# Which is healthier, Smart Balance or butter?



## beccalou79 (Mar 16, 2007)

I honestly don't know, and I'm tired of waffling between the two every time I need some!


----------



## tinuviel_k (Apr 29, 2004)

I believe butter is far healthier (and it tastes better!). We only use butter at our house.


----------



## desertpenguin (Apr 15, 2005)

butter, particularly pastured organic butter...fat soluble vitamins. mmm.


----------



## fek&fuzz (Jun 19, 2005)

butter!







:


----------



## Dillpicklechip (Nov 10, 2006)

Another vote for butter here...even though our budget is tight I always make sure we have lots! Since I switched to butter, I find that margarine tastes incredibly artificial. I can't even eat it anymore.


----------



## WildIris (Oct 22, 2007)

Butter is a whole food, a real food with real nutrients.

Earth Balance is a fake, highly-processed food.

I vote for butter.


----------



## chrissy (Jun 5, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WildIris* 
Butter is a whole food, a real food with real nutrients.

Earth Balance is a fake, highly-processed food.

I vote for butter.

that.


----------



## Pinky Tuscadero (Jul 5, 2003)

Ditto everyone else. We love our raw butter and I consider it a necessary food, not just something to put on bread and veggies. It's so full of things our bodies need. It's almost a medicine to me!


----------



## SusanInItaly (Oct 5, 2003)

I'm facinated by what you guys say about butter!! I only use real butter as well but only because I'm a big believer in the whole "less ingredients" thing and that is a "natural" product vs made in a lab like margarine.

Could someone point me in the right direction to learn about the potential health benefits of butter?


----------



## Ammaarah (May 21, 2005)

The Traditional Foods moms will have lots to say about butter. Check out that forum if you dare.









I vote for butter too!


----------



## SusanInItaly (Oct 5, 2003)

Thanks! I'm reading something about cavities and tooth decay right now in the Dental forum.

Off to traditional foods next!


----------



## catnip (Mar 25, 2002)

IMO, neither one is good for you, and either should be used in small enough quantities to make little to no difference.

But I'm vegan and a believer in a low fat diet high in unrefined carbohydrates, which is what works best for me.


----------



## terrordactyl (Jul 19, 2006)

butter if you are going to be using margarine use organic earth balance and not smart balance


----------



## Purple Sage (Apr 23, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *catnip* 
IMO, neither one is good for you, and either should be used in small enough quantities to make little to no difference.

But I'm vegan and a believer in a low fat diet high in unrefined carbohydrates, which is what works best for me.









: Another vote for "neither" here.


----------



## MiaPia (Aug 28, 2003)

Another "BUTTER" vote here! If you Google "health benefits butter" you'll come up with a wealth of information. Here's one site with list of butter benefits.


----------



## Pinky Tuscadero (Jul 5, 2003)

Eat more butter!

http://www.westonaprice.org/foodfeatures/butter.html


----------



## Mirzam (Sep 9, 2002)

Butter, butter, butter, butter. Preferably from cream from raw pasture-fed cows.


----------



## PPK (Feb 15, 2007)

I make ghee out of butter, so great and many healing qualities (according to ayurveda). It also removes the impurities.


----------



## alysmommy2004 (Jun 23, 2006)

Butter!

wow, I didin't know about all of the good things butter has in it. I just assumed it was better because it was more whole and less plasticky.


----------



## beccalou79 (Mar 16, 2007)

Wow! Thanks for all the replies. I'll definitely go for the real stuff next time we shop...


----------



## Metasequoia (Jun 7, 2005)

Mmmmmm....butter!


----------



## Maluhia (Jun 24, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *catnip* 
IMO, neither one is good for you, and either should be used in small enough quantities to make little to no difference.

But I'm vegan and a believer in a low fat diet high in unrefined carbohydrates, which is what works best for me.

ditto.
Glad to see someone singin' my song on this one.


----------



## cjr (Dec 2, 2003)

A body needs fat. Fat is very important. There are so many health issues that relate to low/no fat diets. Cells need fat.

That said butter is by far better then earth balance. If you are vegan then coconut oil is the better choice. Butter and coconut oil are both at the top of my fat list.

Fat has gotten a bad rap. It really is important to a healthy body, and proper cell function.


----------



## Purple Sage (Apr 23, 2007)

All whole foods contain fat (oatmeal derives 16% of its calories from fat, for example, and kale 12%, avocado 77%, brown rice 7%) so adding a concentrated source that doesn't exist in nature like oils that have been extracted from plants or butter that has been processed from cow's milk isn't completely necessary. Whole (plant) food sources of fat come with all the fiber and phytochemicals nature intended it to come with and are far healthier, imo, than any other source of fat.


----------



## Cutie Patootie (Feb 29, 2004)

If you knew how they made margarine and other "fake" butter products...you would be very grossed out. uke


----------



## Meg_s (Apr 13, 2006)

Are we allowed to post links?
http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/index.html

I'll remove it if not....

BUTTER all the way, fat is a wonderful thing for your body. My sons can't do casein, at least A1 casein, so I get pure butter oil or make it. It's like ghee.


----------



## Purple Sage (Apr 23, 2007)

WAPF is very pro-butter, pro-animal fat, but that is the only source I've seen that says butter is a health food (besides sources that use WAPF as a reference). Anyone have any non-WAPF sources on the health benefits of butter? And not ones that show butter is better than margarine but sources that say butter is healthy in and of itself.


----------



## Astoria (May 27, 2004)

Well the pregnancy diet given to me by my midwife insists on several pats of butter per day. As does that other one (the high protein one, what's it called?). I'm guessing there's a reason.

I think butter is not healthy or unhealthy. It's food. I don't believe in breaking down food into good or evil (as long as its real food, and not chemicals masquerading as food). It's natural enough for me, I often make it in my stand mixer from organic cream. If you're heritage is a non-dairy part of the world, ghee (clarified butter, which removes the milk proteins, allowed to resolidify) may be healthier. If you're heritage is a dairy part of the world and you tolerate dairy protein well, I think butter is find and good in moderation, just like any other real food part of the diet. I would *not* eat smart balance or earth balance or any other human-created fake "food."


----------



## Purple Sage (Apr 23, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Astoria* 
Well the pregnancy diet given to me by my midwife insists on several pats of butter per day. As does that other one (the high protein one, what's it called?). I'm guessing there's a reason.

I'd like to know what the reason is, though, just for my own personal knowledge. If butter is really healthy as determined by many independent credible sources, I'd like to know this. I'm always trying to gather information on nutrition - it's a hobby of mine.









I agree that butter substitutes aren't good at all, hydrogenated or not. No argument there.


----------



## wantingagirl2b#4 (Jul 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Shaina* 
butter if you are going to be using margarine use organic earth balance and not smart balance

Why? Is Smart balance a margarine? I really don't know? I just figured it was better than I was buying.







I was off to buy smart balance mayonaise. Now I don't know.







Please help!


----------



## catnip (Mar 25, 2002)

Smart Balance has conventional soy products, which are usually GMO. I'd still pick it over conventional butter, which is from cows fed GMO food and given who knows what chemical crap, and my feeling is that the bad stuff concentrates at the top of the food chain. It is not hydrogenated, but a mix of naturally solid vegetable oils with liquid oils along with emulsifiers.

Earth Balance is labeled that it is GMO free, and the organic Earth Balance is better yet. That's what we use in our house, but we don't use much. I cook with olive oil, mostly. We have about a teaspoon of EB every morning on toast, and then a couple of tablespoons once a week or so on popcorn.


----------



## WildIris (Oct 22, 2007)

If you ever get a chance to try Kerrygold butter, it's AWESOME! Imported from Ireland, and expensive, but well worth the cost.


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

The organic Smart Balance has more than 2 grams of omega-6 fatty acids per tablespoon. It has some omega-3, but not enough to compensate.

We use tons of KerryGold butter every day. Trader Joe's has the best price usually.


----------



## littleaugustbaby (Jun 27, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Cutie Patootie* 
If you knew how they made margarine and other "fake" butter products...you would be very grossed out. uke

Ditto if you knew what happened to dairy cows and their babies.

I'm with lemongrass on this one.


----------



## Mirzam (Sep 9, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *littleaugustbaby* 
Ditto if you knew what happened to dairy cows and their babies.

I'm with lemongrass on this one.

Not the cows that provide the cream that I make our butter from. It comes back down again to the source, yet again. Personally, I wouldn't eat US commercially made butter any more than I would eat margarine, organic or not.


----------



## Ammaarah (May 21, 2005)

If you eat decent butter from cows allowed to graze, it's naturally high in vitamins A and D.


----------



## chellemarie (Jan 17, 2003)

I'm a butter-is-better believer. I still think it's a super-moderation food, but food it is.

Now, let's say you're trying to improve the contents of your fridge and cupboard and you've decided Blue Bonnet is definitely out. You've got a very non-interested and change-resistant husband who wants Pop Tarts for breakfast but will settle for buttered toast. Butter, however, is too hard to spread on toast in the morning. He won't bother with setting out enough butter for himself the night before and if you have to do one more thing at night before bed, you'll run away.

What do you do?

I'll tell you what I've done - I bought Smart Balance. It has got to be better than two chocolate fudge Pop Tarts every morning before work. If I want to improve on that, what's the next baby step? Stop allowing him to eat? (This option will not be entirely ruled out.)

Rant starts here:

Some of you might think about suggesting nut butters or honey or anything that resembles real food. We're talking about a man who thought spaghetti (noodles with ground beef and jarred sauce) was GROSS and why would you go to all that work when you can just OPEN A CAN? When we shop for food together, he all but does a victory dance around the cart after he tosses in a tub of Skippy. Food does not live in the outer edges of the supermarket. It resides deep in the heart of plastic bags and cardboard boxes and aluminum cans.

/rant


----------



## jessjgh1 (Nov 4, 2004)

((Hugs)) chellemarie. I hear you. Baby steps. My dh is not really like that on food issues, but I can see similarities.

But lol about the running away and not being able to spread it on his toast!! That would deter dh too(-;

Jessica (who has been lurking and learning-- I just am not so sure I want to give up my cream on our raw milk for butter, I really enjoy that cream *in my* milk)


----------



## Mirzam (Sep 9, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jessjgh1* 
Jessica (who has been lurking and learning-- I just am not so sure I want to give up my cream on our raw milk for butter, I really enjoy that cream *in my* milk)

I never use the cream from my raw milk to make butter, I get raw cream from the same farm I have my milk shares. Is this not an option for you?


----------



## catnip (Mar 25, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chellemarie* 
Butter, however, is too hard to spread on toast in the morning. He won't bother with setting out enough butter for himself the night before and if you have to do one more thing at night before bed, you'll run away.

Try this. At least you know exactly what is in it, and it is marvelously spreadable, so much so that you can use less because it spreads out better. This is what I used before I went vegan.

Better Butter

1 cup safflower, corn, or soy oil (or light olive oil, canola oil, or other light oils)
1 cup butter, soft but not melted
2 tbsp. water
2 tbsp. dried skim milk
1/4 tsp. lecithin
1/2 tsp. salt

Dissolve salt in water in blender. Add all other ingredients and blend until smooth. Pour into containers and store in fridge
From: Laurel's Kitchen by Laurel Robertson


----------



## MCsMom (Jan 15, 2006)

Quote:

Now, let's say you're trying to improve the contents of your fridge and cupboard and you've decided Blue Bonnet is definitely out. You've got a very non-interested and change-resistant husband who wants Pop Tarts for breakfast but will settle for buttered toast. Butter, however, is too hard to spread on toast in the morning. He won't bother with setting out enough butter for himself the night before and if you have to do one more thing at night before bed, you'll run away.

What do you do?
Just leave a stick of butter out all the time in a butter dish. Butter is now always spreadable. If you find that doesn't work, then get a butter ball dish. Still a little work, but it is not every night and can be done when you want to do it.


----------



## Pinky Tuscadero (Jul 5, 2003)

Well, you'll have to take this however you like, as I am very much in the traditional foods camp, but... I don't care about research studies or the opinions of "experts" or doctors. People have been eating butter for thousands of years. They've only been dying and having chronic health problems at the rates we are for a hundred years or so. Animal products have always been a big part of traditional diets.
I stand by my raw, grassfed butter and other dairy!







:









Quote:


Originally Posted by *lemongrass* 
WAPF is very pro-butter, pro-animal fat, but that is the only source I've seen that says butter is a health food (besides sources that use WAPF as a reference). Anyone have any non-WAPF sources on the health benefits of butter? And not ones that show butter is better than margarine but sources that say butter is healthy in and of itself.


----------



## fek&fuzz (Jun 19, 2005)

I just leave a stick of butter out all the time. Nice and soft.


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

So how many people citing facts about nutrition without links are actually nutritionists?


----------



## Pinky Tuscadero (Jul 5, 2003)

So, unless you have a degree in nutrition, you can't know anything about food? Because the only place you can learn anything is in college.








I'll stick with real foods over scientifically made foods anyday.


----------



## catnip (Mar 25, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
So how many people citing facts about nutrition without links are actually nutritionists?

I'm not an RD, but I have completed several college level courses in nutrition and biochemistry.


----------



## Purple Sage (Apr 23, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Pinky Tuscadero* 
Well, you'll have to take this however you like, as I am very much in the traditional foods camp, but... I don't care about research studies or the opinions of "experts" or doctors. People have been eating butter for thousands of years. They've only been dying and having chronic health problems at the rates we are for a hundred years or so. Animal products have always been a big part of traditional diets.
I stand by my raw, grassfed butter and other dairy!







:









I respect that. I just want to add that there are some traditional cultures that don't consume very many animal products (10% or less of calories from animal foods) and they tend to be very healthy and long lived. Animal products do not have to be a big part of a traditional whole foods diet, nor does fat in general have to be a big part of a traditional diet.


----------



## Purple Sage (Apr 23, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
So how many people citing facts about nutrition without links are actually nutritionists?

Not me, but I'm considering going back to school to pursue becoming a RD.


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Pinky Tuscadero* 
So, unless you have a degree in nutrition, you can't know anything about food? Because the only place you can learn anything is in college.









Not at all. But posting in a matter of fact way with nothing to back up the "facts" that have been stated, is, rather comical. There's a lot of very interesting information here, but quite frankly, I'm not going to take the word of a stranger on the internet as gospel (and that's how it's coming across - not as opinion, but as gospel).

A few links or references would be nice, is all.

Quote:

I'll stick with real foods over scientifically made foods anyday.
Me too.


----------



## Mirzam (Sep 9, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lemongrass* 
I respect that. I just want to add that there are some traditional cultures that don't consume very many animal products (10% or less of calories from animal foods) and they tend to be very healthy and long lived. Animal products do not have to be a big part of a traditional whole foods diet, nor does fat in general have to be a big part of a traditional diet.









I disagree with the fat part, I think most traditional diets are relative high in fats, and largely animal fats at that. Out of interest which traditional cultures are you referring to?


----------



## NatureMama3 (Feb 25, 2004)

virgin coconut oil.


----------



## Ammaarah (May 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ammaarah* 
If you eat decent butter from cows allowed to graze, it's naturally high in vitamins A and D.

I quote myself so I can back up my claim.







Look at President cultured butter - 10% of your vitamin D for the day in a serving. In Kerrygold butter, 10% of your vitamin A for the day.


----------



## moneca (Sep 5, 2004)

Organic pastured raw butter is what we love







. I love getting the butter in the spring when it is a deep yellow and high vitamin due to the quick growing spring grasses.


----------



## beanma (Jan 6, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Pinky Tuscadero* 
People have been eating butter for thousands of years. They've only been dying and having chronic health problems at the rates we are for a hundred years or so.

Ummm...I think life expectancy has increased over the past hundred years+. I'm pretty sure life expectancy has increased vs traditional cultures, too. I'm not advocating for the Standard American Diet or anything, but...

We eat both Earth Balance and real Butter in our house. DH doesn't tolerate dairy well and prefers the Earth Balance. I don't mind Earth Balance, but I worry about the impact of the palm oil plantations on indigenous species like the orangutan. Do a google on "palm oil" and orangutan to learn more.

I don't think saturated fat is good for you. I have read Weston Price's position, but I don't agree. I think ghee is better for you than regular butter, but it's not the same on toast. I think the Nurse's Health Study and the Nurse's Health Study II which have studied tens of thousands of women in North America and the impact diet has on their health is more relevant to my life than the diet of traditional peoples in the Amazon. I'm not saying we can't learn something from those traditional people, but there are a lot of confounding factors and the fact is that my life in terms of physical exercise and recreation, leisure time, work, etc is more similar to a bunch of nurses living in this country than most of the traditional groups that WAP studied. I think there are good ideas to take from WAP's work and certainly whole foods are preferable to processed, but I think we're better off avoiding saturated fat and sticking to plenty of mono- and poly- unstaturated fats, along with the majority of our diets being based on vegetables and fruits.

Oops, went off on a tangent, but my bottom line is we use both butter and Earth Balance sparingly.


----------



## Purple Sage (Apr 23, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *uccomama* 
I disagree with the fat part, I think most traditional diets are relative high in fats, and largely animal fats at that. Out of interest which traditional cultures are you referring to?

The Tarahumara Indians of Mexico

The Pima Indians

Rural Chinese

Hawaiians

There's more, but this is all I have time to post right now.


----------



## Mirzam (Sep 9, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lemongrass* 
The Tarahumara Indians of Mexico

The Pima Indians

Rural Chinese

Hawaiians

There's more, but this is all I have time to post right now.

Thanks, I don't have time to read the studies right now, but they look way too in the box mainstream for me. Also you are providing me with just four cultures out of many on our planet, although I am sure you can show me a few more. So I can't say I am convinced. I strongly believe that nutrition is basically vibrational and any diet that comprises natural, whole foods, including plenty of raw, and that is free of non-food, and highly processed foods (of which margarine is one) will sustain a body in health. If it doesn't then there is something energetically off and that needs to be addressed.


----------



## Purple Sage (Apr 23, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *uccomama* 
Thanks, I don't have time to read the studies right now, but they look way too in the box mainstream for me. Also you are providing me with just four cultures out of many on our planet, although I am sure you can show me a few more. So I can't say I am convinced.


My point was that there _are_ traditional cultures that did not have animals foods or fat as a large part of their diet. I was not saying that all or even most traditional cultures ate this way but that it is not unheard of the way WAPF makes it sound.

I'm not sure I'm understanding what you mean by "too in the box mainstream" for you. I picked these particular studies because most people would consider them reputable since they are from peer reviewed scientific journals, and more importantly, they describe the traditional diet of the cultures they discuss. It was the description of the diets I wanted to get across, not the findings of the studies (although that's interesting as well).

I agree with you on the importance of eating real whole foods as opposed to manmade frankenfoods. _Any_ whole foods diet is better than that.








btw, I just want to make it clear that I'm not a fan of any butter substitute - my answer to the OP was "neither."


----------



## dimibella (Feb 5, 2007)

I'm in the butter camp too, and everytime DH goes to the store and I ask him to get butter, he comes back with Smart Balance







, it drives me nuts.


----------



## Mirzam (Sep 9, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lemongrass* 
My point was that there _are_ traditional cultures that did not have animals foods or fat as a large part of their diet. I was not saying that all or even most traditional cultures ate this way but that it is not unheard of the way WAPF makes it sound.

I'm not sure I'm understanding what you mean by "too in the box mainstream" for you. I picked these particular studies because most people would consider them reputable since they are from peer reviewed scientific journals, and more importantly, they describe the traditional diet of the cultures they discuss. It was the description of the diets I wanted to get across, not the findings of the studies (although that's interesting as well).

I agree with you on the importance of eating real whole foods as opposed to manmade frankenfoods. _Any_ whole foods diet is better than that.







btw, I just want to make it clear that I'm not a fan of any butter substitute - my answer to the OP was "neither."









I don't have much time, but when I see something from the American Diabetes Association (for example), my caution radar goes on! But I did want to address your last sentence, my point was that high fat diets are not inherently detrimental nor are low fat diets, high carb diets etc, if the body is in balance energetically.


----------



## freespirited (Jun 14, 2005)

A lot of why people didn't live longer in the old days had to do with lack of hygiene and sanitation systems. Infectious diseases killed more people than cancer and heart disease. Not so today. Much of the diseases today are chronic in nature and absolutely diet-related. I for one believe a lot of health issues stem from partially hydrogenated fats - the kind you'll find in margarine, most snack foods, even Coffee Mate (I use International creamer -no trans fats at all).

I drink raw milk and make butter from raw milk. Alternatively, I buy Organic Pastures cultured butter. My girls thrive on that a lot better than they would soymilk and "vegetable oil spread". For me, it has nothing to do with WAPF, although those studies hold a lot of water in my book. Why wouldn't they? Most of the "science" today is bunk. How many fads can you think of relating to food (and supported by so-called "experts") were subsequently debunked or faded away? I say the closer to nature the food, the better it is for your body.

I can eat a ton of butter and raw cream and not gain weight. But if I start eating a bunch of refined stuff then I do gain weight. More proof to me that humans are meant to consume some amount of animal fats. I've done the raw diet thing for a long time, and shoveling nuts, seeds and oils down my throat all day did nothing but destroy my health (and make me unattractively skinny), so I say do what makes your body feel best, and for us that is including natural, organic, free-range animal fats alongside whole grains, fruits and veggies and raw dairy. Fats are necessary to assilmilate vitamins so we should eat some fat with vegetables and salads.

My scientific source? My own body and health which improved dramatically when I added butter to my daily diet, mind you, in reasonable amounts. I still think animal fats should be the smallest part of our diet, but definitely they need to be there.

P.S. Indians worship cows, and they drink milk and eat yogurt, so I don't see how cow welfare comes into this. Lots of dairy cows are treated fairly. I know mine is.


----------



## cjr (Dec 2, 2003)

I want to state that I did not say a high fat diet was the best way to eat. I can say with certainty that a low/no fat diet is NOT healthy. A body needs fats for proper cell function. Fat plays an important role in a body's equalibrium. And no I am not a nutritionalist, but to me this is common sense. I have also seen what a low/no fat diet does to a body. A good friend of mine has damaged her organs due to a diet with little to no fat. Her body chemistry is screwed up and she is not well. Well was not well, she is turning her eating habbits around and healing her body.

The studies show cultures with a diet high in vegetables. I don't dispute that a diet high in vegetables is a good diet. My diet is high in vegetables. Do they also eat processed foods, where all these non traditional fats sit? A traditional diet for one culture will consist of different, natural fats and animals then another culture. These man made modern fats are not good for a body, and through all the news media's and studies being done today, I believe they are the root cause of all the disseases we are faced with. These cultures still eat animal products. No one said you needed a diet high in animal products to be healthy. IMO a little animal goes a long way. Specific cultures tend to eat locally and their animal consumption is a local animal, ie. fish/lamb/beef. No one questions weather fish is healthy, but it's loaded in fats...natural fats.

Relying on plants for fat intake is dangerous. When people eliminate fat or animal products they substitute them for grains, cereals and sugars. Very few people in our society go the vegetable/fruit route. IMO there is not enough fat in vegetables alone for proper cell function. A low/no fat diet causes drops in good cholesterol, blood pressure, and causes dry skin.

I love Vegan and vegetarian cooking. I love the combination of vegetables and the lightness of the meals. I choose not to base my diet around these meals because I can't thrive on them alone. My body needs meats and fats in moderation. I do not eat meat 3 times a day. I do not eat gobs of butter either.

I trust butter, a nice organic butter, to a modern altered oil.


----------



## littleaugustbaby (Jun 27, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *freespirited* 
P.S. Indians worship cows, and they drink milk and eat yogurt, so I don't see how cow welfare comes into this. Lots of dairy cows are treated fairly. I know mine is.

It's pretty rare to be able to find "humane" sources of dairy and eggs. Finding ethically treated, pastured chickens for eggs is a bit easier, but dairy presents a problem.

For the most part, in the dairy industry, calves are taken from their mothers within a day of birth so that the milk can be harvested for humans, and I don't see how that can be considered fair treatment. Even if a nursling is allowed to stay with it's mother, cows still have to be milked several times a day, which is usually done by machines, which is not only uncomfortable (how do YOU like being hooked up to a breastpump?), but can often cause injury and infection for the cows.

Most babies born to dairy animals of any kind are not profitable to the dairy industry, and subsequently they are sent to slaughter, or sold to other farmers, who ultimately will probably use them for slaughter. Male calves are most often used for veal or raised for beef slaughter and then killed when they're less than a year old, and most females are raised to be dairy cows like their mothers. Even if the cows were allowed to live, they are now so genetically altered that they are not intended to live past slaughter age. They are bred to grow large very quickly so that they can be slaughtered young.

There are also serious environmental implications, as well as socio-economic factors that come into play.

While I'm sure that there are some dairy farms out there who humanely raise their cows, and let them graze happily in pastures with their babies, where they're hand-milked and the mamas and the babies are allowed to remain together untl the end of their natural lives (or, come to think of it, I find it hard to believe that such places do exist, because they simply wouldn't be profitable), the majority of people don't have access to it.


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *littleaugustbaby* 
and the babies are allowed to remain together untl the end of their natural lives

Live stock mothers and babies don't live together until the end of their natural lives. Not in man made herds, and rarely even in the wild.

For starters, by the time the calf the is 3-4 months old, the cow will be refusing to let the calf nurse, thus starting the weaning process. And by 6-7 months of age, if the calf is not completely weaned by the cow simply walking away when they try to nurse, they will get kicked, bit and chased. This poses a problem as far as profit is concerned, and most live stock babies are weaned by 4-6 months of age to prevent injury to the calf.

Ethical dairy farmers will leave the calve on the cow for longer then 24 hours, usually 3-4 months. That still gives the farmer 6-7 months of milk, instead of the usual 10.

But it's quite erroneous to impose human CLW ideals of livestock. They just don't live that way.


----------



## MilkTrance (Jul 21, 2007)

Quote:

I think most traditional diets are relative high in fats, and largely animal fats at that.
Maybe it depends on the culture. I know that the First Nations people where I live -- their traditional diet is VERY high in fat. And they were pretty healthy before the Europeans came around and introduced "European food" like refined carbohydrates.


----------



## NatureMama3 (Feb 25, 2004)

Quote:

When people eliminate fat or animal products they substitute them for grains, cereals and sugars. Very few people in our society go the vegetable/fruit route. IMO there is not enough fat in vegetables alone for proper cell function. A low/no fat diet causes drops in good cholesterol, blood pressure, and causes dry skin.
I really don't want to start anything, just know that while that is your opinion, it is not fact.

Many people who are veg*n do NOT substitute refined flous/sugars/etc for animal products. We (my family, many of my relatives, etc) eat a scratch cooked whole-foods diet with tons of fresh veggies/fruits, lots of nuts, healthful oils (red palm, virgin coconut/etc), whole fresh grains, etc and nothing else. no junk, no processed.

We've never been healthier, especially even when we WERE eating animal products (whether dairy/eggs only or meat as well). Our skin is not dry, our cholesterol is quite enviable (both the total and the good), excellent blood pressure, etc. It is entirely possible to get "enough" fats from a plant based diet, it just takes intelligent planning.


----------



## holyhelianthus (Jul 15, 2006)

thanks NatureMama! We have a lovely "Whole Foods/TF(like) Veg*ns" thread going in Veg right now that says loud and clear not all veg*ns are into fake foods.









I am also in the butter camp because it's not fake and I am also backing up lemongrass in that there are plenty of traditional peoples who eat little animal products. Look at a lot of the Mediterranean diets. There are no vegan traditional peoples but there certainly are those who didn't eat as much animal products as a lot of people in the WAP movement are suggesting.


----------



## cjr (Dec 2, 2003)

Quote:

Many people who are veg*n do NOT substitute refined flous/sugars/etc for animal products. We (my family, many of my relatives, etc) eat a scratch cooked whole-foods diet with tons of fresh veggies/fruits, lots of nuts, healthful oils (red palm, virgin coconut/etc), whole fresh grains, etc and nothing else. no junk, no processed.

We've never been healthier, especially even when we WERE eating animal products (whether dairy/eggs only or meat as well). Our skin is not dry, our cholesterol is quite enviable (both the total and the good), excellent blood pressure, etc. It is entirely possible to get "enough" fats from a plant based diet, it just takes intelligent planning
I was talking about a diet with no or little fat. Relying soley on plants, vegetable and grains for their natural fats. Such as Lemongrass stated. She did not give a list of fats in her list of fatty vegetables and grains. You have fat in your diet. Yes this is my opinion. About fat. It's also from observation. I am not disputing that there are a large number of vegetarians that eat a fantastic diet. Unfortunately there are a lot who do not. I am speaking about fat intake. If you look at product labels that are low fat you will see that the fat is replaced by sugar or carbohydrates. It's either one or the other for taste, and energy.

Again, I am speaking about fats. Not weather someone can live a healthy lifestyle eating a vegetarian/vegan diet. IMO and from personal experience, you need to be a lot more cautious with the foods you eat when eating vegan/vegetarian. You need to replace the animal fats with a good source vegetable fat. Not the man made crap that is in margarine. Which is what this thread is all about. Margarine or butter.


----------



## cjr (Dec 2, 2003)

Quote:

thanks NatureMama! We have a lovely "Whole Foods/TF(like) Veg*ns" thread going in Veg right now that says loud and clear not all veg*ns are into fake foods.
I never stated this. I have a lot of vegan/vegetarian friends who have a fantastic diet, but these are the people I hang around with becuase we have the same views on whole foods nutrition.


----------



## AJP (Apr 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *magstphil* 
there are plenty of traditional peoples who eat little animal products. Look at a lot of the Mediterranean diets.

I think there are some widespread misconceptions about traditional Mediterranean diets. I'm not an archaeologist, just an interested lay-person, but my understanding is that people in that region have historically been very reliant on dairy and meat from goats and sheep, and lots of fish and shellfish, in addition to the other things like olives and olive oil, a variety of veggies and fruits, whole grains, etc.

I think every person needs to find their own personal best balance of fats/carbs/protein (or parents find it for their kids until they have the wisdom to do it on their own). I wouldn't dream of telling vegan friends who eat a low-fat, high-carb diet that they're _wrong_ when they say they feel healthier on that diet, and they don't tell me I'm wrong when I say I feel healthier eating a much higher-fat omni diet. A balanced variety of whole, natural foods that are produced in line with one's ethics should be the foundation of health, with individual adjustments based on personal physiology. IMO, nutrition science has failed us. It's largely controlled by politics, money and ego. It appears to me that it has devolved into something designed to validate its own existence (creating "experts" who make a living from appearing very busy, sober and academic, telling us what to eat and what not to eat). So personally, I rely more on history and intuition in deciding what to eat and what to feed my family.

As for the OP, butter is real, margarine is fake. No contest, IMO. Go for the real food every time.


----------



## Purple Sage (Apr 23, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cjr* 
I was talking about a diet with no or little fat. Relying soley on plants, vegetable and grains for their natural fats. Such as Lemongrass stated. She did not give a list of fats in her list of fatty vegetables and grains. You have fat in your diet. Yes this is my opinion. About fat. It's also from observation. I am not disputing that there are a large number of vegetarians that eat a fantastic diet. Unfortunately there are a lot who do not. I am speaking about fat intake. If you look at product labels that are low fat you will see that the fat is replaced by sugar or carbohydrates. It's either one or the other for taste, and energy.

Again, I am speaking about fats. Not weather someone can live a healthy lifestyle eating a vegetarian/vegan diet. IMO and from personal experience, you need to be a lot more cautious with the foods you eat when eating vegan/vegetarian. You need to replace the animal fats with a good source vegetable fat. Not the man made crap that is in margarine. Which is what this thread is all about. Margarine or butter.


First, my list of the fat content of a few whole plant foods was just a random list to illustrate that practically ALL whole foods contain some fat, even foods you might not think contain fat like kale and oatmeal (source: nutritiondata.com). My point in doing that was to give my opinion that you do not need to eat foods that are 100% fat to get all the fat that is required for health. Furthermore, I believe that since fats found in plants come with other substances like fiber and other nutrients and phytochemicals, that is exactly how they are meant to be consumed and are much healthier than fats that have been processed or extracted from the "package" in which they are naturally found. That is why my answer to the question Margarine or Butter is Neither.


----------



## Purple Sage (Apr 23, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *uccomama* 
I don't have much time, but when I see something from the American Diabetes Association (for example), my caution radar goes on! But I did want to address your last sentence, my point was that high fat diets are not inherently detrimental nor are low fat diets, high carb diets etc, if the body is in balance energetically.

I agree with you.







My radar goes on regarding the AHA and the ADA and all of that, too. They don't generally advocate the type of diet that I follow, either. I'd say a very low fat whole foods plant based diet is about as mainstream as the high saturated fat whole foods (primarily) animal based WAPF diet.


----------



## cjr (Dec 2, 2003)

Quote:

Furthermore, I believe that since fats found in plants come with other substances like fiber and other nutrients and phytochemicals, that is exactly how they are meant to be consumed and are much healthier than fats that have been processed or extracted from the "package" in which they are naturally found
Isn't coconut oil extracted from it's "natural" package? Flax seeds? Hemp seeds? These are all good healthy fats.

This is where we dissagree. Animal products and animal fats do contain important nutrients. I am not arguing that plants do not contain important nutrients. I am arguing that a diet based on whole plants alone does not have enough fat a body needs. Are you telling me that you don't use coconut oil, flax oil at all? All you eat are veggies, fruits, whole grains in their whole state? I find that very hard to believe. You never bake a muffin using a fat?

I am also not saying that an animal diet is healthier, or a vegetarian/vegan diet is healthier. I see arguments for both sides and embrase both side equally, in regards to health benefits. I am a big believer on listening to your own body for that answer. I have a big problem with low fat diets in general. I have no problems with healthy, unprocessed fats. And when I say proccessed I am refering to those highly mechanically processed fats that go through some altering state to make them edible. All food goes through some processing, whether it be cooking/fermenting/extracting.


----------



## cjr (Dec 2, 2003)

Quote:

I'd say a very low fat whole foods plant based diet is about as mainstream as the high saturated fat whole foods (primarily) animal based WAPF diet.
Why are you arguing with me then? This is what I'm saying!


----------



## holyhelianthus (Jul 15, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AJP* 
I think there are some widespread misconceptions about traditional Mediterranean diets. I'm not an archaeologist, just an interested lay-person, but my understanding is that people in that region have historically been very reliant on dairy and meat from goats and sheep, and lots of fish and shellfish, in addition to the other things like olives and olive oil, a variety of veggies and fruits, whole grains, etc.

It depends on the region. Some of the Mediterranean groups do consume meat but in moderation (red and lamb once a month, fish and poultry once a week- abouts) as is the same for dairy. The Mediterranean is a pretty big place as is the world and one diet does not fit every civilization and every given time.

What I think is that everyone is different and we know what our bodies need if we stop and listen. It's entirely possible for us- as it was for some traditional peoples- to live and thrive on a plant-based diet as well as one with more meat. What I think we call all agree on is that unnatural processed foods are bad and we should be eating foods in the most natural state possible. This is my focus. Eat what you will but make sure it is natural for optimal health. Oh and that you're not allergic to it.









ETA- the only bits I have read about the Mediterranean diet not being plant-based/near veg are written by Sally Fallon or other WAPers.







It's pretty widely accepted that that is the Med lifestyle. BUT nothing is 100% in my opinion. We can say all Italians eat chicken because a lot do but there are still those that don't (not saying that is true just pulling an example out of my rear







)


----------



## Purple Sage (Apr 23, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cjr* 
Isn't coconut oil extracted from it's "natural" package? Flax seeds? Hemp seeds? These are all good healthy fats.

This is where we dissagree. Animal products and animal fats do contain important nutrients. I am not arguing that plants do not contain important nutrients. I am arguing that a diet based on whole plants alone does not have enough fat a body needs. Are you telling me that you don't use coconut oil, flax oil at all? All you eat are veggies, fruits, whole grains in their whole state? I find that very hard to believe. You never bake a muffin using a fat?

I am also not saying that an animal diet is healthier, or a vegetarian/vegan diet is healthier. I see arguments for both sides and embrase both side equally, in regards to health benefits. I am a big believer on listening to your own body for that answer. I have a big problem with low fat diets in general. I have no problems with healthy, unprocessed fats. And when I say proccessed I am refering to those highly mechanically processed fats that go through some altering state to make them edible. All food goes through some processing, whether it be cooking/fermenting/extracting.

I _am_ saying that I do not use oils. I cook and bake without oil - it is possible.









But yes you are right that I do eat foods that have been minimally processed, cooked, fermented, etc. I just think that oils are too processed _for me_ since fat, especially the polyunsaturated fat found in plants, is too volatile to extract from the whole food in which it's contained without damaging it. That's just my opinion based on my research.

I also believe that a whole foods plant based diet can, and does for many people, have enough fat without adding sources of 100% fat like oils or animal fats. I'm not saying that this is the diet for everyone, but it works quite well for me. For example, when I eat very little fat (less than 15% of calories) my skin looks healthy. When I eat more fat, my skin gets very oily and breaks out, even when the fats are from healthy whole foods. Eating a lot of fat also makes me feel tired and gain weight. I know this is not everyone's experience, but it's mine. I'm only disagreeing with the sentiment that low fat diets are inherently unhealthy. So I'm not arguing with you, just splitting hairs a bit.


----------



## Purple Sage (Apr 23, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *magstphil* 
It depends on the region. Some of the Mediterranean groups do consume meat but in moderation (red and lamb once a month, fish and poultry once a week- abouts) as is the same for dairy. The Mediterranean is a pretty big place as is the world and one diet does not fit every civilization and every given time.

What I think is that everyone is different and we know what our bodies need if we stop and listen. It's entirely possible for us- as it was for some traditional peoples- to live and thrive on a plant-based diet as well as one with more meat. What I think we call all agree on is that unnatural processed foods are bad and we should be eating foods in the most natural state possible. This is my focus. Eat what you will but make sure it is natural for optimal health. Oh and that you're not allergic to it.









ETA- the only bits I have read about the Mediterranean diet not being plant-based/near veg are written by Sally Fallon or other WAPers.







It's pretty widely accepted that that is the Med lifestyle. BUT nothing is 100% in my opinion. We can say all Italians eat chicken because a lot do but there are still those that don't (not saying that is true just pulling an example out of my rear







)

I agree with you on all points.


----------



## rayo de sol (Sep 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *beanma* 
I don't think saturated fat is good for you. I have read Weston Price's position, but I don't agree. I think ghee is better for you than regular butter, but it's not the same on toast. I think the Nurse's Health Study and the Nurse's Health Study II which have studied tens of thousands of women in North America and the impact diet has on their health is more relevant to my life than the diet of traditional peoples in the Amazon.

The Nurse's Studies found that *a low-fat diet does NOT prevent heart disease or cancer*. They didn't differentiate between types of fat. The theory that saturated fat is a "bad" fat has never been proven. Here is an excellent article on saturated fat--from MSNBC (not from WAPF):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22116724/

Quote:

We've spent billions of our tax dollars trying to prove the diet-heart hypothesis. Yet study after study has failed to provide definitive evidence that saturated-fat intake leads to heart disease. The most recent example is the Women's Health Initiative, the government's largest and most expensive ($725 million) diet study yet. The results, published last year, show that a diet low in total fat and saturated fat had no impact in reducing heart-disease and stroke rates in some 20,000 women who had adhered to the regimen for an average of 8 years.
Oh yeah, I vote for Butter!







:


----------



## Pinky Tuscadero (Jul 5, 2003)

Gary Taubes new book, Good Calorie, Bad Calorie, has tons of research on this and similar issues, going back many, many years. It seems we have been duped by the medical establishment about a lot of foods for a long time now.
It's a dry read, due to all the research, but well worth it!


----------



## RightasRain (Feb 28, 2008)

i use a little of each of the following

coconut oil
canola oil
olive oil
organic grass fed butter
or earth balance

you should always keep variety of some kind...use earth balance this week and when you get to the store buy some organic butter or coconut oil

earth balance is non-gmo!


----------



## Purple Sage (Apr 23, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rayo de sol* 
The Nurse's Studies found that *a low-fat diet does NOT prevent heart disease or cancer*. They didn't differentiate between types of fat. The theory that saturated fat is a "bad" fat has never been proven. Here is an excellent article on saturated fat--from MSNBC (not from WAPF):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22116724/

The Nurses study and the Women's Health Initiative study had some flaws, though. The "low fat" diet that these women consumed was not all that low fat, to begin with. I don't have the data right now, but I can look for it later. Basically, they are comparing women who all ate pretty much the same diet - very heavy in animal products with the main difference being some drank skim milk and ate skinless chicken while others ate the full fat variety. If they compared women who ate a truly low fat plant based diet to women who ate what they call a "low fat" diet and women who ate high fat diets, then I'd consider the results accurate. But they didn't. There is quite a bit of evidence (I can look for links later) that shows that a truly low fat plant based diet can reverse heart disease.


----------



## Purple Sage (Apr 23, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Pinky Tuscadero* 
Gary Taubes new book, Good Calorie, Bad Calorie, has tons of research on this and similar issues, going back many, many years. It seems we have been duped by the medical establishment about a lot of foods for a long time now.
It's a dry read, due to all the research, but well worth it!

I read this book, and while there was some of it that I whole heartedly agreed with, I also took issue with some of it. First, he made an excellent case against refined carbohydrates and refined oils. I think all of us here agree that refined overly processed manmade food is bad. Where I took issue with the book is that he never gave any evidence that carbohydrates from whole foods are bad for you, and he completely ignored entire populations of people on earth who are healthy --and do not suffer from the epidemic of Western diseases-- who eat a high carb diet with very little animal products. He made a case for low carb diets for people whose metabolism has been damaged by eating too many refined foods, but he never gave any evidence that eating a whole foods high carb diet _causes_ any of these problems. He also ignored the evidence that a whole foods plant based low fat high carb diet can also be therapeutic to people with diabetes and heart disease. Again, I can look for links later (or go back to where I posted a few links to studies earlier), but I need to go to work soon.


----------



## beanma (Jan 6, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rayo de sol* 
The Nurse's Studies found that *a low-fat diet does NOT prevent heart disease or cancer*. They didn't differentiate between types of fat. The theory that saturated fat is a "bad" fat has never been proven. Here is an excellent article on saturated fat--from MSNBC (not from WAPF):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22116724/

The Nurses' Health Study does differentiate between types of fat (poly- and mono- unsaturated and saturated) though, I'm not sure if it differentiates types of _saturated_ fats. I'm sure you could find out if you want, though. Here's a link to the site - http://www.channing.harvard.edu/nhs/ .

The MSNBC (_Men's Health_) article fails to mention the Nurses' Health Study or the Nurses' Health Study II at all. I have read that article before, but I don't really find it compelling. It talks about a buncha old studies and says Ancel Keys work may have been flawed (not disputing that), but aside from a very brief mention of the Women's Health Initiative (not the same as the Nurses' Health Studies, btw) and a meta analysis they don't mention much about long term large scale studies. I really don't have that much in common with the Masai in Kenya or folks in Finland from the 50s and 60s, y'know?

If you google "Nurses' Health Study" and "saturated fat" you'll find plenty of hits...

Quote:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9366580
BACKGROUND: The relation between dietary intake of specific types of fat, particularly trans unsaturated fat and the risk of coronary disease remains unclear. We therefore studied this relation in women enrolled in the *Nurses' Health Study*.
...
We estimated that the replacement of 5 percent of energy from saturated fat with energy from unsaturated fats would reduce risk by 42 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 23 to 56; P<0.001) and that the replacement of 2 percent of energy from trans fat with energy from unhydrogenated, unsaturated fats would reduce risk by 53 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 34 to 67; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that replacing saturated and trans unsaturated fats with unhydrogenated monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats is more effective in preventing coronary heart disease in women than reducing overall fat intake.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lemongrass;*
The Nurses study and the Women's Health Initiative study had some flaws, though. The "low fat" diet that these women consumed was not all that low fat, to begin with. I don't have the data right now, but I can look for it later. Basically, they are comparing women who all ate pretty much the same diet - very heavy in animal products with the main difference being some drank skim milk and ate skinless chicken while others ate the full fat variety. If they compared women who ate a truly low fat plant based diet to women who ate what they call a "low fat" diet and women who ate high fat diets, then I'd consider the results accurate. But they didn't. There is quite a bit of evidence (I can look for links later) that shows that a truly low fat plant based diet can reverse heart disease.

Lemongrass, I was under the impression (and I could certainly be mistaken) that the women in the Nurses' Health Study weren't actually on diets prescribed by the study, but were just reporting their own diets to the study. I think there are approximately 80,000+ women in the study? I'm sure many of them do eat a more "mainstream" diet than I do, but there probably are some who do eat closer to what I do. The question is, really, how they ask the questions about what the women ate. I don't know the answer to that, but if you want to check out the site above it may have more info on that. I do remember in Walter Willett's book, _Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy_ he said it turned out that the women who got their salad dressing on the side instead of on the salad were depriving themselves of fats in the salad dressing which were typically "good" polyunsaturated soy oil fats and the women who ate the salad dressing turned out to be healthier than the women who didn't. I can dig up the book and quote if you want, but not sure where it is at the moment.

I think unsaturated fats are good and I am open to the idea that some of the sat fats might be good, too (stearic acid), but I'm not sure about palmitic and lauric. Could be, though. At any rate, I _think_ that the Nurses' Health Study is designed in such a way that it's open enough to be able to find some of these things out. The Women's Health Initiative may be, too. I can't remember about that one, although I think my mom was part of it for awhile.

In the meantime, I am sure that BUTTER is better for orangutans so that's probably what I will stick with since I'm not sure that I'm more important than the orangutans and I'll take my chances with fluffy cholesterol or dense cholesterol.


----------



## Mirzam (Sep 9, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lemongrass* 
The Nurses study and the Women's Health Initiative study had some flaws, though. The "low fat" diet that these women consumed was not all that low fat, to begin with. I don't have the data right now, but I can look for it later. Basically, they are comparing women who all ate pretty much the same diet - very heavy in animal products with the main difference being some drank skim milk and ate skinless chicken while others ate the full fat variety. If they compared women who ate a truly low fat plant based diet to women who ate what they call a "low fat" diet and women who ate high fat diets, then I'd consider the results accurate. But they didn't. There is quite a bit of evidence (I can look for links later) that shows that a truly low fat plant based diet can reverse heart disease.

The problem with these health studies, is there is so much more to health than diet alone. We are so much more than just our bodies and what we put into them. Did the study take into account the life and emotions of these women? I doubt it. You cannot compartmentalize any aspect of human being if you want a true picture of health. Where they happy? Did they have any emotional stresses in their lives? Also as you well know, there are fats and there are fats, how would the women have done if they had been consuming a diet of raw animal fats? FWIW, the body can reverse heart disease on its own, the basis of all dis-ease is psycho-emotional. If a person can resolve the underlying issue, which is always energetic, that "caused" the heart disease in the first place, they will get better on a low fat plant based diet as well as a diet high in raw cream, which is what I would actually recommend.


----------



## mamadelbosque (Feb 6, 2007)

I go for real over fake, every single day. Even if its a choice between conventional butter vs organci margirine, i still choose butter. Its real. Its NOT heavily modified, its real honest to goodness food that people have been eating for generations. Its better.


----------



## Purple Sage (Apr 23, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *uccomama* 
The problem with these health studies, is there is so much more to health than diet alone. We are so much more than just our bodies and what we put into them. Did the study take into account the life and emotions of these women? I doubt it. You cannot compartmentalize any aspect of human being if you want a true picture of health. Where they happy? Did they have any emotional stresses in their lives? Also as you well know, there are fats and there are fats, how would the women have done if they had been consuming a diet of raw animal fats? FWIW, the body can reverse heart disease on its own, the basis of all dis-ease is psycho-emotional. If a person can resolve the underlying issue, which is always energetic, that "caused" the heart disease in the first place, they will get better on a low fat plant based diet as well as a diet high in raw cream, which is what I would actually recommend.

I agree with the impact of energy on health. That is actually one reason why I choose to not eat animal products, because I don't want to consume the negative energy of animals that have been killed or separated from their babies or otherwise used by people, etc. Of course this is just my opinion, ymmv.

I would like to know, though, why you would suggest a diet high in raw cream when you believe that disease is always energetic? What difference would it make what (whole foods) diet someone eats?


----------



## athansor (Feb 9, 2005)

So, can a person achieve optimal health on a diet that includes no animal products?


----------



## Purple Sage (Apr 23, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *beanma* 
Lemongrass, I was under the impression (and I could certainly be mistaken) that the women in the Nurses' Health Study weren't actually on diets prescribed by the study, but were just reporting their own diets to the study. I think there are approximately 80,000+ women in the study? I'm sure many of them do eat a more "mainstream" diet than I do, but there probably are some who do eat closer to what I do. The question is, really, how they ask the questions about what the women ate. I don't know the answer to that, but if you want to check out the site above it may have more info on that. I do remember in Walter Willett's book, _Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy_ he said it turned out that the women who got their salad dressing on the side instead of on the salad were depriving themselves of fats in the salad dressing which were typically "good" polyunsaturated soy oil fats and the women who ate the salad dressing turned out to be healthier than the women who didn't. I can dig up the book and quote if you want, but not sure where it is at the moment.

Thanks for that link to the Nurses' Health Study. I'll read it when I have time. I think you're right that the nurses were just given surveys about what they ate, their lifestyles, etc. They were not put on a diet like the Women's Health Initiative where they were given instructions to drink skim milk and eat lower fat meats and more fruit and vegetables. I doubt that many of the nurses eat a diet like mine, so it's hard to make conclusions based on this particular study regarding the type of diet that I eat. I will read the website, though, before I say anything more.

Regarding the study about salad dressing, I have one problem with it. I'm paraphrasing something I read by a RD that advocates the type of diet I eat...Basically, the study would have been more convincing if they also included a group of women who ate the same amount of calories' worth of _more salad_ as the calories in the salad dressing and measured how many nutrients were absorbed by these women. I'm not sure if I'm making what I'm trying to say clear. Let's say the salad dressing was 100 calories. They could take a group who ate the salad plus 100 calories of dressing and measure how many nutrients they absorbed from the salad. Then they could take another group who ate the original salad plus 100 calories worth of more salad and measure how many nutrients they absorbed from what they ate. Then you could compare those two groups, and the findings would be more relevant than comparing the original two groups (one that ate just the salad and the one that ate the salad plus dressing). See what I'm saying?


----------



## holyhelianthus (Jul 15, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lemongrass* 
There is quite a bit of evidence (I can look for links later) that shows that a truly low fat plant based diet can reverse heart disease.

Right but I think this is because it is compared to the SAD. When I went vegan I felt GREAT but I am realizing now that it wasn't so much that I was vegan but rather because I was eating whole foods in contrast to the SAD I had been on all my life. I know this because when I eat whole foods including animal products I feel wonderful as well. So the flaw in these studies is that they are comparing it (low fat) to the SAD and pretty much ANYTHING is better than that







However no one is sure of the long term effects of a low fat diet. Although I am sure it works for a lot of people I am more apt to think that our bodies have seasons- sometimes we need more fat and sometimes less. The idea that we need low/no fat all the time or even lots of fats all the time is an ignorant one







: (on the researcher's part, not yours!







)

ETA- I think that a low fat diet works to clean out and detox the body which is another reason why it has such great success in weight loss and reversing disease. When one is on the SAD this is exactly what they need.


----------



## Mirzam (Sep 9, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lemongrass* 
I agree with the impact of energy on health. That is actually one reason why I choose to not eat animal products, because I don't want to consume the negative energy of animals that have been killed or separated from their babies or otherwise used by people, etc. Of course this is just my opinion, ymmv.

I would like to know, though, why you would suggest a diet high in raw cream when you believe that disease is always energetic? What difference would it make what (whole foods) diet someone eats?

Because it is nurturing and supportive of the body during its healing. If I answered your other question we would start getting too esoteric for this thread. I should also have clarified that not *all* dis-ease is psycho-emotional, the exceptions being, physical trauma, poisoning and *malnutrition*.

People do well on a certain diet because they are essentially happy in their lives which is why I believe one diet won't fit all. Of course I am not in anyway condoning a [email protected] SAD diet because the majority of the _nutrition_ comes from non-foods. Personally, I eat follow the raw Primal Diet of Aajonus Vonderplanitz, but that is my preference, given what I have learned over many years. I have been both vegan and vegetarian.


----------



## Purple Sage (Apr 23, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *magstphil* 
Right but I think this is because it is compared to the SAD. When I went vegan I felt GREAT but I am realizing now that it wasn't so much that I was vegan but rather because I was eating whole foods in contrast to the SAD I had been on all my life. I know this because when I eat whole foods including animal products I feel wonderful as well. So the flaw in these studies is that they are comparing it (low fat) to the SAD and pretty much ANYTHING is better than that







However no one is sure of the long term effects of a low fat diet. Although I am sure it works for a lot of people I am more apt to think that our bodies have seasons- sometimes we need more fat and sometimes less. The idea that we need low/no fat all the time or even lots of fats all the time is an ignorant one







: (on the researcher's part, not yours!







)

ETA- I think that a low fat diet works to clean out and detox the body which is another reason why it has such great success in weight loss and reversing disease. When one is on the SAD this is exactly what they need.


I just want to clarify one point, there is no whole foods diet that has _no_ fat. Even if you ate nothing but rice and veggies, you'd still be eating about 10% fat. Just sayin'.









Another thing, we _are_ aware of the long term effects of a low fat diet as seen in populations in other parts of the world where they eat significantly less fat than in America, and the effects are quite positive - less heart disease, cancer and diabetes (I think this is common knowledge, but I could dig up some links or feel free to Google "traditional Asian diet"). These aren't therapeutic diets to treat disease - they are the normal eating patterns of these particular cultures. Considering that rural Asians eat around 15% fat, and there are billions of rural Asians, I think we have a good idea of the long term effects of a low fat whole foods diet.


----------



## Purple Sage (Apr 23, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *uccomama* 
Because it is nurturing and supportive of the body during its healing. If I answered your other question we would start getting too esoteric for this thread. I should also have clarified that not *all* dis-ease is psycho-emotional, the exceptions being, physical trauma, poisoning and *malnutrition*.

People do well on a certain diet because they are essentially happy in their lives which is why I believe one diet won't fit all. Of course I am not in anyway condoning a [email protected] SAD diet because the majority of the _nutrition_ comes from non-foods. Personally, I eat follow the raw Primal Diet of Aajonus Vonderplanitz, but that is my preference, given what I have learned over many years. I have been both vegan and vegetarian.

Okay.







I disagree about the benefits of dairy for humans, but I agree totally about the harm of non-foods.


----------



## Purple Sage (Apr 23, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *athansor* 
So, can a person achieve optimal health on a diet that includes no animal products?

Not without a b12 supplement.


----------



## holyhelianthus (Jul 15, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lemongrass* 
I just want to clarify one point, there is no whole foods diet that has _no_ fat. Even if you ate nothing but rice and veggies, you'd still be eating about 10% fat. Just sayin'.









I know but how much are we being market "fat free" junk? Not only that but I'm sure we all know at least one person who goes on and on about how they simply can't have fat because they need to lose weight or whatever else. They *think* they are "fat free" but of course there i fat in places we don't think there is. There are "no fat" enthusiasts out there.

Quote:

Another thing, we _are_ aware of the long term effects of a low fat diet as seen in populations in other parts of the world where they eat significantly less fat than in America, and the effects are quite positive - less heart disease, cancer and diabetes (I think this is common knowledge, but I could dig up some links or feel free to Google "traditional Asian diet"). These aren't therapeutic diets to treat disease - they are the normal eating patterns of these particular cultures. Considering that rural Asians eat around 15% fat, and there are billions of rural Asians, I think we have a good idea of the long term effects of a low fat whole foods diet.








Yes, and they evolved for that diet. That's another thing that gets to me about the "optimal diet" there is no one size fits all. Our ancestors evolved to their regions for how much they needed of what and now we are all over the map physically and ethnically. It's all up to our bodies for what is good for us. What an Inuit has eaten for generations is not going to be what's good for me as a interracial woman in her early twenties living in the desert of Southern California.

Not only that but I'd like to see what these traditional Asians ate all year round- not just an "on average". Humans tend to need more fat as the weather cools- this is universal.


----------



## holyhelianthus (Jul 15, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lemongrass* 
Not without a b12 supplement.


----------



## Purple Sage (Apr 23, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *magstphil* 
I know but how much are we being market "fat free" junk? Not only that but I'm sure we all know at least one person who goes on and on about how they simply can't have fat because they need to lose weight or whatever else. They *think* they are "fat free" but of course there i fat in places we don't think there is. There are "no fat" enthusiasts out there.

Yes, and they evolved for that diet. That's another thing that gets to me about the "optimal diet" there is no one size fits all. Our ancestors evolved to their regions for how much they needed of what and now we are all over the map physically and ethnically. It's all up to our bodies for what is good for us. What an Inuit has eaten for generations is not going to be what's good for me as a interracial woman in her early twenties living in the desert of Southern California.

Not only that but I'd like to see what these traditional Asians ate all year round- not just an "on average". Humans tend to need more fat as the weather cools- this is universal.









I agree with you on all counts. Just splitting hairs again.


----------



## holyhelianthus (Jul 15, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lemongrass* 







I agree with you on all counts. Just splitting hairs again.









It's what we do best!


----------



## Purple Sage (Apr 23, 2007)

Quote:

_Not only that but I'd like to see what these traditional Asians ate all year round- not just an "on average". Humans tend to need more fat as the weather cools- this is universal._
I just thought of something...

Many of the people I've read that traditionally eat a low fat diet live in parts of the world where it does not get cold. According to this study Hawaiians traditionally ate very little fat.

Quote:

The diet was low in fat (7%), high in complex carbohydrates (78%), and moderate in protein (15%).
I wonder if that has anything to do with the year round warmth. I imagine the same goes for Southeast Asia where the traditional diet is also very low in fat.


----------



## holyhelianthus (Jul 15, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lemongrass* 
I just thought of something...

Many of the people I've read that traditionally eat a low fat diet live in parts of the world where it does not get cold. According to this study Hawaiians traditionally ate very little fat.

I wonder if that has anything to do with the year round warmth. I imagine the same goes for Southeast Asia where the traditional diet is also very low in fat.

That is sooo funny because I was just mulling over the same thing! I totally think that that is the case. It would explain a lot in my own personal life.


----------



## Purple Sage (Apr 23, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *magstphil* 
That is sooo funny because I was just mulling over the same thing! I totally think that that is the case. It would explain a lot in my own personal life.









That is too funny! It explains a lot for me, too.


----------



## AJP (Apr 30, 2003)

I believe some traditional diets of healthy populations in Southeast Asia and the South Pacific were/are (few are truly traditional now, too much influence from refined foods) relatively high in fat, from coconut, seafood and pork, in regions without cold winters.


----------



## AJP (Apr 30, 2003)

BTW, there is very little evidence about macronutrient ratios for traditional Mediterranean diets prior to the 1900s. History tends to not preserve, and archaeology tends to not examine, such features of everyday life for everyday people. The healthy and long-lived Mediterranean populations for which dietary statistics are available during the 1900s (from gov't statistics, mostly) varied greatly in their fat intake, from 20% or lower to upwards of 40%, IIRC, and the sources varied greatly as well, from mostly olive oil to larger amounts of animal sources. And no, these stats do not come from nor have anything to do with Sally Fallon or the WAPF, they come from my browsing of books and studies about the traditional Mediterranean diet from a variety of sources. Most such books and studies usually end up putting what appears to be their own (politically-correct) spin on the data they present, which I largely ignore and focus on the raw data.

The keeping of goats and sheep, the harvesting of seafood, and in some select areas the keeping of cattle, are traditions that go back many, many thousands of years in that region, and IMO the people would not have continued to invest energy in such pursuits if it didn't provide a significant portion of their sustenance.


----------



## Purple Sage (Apr 23, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AJP* 
I believe some traditional diets of healthy populations in Southeast Asia and the South Pacific were/are (few are truly traditional now, too much influence from refined foods) relatively high in fat, from coconut, seafood and pork, in regions without cold winters.

_How_ high in fat were they? I know the foods you mentioned were their primary sources of fat, but I think they got most of their calories from a staple starch like rice or taro and vegetables with the meat/fat used as a condiment and not the primary source of calories. Of course, this would vary greatly depending on what was available to each particular group.


----------



## Purple Sage (Apr 23, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AJP* 
BTW, there is very little evidence about macronutrient ratios for traditional Mediterranean diets prior to the 1900s. History tends to not preserve, and archaeology tends to not examine, such features of everyday life for everyday people. The healthy and long-lived Mediterranean populations for which dietary statistics are available during the 1900s (from gov't statistics, mostly) varied greatly in their fat intake, from 20% or lower to upwards of 40%, IIRC, and the sources varied greatly as well, from mostly olive oil to larger amounts of animal sources. And no, these stats do not come from nor have anything to do with Sally Fallon or the WAPF, they come from my browsing of books and studies about the traditional Mediterranean diet from a variety of sources. Most such books and studies usually end up putting what appears to be their own (politically-correct) spin on the data they present, which I largely ignore and focus on the raw data.

The keeping of goats and sheep, the harvesting of seafood, and in some select areas the keeping of cattle, are traditions that go back many, many thousands of years in that region, and IMO the people would not have continued to invest energy in such pursuits if it didn't provide a significant portion of their sustenance.

From what I've read, the animal products they consumed were used as a relatively small part of their diets with the bulk of calories coming from grains and vegetables. In regions where there is a long growing season and many plant foods available, most people tended to eat more of a plant based diet than an animal based one. They did consume animal products, but they were not daily staples the way plants were. This isn't to say that the animal foods weren't prized and used during holidays and feasts - they did play an important role in their cultures, but your typical non-upper class people did not eat the richer foods on a daily basis. At least this is what I've read - which might be influenced by "political correctness" or not, I don't know.


----------



## catnip (Mar 25, 2002)

Ok, please let me know exactly what makes Earth Balance a "fake" or "altered" food.


----------



## nicolelynn (Aug 18, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lemongrass* 
I'm not saying that this is the diet for everyone, but it works quite well for me. For example, when I eat very little fat (less than 15% of calories) my skin looks healthy. When I eat more fat, my skin gets very oily and breaks out, even when the fats are from healthy whole foods. Eating a lot of fat also makes me feel tired and gain weight. I know this is not everyone's experience, but it's mine. I'm only disagreeing with the sentiment that low fat diets are inherently unhealthy. So I'm not arguing with you, just splitting hairs a bit.









Funny...since adopting a TF diet 2 years ago and consuming approximately 100 grams of fat per day my skin has cleared up (I had adult acne) and become more supple...it used to be very dry. My finger nails are now strong and they were brittle my whole life. I never did eat a SAD, I was raised with a real food mind set and just stepped it up going TF. I also have lost weight without trying..I went from 125 at the start of my shifting to TF and am now 106 (I'm only 5'2- so that is still in a healthy range) and have more energy. It's interesting how different paths work for different people?
By the way...I live where it gets 125 degrees in the summer and I still eat plenty of fat. Ofcourse, I eat very little carbs in the summer...mostly salads and veggies with meat and lots of avocados. I do feel I need more animal fat in winter and less in summer, though.


----------



## WC_hapamama (Sep 19, 2005)

Butter is probably better for you... unless you're allergic to casein.

I use both. I have a dairy allergic child, and a coconut allergic child, so my options are kind of limited.


----------



## holyhelianthus (Jul 15, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nicolelynn* 
Funny...since adopting a TF diet 2 years ago and consuming approximately 100 grams of fat per day my skin has cleared up (I had adult acne) and become more supple...it used to be very dry. My finger nails are now strong and they were brittle my whole life. I never did eat a SAD, I was raised with a real food mind set and just stepped it up going TF. I also have lost weight without trying..I went from 125 at the start of my shifting to TF and am now 106 (I'm only 5'2- so that is still in a healthy range) and have more energy. It's interesting how different paths work for different people?
By the way...I live where it gets 125 degrees in the summer and I still eat plenty of fat. Ofcourse, I eat very little carbs in the summer...mostly salads and veggies with meat and lots of avocados. I do feel I need more animal fat in winter and less in summer, though.

Hey Nicole! I didn't know you were a TFer!

So in our area where do you find good quality dairy and eggs? I have been falling all over myself trying to find a source








:

Oh, and I do think it's so funny/awesome how all our bodies are different. I live all of 15 minutes away from you and I just don't handle fats the same way. But, then again, my father was from a desert climate lineage much like this one. Who knows!


----------



## NatureMama3 (Feb 25, 2004)

IMO earth balance is better than smart balance. IF you need to use either. What I dislike about the EB is the refined palm oil (well, all of them are refined














and th soy protein. The smart balance is awful, with things like crushed soybeans, monoglycerides and potassium sorbate.


----------



## Purple Sage (Apr 23, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nicolelynn* 
Funny...since adopting a TF diet 2 years ago and consuming approximately 100 grams of fat per day my skin has cleared up (I had adult acne) and become more supple...it used to be very dry. My finger nails are now strong and they were brittle my whole life. I never did eat a SAD, I was raised with a real food mind set and just stepped it up going TF. I also have lost weight without trying..I went from 125 at the start of my shifting to TF and am now 106 (I'm only 5'2- so that is still in a healthy range) and have more energy. *It's interesting how different paths work for different people?*
By the way...I live where it gets 125 degrees in the summer and I still eat plenty of fat. Ofcourse, I eat very little carbs in the summer...mostly salads and veggies with meat and lots of avocados. I do feel I need more animal fat in winter and less in summer, though.

Yes, I agree it's really interesting how different diets work for different people.


----------



## Cutie Patootie (Feb 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *littleaugustbaby* 
Ditto if you knew what happened to dairy cows and their babies.

I'm with lemongrass on this one.

Yeah, I wasn't really voting for butter...just not voting for margarine.


----------

