___/ On Thursday 25 August 2005 17:11, [Mr-Natural-Health] wrote : \___
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> there are dangers associated with tuna
>> consumption, especially among pregnant women and the foetus. However,
>> what implications would a daily consumption of tuna have on an average
>> man? What will be the short- and long-term effects of it, if any?
> The whole issue of tuna is really quite mute!
> You will be hard pressed to find any brand of canned tunafish that
> contains more than one ounce of fat per serving. The low-fat craze and
> the female mind has pretty much motivated all tuna canning companies to
> drain all the fat from tuna fish.
I'd prefer it without the fat actually. I get enough fat and carbohydrates
from the rest of my diet. Tuna tends to compensate for a low protein
> In order to get any amount of Omega-3 EFAs from canned tuna, you need
> at least 3 ounces of fat per serving. Since all the Omega-3 EFAs have
> been drained from most brands of tunafish, any knowledgeable person
> interested in their health and who has spent a minimal amount of time
> researching the issue would NOT be consuming tuna in the first place,
> regardless of the mercury issue.
> Just my opinion, but I am right as always. :)
I do not have an appeal for tuna due to Omega-3. For the time being, I just
worry about undesirable contents such as mercury, which the media makes a
hype of, perhaps justifiably, perhaps not.
___/ Also wrote: \___
>> I have done some reading on the subject in Wikipedia, being a source
>> which I consider relatively reliable. The information was rather limited
> The articles in Wikipedia do NOT make any health claims.
> Just thought that you might want to know.
I have a hard time trusting you not just because of RBR, but also because of
your banishment from Wikipedia. No offence intended.