This should attract Tarlach.......
OK, I've been reading/hearing about foods, inflammation, and the "Inflammation Factor." Outside of the work of Monica Reinagel and her The Inflammation Free Diet Book, http://tinyurl.com/qrfxnk there isn't much other independent work, if any. I'm not prone to buy the book for one that is not very revealing of its contents.
Yet Nutritiondata.com lists her results as if stone tablets, and let me tell you, there are some real head scratchers there. Reinagol says at her page that this is the result of over 20 years of work and factoring in 20 different nutritional components.
So I went to ND and looked up the foods I commonly eat and others as reference. Generally, I used 100 grams as the common amount except for things like bacon, tomatoes, and so forth. Noted as needed. So, off we go......
Let's check Tarlach's "faves", the Solanum family: Wow, the dreaded tomato is rated 0, neutral! Eggplant, a piddling -12. One hundred grams of a baked potato, a still not terrible -60. "Hot chile" a POSITIVE 31, and the common sweet green pepper, 4.
So, what's something really nasty? Oh, 100g's of white bread -310! Ohmigod, look, turkey breast is -122 and dark meat -204! Lean pork is -60 but beef is a positive 160. Our beloved eggs are -51, "moderately inflammatory," chicken livers a curdling 308, same as white bread!!!!
But wild Atlantic salmon is 895. So, salmon and baked potatoes still come out positive.
And coconut milk, hold on, is -435 for 8 oz, or -109 for a 2 fluid ounce standard serving.
What the hey is going on?
Well, apparently, she counts saturated fats as bad. But why are all those not so saturated bird parts so negative. I guess that's in her secret algorithm. But most research I've seen counts saturated fats as NON-inflammatory and even healing.
So, does this mean the whole work is flawed from the git-go? I'm thinking so. Which, of course, might also mean Tarlach is 100% correct.
What think you?