Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Inflammation Factor - Science or Voodoo? page

  1. #1
    OnTheBayou's Avatar
    OnTheBayou is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Sarasota, Florida, USA, Earth, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    153

    1

    Shop Now


    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?


  2. #2
    Jeffrey K's Avatar
    Jeffrey K Guest

    1



    Voodoo. I visited her web site via nutritiondata.com as I was curious about the IF numbers they were using. I came to the same conclusion as you - she doesn't like saturated fats. I couldn't discern any good science behind that - but I'm not a scientist, so what do I know?

    Anyhow, I ignore the IF numbers on nutritiondata.com now.


  3. #3
    OnTheBayou's Avatar
    OnTheBayou is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Sarasota, Florida, USA, Earth, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    153

    1



    Would you trust a GUY named Monica? Wow, I've known a male Michele (French, of course) but never Monica.


    Could have deep seated "Boy Named Sue" emotional issues around fatty French cooking......


    I see where many reviewers on Amazon saw pretty much what I did. The positive reviews were totally non-critical; "Important information," "Good recipes," and the like. They just did not see the obviuos contradictions and logical difficulties. But hey, who studies science anymore in school, eh?


    Dude Monica also, per a review, says no more than 65 grams of fat a day, that's 29% of the 2000 calorie hypothetical diet. So, right away we know that he attends The Church of the Lipid Hypothesis.


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    30

    1



    I agree. I also looked at the list and the factors involved and decided to throw that baby out with the bathwater.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •