On 5 Sep 2003 05:41:12 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Mooshie peas wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 18:17:31 +0200, Alf Christophersen
posted:

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 17:40:34 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:

What about lamb and eating it at different times of year?

Lamb are mainly slaughtered at autumn over here, and thus hs rather
high omega-3 to omega-6 ratio, (or low omega-6 to omega-3 ratio)

At Iceland where sheep always, more or less, are range feed (grazing
in mountains all days during year), they have one of the lowest
mortality rates from CVD, even having genes common with Norwegians and
other Northern Scandinavians, which has amongst the highest incidents
of these diseases. (but also high intake of meat from farmed animals,
except sheep nd lambs in autumn because they are fed in mountain
during spring/summer/autumn season. Rheumatic people seldom complains
about pain after eating lamb in autumn, while eating spring
slaughtered animals give them pain and eating pork meat always give
pain.
(Pigs are mostly fed omega-6 rich diet)


Has all this conjecture (?) been subject to test with double blind
placebo controlled studies?

Who would it pay to do the studies?

Science, public health, health insurance organisations, rich folk....

I note peer-reviewed journals are going to start pointing out to readers
when authors fail to declare their research-funding sources.

They usually do, don't they.

A lot of
biotech studies and reviewers have failed to note their funding
connections to biotech industry, against the agreed convention.

But it's not worth trying to hide something that will come out and
cause embarrassment later.

Studies on omega-6 - arachidonic acid - inflammation, if proved
positive, might benefit persons who were hoping to be paying less for
medical treatment.

About 6 billion of them about, I believe

So it looks as if any researchers interested would have
to compete for funds of the type which are not
govt-money-in-partnership-with-business.

Huh? Isn't Mrs Clark interested in your well-being?

The current approach is to
encourage partnership with business, so non-partnership research-money is
rather hard to get.

So how come there is so much research done on all of this?
I want to know what the concensus is.

As I said to Jim the connection of omega-6 to arachidonic to inflammation
is a bit obvious, like rain to being wet. We don't do a study on it
because it is rather obvious when money is short? Or is it that business
has investment in the health system, too, and guides it away from such
studies, since it would remove a lot of profit?

You seem so full of conspiracy theories that you can't see the wood
for the trees. Where is this concensus that linoleic acid causes
arachidonic acid causes inflammation causes CHD causes premature
disease and death? Perhaps obesity has a role in this?