GT1; L (a-b-); (se); PROP-T; NN Sa Bon Nim Admin & Columnist
Location: ''eternal spring'' Cuernavaca - Mex.
mamakabry, follow the money line in all articles you read.....
let us know your blood type, to place a shield under your name....
people will help target answers to your questions according to your physiology
''Just follow the book, don't look for magic fixes to get you off the hook. Do the work.'' Dr.D.'98 DNA mt/Haplo H; Y-chrom/J2(M172);ISTJ The harder you are on yourself, the easier life will be on you!
I would agree that the various means of curing, cooking, et cetera, ultimately won't have any significant impact on the body's biochemical reactions to pork upon ingestion. Some food preparation methods do render certain foods more beneficial for human consumption. For example, soaking/sprouting legumes and nuts prior to ingestion, one is dealing with a live food and using a protocol that exploits the respective plant's own inherent biological actions in order to neutralize or reduce certain defensive reproductive mechanisms considered to be anti-nutritional, while simultaneously enhancing said plant's nutritive benefits to humans. With pork, however, the proteins, hormones, et cetera, contained within the meat are not going to perform some spontaneous alchemic transformation due to a unique preparation, preservation and/or cooking method (although thorough cooking will, at best, kill any parasites contained within the muscle tissue). Even with soaking legumes and nuts, one is not necessarily changing the form of the lipid, protein or whatever nutrient, merely freeing them up, so to speak, so that they can be more efficiently and thoroughly metabolized by the human digestive processes.
Also, as the author of the study in question points out, porcine tissue is quite similar in various respects to human tissue. Which makes sense, as it would have to be given that it's used for xenotransplantation in humans. This, more than anything, makes me leery of it as a food source. Due to this molecular similarity, I don't want to chance that pork can exert some unwanted effect by being able to bind to various receptors within my body. Underscoring the above noted biological similarities between humans and pigs, in a study titled 'Immunological Relatedness of Human and Porcine Growth Hormones' (Etzrodt H, et al), the researchers concluded, in part, the following:
[H]uman and porcine growth hormones behave immunologically in a similar fashion. Labelled human growth hormone seems to have only such immunodeterminants as are also found in porcine growth hormone . . . .
Also, with regard to this thread's referenced study, which was funded in part by the Weston A. Price Foundation, I would've preferred to see all photos from the entire range of test subjects, not only the 'best' and 'worst' case scenarios.
At any rate, I did notice that all of the pork meat products used in the study were obtained from pastured pigs (implying a higher quality, more natural meat product). I can only imagine why they did not want to use meat products from pigs fed the typical commercial feed that's routinely used in agribusiness feedlot pork production in the U.S.
I sometimes wonder if studies such as this are more about trying to justify the continued eating a food source that's increasingly being proven to not be one of the best for humans to eat, but some people refuse to accept it. I don't know. I know pig tastes good, though, we hunted wild javelinas where I grew up. However, I also know that, for type Os, the TYPEbase Index states that pork, "Contains component which can modify known disease susceptibility." This is good, and worrisome, enough for me.
In a more humorous vein, when it comes to pork, especially bacon, there has to be a bit of truth in the old adage: If it tastes this good, it has to be bad for you.
Compliant, me?!? ... I even attended a university whose mascot is one of my ◆ Superfoods! What is food to one man is bitter poison to others.~ Titus Lucretius Carus