I know that the vegan diet is more than likely the way to go. I just have
one question which is not about beliefs, morals, or bias opinion. Would
eating 2 or 3 oz. of Salmon per day which is the only animal product I would
be eating do me more harm or more good? The only problem I find asking this
group is if someone said that a little Salmon per day is OK, they might be
condemn on the site. Oh well I'm still interested in your reply.

Richard

No worries! You came here for info, I'm sure you'll get that rather
than condemnation as the hard-core meat munchers who rant in here do
most of the time. I stopped eating fish altogether 8 months ago. It
didn't take me long to not miss it. Health-wise you probably like the
fact salmon is rich with Omega 3s/HDL. Deep sea white fish would be a
better source as they are less likely to have polluted contamination.
The type of Omega 3s of fish are more abundant by a bit than flax type
of Omega 3s.
http://www.todaysdietitian.com/archi..._0104p37.shtml
However, fish stocks worldwide are in terrible shape-one very good
reason to remove fish from your diet. So you may be tempted to take
omega 3 supplements that state there source are from well maintained
salmon farms....but, these may be in not so good shape too, why? A
greater rate of parasitic infection-not only in the fish farms, AND to
surrounding area 'wild' salmon too.
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Oceans/Fi...n/Diseases.asp
So, instead of fish for omega 3s, stick with extra ground flax seeds-
and if you crave the fishy-taste, browse about online/or ask here for
some scrumtious simulated fish recipes; lol, or batter up some firm
tofu with lemon and tumeric dressings.[Using extra-virgin olive oil of
course!]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 08:15:58 -0700, "Richard Miller"
> wrote:

>I know that the vegan diet is more than likely the way to go. I just have
>one question which is not about beliefs, morals, or bias opinion. Would
>eating 2 or 3 oz. of Salmon per day which is the only animal product I would
>be eating do me more harm or more good? The only problem I find asking this
>group is if someone said that a little Salmon per day is OK, they might be
>condemn on the site. Oh well I'm still interested in your reply.
>
>Richard
>

Richard Miller wrote:
> I know that the vegan diet is more than likely the way to go. I just have
> one question which is not about beliefs, morals, or bias opinion. Would
> eating 2 or 3 oz. of Salmon per day which is the only animal product I would
> be eating do me more harm or more good? The only problem I find asking this
> group is if someone said that a little Salmon per day is OK, they might be
> condemn on the site. Oh well I'm still interested in your reply.
>
> Richard

If you are going to eat fish, you might want to consider the mercury
problem. To minimize the mercury problem you might want to eat as low
in the food chain as possible. The bottom of the food chain is plants.
Next is fish that eat plants. Then fish that eat fish. The bigger the
fish the higher it is in the food chain. Each step up the food chain
concentrates the mercury and other bad things. Maybe eat sardines.

Richard Miller wrote:
> I know that the vegan diet is more than likely the way to go. I just have
> one question which is not about beliefs, morals, or bias opinion. Would
> eating 2 or 3 oz. of Salmon per day which is the only animal product I would
> be eating do me more harm or more good? The only problem I find asking this
> group is if someone said that a little Salmon per day is OK, they might be
> condemn on the site. Oh well I'm still interested in your reply.

Hi Richard;

Keeping ethics out of it you should be aware that a lot of aquatically
based food is very high in toxins. Please do not take my word for it.
Google on the issue.

Steve

Be A Healthy Vegan Or Vegetarian
http://www.geocities.com/beforewisdo...ealthyVeg.html

"The great American thought trap: It is not real
unless it can be seen on television or bought in a
shopping mall"

Steve's Home Page
http://www.geocities.com/beforewisdom/

Richard Miller wrote:
> I know that the vegan diet is more than likely the way to go.

The way for *what* to go?

> I just have
> one question which is not about beliefs, morals, or bias opinion.

Then this is the WRONG newsgroup to ask. Veganism is all about biased
and even doctrinaire beliefs.

> Would
> eating 2 or 3 oz. of Salmon per day which is the only animal product I would
> be eating do me more harm or more good?

No, not at all.

CHICAGO (AP) - Eating fish at least once a week is good for the brain,
slowing age-related mental decline by the equivalent of three to four
years, a study suggests.

The research adds to the growing evidence that a fish-rich diet helps
keep the mind sharp. Previous studies found that people who ate fish
lowered their risk of Alzheimer's disease and stroke. Fish such as
salmon and tuna that are rich in omega-3 fatty acids also have been
shown to prevent heart disease.

Rest of article:
http://apnews.excite.com/article/200...D8D5PT700.html
------
Eating poultry and fish did not raise the risk of colon cancer. In fact,
people who ate more poultry and fish than red meat were less likely to
develop the disease.
http://tinyurl.com/3z2ex
[article from cancer association website]
------
Study subjects who ate two or more servings of fish weekly had a much
lower risk for esophageal, stomach, colon, rectum, and pancreatic
cancers than those who avoided fish. In fact, the rates of these types
of cancer were 30 to 50 percent lower among fish eaters. High fish
consumption was also associated with lower risks for cancers of the
larynx (30 percent lower risk), endometrial cancer (20 percent lower
risk), and ovarian cancer (30 percent lower risk).
http://www.diagnose-me.com/treat/T94123.html
[see other studies cited on that page]

> The only problem I find asking this
> group is if someone said that a little Salmon per day is OK, they might be
> condemn on the site. Oh well I'm still interested in your reply.

I see that one of the vegan ****s here has spewed his typical
disinformation, e.g., "If you are going to eat fish, you might want to
consider the mercury problem." That's a red herring. Salmon is *NOT* one
of the species with high traces of methylmercury. In fact, testing on
wild and farmed salmon shows it to consistently be below critical levels:

The authors reported that the arithmetic mean concentrations of
total mercury in salmon muscle for the species sampled ranged
from 0.034 to 0.096 ppm wet weight and in liver tissue ranged
from 0.054 to 0.112 ppm....the authors point out that Alaskan
salmon did not exceed critical human health values (0.200 ppm)
and therefore do not pose a risk for salmon food consumers.
http://map1.epa.gov/html/newsdec.htm

See also the following link for a table just below the middle of the
page with information on high, moderate, and low methylmercury
concentrations in various seafood.
http://www.mediterrasian.com/straight_talk_fish.htm

Finally, the same **** who irrationally cautioned you against salmon
because of mercury (red herring -- it's NOT a problem in salmon)
suggested flax is an adequate and appropriate substitute for the omega-3
FAs found in salmon and other fish. That, too, is bullshit.

Stein says omega-3s, especially the long-chain variety from
deep-sea fish, influence the composition of brain tissue. That
may be why some studies have concluded that long-chain omega-3
consumption was associated with better scores on memory and
other brain function tests.
http://www.montana.edu/cpa/news/nwview.php?article=2447

The above article also comments on the balance between omega-3 and
omega-6 FAs. Flax is rich in omega-6 FAs and *SHORT* omega-3 FAs -- not
the more beneficial long-chained ones found in fish like salmon (flax
has NONE of that). By comparison, salmon is rich in LONG omega-3s and
has a trace of omega-6 FAs; it is the richest food listed in the
following link for long-chained omega-3 FAs. It also has some
short-chained omega-3 and a little of both long- and short-chained omega-6.
http://efaeducation.nih.gov/sig/esstable.html

Assuming your diet is varied and already contains sufficient omega-6
FAs, you don't need any more from flax seeds, hemp seeds, walnuts, or
any of the other suggestions from vegan nitwits who put their irrational
opposition to eating healthful foods like salmon ahead of the facts.
Most people consume more than enough omega-6 already and have a
deficiency of omega-3. There's no reason to deny yourself salmon or
whatever else you want to eat, especially considering the benefits shown
by consuming fish like salmon.

And fwiw, the same benefits can be derived from grass-fed ruminants and
wild game -- which are also rich in long-chained omega-3 FAs.

Steve wrote:
> Richard Miller wrote:
>
>> I know that the vegan diet is more than likely the way to go. I just
>> have one question which is not about beliefs, morals, or bias opinion.
>> Would eating 2 or 3 oz. of Salmon per day which is the only animal
>> product I would be eating do me more harm or more good? The only
>> problem I find asking this group is if someone said that a little
>> Salmon per day is OK, they might be condemn on the site. Oh well I'm
>> still interested in your reply.
>
>
> Hi Richard;
>
> Keeping ethics out of it

What ethics? Name one religion or philosophy, other than "veganism,"
which frowns on consumption of fish.

> you should be aware that a lot of aquatically
> based food is very high in toxins.

Where's your evidence? And where's your evidence that food grown upon
land is any less toxic, especially considering:

Diesel exhaust contains 20-100 times more particles than
gasoline exhaust. These particles carry cancer-causing
substances known as polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
Gases in diesel exhaust, such as nitrous oxide, nitrogen
dioxide, formaldehyde, benzene, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen
sulfide, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide can also create
health problems.
http://www.afscme.org/health/faq-dies.htm
-----
The scientific evidence is clear: diesel exhaust is a complex
mixture comprised of hazardous particles and vapors, some of
which are known carcinogens and others probable carcinogens.
Diesel exposure poses a significant and avoidable increase in
human health risks. Compelling evidence from dozens of
well-designed studies supports the conclusion that diesel
exhaust causes cancer. In addition, fine particles from diesel
exhaust aggravate respiratory illnesses such as bronchitis,
emphysema and asthma and are associated with premature deaths
from cardio-pulmonary disorders.
http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/ebd/chap2.asp

What's in diesel exhaust? Here's a *partial* list from OSHA:
* Major Components.
o Carbon dioxide, ID-172
o Carbon monoxide, ID-210
o Nitrogen dioxide, ID-182, NIOSH 6014
o Nitric oxide, ID-190, NIOSH 6014
o Particulates, NIOSH 5040 (new method for Diesel Exhaust
Particulates), NIOSH 0500 (*.zip file in WordPerfect format)
o Sulfur dioxide, ID-200
* Minor Components
o Acrolein, OSHA 52, NIOSH 2539
o o-Anisaldehyde
o Benzene, OSHA 12, NIOSH
o 2,3-Benzofuran
o Coumarin
o Formaldehyde, OSHA 52, NIOSH 2541 (*.zip file in
WordPerfect format), NIOSH 2539
o 4-Hydroxycoumarin
o m-Hydroxyacetophenone
o 2-Hydroxy-4-methoxyacetophenone
o Menadione
o 6-Methoxytetralone
o 6-Methylcoumarin
o 3-Methyl-2-cyclopentene-2-ol-one
o Trimethylbenzene
o Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, OSHA 58, NIOSH 5506,
NIOSH 5515
+ Acenaphthene
+ Acenaphthylene
+ Anthracene
+ Benz[a]anthracene
+ Benzo[b]fluoranthene
+ Benzo[k]fluoranthene
+ Benzo[ghi]perylene
+ Benzo[a]pyrene
+ Benzo[e]pyrene
+ Crysene
+ Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
+ Fluoranthene
+ Fluorene
+ Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene
+ Naphthalene, OSHA 35
+ Phenanthrene
+ Pyrene
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/dieselexhaust/chemical.html

Approximately *27,000 tons* of particulate matter pour into California's
air every year. That's just California. That doesn't include the rest of
the US where your grains and soybeans are grown.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/dieseltac/factsht1.pdf

See also: http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=36089

> Please do not take my word for it.

Nobody should.

> Google on the issue.

Lucky for you, I already have. ****.

Jerry Story wrote:
> Richard Miller wrote:
>
>>I know that the vegan diet is more than likely the way to go. I just have
>>one question which is not about beliefs, morals, or bias opinion. Would
>>eating 2 or 3 oz. of Salmon per day which is the only animal product I would
>>be eating do me more harm or more good? The only problem I find asking this
>>group is if someone said that a little Salmon per day is OK, they might be
>>condemn on the site. Oh well I'm still interested in your reply.
>
>
> If you are going to eat fish,

The OP was specific: SALMON.

> you might want to consider the mercury
> problem.

Red herring. Salmon don't accumulate unhealthful amounts of
methylmercury (and you really should review the Seychelles Study which
debunks myths surrounding long-term exposure to methylmercury from fish
consumption).

The authors reported that the arithmetic mean concentrations of
total mercury in salmon muscle for the species sampled ranged
from 0.034 to 0.096 ppm wet weight and in liver tissue ranged
from 0.054 to 0.112 ppm....the authors point out that Alaskan
salmon did not exceed critical human health values (0.200 ppm)
and therefore do not pose a risk for salmon food consumers.
http://map1.epa.gov/html/newsdec.htm

See also the following link for a table just below the middle of the
page with information on high, moderate, and low methylmercury
concentrations in various seafood.
http://www.mediterrasian.com/straight_talk_fish.htm

> To minimize the mercury problem you might want to eat as low
> in the food chain as possible.

Ipse dixit, and bone-headed. Burning of coal to produce electricity
leads to methylmercury contamination in plants -- grains, produce,
legumes -- in the environment just as it does fish in the water. Also,
other pollutants -- from burning diesel and gasoline -- affect the
quality of food. The amount of mercury in SALMON is low enough to make
that a non-issue. Of course, you're a **** who doesn't care about
specifics so you make outlandish suggestions on the basis of your
hysterical generalizations.

Joe wrote:
> No worries! You came here for info, I'm sure you'll get that rather
> than condemnation as the hard-core meat munchers who rant in here do
> most of the time. I stopped eating fish altogether 8 months ago. It
> didn't take me long to not miss it. Health-wise you probably like the
> fact salmon is rich with Omega 3s/HDL.

HDL?! No! You have NO idea what you're talking about, as usual. Omega-3
FAs increase serum HDL. You made the same ****-up in another post I
can't find right now in saying animal foods contain LDL. They don't, you
putz.

> Deep sea white fish would be a
> better source as they are less likely to have polluted contamination.

Any source for this (mis)information?

> The type of Omega 3s of fish are more abundant by a bit than flax type
> of Omega 3s.

That's wrong. Look at the following link for information breaking down
omega-3 and -6 FAs by short- and long-chain:
http://efaeducation.nih.gov/sig/esstable.html

Long-chained omega-3 FAs are most beneficial for managing serum
cholesterol and in brain studies. Flax has no long-chained omega-3.

> http://www.todaysdietitian.com/archi..._0104p37.shtml
> However, fish stocks worldwide are in terrible shape-one very good
> reason to remove fish from your diet.

Salmon are in excellent supply. There is no reason to avoid them on the
grounds you suggest.

> So you may be tempted to take
> omega 3 supplements that state there

Their.

> source are

Source is, sources are.

> from well maintained
> salmon farms....but, these may be in not so good shape too, why? A
> greater rate of parasitic infection-not only in the fish farms, AND to
> surrounding area 'wild' salmon too.

That "greater rate" is a red herring. Not all farms are infected. Few,
in fact, are. That's why a regional outbreak skews things such that ANY
outbreak is a "greater rate" of infection.

> http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Oceans/Fi...n/Diseases.asp

David Suzuki has become more an activist than a scientist.

> So, instead of fish for omega 3s, stick with extra ground flax seeds-

Why would he want to increase his intake of omega-6 and short-chained
omega-3?

> and if you crave the fishy-taste, browse about online/or ask here for
> some scrumtious simulated fish recipes;

Why eat faux fish when the real thing is plentiful, healthful, and what
the OP wants in the first place?

> lol, or batter up some firm
> tofu with lemon and tumeric

Turmeric.

> dressings.[Using extra-virgin olive oil of
> course!]

Tofu is not salmon, nor is it a healthful alternative to it. You
top-posting ****ant.

captain ahab wrote:

Unless you eat fresh Alaska Salmon, here's what you'll get at the
grocery store.

Why Farmed Salmon Isn’t Good for You


Three large supermarket chains are facing a lawsuit for selling
farm-raised salmon with artificial chemicals that was not labeled as such.

Eight consumers are behind the unprecedented lawsuit, which charges
Albertsons, Safeway and the Kroger Co. with "deception, unfair business
practices, breach of warranty and negligent misrepresentation in the
sale of farm-raised salmon."

The consumers said they would not have purchased the salmon had they
known about the chemical additives.

Wild salmon eat creatures like shrimp and krill, which contain chemicals
that make salmon pink. Since farm-raised fish do not eat a natural diet,
their flesh would be gray if not for artificial additives.

The chemicals used to turn farm-raised fish pink--canthaxanthin and
astaxanthin--are found in nature and are not harmful, according to an
industry official. The salmon are turned pink to make them more
marketable, since many consumers prefer fish with the traditional pink
color.

Federal and state law requires that farm-raised salmon be labeled as
such, however the grocery chains named in the suit allegedly failed to
list the chemical additives on the label.

Further, there is "significant controversy" over the effects of
canthaxanthin, as it has been associated with retinal damage in the
human eye.

Seattle Post-Intelligencer April 24, 2003

Dr. Mercola's Comment

Several weeks ago the FDA agreed with the EPA and now recommends that
all pregnant women avoid fish as up to 10 percent of them have high
enough mercury levels to cause neurodevelopmental defects in their children.

Mercury is a poison and needs to be avoided. The same report made it
very clear that most of the mercury we have in our bodies is indeed from
fish.

Again, I am not saying that this justifies putting silver fillings in
your mouth. Mercury silver fillings are toxic and ideally should never
be placed in anyone’s mouth. However, more people suffer from the
mercury from fish than the mercury from their fillings.

Last year I was contacted by a fisherman from Alaska who said that the
salmon he offered was free of mercury and other toxins, was not
farm-raised but caught in the wild using conscientious "sustainable
harvesting" techniques, and contained no contained no artificial
chemicals like the coloring agents discussed above. He was particularly
compelled to contact me with this information, he said, after hearing me
recommend avoiding all fish because dangerous levels of mercury were
showing up in all types from all sources--farmed, ocean and freshwater.

Naturally I was very skeptical about the "mercury-free" claim, but he
even flew all the way here to Chicago to convince me to give his salmon
a try. I had one of my team-members order some of the salmon
independently, and then we sent it out to an professional lab to get
tested for mercury and a host of other toxins.

While I awaited the results, my staff and I tried the various cuts of
wild red Alaskan salmon this fisherman's company offered--filets,
smoked, lox and more--in various recipes. We all agreed: the salmon was
utterly delicious. And so when I got the report back from the lab, I
almost fell out of my chair with excitement--the salmon was also indeed
free of harmful mercury and the other toxins, as this Alaskan fisherman
had claimed.

And so this Vital Choice brand salmon is the only fish that I eat now.
It comes from cold, pristine and very select waters up in Alaska, and
has a firmer texture and better flavor--and is of course much safer--
than the salmon you'll find in grocery stores. Of course it's very high
in omega-3 that will help prevent disease, optimize weight and live
longer, and its a good source of protein. Find out more about Vital
Choice salmon, and consider trying some today.

Another cost-effective solution to get the omega-3 with the essential
DHA and EPA fatty acids found in fish that your body needs--but which
most people are seriously deficient in, increasing their risks for
disease and more--would be to routinely use fish oil. This is the time
of the year when most everyone should be taking fish oil rather than cod
liver oil due to the high vitamin D levels in cod liver oil that are
unnecessary in warmer months. Fortunately, this is the first summer that
we offer liquid fish oil from Carlson’s.

Last year we had to rely on using fish oil capsules. I had initially
recommended fish oil capsules from Costco, particularly motivated by
their low price, but when I started to see my patients and I both not
benefitting, and in fact regressing on these capsules--check out my
article, "I Now Advise Against Costco Fish Oil Capsules, Urge Caution
with Other Brands"--I stopped recommending the Costco capsules.

I had used the Carlson's brand of fish oil prior to the trial with the
Costco fish oil capsules and seen outstanding results, with patients and
myself (click on the story in the paragraph above for details), and then
saw those same great results when I switched back to Carlson's from the
Costco.

But the issue was, the Carlson's brand of liquid fish oil--that can be
poured onto a spoon--was difficult to find. One primary advantage of the
liquid over capsule form is cost-effectiveness: you can take just one to
three teaspoons instead of swallowing five to 15 giant pills. Another
advantage is the liquid is easier to swallow than 15 pills. Because the
Carlson's brand of fish oil had proved itself over a long period of
time, I was determined to find a way to make it more widely available.
Through the efforts of my fantastic team, we were finally able to work
out a distribution agreement with a reliable source late last year, and
now offer the Carlson's fish oil direct to you.

The Carlson brand is the best that I know of. Many health food stores
carry their cod liver oil, but very few carry their liquid fish oil. So
if you can’t find it at your local health food store, you can easily
order it in our store.

As I said last year when I commented on farmed fish:

Well, for all of you who want to have the health benefits of fish, you
can be assured that nearly all of the restaurants that serve you fish
are serving you farm-raised fish.

This is the first good reference I have found to what the fish are
actually eating. When you eat a farm-raised fish, you are nearly eating
the same type of meal as eating beef. The fat content of the fish can be
no different from what they are fed.

As the above article states, these fish are fed corn meal, soy and
canola oil. When the fish are fed these foods, the concentration of
their fats turns far away from the ideal, beneficial 3:1 omega-6 to
omega-3 ratio to a ratio far closer to the 20:1 found in
commercially-raised beef.

One way to improve your omega 6:3 ratio is to change the type of meat
you are eating. Since I can't recommend fish due to their high levels of
mercury and other toxins these days, the best meats are those raised
primarily or entirely on grass diets. Nearly all cattle found in grocery
stores and restaurants are grain-fed before slaughter, so if you eat
this type of beef, it will typically worsen you omega 6mega 3 ratio.

Though it may sound unusual to some, two of the best meats on the
planet--in terms of nutrition value and their incredible taste--are
bison and ostrich. And on Mercola.com, I offer bison meat and our
exclusive omega-3-rich ostrich meat, both of which are free-ranged, fed
primarily grass/alfalfa diets, and contain no antibiotics or steroids.
Whether from my site or elsewhere, I urge you to try bison and ostrich.

You can also consume a more "gamey" meat like venison, or try grass-fed
beef, which I also highly recommend on Mercola.com. The grass-fed beef I
recommend is even higher in omega-3 than fish, with a 6:3 ratio of 0.16
to 1 (this information is from a study done at Iowa State University in
August 2001). It is still hard to find in grocery stores, however, and
unlike bison and ostrich--which both taste like prime beef--some find
the taste of grass-fed beef too lean.

Related Articles:

Why You Should Be Concerned About Eating Salmon

Mercury In Your Fish

Learn How Mercury Is Affecting You and the Ones You Love

Where's the Real Beef?

Beach Runner wrote:
> Unless you eat fresh Alaska Salmon, here's what you'll get at the
> grocery store.

1. That applies to certain farmed salmon.
2. Not all farmed salmon is given additional coloring.
3. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer article Mercola has on his site which
you pasted in here notes that the tints are of natural origin and not
harmful.

But let's get to the good stuff in Mercola's diatribe. I mean, commentary.

<...>
> Last year I was contacted by a fisherman from Alaska who said that the
> salmon he offered was free of mercury and other toxins, was not
> farm-raised but caught in the wild using conscientious "sustainable
> harvesting" techniques, and contained no contained no artificial
> chemicals like the coloring agents discussed above. He was particularly
> compelled to contact me with this information, he said, after hearing me
> recommend avoiding all fish because dangerous levels of mercury were
> showing up in all types from all sources--farmed, ocean and freshwater.
>
> Naturally I was very skeptical about the "mercury-free" claim, but he
> even flew all the way here to Chicago to convince me to give his salmon
> a try. I had one of my team-members order some of the salmon
> independently, and then we sent it out to an professional lab to get
> tested for mercury and a host of other toxins.
>
> While I awaited the results, my staff and I tried the various cuts of
> wild red Alaskan salmon this fisherman's company offered--filets,
> smoked, lox and more--in various recipes. We all agreed: the salmon was
> utterly delicious. And so when I got the report back from the lab, I
> almost fell out of my chair with excitement--the salmon was also indeed
> free of harmful mercury and the other toxins, as this Alaskan fisherman
> had claimed.

SO MERCOLA SAYS WILD SALMON IS FREE OF MERCURY AND OTHER TOXINS. Farmed
salmon doesn't contain high levels of mercury, either.

> And so this Vital Choice brand salmon is the only fish that I eat now.
> It comes from cold, pristine

Hehe. Prince William Sound, the apex of the environmentalist wackos'
hyperbole. At least until it rebounded millions of years sooner than
they said it would.

> Another cost-effective solution to get the omega-3 with the essential
> DHA and EPA fatty acids found in fish that your body needs--but which
> most people are seriously deficient in, increasing their risks for
> disease and more--would be to routinely use fish oil. This is the time
> of the year when most everyone should be taking fish oil rather than cod
> liver oil due to the high vitamin D levels in cod liver oil that are
> unnecessary in warmer months. Fortunately, this is the first summer that
> we offer liquid fish oil from Carlson’s.

This is not vegan.

<...>
> You can also consume a more "gamey" meat like venison, or try grass-fed
> beef,

Imagine that!

> which I also highly recommend on Mercola.com.

Alas, he hasn't found a way to profit from the sale of it the way he has
with his Alaskan salmon, ostrich, bison, and Carlson's fish oil pills.
Maybe he can sell bowhunting equipment and videos.

> The grass-fed beef I
> recommend is even higher in omega-3 than fish, with a 6:3 ratio of 0.16
> to 1 (this information is from a study done at Iowa State University in
> August 2001).

And that's the LONG-chained omega-3 FAs, not the chintzy short-chained
ones found in flax that vegan loons clamor about.

<snip rest of Mercola's ads for bison and ostrich>

captain ahab wrote:
>>
>> Keeping ethics out of it
>
>
> What ethics? Name one religion or philosophy, other than "veganism,"
> which frowns on consumption of fish.

I will say my good byes now. Time to update my filters.

No offense, but going out and doing something positive is much more
enjoyable of a past time.

You will have fun and you might build up some memories to cherish.

You will not get the later trolling usenet.

Be well.

Steve

captain ahab wrote:
> Jerry Story wrote:
>
>> Richard Miller wrote:
>>
>>> I know that the vegan diet is more than likely the way to go. I just
>>> have
>>> one question which is not about beliefs, morals, or bias opinion. Would
>>> eating 2 or 3 oz. of Salmon per day which is the only animal product
>>> I would
>>> be eating do me more harm or more good? The only problem I find
>>> asking this
>>> group is if someone said that a little Salmon per day is OK, they
>>> might be
>>> condemn on the site. Oh well I'm still interested in your reply.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you are going to eat fish,
>
>
> The OP was specific: SALMON.
>
>> you might want to consider the mercury
>> problem.
>
>
> Red herring. Salmon don't accumulate unhealthful amounts of
> methylmercury (and you really should review the Seychelles Study which
> debunks myths surrounding long-term exposure to methylmercury from fish
> consumption).
>
> The authors reported that the arithmetic mean concentrations of
> total mercury in salmon muscle for the species sampled ranged
> from 0.034 to 0.096 ppm wet weight and in liver tissue ranged
> from 0.054 to 0.112 ppm....the authors point out that Alaskan
> salmon did not exceed critical human health values (0.200 ppm)
> and therefore do not pose a risk for salmon food consumers.
> http://map1.epa.gov/html/newsdec.htm

Re-read the original posting which specifically compared the mercury in
much more expensive Alaskan Salmon than commercial salmon.

"Steve" > wrote in
message ...
> captain ahab wrote:
>>>
>>> Keeping ethics out of it
>>
>>
>> What ethics? Name one religion or philosophy, other than
>> "veganism," which frowns on consumption of fish.
>
> I will say my good byes now. Time to update my filters.
>
> No offense, but going out and doing something positive is much
> more enjoyable of a past time.
>
> You will have fun and you might build up some memories to
> cherish.
>
> You will not get the later trolling usenet.
=========================
I saw no trolling, excpt maybe by you. You spewed crap that you
didn't back up, and captain did.
Maybe if you were really open to the truth you'd understand the
meaning of the word. But, being a vegan wannabe, I see you
aren't really after any information that violates the simple rule
for your simple mind, right killer?

>
> Be well.
>
> Steve

Beach Runner wrote:
>>>> I know that the vegan diet is more than likely the way to go. I just
>>>> have
>>>> one question which is not about beliefs, morals, or bias opinion. Would
>>>> eating 2 or 3 oz. of Salmon per day which is the only animal product
>>>> I would
>>>> be eating do me more harm or more good? The only problem I find
>>>> asking this
>>>> group is if someone said that a little Salmon per day is OK, they
>>>> might be
>>>> condemn on the site. Oh well I'm still interested in your reply.
>>>
>>>
>>> If you are going to eat fish,
>>
>> The OP was specific: SALMON.
>>
>>> you might want to consider the mercury
>>> problem.
>>
>> Red herring. Salmon don't accumulate unhealthful amounts of
>> methylmercury (and you really should review the Seychelles Study which
>> debunks myths surrounding long-term exposure to methylmercury from
>> fish consumption).
>>
>> The authors reported that the arithmetic mean concentrations of
>> total mercury in salmon muscle for the species sampled ranged
>> from 0.034 to 0.096 ppm wet weight and in liver tissue ranged
>> from 0.054 to 0.112 ppm....the authors point out that Alaskan
>> salmon did not exceed critical human health values (0.200 ppm)
>> and therefore do not pose a risk for salmon food consumers.
>> http://map1.epa.gov/html/newsdec.htm
>
> Re-read the original posting which specifically compared the mercury in
> much more expensive Alaskan Salmon than commercial salmon.

The amount of methylmercury in EITHER is well below the EPA's danger
limit, you ****.