men wore furs, it was surprising to see them
touted
as vegetarians, but that was the best evidence available at the time.

Looks like someone got their sums or assumptions wrong, or maybe the
analysis
was faulty?

This may upset the Paleolithic and Pottenger fanatics, but Otzi was a
typical
sick meat eater:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/inicetran.shtml

"NARRATOR:
The Iceman's health has been a big question since the beginning and he has
regularly been taken out of his fridge for tests. The X-rays revealed a
surprisingly modern complaint.

DIETER ZUR NEDDEN (GERMAN WITH SUBTITLES):
We have found massive calcification in the aorta area of the stomach. We
found
massive calcification in the brain's blood supply. I believe this was caused
by
fat deposits in the walls of the blood vessels which led to calcification.
This
was the result of a metabolic disease like high cholesterol. "

So even if the arrow had not killed him, his diet would have."


John C

> No, it isn't. Our own bodies produce cholesterol. Serum cholesterol is
> marginally affected by dietary cholesterol; seafood, especially oily
cold-water
> fish, are high in cholesterol and help elevate HDL (good cholesterol)
which in
> turn helps lower LDL (bad cholesterol). Consumption of saturated fats
(from both
> plant and animal sources) is linked to elevated serum cholesterol levels.

dietary cholesterol is still harmful even though it may only elevate LDL
slightly, it has a big pro-oxidative effect:

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2000/000404.htm

John C

the malnourished John Coleman wrote:
>>http://www.healthandage.com/Home/gid2=1871
>
> A link to some crappy nutritional propaganda?

As opposed to your posts and/or your failed medical tests?

>>No, it isn't.
>
> That is not the consensus of opinion.

Actually, it is.
http://www.enc-online.org/dietc.htm

>>Our own bodies produce cholesterol.
>
> So what, that does not infer you need to add to it.

That's not the issue you raised, dummy. You said that dietary intake of
cholesterol raises serum cholesterol. I've already noted in earlier replies to
you that seafood is often recommended for those with hypercholesterolemia. Fish
is high in cholesterol, yet it helps elevate HDL -- the good cholesterol. What
raises LDL (the bad cholesterol) is saturated fat. See link above, and I can
cite many more studies if you need them.

>>Serum cholesterol is
>>marginally affected by dietary cholesterol;
>
> It's a margin the wrong way.

Ipse dixit.

Ginsberg et al. 1994. A dose-response study of the effects of dietary
cholesterol on fasting and postprandial lipid and lipoprotein metabolism
in healthy young men. Arterioscler. Thrombosis 14:576-586.

For these controlled feeding studies twenty-four young men were fed 30%
fat diets (NCEP Step I) with addition of zero (128 mg cholesterol/day),
one (283 mg/day), two (468 mg/day) or four (858 mg/day) eggs per day to
the basal diet. Each diet was fed for eight weeks. Average plasma
cholesterol levels in the twenty-four subjects were 155, 161, 162, and
166 mg/dl for the zero, one, two and four eggs per day feeding periods.
Plasma total cholesterol increased 1.5 mg/dl per 100 mg/day added
dietary cholesterol. There was no evidence that changes in dietary
cholesterol intakes altered the postprandial plasma lipoprotein profile
(lipoproteins thought to be involved in the development of
atherosclerosis) and thus did not alter the atherogenic potential of the
plasma lipoproteins. The data indicate that in the majority of healthy
young men addition of two eggs per day to a low-fat diet has little
effect on plasma cholesterol levels.

>>seafood, especially oily cold-water
>>fish, are high in cholesterol and help elevate HDL (good cholesterol)
> which in
>>turn helps lower LDL (bad cholesterol).
>
> I don't eat any dead animals. My TC is a shade over 2, what's yours?

TC = Total Cholesterol?

>>Consumption of saturated fats (from both
>>plant and animal sources) is linked to elevated serum cholesterol levels.
>
> Do oily cold water fish contain saturated fat?

Some, but not very much. Raw salmon, per 100g:
Total saturated fat Gms : 0.981
Ttl monounsaturated fat Gms : 2.103
Ttl polyunsaturated fat Gms : 2.539

It gets ~40% of calories from fat. It also helps elevate HDL.

> How much saturated fat does
> the average piece of fruit contain?

Avocados, olives? Some. Sweet fruits? None.

>>Please support your own claim with evidence.
>
> Page 280 Harpers Biochemistry 24 Ed, a medical students text - "The rabbit,
> pig , monkey, and humans are species in which atherosclerosis can be induced
> by feeding cholesterol. The rat, dog and cat are resistant."

Not exactly:
Severe atherosclerotic lesions with clinical significance rarely appear
in the heart, brain, and kidney even in a dog involved with *systemic
atherosclerosis*. Immunohistochemical distribution of apolipoprotein in
the peripheral arteries has been rarely detected in dogs. No reports
have indicated whether aging is a factor in the occurrence of lesions in
dog. However, routine histopathologic examinations of the dog, with or
without hyperlipidemia and *systemic atherosclerosis*, frequently reveal
the accumulation of lipids and hyaline materials in the central and
penicillar arteries of the spleen, occasionally associated with
hemorrhage and infarction.
http://www.vetpathology.org/cgi/content/full/38/4/407

See also: http://snipurl.com/5yyp

<...>

the misguided and malnourished John Coleman wrote:
<...>
> dietary cholesterol is still harmful even though it may only elevate LDL
> slightly, it has a big pro-oxidative effect:

You don't have good comprehension, do you? It's also a goalpost move: you
claimed that eating food high in cholesterol increased serum cholesterol. The
study you cite below started with people with moderaltely elevated LDL and they
consumed double the recommended allowance of cholesterol. Oxidation was highest
(TWICE as high) in the corn oil-fed group as in the beef tallow group.

> http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2000/000404.htm
<...>

Now what was your point in relation to what I originally wrote, dummy? Let me
refresh your memory:
Serum cholesterol is marginally affected by dietary cholesterol;
seafood, especially oily cold-water fish, are high in cholesterol and
help elevate HDL (good cholesterol) which in turn helps lower LDL (bad
cholesterol). Consumption of saturated fats (from both plant and animal
sources) is linked to elevated serum cholesterol levels.

From a page on cholesterol management:
There are three kinds of fats in foods: saturated, polyunsaturated and
monounsaturated fats. Only saturated fatty acids can raise your blood
cholesterol.
http://www.mssm.edu/cvi/cholesterol.shtml

Fish, an important source of the polyunsaturated fat known as omega-3,
has received much attention in the past for its potential to lower heart
disease risk. And there have been some studies to back this up, although not
all have shown consistent benefits. One recent large trial, however, found that
by getting 1 gram per day of omega-3 fatty acids over a 3.5
year period, patients who had previous suffered heart attacks could
lower their risk of dying from heart disease by 25 percent. (To get that
amount of omega-3 fatty acids would require the equivalent of 1 daily
serving of fatty fish, such as mackerel, salmon, sardines, or
swordfish.) Although more research is needed, adding fish to the diet
may help protect you from heart disease, and it doesn't have any known
risks. The American Heart Association currently recommends that everyone
eat at least two servings of fish a week.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fats.html

BTW, that same 100g of raw wild salmon I mentioned in another post has:
Cholesterol Mg : 55.000

That's almost 20% of the USRDA for cholesterol. Wow.

See also:
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09319.html

And these two, just to **** you off:
http://www.ag.ohio-state.edu/~meatsc...anredmeat.html
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever...ins.paleo.html

> That's not the issue you raised, dummy. You said that dietary intake of
> cholesterol raises serum cholesterol.

Rubbish, I said "Please support this claim with evidence. Animal products
contain cholesterol
which is bad for humans as we are metabolic herbivores. Animal products are
also inherently allergenic, even in tiny amounts because they are "foreign"
proteins."

You sir are an offensive liar.

John C

> You don't have good comprehension, do you? It's also a goalpost move: you
> claimed that eating food high in cholesterol increased serum cholesterol.

I made no such claim, you just pulled that out of your head yourself, go
back and read the original post.

> consumed double the recommended allowance of cholesterol. Oxidation was
highest
> (TWICE as high) in the corn oil-fed group as in the beef tallow group.

I'll make this easy - In what way does this research not support my
contention that dietary cholesterol is bad for you? If dietary cholesterol
isn't bad for humans then why have a limit on it - why even bother about it?

Why isn't cholesterol bad for cats and dogs, but is for humans and other
herbivores?

John C

the whiny and grossly malnourished John Coleman wrote:
>>That's not the issue you raised, dummy. You said that dietary intake of
>>cholesterol raises serum cholesterol.
>
> Rubbish, I said "Please support this claim with evidence. Animal products
> contain cholesterol
> which is bad for humans

Prove it.

> as we are metabolic herbivores.

Prove it.

> Animal products are
> also inherently allergenic,

Prove it.

> even in tiny amounts because they are "foreign"
> proteins."

Prove it.

> You sir are an offensive liar.

No, arsehole, you are. I have disabused each of your points above.

the malnourished prat John Coleman wrote:
>>You don't have good comprehension, do you? It's also a goalpost move: you
>>claimed that eating food high in cholesterol increased serum cholesterol.
>
> I made no such claim,

Liar.

> you just pulled that out of your head yourself, go
> back and read the original post.

I did.

>>consumed double the recommended allowance of cholesterol. Oxidation was
> highest
>>(TWICE as high) in the corn oil-fed group as in the beef tallow group.
>
> I'll make this easy -

That's the only way a malnourished prat like you could comprehend it anyway: simple.

> In what way does this research not support my
> contention that dietary cholesterol is bad for you?

For starters, the people already had moderately high cholesterol. It was raised
slightly for the study. The highest oxidation levels were observed in the group
fed corn oil -- TWICE as much oxidation as those eating beef tallow. Your point
doesn't stand, nitwit.

> If dietary cholesterol
> isn't bad for humans then why have a limit on it - why even bother about it?

Dietary cholesterol is only an issue for those with hypercholesterolemia, which
most often occurs because of endogenous cholesterol (over)production rather than
dietary intake.

> Why isn't cholesterol bad for cats and dogs, but is for humans

It isn't "bad" for humans except those who have hypercholesterolemia due to
endogenous issues. A diet high in saturated fats will also cause elevated LDL,
which is "bad."

> and other herbivores?

Humans are not herbivores, we're omnivores. As to the answer of your entire
bogus question, we have some physiological differences between cats and dogs
(which are closer to being full carnivores than we are).