Soy proteins versus Animal proteins / kidneys : Nutrition : Active Low-Carber Forums

Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums

Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Ironjustic

Tue, Sep-26-06, 17:16

Soy protein diet improves endothelial dysfunction in renal
transplant patients. Cupisti A, Ghiadoni L, D'Alessandro C,
Kardasz I, Morelli E, Panichi V, Locati D, Morandi S, Saba A,
Barsotti G, Taddei S, Arnoldi A, Salvetti A Nephrol Dial
Transplant. 2006 Sep 23;

BACKGROUND: Since it has been demonstrated that soy diet can
improve endothelial function, in the present study we
evaluated the effect of dietary substitution of 25 g of animal
proteins with soy proteins on endothelial dysfunction in renal
transplant patients. METHODS: In 20 renal transplant patients
(55 +/- 11 years, serum creatinine 1.7 +/- .6 mg/dl), brachial
artery flow mediated dilation (FMD) and
endothelium-independent vasodilation (sublingual
nitroglycerine, 25 microg) were measured at baseline, after 5
weeks of a soy diet and finally after 5 weeks of soy wash-out.
Changes in plasma lipids, markers of oxidative stress (lipid
peroxides, LOOH) and inflammation (C-reactive protein),
isoflavones (genistein and daidzein), asymmetric dimethyl
arginine (ADMA) and l-arginine were also evaluated. RESULTS:
At baseline, patients showed a significantly lower FMD as
compared with age-matched healthy subjects (3.2 +/- 1.8 vs 6.3
+/- 1.9, respectively; P < 0.001), while response to
nitroglycerine was similar. After soy diet, actual protein
intake was not changed, cholesterol and lipid peroxides were
significantly reduced, and isoflavones were detectable in
plasma. Soy diet was associated with a significant improvement
in FMD (4.4 +/- 2.0; P = 0.003 vs baseline), while response to
nitroglycerine was unchanged. Improvement in FMD was related
to l-arginine/ADMA ratio changes, but no significant relation
was found to changes in cholesterol, lipid peroxides or
genistein and daidzein plasma concentrations. After 5 weeks of
soy diet discontinuation, FMD
(3.3 +/- 1.7%) returned to baseline values and isoflavones
were no longer detectable in plasma. CONCLUSIONS: A soy
protein diet for 5 weeks improves endothelial function in
renal transplant patients. This effect seems to be strictly
dependent on soy intake as it disappears after soy
withdrawal and is mediated by an increase in the
l-arginine/ADMA ratio, independently of change in lipid
profile, oxidative stress or isoflavones.

Who loves ya. Tom

Jesus Was A Vegetarian! http://jesuswasavegetarian.7h.com

Man Is A Herbivore! http://tinyurl.com/a3cc3

DEAD PEOPLE WALKING http://tinyurl.com/zk9fk

Matti Nark

Tue, Sep-26-06, 17:16

On 26 Sep 2006 07:04:41 -0700, "ironjustice@aol.com"
<ironjustice@aol.com> wrote:

>Soy protein diet improves endothelial dysfunction in renal
>transplant patients. Cupisti A, Ghiadoni L, D'Alessandro C,
>Kardasz I, Morelli E, Panichi V, Locati D, Morandi S, Saba A,
>Barsotti G, Taddei S, Arnoldi A, Salvetti A Nephrol Dial
>Transplant. 2006 Sep 23;
>
And animal studies suggest that _fish_ protein may prevent
insulin resistance and thus type 2 diabetes. And a Swedish
study with humans suggests that fish protein may protect type
1 diabetes patients from microalbuminuria und thus perhaps
from kidney damage.

Here some evidence: The study

Lavigne C, Tremblay F, Asselin G, Jacques H, Marette A.
Prevention of skeletal muscle insulin resistance by dietary
cod protein in high fat-fed rats. Am J Physiol Endocrinol
Metab. 2001 Jul;281(1):E62-71. PMID: 11404223 [PubMed -
indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/281/1/E62>

suggests that fish protein may prevent high fat diet induced
insulin resistance and hence type 2 diabetes in rats.
Selected excerpts:

"In the present study, we tested the hypothesis that fish
protein may represent a key constituent of fish with
glucoregulatory activity. Three groups of rats were fed a
high- fat diet in which the protein source was casein,
fish (cod) protein, or soy protein; these groups were
compared with a group of chow-fed controls. High-fat
feeding led to severe whole body and skeletal muscle
insulin resistance in casein- or soy protein-fed rats, as
assessed by the euglycemic clamp technique coupled with
measurements of 2-deoxy-D-[(3)H]glucose uptake rates by
individual tissues. However, feeding cod protein fully
prevented the development of insulin resistance in high
fat-fed rats. These animals exhibited higher rates of
insulin-mediated muscle glucose disposal that were
comparable to those of chow-fed rats. The beneficial
effects of cod protein occurred without any reductions in
body weight gain, adipose tissue accretion, or expression
of tumor necrosis factor-alpha in fat and muscle.
Moreover, L6 myocytes exposed to cod protein-derived amino
acids showed greater rates of insulin-stimulated glucose
uptake compared with cells incubated with casein- or soy
protein-derived amino acids. These data demonstrate that
feeding cod protein prevents obesity-induced muscle
insulin resistance in high fat-fed obese rats at least in
part through a direct action of amino acids on insulin-
stimulated glucose uptake in skeletal muscle cells.

[...]

In summary, the present study shows that dietary cod
protein prevents the development of skeletal muscle
insulin resistance in high fat-fed obese rats. The
beneficial action of cod protein on insulin sensitivity
occurred without reductions in body weight or adiposity,
strongly suggesting that cod protein protects from
obesity-induced insulin resistance. The effect of dietary
cod protein appears to involve, at least in part, a direct
action of cod protein-derived amino acids on insulin-
stimulated glucose transport in skeletal muscle cells.
Interest in the present data also arises from the fact
that increased cod protein consumption is easily
implementable in humans within guidelines of daily
recommended allowances of essential nutrients (12, 18) and
thus could represent a novel nutraceutical approach in
preventing the development of insulin resistance in
obesity. Because insulin resistance is a central factor in
visceral obesity-associated complications such as
hypertension, diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases (2, 6,
8), dietary cod protein may contribute to prevent the many
metabolic aberrations that accompany the obese state."

A follow-up study from the same research team:

Tremblay F, Lavigne C, Jacques H, Marette A. Dietary cod
protein restores insulin-induced activation of
phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/Akt and GLUT4 translocation to
the T-tubules in skeletal muscle of high-fat-fed obese rats.
Diabetes. 2003 Jan;52(1):29-37. PMID: 12502490 [PubMed -
indexed for MEDLINE] <http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/cg-
i/content/full/52/1/29>

"Diet-induced obesity is known to cause peripheral insulin
resistance in rodents. We have recently found that feeding
cod protein to high-fat-fed rats prevents the development
of insulin resistance in skeletal muscle. In the present
study, we have further explored the cellular mechanisms
behind this beneficial effect of cod protein on skeletal
muscle insulin sensitivity. Rats were fed a standard chow
diet or a high-fat diet in which the protein source was
either casein, soy, or cod proteins for 4 weeks.
Whole-body and muscle glucose disposal were reduced by
approximately 50% in rats fed high-fat diets with casein
or soy proteins, but these impairments were not observed
in animals fed cod protein. Insulin-induced tyrosine
phosphorylation of the insulin receptor and insulin
receptor substrate (IRS) proteins were similar in muscle
of chow- and high-fat-fed rats regardless of the dietary
protein source. However, IRS-1-associated
phosphatidylinositol (PI) 3-kinase activity was severely
impaired (-60%) in muscle of high-fat-fed rats consuming
casein or soy protein. In marked contrast, feeding rats
with cod protein completely prevented the deleterious
effect of fat feeding on insulin-stimulated PI 3- kinase
activity. The activation of the downstream kinase Akt/PKB
by insulin, assessed by in vitro kinase assay and
phosphorylation of GSK-3beta, were also impaired in muscle
of high-fat-fed rats consuming casein or soy protein, but
these defects were also fully prevented by dietary cod
protein. However, no effect of cod protein was observed on
atypical protein kinase C activity. Normalization of PI
3-kinase/Akt activation by insulin in rats fed high-fat
diets with cod protein was associated with improved
translocation of GLUT4 to the T-tubules but not to the
plasma membrane. Taken together, these results show that
dietary cod protein is a natural insulin-sensitizing agent
that appears to prevent obesity- linked muscle insulin
resistance by normalizing insulin activation of the PI
3-kinase/Akt pathway and by selectively improving GLUT4
translocation to the T-tubules.

[...]

In summary, this study provides convincing evidence that
dietary proteins are important modulators of insulin
signaling and action in rat skeletal muscle. Furthermore,
we showed that dietary cod protein is a potent and natural
insulin-sensitizing agent that normalizes the activation
status of the PI 3- kinase/Akt pathway coupled to an
increased translocation of GLUT4 to the T-tubules in obese
high-fat-fed rats. Identification of the precise molecular
mechanism by which dietary cod protein improves insulin
signaling to PI 3- kinase/Akt will help defining novel
therapeutic tools for the prevention and treatment of
insulin resistance."

Another potential benefit from fish protein: A Swedish study

Mollsten AV, Dahlquist GG, Stattin EL, Rudberg S. Higher
intakes of fish protein are related to a lower risk of
microalbuminuria in young Swedish type 1 diabetic patients.
Diabetes Care. 2001 May;24(5):805-10. PMID: 11347734 [PubMed -
indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/24/5/805>

found that fish protein may protect from microalbuminuria in
type 1 diabetes. Brief excerpts:

"... CONCLUSIONS: Total protein and fat intake were not
associated with the presence of microalbuminuria, but a
diet including a high amount of fish protein seemed to
lessen the risk.

[...]

In conclusion, our results do not give evidence for the
suggestion that a high-protein diet increases the risk
for incipient diabetic nephropathy. Rather, a diet rich
in fish protein seems to provide protection from this
complication."

>Who loves ya. Tom
>
>
>Jesus Was A Vegetarian! http://jesuswasavegetarian.7h.com
>
No, Jesus was a fish eater.
>
>Man Is A Herbivore! http://tinyurl.com/a3cc3
>
No, before the invention of agriculture some 10000-15000 years
ago our hunter-gatherer ancestors evolved on and adapted to a
high protein, low carbohydrate diet, where carbohydrates
provided 22-40% of calories, and where animal meat was an
important part of diet.

--
Matti Narkia

crvc56

Tue, Sep-26-06, 17:16

> >
> No, before the invention of agriculture some 10000-15000
> years ago our hunter-gatherer ancestors evolved on and
> adapted to a high protein, low carbohydrate diet, where
> carbohydrates provided 22-40% of calories, and where animal
> meat was an important part of diet.
>
>
> --
> Matti Narkia

But our hunter-gatherer ancestors didn't live to see the
ripe old age of 30, in most cases. It can be argued that we
were gathers long before we were hunters. But only in
recent history have people begun dying from eating TOO MUCH
food, regardless of whether it's meat or not. We've evolved
enough to see what's killing us but haven't evolved enough
to stop doing it.

Tue, Sep-26-06, 17:16

crvc56@msn.com wrote:
> > >
> > No, before the invention of agriculture some 10000-15000
> > years ago our hunter-gatherer ancestors evolved on and
> > adapted to a high protein, low carbohydrate diet, where
> > carbohydrates provided 22-40% of calories, and where
> > animal meat was an important part of diet.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matti Narkia
>
> But our hunter-gatherer ancestors didn't live to see the
> ripe old age of 30, in most cases. It can be argued that we
> were gathers long before we were hunters. But only in recent
> history have people begun dying from eating TOO MUCH food,
> regardless of whether it's meat or not. We've evolved enough
> to see what's killing us but haven't evolved enough to stop
> doing it.

What is killing us and making us obese is the grain-based
diet. It isn't that we are eating too much, it is that we are
eating too much grain, refined grain products, and sugars. Not
to mention vegetable oils that are new to our diet. Especially
the hydrogenated vegetable oils. Just like refined white flour
and refined white sugar, overly processed refined hydrogenated
vegetable oils are slow poisons.

TC

Matti Nark

Tue, Sep-26-06, 17:16

On 26 Sep 2006 10:02:09 -0700, crvc56@msn.com wrote:
> > >
>> No, before the invention of agriculture some 10000-15000
>> years ago our hunter-gatherer ancestors evolved on and
>> adapted to a high protein, low carbohydrate diet, where
>> carbohydrates provided 22-40% of calories, and where animal
>> meat was an important part of diet.
>>
>But our hunter-gatherer ancestors didn't live to see the ripe
>old age of 30, in most cases.

Even if that were true, it's irrelevant. The issue was what
kind of diet we have adapted to and at least for the last two
million years excluding the last 10000-15000 years of
agriculture era that has been a high protein, low carb diet
containg large amount of meat.

As for the life expectation of our ancestora: not only were
they missing all medical care of modern times, but besides
being hunters, they were also hunted, and when they became too
old to catch prey, they probably died of hunger or became
hunted down.

>It can be argued that we were gathers long before we
>were hunters.

Some of our ancestor were vegetarian gatherers, but during the
last two million years of evolution, humans were primarily
carnivorous,
i.e., flesh-eating hunters consuming a low-carbohydrate,
high-protein diet.

References:

Perspectives on Nutrition in Related Species Man's Ancestry
and Diet Nutrition by Ron Kennedy, M.D., Santa Rosa,
California
<http://www.medical-library.net/sites/_nutrition.html>:

Meat-eating was essential for human evolution, says UC
Berkeley anthropologist specializing in diet <http://www.berk-
eley.edu/news/media/releases/99legacy/6-14-1999a.html>:

Hominid Species Timeline <http://www.wsu.edu/gened/learn-modu-
les/top_longfor/timeline/timeline.html>

Cordain L, Eaton SB, Sebastian A, Mann N, Lindeberg S, Watkins
BA, O'Keefe JH, Brand-Miller J. Origins and evolution of the
Western diet: health implications for the 21st century. Am J
Clin Nutr. 2005 Feb;81(2):341-54. Review. PMID: 15699220
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/81/2/341>

Mann NJ. Paleolithic nutrition: what can we learn from the
past? Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2004;13(Suppl):S17. PMID:
15294479 [PubMed - in process] <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/-
entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&l-
ist_uids=1529447>

Cordain L, Eaton SB, Miller JB, Mann N, Hill K. The
paradoxical nature of hunter-gatherer diets: meat-based, yet
non-atherogenic. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2002 Mar;56 Suppl 1:S42-52.
Review. PMID: 11965522 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] <http:/-
/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retriev-
e&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=11965522>

Cordain L, Miller JB, Eaton SB, Mann N, Holt SH, Speth JD.
Plant-animal subsistence ratios and macronutrient energy
estimations in worldwide hunter-gatherer diets. Am J Clin
Nutr. 2000 Mar;71(3):682-92. PMID: 10702160 [PubMed - indexed
for MEDLINE] <http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/71/3/682>

Miller JC, Colagiuri S. The carnivore connection: dietary
carbohydrate in the evolution of NIDDM. Diabetologia. 1994
Dec;37(12):1280-6. PMID: 7895958 [PubMed - indexed for
MEDLINE] <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pu-
bmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=7895958>

Colagiuri S, Brand Miller JC. The metabolic syndrome: from
inherited survival trait to a health care problem. Exp Clin
Endocrinol Diabetes. 1997;105 Suppl 2:54-60. Review. PMID:
9288547 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] <http://www.ncbi.nlm.n-
ih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract-
Plus&list_uids=9288547>

Colagiuri S, Brand Miller J. The 'carnivore
connection'--evolutionary aspects of insulin resistance. Eur J
Clin Nutr. 2002 Mar;56 Suppl 1:S30-5. Review. PMID: 11965520
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/e-
ntrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&lis-
t_uids=11965520>

>But only in recent history have people begun dying from
>eating TOO MUCH food, regardless of whether it's meat or not.
>We've evolved enough to see what's killing us but haven't
>evolved enough to stop doing it.

On that I agree with you. As for meat, current meat of
domesticated farm raised grain-fed animals is very different
from the meat of wild stone age animals. Todays's meat is
probably not healthy, at least not in large amounts. I don't
eat meat, but I eat plenty of fish.

--
Matti Narkia

Vernon

Tue, Sep-26-06, 17:16

<crvc56@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1159290129.177880.65390@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > >
>> No, before the invention of agriculture some 10000-15000
>> years ago our hunter-gatherer ancestors evolved on and
>> adapted to a high protein, low carbohydrate diet, where
>> carbohydrates provided 22-40% of calories, and where animal
>> meat was an important part of diet.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matti Narkia
>
> But our hunter-gatherer ancestors didn't live to see the
> ripe old age of 30, in most cases. It can be argued that we
> were gathers long before we were hunters. But only in recent
> history have people begun dying from eating TOO MUCH food,
> regardless of whether it's meat or not. We've evolved enough
> to see what's killing us but haven't evolved enough to stop
> doing it.
>

Age is always stated as "average" Some lived to a very old
age, possibly 100. Disease was not understood and most died
from the environment or were killed. Some were eaten. Wars and
tribal genocides were the norm.

It is pretty difficult to be a gatherer and not a hunter. That
is a fairy tale made by people who have probably never walked
in the woods or forest, much less tried to survive. Fish has
been key in human survival.

Guess what, Humans, bears, pigs are more alike than any other
digestive and nutrient system.

NoOption5L

Wed, Sep-27-06, 06:15

TC wrote:
> TC wrote:

> What is killing us and making us obese is the grain-based
> diet. It isn't that we are eating too much, it is that we
> are eating too much grain, refined grain products, and
> sugars. Not to mention vegetable oils that are new to our
> diet. Especially the hydrogenated vegetable oils. Just like
> refined white flour and refined white sugar, overly
> processed refined hydrogenated vegetable oils are slow
> poisons.

That's a fallacy brought to us by the latest in a long string
of fade diets -- "low-carb". While refined carbs via soda pop,
sugary juices, and products made from gummy white flour are
certainly a significant part of the problem, to make no
mention of, or worse completely exonerate, deep-fried [Long
John Silver's] fish, greasy [Big Mac/Burger King/Wendy's]
double-bacon cheeseburgers, slimey [Kentucky Fried] chicken,
and artery-stopping [Pizza Hut] "Meat Lovers" pizza is a huge
disservice to this NG. And your continuous attempt to link and
confuse refined grain with nutrious whole grain and
hydrogenated oils with healthy unrefined vegetable oils, at
best, could be described as mischievous. So why don't you just
stop the nonsense?

Patrick

Wed, Sep-27-06, 06:15

NoOption5L@aol.com wrote:
> TC wrote:
> > TC wrote:
>
> > What is killing us and making us obese is the grain-based
> > diet. It isn't that we are eating too much, it is that we
> > are eating too much grain, refined grain products, and
> > sugars. Not to mention vegetable oils that are new to our
> > diet. Especially the hydrogenated vegetable oils. Just
> > like refined white flour and refined white sugar, overly
> > processed refined hydrogenated vegetable oils are slow
> > poisons.
>
> That's a fallacy brought to us by the latest in a long
> string of fade diets -- "low-carb". While refined carbs via
> soda pop, sugary juices, and products made from gummy white
> flour are certainly a significant part of the problem,

One the one hand it is a "fallacy" and on the other hand it is
a "significant part of the problem" ????? Which one is it? Is
it a "fallacy" or is it a "significant part of the problem"?
Make up your mind.

> to make no mention of, or worse completely exonerate,
> deep-fried [Long John Silver's] fish,

with a large order of chips and a large soda

> greasy [Big Mac/Burger

with a super sized fry and a 3/4 gallon jug of sugar water

> King/Wendy's] double-bacon cheeseburgers,

and a fries and drink

> slimey [Kentucky Fried] chicken,

and a fries and drink

> and artery-stopping [Pizza Hut] "Meat Lovers" pizza is a
> huge disservice to this NG.

on a one-inch thick white flour crust and with a large soda

> And your continuous attempt to link and confuse refined
> grain with nutrious whole grain and hydrogenated oils with
> healthy unrefined vegetable oils, at best, could be
> described as mischievous. So why don't you just stop the
> nonsense?
>
> Patrick

"nutritious" whole grain is only refined white grain flour
with the left overs mixed back in. It is still over
processed stale grain with all kinds of added chemicals to
preserve it and stop it from clumping. You've been had by
the grain industry.

And there is nothing magical in grains that cannot be gotten
in greater amounts and in better forms from real fresh whole
produce. Grains are entirely superfluous to the human diet.

Name me one vegetable oil that is not refined. Except for
extra virgin olive oil. Name me one that isn't heated,
treated, filtered and processed to death. Do you know what
they do to corn oil, canola oil, soy oil and other vegetable
oils before it is poured in a bottle and shipped to your
grocer? You would be surprised how heavily processed it
actually is. It is rendered as dead a food as refined white
flour and ultra high temp pasteurized milk. These foods are
processed to death and it does not matter how fancy, glossy
and green the label is, it is still a dead food.

There is nothing mischievous about the crap that is foisted
upon us as supposedly healthy foods.

TC

George Che

Wed, Sep-27-06, 06:15

Wed, Sep-27-06, 17:15

George Cherry wrote:
> NoOption5L@aol.com wrote:
> > TC wrote:
> > > TC wrote:
> >
> > > What is killing us and making us obese is the
> > > grain-based diet. It isn't that we are eating too much,
> > > it is that we are eating too much grain, refined grain
> > > products, and sugars. Not to mention vegetable oils that
> > > are new to our diet. Especially the hydrogenated
> > > vegetable oils. Just like refined white flour and
> > > refined white sugar, overly processed refined
> > > hydrogenated vegetable oils are slow poisons.
> >
> > That's a fallacy brought to us by the latest in a long
> > string of fade diets -- "low-carb". While refined carbs
> > via soda pop, sugary juices, and products made from gummy
> > white flour are certainly a significant part of the
> > problem, to make no mention of, or worse completely
> > exonerate, deep-fried [Long John Silver's] fish, greasy
> > [Big Mac/Burger King/Wendy's] double-bacon cheeseburgers,
> > slimey [Kentucky Fried] chicken, and artery-stopping
> > [Pizza Hut] "Meat Lovers" pizza is a huge disservice to
> > this NG. And your continuous attempt to link and confuse
> > refined grain with nutrious whole grain and hydrogenated
> > oils with healthy unrefined vegetable oils, at best, could
> > be described as mischievous. So why don't you just stop
> > the nonsense?
>
> He can't. He's possessed by a single idea.

As are you, doncha know.

TC

Wed, Sep-27-06, 17:15

Vernon wrote:
> <NoOption5L@aol.com> wrote in message news:1159314736.57608-
> 3.284010@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > TC wrote:
> >> TC wrote:
> >
> >> What is killing us and making us obese is the grain-based
> >> diet. It isn't that we are eating too much, it is that we
> >> are eating too much grain, refined grain products, and
> >> sugars. Not to mention vegetable oils that are new to our
> >> diet. Especially the hydrogenated vegetable oils. Just
> >> like refined white flour and refined white sugar, overly
> >> processed refined hydrogenated vegetable oils are slow
> >> poisons.
> >
> > That's a fallacy brought to us by the latest in a long
> > string of fade diets -- "low-carb". While refined carbs
> > via soda pop, sugary juices, and products made from gummy
> > white flour are certainly a significant part of the
> > problem, to make no mention of, or worse completely
> > exonerate, deep-fried [Long John Silver's] fish, greasy
> > [Big Mac/Burger King/Wendy's] double-bacon cheeseburgers,
> > slimey [Kentucky Fried] chicken, and artery-stopping
> > [Pizza Hut] "Meat Lovers" pizza is a huge disservice to
> > this NG. And your continuous attempt to link and confuse
> > refined grain with nutrious whole grain and hydrogenated
> > oils with healthy unrefined vegetable oils, at best, could
> > be described as mischievous. So why don't you just stop
> > the nonsense?
> >
> > Patrick
> >
>
> 1. Keep calories from carbohydrates under 40% of the diet no
> matter whether so called simple or complex.
> 2. Avoid hydrogenated or partially hydrogenated oils of
> any kind
>
> Meat NEVER hurt any normal person.
>
> Protein, oils, and fiber are a requirement. It takes a lot
> of vegetables and fruits to get sufficient fiber. They also
> contain carbohydrates. That doesn't leave much room for too
> much meat and very little room for much grains and
> practically NO room for soda pop or candy.
>
> BTW a Big Mac with onions, lettuce, tomatoes, cheese (no
> fries), (no pop of ANY kind) is one of the healthier dinners
> around. It's all relative.

I tend to agree with you, except it seems that you are
using the terms "simple carbs" and "complex carbs" in the
wrong context.

Simple carbs are sugars which have simple singular molecular
structures. Complex carbs are starches which have complex
chains of molecules connected together. They are both refined
high-GI carbs and they both have similar effects to the human
body, ie. obesity, diabetes, etc.

I think you meant to suggest that carbs be kept to less than
40% whether they are refined high-GI carbs or real fresh
whole-food carbs.

I agree with the less than 40% carb consumption overall, but
refined carbs (sugars and starches) are slow poisons that
provide no useful nutrition and cause short-term nutrient
depletion, immediate nutrient displacement, chronic
inflammation on a molecular level, and long term chronic
disease. The less the better.

TC

Vernon

Wed, Sep-27-06, 17:15

<NoOption5L@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1159314736.576083.284010@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> TC wrote:
>> TC wrote:
>
>> What is killing us and making us obese is the grain-based
>> diet. It isn't that we are eating too much, it is that we
>> are eating too much grain, refined grain products, and
>> sugars. Not to mention vegetable oils that are new to our
>> diet. Especially the hydrogenated vegetable oils. Just like
>> refined white flour and refined white sugar, overly
>> processed refined hydrogenated vegetable oils are slow
>> poisons.
>
> That's a fallacy brought to us by the latest in a long
> string of fade diets -- "low-carb". While refined carbs via
> soda pop, sugary juices, and products made from gummy white
> flour are certainly a significant part of the problem, to
> make no mention of, or worse completely exonerate,
> deep-fried [Long John Silver's] fish, greasy [Big Mac/Burger
> King/Wendy's] double-bacon cheeseburgers, slimey [Kentucky
> Fried] chicken, and artery-stopping [Pizza Hut] "Meat
> Lovers" pizza is a huge disservice to this NG. And your
> continuous attempt to link and confuse refined grain with
> nutrious whole grain and hydrogenated oils with healthy
> unrefined vegetable oils, at best, could be described as
> mischievous. So why don't you just stop the nonsense?
>
> Patrick
>

1. Keep calories from carbohydrates under 40% of the diet no
matter whether so called simple or complex.
2. Avoid hydrogenated or partially hydrogenated oils of any
kind

Meat NEVER hurt any normal person.

Protein, oils, and fiber are a requirement. It takes a lot of
vegetables and fruits to get sufficient fiber. They also
contain carbohydrates. That doesn't leave much room for too
much meat and very little room for much grains and practically
NO room for soda pop or candy.

BTW a Big Mac with onions, lettuce, tomatoes, cheese (no
fries), (no pop of ANY kind) is one of the healthier dinners
around. It's all relative.

George Che

Wed, Sep-27-06, 17:15

Mr. Natura

Thu, Sep-28-06, 06:15

TC wrote:

> What is killing us and making us obese is the
> grain-based diet. It isn't that we are eating too much,
> it is that we are eating too much grain, refined grain
> products, and sugars.

http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/whole-grains.html ht-
tp://naturalhealthperspective.com/tutorials/john-kellogg.html

What is killing us is morons like TC.

You have my condolences.

Thu, Sep-28-06, 06:15

George Cherry wrote:
> "Vernon" <athere@athere> wrote in message
> news:451aae94$0$23887$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
> >
> > <NoOption5L@aol.com> wrote in message news:1159314736.576-
> > 083.284010@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> TC wrote:
> >>> TC wrote:
> >>
> >>> What is killing us and making us obese is the
> >>> grain-based diet. It isn't that we are eating too much,
> >>> it is that we are eating too much grain, refined grain
> >>> products, and sugars. Not to mention vegetable oils that
> >>> are new to our diet. Especially the hydrogenated
> >>> vegetable oils. Just like refined white flour and
> >>> refined white sugar, overly processed refined
> >>> hydrogenated vegetable oils are slow poisons.
> >>
> >> That's a fallacy brought to us by the latest in a long
> >> string of fade diets -- "low-carb". While refined carbs
> >> via soda pop, sugary juices, and products made from gummy
> >> white flour are certainly a significant part of the
> >> problem, to make no mention of, or worse completely
> >> exonerate, deep-fried [Long John Silver's] fish, greasy
> >> [Big Mac/Burger King/Wendy's] double-bacon cheeseburgers,
> >> slimey [Kentucky Fried] chicken, and artery-stopping
> >> [Pizza Hut] "Meat Lovers" pizza is a huge disservice to
> >> this NG. And your continuous attempt to link and confuse
> >> refined grain with nutrious whole grain and hydrogenated
> >> oils with healthy unrefined vegetable oils, at best,
> >> could be described as mischievous. So why don't you just
> >> stop the nonsense?
> >>
> >> Patrick
> >>
> >
> > 1. Keep calories from carbohydrates under 40% of the diet
> > no matter whether so called simple or complex.
> > 2. Avoid hydrogenated or partially hydrogenated oils of
> > any kind
> >
> > Meat NEVER hurt any normal person.
> >
> > Protein, oils, and fiber are a requirement. It takes a lot
> > of vegetables and fruits to get sufficient fiber. They
> > also contain carbohydrates. That doesn't leave much room
> > for too much meat and very little room for much grains and
> > practically NO room for soda pop or candy.
> >
> > BTW a Big Mac with onions, lettuce, tomatoes, cheese (no
> > fries), (no pop of ANY kind) is one of the healthier
> > dinners around. It's all relative.
>
> What about the bun? What's that good for?

Not much except keeping the condiments off your fingers.

TC

NoOption5L

Thu, Sep-28-06, 06:15

TC wrote:

> > > What is killing us and making us obese is the
> > > grain-based diet. It isn't that we are eating too much,
> > > it is that we are eating too much grain, refined grain
> > > products, and sugars. Not to mention vegetable oils that
> > > are new to our diet. Especially the hydrogenated
> > > vegetable oils. Just like refined white flour and
> > > refined white sugar, overly processed refined
> > > hydrogenated vegetable oils are slow poisons.

> > That's a fallacy brought to us by the latest in a long
> > string of fade diets -- "low-carb". While refined carbs
> > via soda pop, sugary juices, and products made from gummy
> > white flour are certainly a significant part of the
> > problem,

> One the one hand it is a "fallacy" and on the other hand it
> is a "significant part of the problem" ????? Which one is
> it? Is it a "fallacy" or is it a "significant part of the
> problem"? Make up your mind.

Low-carb fallacy = we're eating too much grain.

Fact = we're eating too much *refined* grain.

> > to make no mention of, or worse completely exonerate,
> > deep-fried [Long John Silver's] fish,

> with a large order of chips and a large soda

Instead exchange for: Broiled salmon + baked sweet potato
+ green tea

> > greasy [Big Mac/Burger

> with a super sized fry and a 3/4 gallon jug of sugar water

Replace with: Lean roast beef + whole wheat bread + romaine
lettuce + tomatos + water with a slice of lemon

> > King/Wendy's] double-bacon cheeseburgers,

> and a fries and drink

Replace with: Ostrich burger + spinach salad + glass of milk

> > slimey [Kentucky Fried] chicken,

> and a fries and drink

Replace with: Baked chicken breast + brown rice + glass of
fresh squeezed orange juice

> > and artery-stopping [Pizza Hut] "Meat Lovers" pizza is a
> > huge disservice to this NG.

> on a one-inch thick white flour crust and with a large soda

Replace with homemade whole-wheat crust/sesame seeds + tomato
sauce + green/red/yellow peppers, onions, mushrooms, pineapple
+ tall glass of water

So we're in agreement then? The whole fast food meal is crap
-- crappy meat and crappy carbs, and too much of both,
rrrrighttttt....?

> > And your continuous attempt to link and confuse refined
> > grain with nutrious whole grain and hydrogenated oils with
> > healthy unrefined vegetable oils, at best, could be
> > described as mischievous. So why don't you just stop the
> > nonsense?

> "nutritious" whole grain is only refined white grain flour
> with the left overs mixed back in. It is still over
> processed stale grain with all kinds of added chemicals to
> preserve it and stop it from clumping. You've been had by
> the grain industry.

Dr. Adkins/Zone Diet has made/sold the grain conspiracy well.
Did you get to the part in their books where they tell you
that grains are actually foreign to the earth and were
brought here by the aliens that crashed in Roswell?

> And there is nothing magical in grains that cannot be gotten
> in greater amounts and in better forms from real fresh whole
> produce. Grains are entirely superfluous to the human diet.

You don't need to eat grains to survive... now that's a real
startling revelation. But did you know that could be said of
any food -- meat, eggs, milk, cheese, citrus fruits, beans,
nuts, seeds, green beans or pumpkin pie?

So why do you continue to crack on _whole_ grains? They're
packed with nutrients and fiber. Plus, unlike the white bread
buns and crusts served in the fast food places and most
everywhere else, whole grain breads fill you up and keep you
filled up. Don't believe me? Try eating a bowl of hot oatmeal
in the morning.

> Name me one vegetable oil that is not refined. Except for
> extra virgin olive oil. Name me one that isn't heated,
> treated, filtered and processed to death. Do you know what
> they do to corn oil, canola oil, soy oil and other vegetable
> oils before it is poured in a bottle and shipped to your
> grocer? You would be surprised how heavily processed it
> actually is. It is rendered as dead a food as refined white
> flour and ultra high temp pasteurized milk. These foods are
> processed to death and it does not matter how fancy, glossy
> and green the label is, it is still a dead food.

Have you seen the processing that takes place in our meat
industry and packing plants? If you have, why don't you EVER
mention it?

> There is nothing mischievous about the crap that is foisted
> upon us as supposedly healthy foods.

I agree. My beef <no pun intended> is that you EXCLUSIVELY
rail against grains/carbs, but NEVER say a negative word about
the dog food served in fast food restaurants and elsewhere
that the meat industry calls fit for human consumption.

So I for one would like to know why you're so damned biased.

Patrick

George Che

Thu, Sep-28-06, 06:15

"Vernon" <athere@athere> wrote in message
news:451aae94$0$23887$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
>
> <NoOption5L@aol.com> wrote in message news:1159314736.57608-
> 3.284010@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> TC wrote:
>>> TC wrote:
>>
>>> What is killing us and making us obese is the grain-based
>>> diet. It isn't that we are eating too much, it is that we
>>> are eating too much grain, refined grain products, and
>>> sugars. Not to mention vegetable oils that are new to our
>>> diet. Especially the hydrogenated vegetable oils. Just
>>> like refined white flour and refined white sugar, overly
>>> processed refined hydrogenated vegetable oils are slow
>>> poisons.
>>
>> That's a fallacy brought to us by the latest in a long
>> string of fade diets -- "low-carb". While refined carbs via
>> soda pop, sugary juices, and products made from gummy white
>> flour are certainly a significant part of the problem, to
>> make no mention of, or worse completely exonerate,
>> deep-fried [Long John Silver's] fish, greasy [Big
>> Mac/Burger King/Wendy's] double-bacon cheeseburgers, slimey
>> [Kentucky Fried] chicken, and artery-stopping [Pizza Hut]
>> "Meat Lovers" pizza is a huge disservice to this NG. And
>> your continuous attempt to link and confuse refined grain
>> with nutrious whole grain and hydrogenated oils with
>> healthy unrefined vegetable oils, at best, could be
>> described as mischievous. So why don't you just stop the
>> nonsense?
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>
> 1. Keep calories from carbohydrates under 40% of the diet no
> matter whether so called simple or complex.
> 2. Avoid hydrogenated or partially hydrogenated oils of
> any kind
>
> Meat NEVER hurt any normal person.
>
> Protein, oils, and fiber are a requirement. It takes a lot
> of vegetables and fruits to get sufficient fiber. They also
> contain carbohydrates. That doesn't leave much room for too
> much meat and very little room for much grains and
> practically NO room for soda pop or candy.
>
> BTW a Big Mac with onions, lettuce, tomatoes, cheese (no
> fries), (no pop of ANY kind) is one of the healthier dinners
> around. It's all relative.

What about the bun? What's that good for?

Vernon

Thu, Sep-28-06, 06:15

"TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159380272.810434.167700@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Vernon wrote:
>> <NoOption5L@aol.com> wrote in message news:1159314736.5760-
>> 83.284010@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > TC wrote:
>> >> TC wrote:
>> >
>> >> What is killing us and making us obese is the
>> >> grain-based diet. It isn't that we are eating too much,
>> >> it is that we are eating too much grain, refined grain
>> >> products, and sugars. Not to mention vegetable oils that
>> >> are new to our diet. Especially the hydrogenated
>> >> vegetable oils. Just like refined white flour and
>> >> refined white sugar, overly processed refined
>> >> hydrogenated vegetable oils are slow poisons.
>> >
>> > That's a fallacy brought to us by the latest in a long
>> > string of fade diets -- "low-carb". While refined carbs
>> > via soda pop, sugary juices, and products made from gummy
>> > white flour are certainly a significant part of the
>> > problem, to make no mention of, or worse completely
>> > exonerate, deep-fried [Long John Silver's] fish, greasy
>> > [Big Mac/Burger King/Wendy's] double-bacon cheeseburgers,
>> > slimey [Kentucky Fried] chicken, and artery-stopping
>> > [Pizza Hut] "Meat Lovers" pizza is a huge disservice to
>> > this NG. And your continuous attempt to link and confuse
>> > refined grain with nutrious whole grain and hydrogenated
>> > oils with healthy unrefined vegetable oils, at best,
>> > could be described as mischievous. So why don't you just
>> > stop the nonsense?
>> >
>> > Patrick
>> >
>>
>> 1. Keep calories from carbohydrates under 40% of the diet
>> no matter whether so called simple or complex.
>> 2. Avoid hydrogenated or partially hydrogenated oils of any
>> kind
>>
>> Meat NEVER hurt any normal person.
>>
>> Protein, oils, and fiber are a requirement. It takes a lot
>> of vegetables and fruits to get sufficient fiber. They also
>> contain carbohydrates. That doesn't leave much room for too
>> much meat and very little room for much grains and
>> practically NO room for soda pop or candy.
>>
>> BTW a Big Mac with onions, lettuce, tomatoes, cheese (no
>> fries), (no pop of ANY kind) is one of the healthier
>> dinners around. It's all relative.
>
> I tend to agree with you, except it seems that you are using
> the terms "simple carbs" and "complex carbs" in the wrong
> context.

They ALL result in sugar and excess calories for the volume.
To a diebetic, they are deadly. "simple" is just more
immediately available sugar. Carbs ARE sugar to the system.
That's the ONLY reason that potion of whatever food is
classified as carbohydrates.

>
> Simple carbs are sugars which have simple singular molecular
> structures. Complex carbs are starches which have complex
> chains of molecules connected together. They are both
> refined high-GI carbs and they both have similar effects to
> the human body, ie. obesity, diabetes, etc.
>
> I think you meant to suggest that carbs be kept to less than
> 40% whether they are refined high-GI carbs or real fresh
> whole-food carbs.

That is EXACTLY what I said. 40%, not matter where from. What
are called complex carbs are usually in foods that ALSO have
other attributes that are good.

>
> I agree with the less than 40% carb consumption overall, but
> refined carbs (sugars and starches) are slow poisons that
> provide no useful nutrition and cause short-term nutrient
> depletion, immediate nutrient displacement, chronic
> inflammation on a molecular level, and long term chronic
> disease. The less the better.
>
> TC

Yes, so called simple carbs are a shock to the system and if a
person is subject to cancer the quick fix quickly feeds the
cancer cells.

Vernon

Thu, Sep-28-06, 06:15

"George Cherry" <GWCherryHatesGreenEggsAndSpam@alum.mit.edu>
wrote in message
news:abednePesI-xZIfYnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Vernon" <athere@athere> wrote in message
> news:451aae94$0$23887$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
>>
>> <NoOption5L@aol.com> wrote in message news:1159314736.5760-
>> 83.284010@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> TC wrote:
>>>> TC wrote:
>>>
>>>> What is killing us and making us obese is the grain-based
>>>> diet. It isn't that we are eating too much, it is that we
>>>> are eating too much grain, refined grain products, and
>>>> sugars. Not to mention vegetable oils that are new to our
>>>> diet. Especially the hydrogenated vegetable oils. Just
>>>> like refined white flour and refined white sugar, overly
>>>> processed refined hydrogenated vegetable oils are slow
>>>> poisons.
>>>
>>> That's a fallacy brought to us by the latest in a long
>>> string of fade diets -- "low-carb". While refined carbs
>>> via soda pop, sugary juices, and products made from gummy
>>> white flour are certainly a significant part of the
>>> problem, to make no mention of, or worse completely
>>> exonerate, deep-fried [Long John Silver's] fish, greasy
>>> [Big Mac/Burger King/Wendy's] double-bacon cheeseburgers,
>>> slimey [Kentucky Fried] chicken, and artery-stopping
>>> [Pizza Hut] "Meat Lovers" pizza is a huge disservice to
>>> this NG. And your continuous attempt to link and confuse
>>> refined grain with nutrious whole grain and hydrogenated
>>> oils with healthy unrefined vegetable oils, at best, could
>>> be described as mischievous. So why don't you just stop
>>> the nonsense?
>>>
>>> Patrick
>>>
>>
>> 1. Keep calories from carbohydrates under 40% of the diet
>> no matter whether so called simple or complex.
>> 2. Avoid hydrogenated or partially hydrogenated oils of any
>> kind
>>
>> Meat NEVER hurt any normal person.
>>
>> Protein, oils, and fiber are a requirement. It takes a lot
>> of vegetables and fruits to get sufficient fiber. They also
>> contain carbohydrates. That doesn't leave much room for too
>> much meat and very little room for much grains and
>> practically NO room for soda pop or candy.
>>
>> BTW a Big Mac with onions, lettuce, tomatoes, cheese (no
>> fries), (no pop of ANY kind) is one of the healthier
>> dinners around. It's all relative.
>
> What about the bun? What's that good for?

Self satisfaction. Like an occasional hot fudge sundae or
snickers bar. I didn't suggest that any one have one
regularly. I have gone into a Whataburger and ordered their
best and no bun. It came to me on a plate with as much
lettuce, tomato, onions, jalapeños and pickles as the volume
usually contained by a bun, plus what was normally there.

George Che

Thu, Sep-28-06, 06:15

"TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159403912.297909.220470@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> George Cherry wrote:
>> "Vernon" <athere@athere> wrote in message
>> news:451aae94$0$23887$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
>> >
>> > <NoOption5L@aol.com> wrote in message news:1159314736.57-
>> > 6083.284010@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >> TC wrote:
>> >>> TC wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> What is killing us and making us obese is the
>> >>> grain-based diet. It isn't that we are eating too much,
>> >>> it is that we are eating too much grain, refined grain
>> >>> products, and sugars. Not to mention vegetable oils
>> >>> that are new to our diet. Especially the hydrogenated
>> >>> vegetable oils. Just like refined white flour and
>> >>> refined white sugar, overly processed refined
>> >>> hydrogenated vegetable oils are slow poisons.
>> >>
>> >> That's a fallacy brought to us by the latest in a long
>> >> string of fade diets -- "low-carb". While refined carbs
>> >> via soda pop, sugary juices, and products made from
>> >> gummy white flour are certainly a significant part of
>> >> the problem, to make no mention of, or worse completely
>> >> exonerate, deep-fried [Long John Silver's] fish, greasy
>> >> [Big Mac/Burger King/Wendy's] double-bacon
>> >> cheeseburgers, slimey [Kentucky Fried] chicken, and
>> >> artery-stopping [Pizza Hut] "Meat Lovers" pizza is a
>> >> huge disservice to this NG. And your continuous attempt
>> >> to link and confuse refined grain with nutrious whole
>> >> grain and hydrogenated oils with healthy unrefined
>> >> vegetable oils, at best, could be described as
>> >> mischievous. So why don't you just stop the nonsense?
>> >>
>> >> Patrick
>> >>
>> >
>> > 1. Keep calories from carbohydrates under 40% of the diet
>> > no matter whether so called simple or complex.
>> > 2. Avoid hydrogenated or partially hydrogenated oils of
>> > any kind
>> >
>> > Meat NEVER hurt any normal person.
>> >
>> > Protein, oils, and fiber are a requirement. It takes a
>> > lot of vegetables and fruits to get sufficient fiber.
>> > They also contain carbohydrates. That doesn't leave much
>> > room for too much meat and very little room for much
>> > grains and practically NO room for soda pop or candy.
>> >
>> > BTW a Big Mac with onions, lettuce, tomatoes, cheese (no
>> > fries), (no pop of ANY kind) is one of the healthier
>> > dinners around. It's all relative.
>>
>> What about the bun? What's that good for?
>
> Not much except keeping the condiments off your fingers.

LOL! Good one, TC. A healthy alternative would be to use a
knife and fork to keep the condiments off your fingers and
compost the bun.

GWC

Vernon

Thu, Sep-28-06, 06:15

"George Cherry" <GWCherryHatesGreenEggsAndSpam@alum.mit.edu>
wrote in message
news:qvadneKfc7-cg4bYnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:11594039-
> 12.297909.220470@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> George Cherry wrote:
>>> "Vernon" <athere@athere> wrote in message
>>> news:451aae94$0$23887$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
>>> >
>>> > <NoOption5L@aol.com> wrote in message news:1159314736.5-
>>> > 76083.284010@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> >> TC wrote:
>>> >>> TC wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> What is killing us and making us obese is the
>>> >>> grain-based diet. It isn't that we are eating too
>>> >>> much, it is that we are eating too much grain, refined
>>> >>> grain products, and sugars. Not to mention vegetable
>>> >>> oils that are new to our diet. Especially the
>>> >>> hydrogenated vegetable oils. Just like refined white
>>> >>> flour and refined white sugar, overly processed
>>> >>> refined hydrogenated vegetable oils are slow poisons.
>>> >>
>>> >> That's a fallacy brought to us by the latest in a long
>>> >> string of fade diets -- "low-carb". While refined carbs
>>> >> via soda pop, sugary juices, and products made from
>>> >> gummy white flour are certainly a significant part of
>>> >> the problem, to make no mention of, or worse completely
>>> >> exonerate, deep-fried [Long John Silver's] fish, greasy
>>> >> [Big Mac/Burger King/Wendy's] double-bacon
>>> >> cheeseburgers, slimey [Kentucky Fried] chicken, and
>>> >> artery-stopping [Pizza Hut] "Meat Lovers" pizza is a
>>> >> huge disservice to this NG. And your continuous attempt
>>> >> to link and confuse refined grain with nutrious whole
>>> >> grain and hydrogenated oils with healthy unrefined
>>> >> vegetable oils, at best, could be described as
>>> >> mischievous. So why don't you just stop the nonsense?
>>> >>
>>> >> Patrick
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > 1. Keep calories from carbohydrates under 40% of the
>>> > diet no matter whether so called simple or complex.
>>> > 2. Avoid hydrogenated or partially hydrogenated oils of
>>> > any kind
>>> >
>>> > Meat NEVER hurt any normal person.
>>> >
>>> > Protein, oils, and fiber are a requirement. It takes a
>>> > lot of vegetables and fruits to get sufficient fiber.
>>> > They also contain carbohydrates. That doesn't leave much
>>> > room for too much meat and very little room for much
>>> > grains and practically NO room for soda pop or candy.
>>> >
>>> > BTW a Big Mac with onions, lettuce, tomatoes, cheese (no
>>> > fries), (no pop of ANY kind) is one of the healthier
>>> > dinners around. It's all relative.
>>>
>>> What about the bun? What's that good for?
>>
>> Not much except keeping the condiments off your fingers.
>
> LOL! Good one, TC. A healthy alternative would be to use a
> knife and fork to keep the condiments off your fingers and
> compost the bun.
>

I have never found any outlet that will not accept an order
for no bun. What fun is a hamburger without licking your
fingers. Good Greif.

Mr. Natura

Thu, Sep-28-06, 17:15

ironjustice@aol.com wrote:
> Soy protein diet improves endothelial dysfunction in renal
> transplant patients.

This is just one of ironjustice's totally stupid and totally
unnecessary posts that has no merit whatsoever, as usual.

And, I sure as hell am NOT going to waste my time trying to
read through the replies to see who said what to whom.

Roman Byst

Thu, Sep-28-06, 17:15

FYI

Roman Bystrianyk, "Vegetable protein lowers high blood
pressure", Health Sentinel, May 1, 2006,

According to the National Institutes of Health, approximately
65 million American adults - nearly 1 in 3 - have high blood
pressure. High blood pressure, also known as hypertension, is
a dangerous condition that is known as the "silent killer".
High blood pressure increases the risk for heart disease and
stroke, which are the first and third leading causes of death
in the United States. High blood pressure can also result in
other problems, such as heart failure, kidney disease, and
blindness.

Epidemiological studies have shown that vegetarians have less
high blood pressure compared with meat eaters. The Dietary
Approaches to Stop Hypertension, also know as DASH, recommends
a combination diet that emphasizes fruits, vegetables, whole
grains, poultry, fish, nuts, low or fat free dairy products
and reduces the consumption of red meats, fats, and sweets.

A recent study in Archives of Internal Medicine, examined over
4,500 persons age 40 to 59 years to examine the effects of
vegetable and animal protein on high blood pressure.

The study's main finding "was an inverse relationship between
individuals' vegetable protein intake and their blood
pressure." The study also found that there was a significant
association between higher animal protein intake and both
systolic and diastolic blood pressure. However, after
adjusting for height and weight blood pressure association was
smaller and nonsignificant.

To explain this difference the authors note that there were
significant differences in the amino acids. Amino acids are
the building blocks of proteins. These differences possibly
contribute to the differences between vegetable and animal
proteins. Also, other components found along with vegetable
proteins, such as magnesium, may interact with the amino acids
to lower blood pressure.

The authors conclude, "our results are consistent with current
recommendations that a diet high in vegetable products be part
of a healthy lifestyle for prevention of high blood pressure
and related chronic diseases."

SOURCE: Archives of Internal Medicine, January 2006

ironjustice@aol.com wrote:
> Soy protein diet improves endothelial dysfunction in renal
> transplant patients. Cupisti A, Ghiadoni L, D'Alessandro C,
> Kardasz I, Morelli E, Panichi V, Locati D, Morandi S, Saba
> A, Barsotti G, Taddei S, Arnoldi A, Salvetti A Nephrol Dial
> Transplant. 2006 Sep 23;
>
> BACKGROUND: Since it has been demonstrated that soy diet can
> improve endothelial function, in the present study we
> evaluated the effect of dietary substitution of 25 g of
> animal proteins with soy proteins on endothelial dysfunction
> in renal transplant patients. METHODS: In 20 renal
> transplant patients (55 +/- 11 years, serum creatinine 1.7
> +/- .6 mg/dl), brachial artery flow mediated dilation (FMD)
> and endothelium-independent vasodilation (sublingual
> nitroglycerine, 25 microg) were measured at baseline, after
> 5 weeks of a soy diet and finally after 5 weeks of soy
> wash-out. Changes in plasma lipids, markers of oxidative
> stress (lipid peroxides, LOOH) and inflammation (C-reactive
> protein), isoflavones (genistein and daidzein), asymmetric
> dimethyl arginine (ADMA) and l-arginine were also evaluated.
> RESULTS: At baseline, patients showed a significantly lower
> FMD as compared with age-matched healthy subjects (3.2 +/-
> 1.8 vs 6.3 +/- 1.9, respectively; P < 0.001), while response
> to nitroglycerine was similar. After soy diet, actual
> protein intake was not changed, cholesterol and lipid
> peroxides were significantly reduced, and isoflavones were
> detectable in plasma. Soy diet was associated with a
> significant improvement in FMD (4.4 +/- 2.0; P = 0.003 vs
> baseline), while response to nitroglycerine was unchanged.
> Improvement in FMD was related to l-arginine/ADMA ratio
> changes, but no significant relation was found to changes in
> cholesterol, lipid peroxides or genistein and daidzein
> plasma concentrations. After 5 weeks of soy diet
> discontinuation, FMD
> (3.3 +/- 1.7%) returned to baseline values and isoflavones
> were no longer detectable in plasma. CONCLUSIONS: A soy
> protein diet for 5 weeks improves endothelial function in
> renal transplant patients. This effect seems to be
> strictly dependent on soy intake as it disappears after
> soy withdrawal and is mediated by an increase in the
> l-arginine/ADMA ratio, independently of change in lipid
> profile, oxidative stress or isoflavones.
>
>
> Who loves ya. Tom
>
>
> Jesus Was A Vegetarian! http://jesuswasavegetarian.7h.com
>
>
> Man Is A Herbivore! http://tinyurl.com/a3cc3
>
>
> DEAD PEOPLE WALKING http://tinyurl.com/zk9fk

Thu, Sep-28-06, 17:15

NoOption5L@aol.com wrote:
> TC wrote:
>
> > > > What is killing us and making us obese is the
> > > > grain-based diet. It isn't that we are eating too
> > > > much, it is that we are eating too much grain, refined
> > > > grain products, and sugars. Not to mention vegetable
> > > > oils that are new to our diet. Especially the
> > > > hydrogenated vegetable oils. Just like refined white
> > > > flour and refined white sugar, overly processed
> > > > refined hydrogenated vegetable oils are slow poisons.
>
> > > That's a fallacy brought to us by the latest in a long
> > > string of fade diets -- "low-carb". While refined carbs
> > > via soda pop, sugary juices, and products made from
> > > gummy white flour are certainly a significant part of
> > > the problem,
>
> > One the one hand it is a "fallacy" and on the other hand
> > it is a "significant part of the problem" ????? Which one
> > is it? Is it a "fallacy" or is it a "significant part of
> > the problem"? Make up your mind.
>
> Low-carb fallacy = we're eating too much grain.
>
> Fact = we're eating too much *refined* grain.
>
> > > to make no mention of, or worse completely exonerate,
> > > deep-fried [Long John Silver's] fish,
>
> > with a large order of chips and a large soda
>
> Instead exchange for: Broiled salmon + baked sweet potato +
> green tea
>
> > > greasy [Big Mac/Burger
>
> > with a super sized fry and a 3/4 gallon jug of sugar water
>
> Replace with: Lean roast beef + whole wheat bread + romaine
> lettuce + tomatos + water with a slice of lemon
>
> > > King/Wendy's] double-bacon cheeseburgers,
>
> > and a fries and drink
>
> Replace with: Ostrich burger + spinach salad + glass of milk
>
> > > slimey [Kentucky Fried] chicken,
>
> > and a fries and drink
>
> Replace with: Baked chicken breast + brown rice + glass of
> fresh squeezed orange juice
>
> > > and artery-stopping [Pizza Hut] "Meat Lovers" pizza is a
> > > huge disservice to this NG.
>
> > on a one-inch thick white flour crust and with a
> > large soda
>
> Replace with homemade whole-wheat crust/sesame seeds +
> tomato sauce + green/red/yellow peppers, onions, mushrooms,
> pineapple + tall glass of water
>
> So we're in agreement then? The whole fast food meal is crap
> -- crappy meat and crappy carbs, and too much of both,
> rrrrighttttt....?
>
> > > And your continuous attempt to link and confuse refined
> > > grain with nutrious whole grain and hydrogenated oils
> > > with healthy unrefined vegetable oils, at best, could be
> > > described as mischievous. So why don't you just stop the
> > > nonsense?
>
> > "nutritious" whole grain is only refined white grain flour
> > with the left overs mixed back in. It is still over
> > processed stale grain with all kinds of added chemicals to
> > preserve it and stop it from clumping. You've been had by
> > the grain industry.
>
> Dr. Adkins/Zone Diet has made/sold the grain conspiracy
> well. Did you get to the part in their books where they
> tell you that grains are actually foreign to the earth
> and were brought here by the aliens that crashed in
> Roswell?
>
> > And there is nothing magical in grains that cannot be
> > gotten in greater amounts and in better forms from real
> > fresh whole produce. Grains are entirely superfluous to
> > the human diet.
>
> You don't need to eat grains to survive... now that's a real
> startling revelation. But did you know that could be said of
> any food -- meat, eggs, milk, cheese, citrus fruits, beans,
> nuts, seeds, green beans or pumpkin pie?

I did not say that you don't need grains to *survive*. What I
essentially said and meant was that you can and will *thrive*
without grains. I am saying that you must remove grains or at
least greatly limit them from your diet in order to thrive.
They are a nutritionally modest food. Grains are not all that
nutritous no matter how whole grain they are. There is nothing
magical about grains that we need that we can't get in larger
amounts and in better forms from other foods. They are a
second rate food.

And yes, you can survive, for a while at least, without
animal-sourced foods, but you have zero chance of thriving on
a diet bereft of animal-sourced foods.

Get it? Surviving is NOT the same as THRIVING.

>
> So why do you continue to crack on _whole_ grains? They're
> packed with nutrients and fiber.

That is it in a nutshell. You think they are "packed" with
nutrients, which they are not. They lack some very important
nutrients that we need to get from other foods. Like vitamin
C, like some proteins, fats and collagen. Then there are the
fat soluble vitamins, A, D, E and K. Grains are poor in these
important vitamins, or poor in the form of these vitamins that
they contain. Beta-carotene from grains are useless to us
because we cannot use them in that form.

And fiber is completely empty food. By definition we cannot
get nutrients from fiber. And the whole concept of us eating
fiber and roughage in order to maintain regular bowel
movements is nonsense. Inuits and Eskimos were extremely
healthy and for much of the year they ate little or no fiber
in their diets. The funny thing is that these grains that
are supposed to give us this great life-saving fiber is the
main culprit in many chronic lower GI diseases, like
Chrohn's, IBS and such. Fiber only exarcerbates these
problems in most cases.

> Plus, unlike the white bread buns and crusts served in the
> fast food places and most everywhere else, whole grain
> breads fill you up and keep you filled up. Don't believe me?
> Try eating a bowl of hot oatmeal in the morning.

Are you aware that grains need to be soaked and/or fermented
for us to maximize its usefulness as a food? And are you aware
that no bread or flour manufacturer actually soaks or ferments
the grains used in bread making? They are just ground up raw.

And are you aware that most, if not all, commercial whole
grain flour is basically white flour that has been processed
as usual, then they take some of the left over roughage (that
would usually be used as animal feed), and they add it back to
the flour, and as long as more than (i think) 40% of the flour
is made up of this roughage, it can be labelled as whole
grain? Refine and processed re-constituted "whole grain" flour
is still overly processed crap and offer very little advantage
overly refined and processed white flour.

>
> > Name me one vegetable oil that is not refined. Except for
> > extra virgin olive oil. Name me one that isn't heated,
> > treated, filtered and processed to death. Do you know what
> > they do to corn oil, canola oil, soy oil and other
> > vegetable oils before it is poured in a bottle and shipped
> > to your grocer? You would be surprised how heavily
> > processed it actually is. It is rendered as dead a food as
> > refined white flour and ultra high temp pasteurized milk.
> > These foods are processed to death and it does not matter
> > how fancy, glossy and green the label is, it is still a
> > dead food.
>
> Have you seen the processing that takes place in our meat
> industry and packing plants? If you have, why don't you EVER
> mention it?

I get my meat from the local butcher who gets it from a
local farmer who feeds them the best feeds he can. Other
than a knife and a band saw, there is no more "processing"
involved other than hanging the carcass in a cold room for a
week or three.

>
> > There is nothing mischievous about the crap that is
> > foisted upon us as supposedly healthy foods.
>
> I agree. My beef <no pun intended> is that you EXCLUSIVELY
> rail against grains/carbs, but NEVER say a negative word
> about the dog food served in fast food restaurants and
> elsewhere that the meat industry calls fit for human
> consumption.
>
> So I for one would like to know why you're so damned biased.
>
> Patrick

I don't go on against the meat processing because I do not buy
processed meat. Especially the new concoctions with a
ingredients label 5 inches long filled with binder, colorants,
preservatives and added soy protein isolates. These are
perversions of what real food is supposed to be. I buy real
meat like I buy real produce.

If you look at all the fake manufactured foods in the centre
aisles of the grocery stores, verye very few of them are not
carbohydrates and very very few of them are not perversities
of grains. Whether labelled "whole grains" or not, the vast
majority of the frankenfoods being sold in boxes with fancy
graphics aimed at kids are grain foods and are extremely
processed and full of colorants, preservatives and
high-pressure high-temperature extruded grain starches. And
the mainstream has done all it can to keep this crap food
under the radar.

To this day, medical "experts" tell you to cut the "bad"
animal fats and eat the "good" grains, and that is complete
bullshit. In the last 30 years when obesity and chronic
disease has quadrupled, grain and carb consumption went up by
about 12% while animal fat consumption has gone down about
10%, and this happened in perfect co-ordination with the
increase in obesity and chronic disease.

If you want ot be fat and sick, keep it up. Eat your grains. I
upped my animal-source fat and protein consumption and cut my
grain consumption and lost my 25 excess pounds easily. My
family and I went from dozens of prescriptions per year to
none, zero, zip, nada. No more IBS, no more hunger from trying
to eat less, no more throat infections, colds, flus, etc. I
haven't had a sick day in years. And I eat virtually no
grains. My BMs are perfectly regular and normal. I need no
stinking fiber.

I've seen the difference first hand regarding eating copious
amounts of supposedly unhealthy animal-sourced foods vs.
eating supposed healthy grains. And what I've seen is not what
you and the medical "experts" are keep insisting on.

Grains are the bane of human existence. They are completely
un-necessary and, in fact, are contrary to what we need to
be healthy.

TC

Mr. Natura

Thu, Sep-28-06, 17:15

Roman Bystrianyk wrote:
> FYI

FYI, the IronKook NEVER makes any comments or conclusions on
his Dumb Arse Posts.

That is the primary reason why they are so Moronic. :(

Just thought that you might want to know that the IronKook
made no such comments on his post.

Roman Byst

Thu, Sep-28-06, 17:15

Vernon wrote:
> "Roman Bystrianyk" <rbystrianyk@gmail.com> wrote in
> message news:1159447850.241714.190250@h48g2000cwc.googleg-
> roups.com...
> > FYI
> >
> > Roman Bystrianyk, "Vegetable protein lowers high blood
> > pressure", Health Sentinel, May 1, 2006,
>
> Totally wrong. A lie. Increased intake of vegetables is the
> result of the study.
>
Karen Pallarito, "Veggie Diet May Lower High Blood Pressure",
ABC News, January 21, 2005, Link: http://www.forbes.com/lifes-
tyle/health/feeds/hscout/2005/01/21/hscout523461.html

Vegetarians tend to have lower blood pressure than the general
population, but it hasn't been clear whether their diet or
their lifestyle guards them against hypertension.

Now, a new review of previously published studies claims that
diet provides the protection.

"It's the diet itself, and it is clearly the diet of choice
for people who want to get their blood pressure under
control," said Dr. Neal D. Barnard, president and founder of
the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and
co-author of the report, which appears in the January issue of
Nutrition Reviews.

Barnard, a nutritionist and author of the book Breaking the
Food Seduction: The Hidden Reasons Behind Food Cravings and
Seven Steps to End Them Naturally, concluded that a person who
suffers from hypertension and has yet to switch to a
vegetarian diet is "really trying to fight their condition
with one arm tied behind their back."

About 65 million American adults have high blood pressure,
according to the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
Hypertension is often called the "silent killer" because it
usually has no symptoms but leads to increased risk for heart
disease, congestive heart failure, stroke and kidney failure.

Barnard and committee nutritionist Susan Berkow analyzed 80
scientific studies, including observational studies of
individuals on vegetarian diets compared with
non-vegetarians and randomized, controlled trials in which
outcomes of people who switch to a plant-based diet were
compared with control subjects.

"The purpose of our review was to bring together what is known
about the effect of the diet, but also what we know about the
mechanism and try to explain why this occurs," Barnard
explained.

Some of the best observational data, according to the
report, come from studies involving Seventh-Day Adventists,
who advocate an alcohol-free, tobacco-free, vegetarian
lifestyle. About 50 percent of Adventists follow a
lacto-ovo-vegetarian diet, which includes dairy products and
eggs, the authors noted.

One study involving California Adventists found that
vegetarians have about half the prevalence of hypertension
compared to non-vegetarian Adventists. When hypertensives were
defined as those taking medication intended to reduce their
blood pressure, a nearly threefold difference in the
prevalence of hypertension was seen between the groups.

Overall, the randomized controlled trials included in the
review found that blood pressure is lowered when animal
products were replaced with vegetable products in both people
with normal blood pressure and those who are hypertensive.

To understand the blood-pressure-lowering effects of a
plant-based diet, the authors examined changes in body weight
and intake of specific food groups and nutrients.

Studies show that vegetarians tend to be slimmer, on average,
which may help explain their lower incidence of hypertension.
A vegetarian diet also is significantly lower in saturated
fat, reducing the viscosity, or thickness, of the blood.

Blood becomes "less like oil, more like water," Barnard
explained.

And because vegetarian diets are generally high in fruits and
vegetables, people who follow this diet consume more
potassium than those who eat a diet of meat and vegetables.
The analysis cites two reviews involving a total of 52
randomized clinical trials showing potassium supplementation
significantly lowered blood pressure in people with normal
and elevated blood pressure.

There are those who disagree with the finding, however.

Dr. Lawrence J. Appel, a nutrition specialist at the Johns
Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said the paper
fails to establish a clear cause-and-effect relationship
between consuming a plant-based diet and lowering one's
blood pressure.

"It's a good review, but there are still unanswered
questions," he said.

He also noted that very few clinical trials have been
conducted, and that those that have been done are small and
not tightly controlled. Much of the data is observational.

So, he said, it remains unclear whether a vegetarian diet
alone is responsible for lowering blood pressure or
whether some aspect of a vegetarian regimen -- such as
eating lots of fruits and vegetables rich in potassiumand
fiber while maintaining a desirable body weight -- could
have the same effect.

And then there there is the fact that not everyone who has
high blood pressure eats poorly or is overweight; genetic
factors significantly influence a person's risk for
hypertension.

Still, Barnard insists a vegetarian diet is healthy for
everyone, whether or not they have high blood pressure.

He offers this caveat for people taking blood pressure
medication: "Don't throw your medication in the trash."
High blood pressure is a serious medical condition
requiring immediate medical attention. Even if you switch
to a vegetarian diet to trim down, you won't lose the
weight overnight, he said. It could take more than a year
for a person who is 60 pounds overweight to drop that
excess baggage.

Barnard hopes the review will prompt more doctors to recommend
a vegetarian diet. Many are reluctant to do because they fear
that patients won't stick with it, but there's no reason to
believe patients would be less likely to go vegetarian than to
comply with other diets, he said.

"They may not hit the mark 100 percent, but they'd do much
better if a doctor recommended it," he said.

Barnard's group, the physicians committee, is a Washington,
D.C.-based nonprofit that promotes good nutrition, opposes
unethical human experimentation and advocates alternatives to
animal research.

Vernon

Thu, Sep-28-06, 17:15

"Roman Bystrianyk" <rbystrianyk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159447850.241714.190250@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> FYI
>
> Roman Bystrianyk, "Vegetable protein lowers high blood
> pressure", Health Sentinel, May 1, 2006,

Totally wrong. A lie. Increased intake of vegetables is the
result of the study.

>
> According to the National Institutes of Health,
> approximately 65 million American adults - nearly 1 in 3 -
> have high blood pressure. High blood pressure, also known as
> hypertension, is a dangerous condition that is known as the
> "silent killer". High blood pressure increases the risk for
> heart disease and stroke, which are the first and third
> leading causes of death in the United States. High blood
> pressure can also result in other problems, such as heart
> failure, kidney disease, and blindness.
>
> Epidemiological studies have shown that vegetarians have
> less high blood pressure compared with meat eaters. The
> Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension, also know as DASH,
> recommends a combination diet that emphasizes fruits,
> vegetables, whole grains, poultry, fish, nuts, low or fat
> free dairy products and reduces the consumption of red
> meats, fats, and sweets.
>
> A recent study in Archives of Internal Medicine, examined
> over 4,500 persons age 40 to 59 years to examine the effects
> of vegetable and animal protein on high blood pressure.
>
> The study's main finding "was an inverse relationship
> between individuals' vegetable protein intake and their
> blood pressure." The study also found that there was a
> significant association between higher animal protein intake
> and both systolic and diastolic blood pressure. However,
> after adjusting for height and weight blood pressure
> association was smaller and nonsignificant.
>
> To explain this difference the authors note that there were
> significant differences in the amino acids. Amino acids are
> the building blocks of proteins. These differences possibly
> contribute to the differences between vegetable and animal
> proteins. Also, other components found along with vegetable
> proteins, such as magnesium, may interact with the amino
> acids to lower blood pressure.
>
> The authors conclude, "our results are consistent with
> current recommendations that a diet high in vegetable
> products be part of a healthy lifestyle for prevention of
> high blood pressure and related chronic diseases."

They had / have a dumb agenda. Increased B complex and reduced
sugar intake are the basic results of the test.

>
> SOURCE: Archives of Internal Medicine, January 2006
>
> ironjustice@aol.com wrote:
ironjustice, mentally disturbed liar. Must be from a lack of
essential amino and fatty acids.

Vernon

Thu, Sep-28-06, 17:15

<NoOption5L@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1159417679.656129.69630@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> TC wrote:
>
>> > > What is killing us and making us obese is the
>> > > grain-based diet. It isn't that we are eating too much,
>> > > it is that we are eating too much grain, refined grain
>> > > products, and sugars. Not to mention vegetable oils
>> > > that are new to our diet. Especially the hydrogenated
>> > > vegetable oils. Just like refined white flour and
>> > > refined white sugar, overly processed refined
>> > > hydrogenated vegetable oils are slow poisons.
>
>> > That's a fallacy brought to us by the latest in a long
>> > string of fade diets -- "low-carb". While refined carbs
>> > via soda pop, sugary juices, and products made from gummy
>> > white flour are certainly a significant part of the
>> > problem,
>
>> One the one hand it is a "fallacy" and on the other hand it
>> is a "significant part of the problem" ????? Which one is
>> it? Is it a "fallacy" or is it a "significant part of the
>> problem"? Make up your mind.
>
> Low-carb fallacy = we're eating too much grain.
>
> Fact = we're eating too much *refined* grain.

FACT = too much grain and most of it is refined, making
matters worse.

>
>> > to make no mention of, or worse completely exonerate,
>> > deep-fried [Long John Silver's] fish,
>
>> with a large order of chips and a large soda
>
> Instead exchange for: Broiled salmon + baked sweet potato +
> green tea

Baked sweet potato or yams are some of my favorites but
carrots, bell peppers, onions are really good and a lot
better choice.

>
>> > greasy [Big Mac/Burger
>
>> with a super sized fry and a 3/4 gallon jug of sugar water
>
> Replace with: Lean roast beef + whole wheat bread + romaine
> lettuce + tomatos + water with a slice of lemon

Of course you could get real. People have a life and work for
a living and one of the worst things one can do is bring
their lunch. Going out (anyplace) is the most healthy thing
one can do.

>
>> > King/Wendy's] double-bacon cheeseburgers,
>
>> and a fries and drink
>
> Replace with: Ostrich burger + spinach salad + glass of milk
>
>> > slimey [Kentucky Fried] chicken,
>
>> and a fries and drink
>
> Replace with: Baked chicken breast + brown rice + glass of
> fresh squeezed orange juice

Brown rice? why? How about wild rice or cooked raw rice?

>
>> > and artery-stopping [Pizza Hut] "Meat Lovers" pizza is a
>> > huge disservice to this NG.
>
>> on a one-inch thick white flour crust and with a large soda
>
> Replace with homemade whole-wheat crust/sesame seeds +
> tomato sauce + green/red/yellow peppers, onions, mushrooms,
> pineapple + tall glass of water

Of course you could get real. People have a life and work for
a living and one of the worst things one can do is bring
their lunch. Going out (anyplace) is the most healthy thing
one can do.

>
> So we're in agreement then? The whole fast food meal is crap
> -- crappy meat and crappy carbs, and too much of both,
> rrrrighttttt....?

Fast food is for people with a life and that have to
earn a living.

Next time you make suggestions, pretend you work for a living
on a typical job Truck driver, construction worker, landscape
helper, busy office, engineer, retail store clerk.

About the only person who could follow your suggestions would
be a stay at home mom, a worker, but access to a stove and
refrigerator. The alternative is someone who is "kept" by
someone else.

>
>> > And your continuous attempt to link and confuse refined
>> > grain with nutrious whole grain and hydrogenated oils
>> > with healthy unrefined vegetable oils, at best, could be
>> > described as mischievous. So why don't you just stop the
>> > nonsense?
>
>> "nutritious" whole grain is only refined white grain flour
>> with the left overs mixed back in. It is still over
>> processed stale grain with all kinds of added chemicals to
>> preserve it and stop it from clumping. You've been had by
>> the grain industry.
>
> Dr. Adkins/Zone Diet has made/sold the grain conspiracy
> well. Did you get to the part in their books where they
> tell you that grains are actually foreign to the earth
> and were brought here by the aliens that crashed in
> Roswell?
>
>> And there is nothing magical in grains that cannot be
>> gotten in greater amounts and in better forms from real
>> fresh whole produce. Grains are entirely superfluous to the
>> human diet.
>
> You don't need to eat grains to survive... now that's a real
> startling revelation. But did you know that could be said of
> any food -- meat, eggs, milk, cheese, citrus fruits, beans,
> nuts, seeds, green beans or pumpkin pie?
>
> So why do you continue to crack on _whole_ grains? They're
> packed with nutrients and fiber. Plus, unlike the white
> bread buns and crusts served in the fast food places and
> most everywhere else, whole grain breads fill you up and
> keep you filled up. Don't believe me? Try eating a bowl of
> hot oatmeal in the morning.
>
>> Name me one vegetable oil that is not refined. Except for
>> extra virgin olive oil. Name me one that isn't heated,
>> treated, filtered and processed to death. Do you know what
>> they do to corn oil, canola oil, soy oil and other
>> vegetable oils before it is poured in a bottle and shipped
>> to your grocer? You would be surprised how heavily
>> processed it actually is. It is rendered as dead a food as
>> refined white flour and ultra high temp pasteurized milk.
>> These foods are processed to death and it does not matter
>> how fancy, glossy and green the label is, it is still a
>> dead food.
>
> Have you seen the processing that takes place in our meat
> industry and packing plants? If you have, why don't you EVER
> mention it?
>
>> There is nothing mischievous about the crap that is foisted
>> upon us as supposedly healthy foods.
>
> I agree. My beef <no pun intended> is that you EXCLUSIVELY
> rail against grains/carbs, but NEVER say a negative word
> about the dog food served in fast food restaurants and
> elsewhere that the meat industry calls fit for human
> consumption.
>
> So I for one would like to know why you're so damned biased.
>
> Patrick

Vernon

Thu, Sep-28-06, 17:15

"TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159453905.851727.246220@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> NoOption5L@aol.com wrote:
>> TC wrote:
>>
>
> I've seen the difference first hand regarding eating copious
> amounts of supposedly unhealthy animal-sourced foods vs.
> eating supposed healthy grains. And what I've seen is not
> what you and the medical "experts" are keep insisting on.

The "experts" (people who actually study and research) found
that the entire low fat bit was a total fallacy and that has
been over twenty years ago. They further found that we are not
getting enough fiber (normally obtained from vegetables and
fruits). The also found that we need meat. With regard to
fats, what they did find was that THE most dangerous thing you
can eat next to excess sugar is hydrogenated or partially
hydrogenated oils. (Nothing is worse that margarine) They
found that you cannot raise serum cholesterol by eating it.
This is not to say that the two to three hour system reaction
of eating high cholesterol (or sugar) is not a good thing for
people with circulation problems due to restrictions..

>
> Grains are the bane of human existence. They are completely
> un-necessary and, in fact, are contrary to what we need to
> be healthy.
>
> TC

Ironjustic

Fri, Sep-29-06, 06:15

Matti Narkia wrote:
> On 26 Sep 2006 07:04:41 -0700, "ironjustice@aol.com"
> <ironjustice@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Soy protein diet improves endothelial dysfunction in renal
> >transplant patients. Cupisti A, Ghiadoni L, D'Alessandro C,
> >Kardasz I, Morelli E, Panichi V, Locati D, Morandi S, Saba
> >A, Barsotti G, Taddei S, Arnoldi A, Salvetti A Nephrol Dial
> >Transplant. 2006 Sep 23;
> >
> And animal studies suggest that _fish_ protein may prevent
> insulin resistance and thus type 2 diabetes. And a Swedish
> study with humans suggests that fish protein may protect
> type 1 diabetes patients from microalbuminuria und thus
> perhaps from kidney damage.
>
> Here some evidence: The study
>
> Lavigne C, Tremblay F, Asselin G, Jacques H, Marette A.
> Prevention of skeletal muscle insulin resistance by dietary
> cod protein in high fat-fed rats. Am J Physiol Endocrinol
> Metab. 2001 Jul;281(1):E62-71. PMID: 11404223 [PubMed -
> indexed for MEDLINE]
> <http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/281/1/E62>
>
> suggests that fish protein may prevent high fat diet induced
> insulin resistance and hence type 2 diabetes in rats.
> Selected excerpts:
>
> "In the present study, we tested the hypothesis that
> fish protein may represent a key constituent of fish
> with glucoregulatory activity. Three groups of rats were
> fed a high- fat diet in which the protein source was
> casein, fish (cod) protein, or soy protein; these groups
> were compared with a group of chow-fed controls.
> High-fat feeding led to severe whole body and skeletal
> muscle insulin resistance in casein- or soy protein-fed
> rats, as assessed by the euglycemic clamp technique
> coupled with measurements of 2-deoxy-D-[(3)H]glucose
> uptake rates by individual tissues. However, feeding cod
> protein fully prevented the development of insulin
> resistance in high fat-fed rats. These animals exhibited
> higher rates of insulin-mediated muscle glucose disposal
> that were comparable to those of chow-fed rats. The
> beneficial effects of cod protein occurred without any
> reductions in body weight gain, adipose tissue
> accretion, or expression of tumor necrosis factor-alpha
> in fat and muscle. Moreover, L6 myocytes exposed to cod
> protein-derived amino acids showed greater rates of
> insulin-stimulated glucose uptake compared with cells
> incubated with casein- or soy protein-derived amino
> acids. These data demonstrate that feeding cod protein
> prevents obesity-induced muscle insulin resistance in
> high fat-fed obese rats at least in part through a
> direct action of amino acids on insulin- stimulated
> glucose uptake in skeletal muscle cells.
>
> [...]
>
> In summary, the present study shows that dietary cod
> protein prevents the development of skeletal muscle
> insulin resistance in high fat-fed obese rats. The
> beneficial action of cod protein on insulin sensitivity
> occurred without reductions in body weight or adiposity,
> strongly suggesting that cod protein protects from
> obesity-induced insulin resistance. The effect of
> dietary cod protein appears to involve, at least in
> part, a direct action of cod protein-derived amino acids
> on insulin- stimulated glucose transport in skeletal
> muscle cells. Interest in the present data also arises
> from the fact that increased cod protein consumption is
> easily implementable in humans within guidelines of
> daily recommended allowances of essential nutrients (12,
> 18) and thus could represent a novel nutraceutical
> approach in preventing the development of insulin
> resistance in obesity. Because insulin resistance is a
> central factor in visceral obesity-associated
> complications such as hypertension, diabetes, and
> cardiovascular diseases (2, 6, 8), dietary cod protein
> may contribute to prevent the many metabolic aberrations
> that accompany the obese state."
>
>
> A follow-up study from the same research team:
>
> Tremblay F, Lavigne C, Jacques H, Marette A. Dietary cod
> protein restores insulin-induced activation of
> phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/Akt and GLUT4 translocation to
> the T-tubules in skeletal muscle of high-fat-fed obese rats.
> Diabetes. 2003 Jan;52(1):29-37. PMID: 12502490 [PubMed -
> indexed for MEDLINE] <http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/-
> cgi/content/full/52/1/29>
>
> "Diet-induced obesity is known to cause peripheral
> insulin resistance in rodents. We have recently found
> that feeding cod protein to high-fat-fed rats prevents
> the development of insulin resistance in skeletal
> muscle. In the present study, we have further explored
> the cellular mechanisms behind this beneficial effect of
> cod protein on skeletal muscle insulin sensitivity. Rats
> were fed a standard chow diet or a high-fat diet in
> which the protein source was either casein, soy, or cod
> proteins for 4 weeks. Whole-body and muscle glucose
> disposal were reduced by approximately 50% in rats fed
> high-fat diets with casein or soy proteins, but these
> impairments were not observed in animals fed cod
> protein. Insulin-induced tyrosine phosphorylation of the
> insulin receptor and insulin receptor substrate (IRS)
> proteins were similar in muscle of chow- and
> high-fat-fed rats regardless of the dietary protein
> source. However, IRS-1-associated phosphatidylinositol
> (PI) 3-kinase activity was severely impaired (-60%) in
> muscle of high-fat-fed rats consuming casein or soy
> protein. In marked contrast, feeding rats with cod
> protein completely prevented the deleterious effect of
> fat feeding on insulin-stimulated PI 3- kinase activity.
> The activation of the downstream kinase Akt/PKB by
> insulin, assessed by in vitro kinase assay and
> phosphorylation of GSK-3beta, were also impaired in
> muscle of high-fat-fed rats consuming casein or soy
> protein, but these defects were also fully prevented by
> dietary cod protein. However, no effect of cod protein
> was observed on atypical protein kinase C activity.
> Normalization of PI 3-kinase/Akt activation by insulin
> in rats fed high-fat diets with cod protein was
> associated with improved translocation of GLUT4 to the
> T-tubules but not to the plasma membrane. Taken
> together, these results show that dietary cod protein is
> a natural insulin-sensitizing agent that appears to
> prevent obesity- linked muscle insulin resistance by
> normalizing insulin activation of the PI 3-kinase/Akt
> pathway and by selectively improving GLUT4 translocation
> to the T-tubules.
>
> [...]
>
> In summary, this study provides convincing evidence that
> dietary proteins are important modulators of insulin
> signaling and action in rat skeletal muscle.
> Furthermore, we showed that dietary cod protein is a
> potent and natural insulin-sensitizing agent that
> normalizes the activation status of the PI 3- kinase/Akt
> pathway coupled to an increased translocation of GLUT4
> to the T-tubules in obese high-fat-fed rats.
> Identification of the precise molecular mechanism by
> which dietary cod protein improves insulin signaling to
> PI 3- kinase/Akt will help defining novel therapeutic
> tools for the prevention and treatment of insulin
> resistance."
>
>
> Another potential benefit from fish protein: A Swedish study
>
> Mollsten AV, Dahlquist GG, Stattin EL, Rudberg S. Higher
> intakes of fish protein are related to a lower risk of
> microalbuminuria in young Swedish type 1 diabetic patients.
> Diabetes Care. 2001 May;24(5):805-10. PMID: 11347734 [PubMed
> - indexed for MEDLINE] <http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cg-
> i/content/full/24/5/805>
>
> found that fish protein may protect from microalbuminuria in
> type 1 diabetes. Brief excerpts:
>
> "... CONCLUSIONS: Total protein and fat intake were not
> associated with the presence of microalbuminuria, but a
> diet including a high amount of fish protein seemed to
> lessen the risk.
>
> [...]
>
> In conclusion, our results do not give evidence for the
> suggestion that a high-protein diet increases the risk
> for incipient diabetic nephropathy. Rather, a diet rich
> in fish protein seems to provide protection from this
> complication."
>
> >Who loves ya. Tom
> >
> >
> >Jesus Was A Vegetarian! http://jesuswasavegetarian.7h.com
> >
> No, Jesus was a fish eater.
> >
> >Man Is A Herbivore! http://tinyurl.com/a3cc3
> >
> No, before the invention of agriculture some 10000-15000
> years ago our hunter-gatherer ancestors evolved on and
> adapted to a high protein, low carbohydrate diet, where
> carbohydrates provided 22-40% of calories, and where animal
> meat was an important part of diet.
>
>
> --
> Matti Narkia

CONCLUSIONS: A soy protein diet for 5 weeks improves
endothelial function in renal transplant patients.

The .. subtle .. differences between the studies ?

"und thus perhaps" / "Suggests" .. and .. **improves** ..

Fish .. 'suggests' .. soy .. **improves** ..

WHY .. you would place this comment ON .. this .. particular
thread is .. ?

Seemingly to make someone .. ? .. to believe .. ? that somehow
.. fish .. comes into the .. picture .. ?

When .. speaking to work which is considered quite important
.. kidney destruction .. one might think one might NOT attempt
to .. detract .. FROM ,.. studies which .. show .. CLEARLY ..
improvement .. as opposed to .. "let's hope / suggest /
possibly / perhaps/ etc .. unless .. there was a **reason** ..
FOR the .. comment .. ?

>> No, Jesus was a fish eater.<<

Yep .. I guess you DO have an .. agenda ..

You have some sort of fish .. fetish ..

Who loves ya. Tom

Jesus Was A Vegetarian! http://jesuswasavegetarian.7h.com

Man Is A Herbivore! http://tinyurl.com/a3cc3

DEAD PEOPLE WALKING http://tinyurl.com/zk9fk

NoOption5L

Fri, Sep-29-06, 06:15

Vernon wrote:

> >> > > What is killing us and making us obese is the
> >> > > grain-based diet. It isn't that we are eating too
> >> > > much, it is that we are eating too much grain,
> >> > > refined grain products, and sugars. Not to mention
> >> > > vegetable oils that are new to our diet. Especially
> >> > > the hydrogenated vegetable oils. Just like refined
> >> > > white flour and refined white sugar, overly processed
> >> > > refined hydrogenated vegetable oils are slow poisons.

> >> > That's a fallacy brought to us by the latest in a long
> >> > string of fade diets -- "low-carb". While refined carbs
> >> > via soda pop, sugary juices, and products made from
> >> > gummy white flour are certainly a significant part of
> >> > the problem,

> >> One the one hand it is a "fallacy" and on the other hand
> >> it is a "significant part of the problem" ????? Which one
> >> is it? Is it a "fallacy" or is it a "significant part of
> >> the problem"? Make up your mind.

> > Low-carb fallacy = we're eating too much grain.

> > Fact = we're eating too much *refined* grain.

> FACT = too much grain and most of it is refined, making
> matters worse.

FACT! = "Bad carb" grain products are made exclusively with
refined flour.

> >> > to make no mention of, or worse completely exonerate,
> >> > deep-fried [Long John Silver's] fish,

> >> with a large order of chips and a large soda

> > Instead exchange for: Broiled salmon + baked sweet potato
> > + green tea

> Baked sweet potato or yams are some of my favorites but
> carrots, bell peppers, onions are really good and a lot
> better choice.

Saying the others are "a lot better choice" than a sweet
potato or yam is like saying strawberries are a lot better
choice than blueberries. It depends... it all depends on what
you're measuring for. But I don't measure food this way. I
know they each bring their own special, good-for-you
properties so it's best to constantly eat a variety.

> >> > greasy [Big Mac/Burger

> >> with a super sized fry and a 3/4 gallon jug of sugar
> >> water

> > Replace with: Lean roast beef + whole wheat bread +
> > romaine lettuce + tomatos + water with a slice of lemon

> Of course you could get real. People have a life and work
> for a living and one of the worst things one can do is bring
> their lunch. Going out (anyplace) is the most healthy thing
> one can do.

Hahahahahaha.... funny stuff... this IS a joke, right?

> >> > King/Wendy's] double-bacon cheeseburgers,

> >> and a fries and drink

> > Replace with: Ostrich burger + spinach salad + glass
> > of milk

> >> > slimey [Kentucky Fried] chicken,

> >> and a fries and drink

> > Replace with: Baked chicken breast + brown rice + glass of
> > fresh squeezed orange juice

> Brown rice? why? How about wild rice or cooked raw rice?

Because it's whole grain.

Wild rice is good too.

"Cooked raw rice" ?

> >> > and artery-stopping [Pizza Hut] "Meat Lovers" pizza is
> >> > a huge disservice to this NG.

> >> on a one-inch thick white flour crust and with a
> >> large soda

> > Replace with homemade whole-wheat crust/sesame seeds +
> > tomato sauce + green/red/yellow peppers, onions,
> > mushrooms, pineapple + tall glass of water

> Of course you could get real. People have a life and work
> for a living and one of the worst things one can do is bring
> their lunch. Going out (anyplace) is the most healthy thing
> one can do.

Damn!! You're not kidding... you really believe this.

Restaurants compete against each other, and like other
businesses most times the one that offers the lowest price
wins the most customers. So, in order to offer the lowest (or
lower) price, the fast food places often use the cheapest
ingredients - refined grains/sugar, lots of salt, low-grade
meats and oils. And since most fast food comsumers base their
food choices on "taste" alone there's little reason for them
offer anything better/decent.

> > So we're in agreement then? The whole fast food meal is
> > crap -- crappy meat and crappy carbs, and too much of
> > both, rrrrighttttt....?

> Fast food is for people with a life and that have to earn
> a living.

No. [Most] fast food is for people who don't know how it will
negatively affect the quality of their life as they're earning
their living.

> Next time you make suggestions, pretend you work for a
> living on a typical job Truck driver, construction worker,
> landscape helper, busy office, engineer, retail store clerk.

I'm in this group and I pack my lunch EVERY day.

Here's what I ate today:

1 apple small bag of raw brocolli 6-7 cherry tomatos
1/3 can of salmon small bag of raw pea pods 1 sliced orange
5-6 Muscadine grapes 1 baked potato 2 pieces of
[whole-grain] rye Wasa bread 1 cup of plain yogurt -- with
raisens, dried apple, and pumpkins seeds added

It took me a staggering 15-20 minutes to make that lunch, and
I somehow pulled it off while eating a bowl of my own special
whole grain cereal mix with some nuts, seeds and this morning
I tossed in some blueberries as I poured the milk on top.

> About the only person who could follow your suggestions
> would be a stay at home mom, a worker, but access to a stove
> and refrigerator. The alternative is someone who is "kept"
> by someone else.

If you can't get a clue, buy one.

Patrick

Matti Nark

Fri, Sep-29-06, 06:15

On 28 Sep 2006 05:50:50 -0700, "Roman Bystrianyk"
<rbystrianyk@gmail.com> wrote:

>FYI
>
>Roman Bystrianyk, "Vegetable protein lowers high blood
>pressure", Health Sentinel, May 1, 2006,
>
>According to the National Institutes of Health, approximately
>65 million American adults - nearly 1 in 3 - have high blood
>pressure. High blood pressure, also known as hypertension, is
>a dangerous condition that is known as the "silent killer".
>High blood pressure increases the risk for heart disease and
>stroke, which are the first and third leading causes of death
>in the United States. High blood pressure can also result in
>other problems, such as heart failure, kidney disease, and
>blindness.
>
>Epidemiological studies have shown that vegetarians have less
>high blood pressure compared with meat eaters. The Dietary
>Approaches to Stop Hypertension, also know as DASH,
>recommends a combination diet that emphasizes fruits,
>vegetables, whole grains, poultry, fish, nuts, low or fat
>free dairy products and reduces the consumption of red meats,
>fats, and sweets.
>
That recommendation is right in recommending fish, because for
example the study

Pauletto P, Puato M, Caroli MG, Casiglia E, Munhambo AE,
Cazzolato G, Bittolo Bon G, Angeli MT, Galli C, Pessina AC.
Blood pressure and atherogenic lipoprotein profiles of
fish-diet and vegetarian villagers in Tanzania: the Lugalawa
study. Lancet. 1996 Sep 21;348(9030):784-8. <http://www.thela-
ncet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673696013918/fulltex-
t> (requires free registration)

found the fish eater had lower blood pressure than
vegetarians. The study concludes:

"Interpretation

In these villagers, consumption of freshwater fish
(300-600 g daily) was associated with raised plasma
concentrations of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, lower
blood pressure, and lower plasma lipid concentrations."

--
Matti Narkia

Fri, Sep-29-06, 17:15

Vernon wrote:
> "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:11594539-
> 05.851727.246220@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > NoOption5L@aol.com wrote:
> >> TC wrote:
> >>
> >
> > I've seen the difference first hand regarding eating
> > copious amounts of supposedly unhealthy animal-sourced
> > foods vs. eating supposed healthy grains. And what I've
> > seen is not what you and the medical "experts" are keep
> > insisting on.
>
> The "experts" (people who actually study and research) found
> that the entire low fat bit was a total fallacy and that has
> been over twenty years ago. They further found that we are
> not getting enough fiber (normally obtained from vegetables
> and fruits). The also found that we need meat. With regard
> to fats, what they did find was that THE most dangerous
> thing you can eat next to excess sugar is hydrogenated or
> partially hydrogenated oils. (Nothing is worse that
> margarine) They found that you cannot raise serum
> cholesterol by eating it. This is not to say that the two to
> three hour system reaction of eating high cholesterol (or
> sugar) is not a good thing for people with circulation
> problems due to restrictions..

The "experts" I am talking about are those guys wearing white
lab coats in commercials and your local medical doctors and
nutritionists. Not to mention Dr Phil et al. And they all
insist that fat is what makes you fat and sick and that blood
cholesterol levels is directly impacted by dietary cholesterol
consumption that we must all eat 60% of our diet as carbs and
meat is evil etc etc.

And don't forget about the "experts" in this ng who believe
the exact same line of nonsense.

These media "experts" are quoted ad infinitum in most popular
media. You know magazines and TV shows that depend on
advertising for its survival. You know advertising from the
food and pharmaceutical industries where they spend trillions
every year on advertising.

TC

>
> >
> > Grains are the bane of human existence. They are
> > completely un-necessary and, in fact, are contrary to what
> > we need to be healthy.
> >
> > TC

Fri, Sep-29-06, 17:15

Vernon wrote:
> "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:11595378-
> 81.073144.228490@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Vernon wrote:
> >> "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:11594-
> >> 53905.851727.246220@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> > NoOption5L@aol.com wrote:
> >> >> TC wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > I've seen the difference first hand regarding eating
> >> > copious amounts of supposedly unhealthy animal-sourced
> >> > foods vs. eating supposed healthy grains. And what I've
> >> > seen is not what you and the medical "experts" are keep
> >> > insisting on.
> >>
> >> The "experts" (people who actually study and research)
> >> found that the entire low fat bit was a total fallacy and
> >> that has been over twenty years ago. They further found
> >> that we are not getting enough fiber (normally obtained
> >> from vegetables and fruits). The also found that we need
> >> meat. With regard to fats, what they did find was that
> >> THE most dangerous thing you can eat next to excess sugar
> >> is hydrogenated or partially hydrogenated oils. (Nothing
> >> is worse that margarine) They found that you cannot raise
> >> serum cholesterol by eating it. This is not to say that
> >> the two to three hour system reaction of eating high
> >> cholesterol (or sugar) is not a good thing for people
> >> with circulation problems due to restrictions..
> >
> > The "experts" I am talking about are those guys wearing
> > white lab coats in commercials and your local medical
> > doctors and nutritionists. Not to mention Dr Phil et al.
> > And they all insist that fat is what makes you fat and
> > sick and that blood cholesterol levels is directly
> > impacted by dietary cholesterol consumption that we must
> > all eat 60% of our diet as carbs and meat is evil etc etc.
> >
> > And don't forget about the "experts" in this ng who
> > believe the exact same line of nonsense.
> >
> > These media "experts" are quoted ad infinitum in most
> > popular media. You know magazines and TV shows that depend
> > on advertising for its survival. You know advertising from
> > the food and pharmaceutical industries where they spend
> > trillions every year on advertising.
> >
> > TC
>
> Naw, you don't mean to tell me that those guys in the white
> lab coats on TV are actors?????
>
> What is sad is the number of doctors and "nutritionists"
> that grabbed on to the "theory" of a couple decades ago and
> are still running with it and TEACHING it.

But worse is these self-appointed scientific mouthpieces that
get paid massive consulting fees to keep repeating these
falsehoods to any media outlet willing to continue propagating
them. They are termed "thought leaders" by the pharma and food
industry people. And often these are highly (on the surface
anyways) respected university-based researchers or even heads
of departments.

TC

>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Grains are the bane of human existence. They are
> >> > completely un-necessary and, in fact, are contrary to
> >> > what we need to be healthy.
>
>
>
> >> >
> >> > TC
> >> >

Mr. Natura

Fri, Sep-29-06, 17:15

Roman Bystrianyk wrote:

> Vegetarians tend to have lower blood pressure than the
> general population, ...

But, ONLY if they do NOT post on newsgroups. :)

Fri, Sep-29-06, 17:16

Roman Bystrianyk wrote:
> Vernon wrote:
> > "Roman Bystrianyk" <rbystrianyk@gmail.com> wrote in
> > message news:1159447850.241714.190250@h48g2000cwc.googleg-
> > roups.com...
> > > FYI
> > >
> > > Roman Bystrianyk, "Vegetable protein lowers high blood
> > > pressure", Health Sentinel, May 1, 2006,
> >
> > Totally wrong. A lie. Increased intake of vegetables is
> > the result of the study.
> >
> Karen Pallarito, "Veggie Diet May Lower High Blood
> Pressure", ABC News, January 21, 2005, Link: http://www.fo-
> rbes.com/lifestyle/health/feeds/hscout/2005/01/21/hscout52-
> 3461.html
>
> Vegetarians tend to have lower blood pressure than the
> general population, but it hasn't been clear whether their
> diet or their lifestyle guards them against hypertension.
>
> Now, a new review of previously published studies claims
> that diet provides the protection.
>
> "It's the diet itself, and it is clearly the diet of choice
> for people who want to get their blood pressure under
> control," said Dr. Neal D. Barnard, president and founder of
> the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and
> co-author of the report, which appears in the January issue
> of Nutrition Reviews.
>
> Barnard, a nutritionist and author of the book Breaking the
> Food Seduction: The Hidden Reasons Behind Food Cravings and
> Seven Steps to End Them Naturally, concluded that a person
> who suffers from hypertension and has yet to switch to a
> vegetarian diet is "really trying to fight their condition
> with one arm tied behind their back."
>
> About 65 million American adults have high blood pressure,
> according to the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
> Hypertension is often called the "silent killer" because it
> usually has no symptoms but leads to increased risk for
> heart disease, congestive heart failure, stroke and kidney
> failure.
>
> Barnard and committee nutritionist Susan Berkow analyzed 80
> scientific studies, including observational studies of
> individuals on vegetarian diets compared with
> non-vegetarians and randomized, controlled trials in which
> outcomes of people who switch to a plant-based diet were
> compared with control subjects.
>
> "The purpose of our review was to bring together what is
> known about the effect of the diet, but also what we know
> about the mechanism and try to explain why this occurs,"
> Barnard explained.
>
> Some of the best observational data, according to the
> report, come from studies involving Seventh-Day Adventists,
> who advocate an alcohol-free, tobacco-free, vegetarian
> lifestyle. About 50 percent of Adventists follow a
> lacto-ovo-vegetarian diet, which includes dairy products and
> eggs, the authors noted.
>
> One study involving California Adventists found that
> vegetarians have about half the prevalence of hypertension
> compared to non-vegetarian Adventists. When hypertensives
> were defined as those taking medication intended to reduce
> their blood pressure, a nearly threefold difference in the
> prevalence of hypertension was seen between the groups.
>
> Overall, the randomized controlled trials included in the
> review found that blood pressure is lowered when animal
> products were replaced with vegetable products in both
> people with normal blood pressure and those who are
> hypertensive.
>
> To understand the blood-pressure-lowering effects of a
> plant-based diet, the authors examined changes in body
> weight and intake of specific food groups and nutrients.
>
> Studies show that vegetarians tend to be slimmer, on
> average, which may help explain their lower incidence of
> hypertension. A vegetarian diet also is significantly lower
> in saturated fat, reducing the viscosity, or thickness, of
> the blood.
>
> Blood becomes "less like oil, more like water," Barnard
> explained.
>
> And because vegetarian diets are generally high in fruits
> and vegetables, people who follow this diet consume more
> potassium than those who eat a diet of meat and vegetables.
> The analysis cites two reviews involving a total of 52
> randomized clinical trials showing potassium supplementation
> significantly lowered blood pressure in people with normal
> and elevated blood pressure.
>
> There are those who disagree with the finding, however.
>
> Dr. Lawrence J. Appel, a nutrition specialist at the Johns
> Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said the
> paper fails to establish a clear cause-and-effect
> relationship between consuming a plant-based diet and
> lowering one's blood pressure.
>
> "It's a good review, but there are still unanswered
> questions," he said.
>
> He also noted that very few clinical trials have been
> conducted, and that those that have been done are small and
> not tightly controlled. Much of the data is observational.
>
> So, he said, it remains unclear whether a vegetarian diet
> alone is responsible for lowering blood pressure or
> whether some aspect of a vegetarian regimen -- such as
> eating lots of fruits and vegetables rich in potassiumand
> fiber while maintaining a desirable body weight -- could
> have the same effect.
>
> And then there there is the fact that not everyone who has
> high blood pressure eats poorly or is overweight; genetic
> factors significantly influence a person's risk for
> hypertension.
>
> Still, Barnard insists a vegetarian diet is healthy for
> everyone, whether or not they have high blood pressure.
>
> He offers this caveat for people taking blood pressure
> medication: "Don't throw your medication in the trash." High
> blood pressure is a serious medical condition requiring
> immediate medical attention. Even if you switch to a
> vegetarian diet to trim down, you won't lose the weight
> overnight, he said. It could take more than a year for a
> person who is 60 pounds overweight to drop that excess
> baggage.
>
> Barnard hopes the review will prompt more doctors to
> recommend a vegetarian diet. Many are reluctant to do
> because they fear that patients won't stick with it, but
> there's no reason to believe patients would be less likely
> to go vegetarian than to comply with other diets, he said.
>
> "They may not hit the mark 100 percent, but they'd do much
> better if a doctor recommended it," he said.
>
> Barnard's group, the physicians committee, is a Washington,
> D.C.-based nonprofit that promotes good nutrition, opposes
> unethical human experimentation and advocates alternatives
> to animal research.

I always find the "scientific" findings of non-practicing
psychiatrists and head of radical vegan and animal rights
groups sooooooo convincing on the topic of nutrition.

TC

Vernon

Fri, Sep-29-06, 17:16

<NoOption5L@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1159496917.946253.141770@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Vernon wrote:
>
>> >> > > What is killing us and making us obese is the
>> >> > > grain-based diet. It isn't that we are eating too
>> >> > > much, it is that we are eating too much grain,
>> >> > > refined grain products, and sugars. Not to mention
>> >> > > vegetable oils that are new to our diet. Especially
>> >> > > the hydrogenated vegetable oils. Just like refined
>> >> > > white flour and refined white sugar, overly
>> >> > > processed refined hydrogenated vegetable oils are
>> >> > > slow poisons.
>
>> >> > That's a fallacy brought to us by the latest in a long
>> >> > string of fade diets -- "low-carb". While refined
>> >> > carbs via soda pop, sugary juices, and products made
>> >> > from gummy white flour are certainly a significant
>> >> > part of the problem,
>
>> >> One the one hand it is a "fallacy" and on the other hand
>> >> it is a "significant part of the problem" ????? Which
>> >> one is it? Is it a "fallacy" or is it a "significant
>> >> part of the problem"? Make up your mind.
>
>> > Low-carb fallacy = we're eating too much grain.
>
>> > Fact = we're eating too much *refined* grain.
>
>> FACT = too much grain and most of it is refined, making
>> matters worse.
>
> FACT! = "Bad carb" grain products are made exclusively with
> refined flour.

Too much grain in relation to all other sources of calories.
Note calories, not volume or food. Some grains are good for
fiber. Excess carbs are excess carbs. It is nearly impossible
to have much grains and still have room in a good diet for
vegetables, fruits, oils, proteins. Then there is el fatto
American diet. Then there is the "Oh it's unrefined", "It's
the pure stuff", "It's organic" Then there are the real sickos
who consume sugar as if it were a nutrient.

>
>> >> > to make no mention of, or worse completely exonerate,
>> >> > deep-fried [Long John Silver's] fish,
>
>> >> with a large order of chips and a large soda
>
>> > Instead exchange for: Broiled salmon + baked sweet potato
>> > + green tea
>
>> Baked sweet potato or yams are some of my favorites but
>> carrots, bell peppers, onions are really good and a lot
>> better choice.
>
> Saying the others are "a lot better choice" than a sweet
> potato or yam is like saying strawberries are a lot better
> choice than blueberries. It depends... it all depends on
> what you're measuring for. But I don't measure food this
> way. I know they each bring their own special, good-for-you
> properties so it's best to constantly eat a variety.
>
>> >> > greasy [Big Mac/Burger
>
>> >> with a super sized fry and a 3/4 gallon jug of sugar
>> >> water
>
>> > Replace with: Lean roast beef + whole wheat bread +
>> > romaine lettuce + tomatos + water with a slice of lemon
>
>> Of course you could get real. People have a life and work
>> for a living and one of the worst things one can do is
>> bring their lunch. Going out (anyplace) is the most healthy
>> thing one can do.
>
> Hahahahahaha.... funny stuff... this IS a joke, right?
>
>> >> > King/Wendy's] double-bacon cheeseburgers,
>
>> >> and a fries and drink
>
>> > Replace with: Ostrich burger + spinach salad + glass
>> > of milk
>
>> >> > slimey [Kentucky Fried] chicken,
>
>> >> and a fries and drink
>
>> > Replace with: Baked chicken breast + brown rice + glass
>> > of fresh squeezed orange juice
>
>> Brown rice? why? How about wild rice or cooked raw rice?
>
> Because it's whole grain.

Brown rice is brown rice. You have obviously never been
associated with the industry enough to know how they make
nearly white rice brown.

>
> Wild rice is good too.
>
> "Cooked raw rice" ?

Yes

>
>> >> > and artery-stopping [Pizza Hut] "Meat Lovers" pizza is
>> >> > a huge disservice to this NG.
>
>> >> on a one-inch thick white flour crust and with a large
>> >> soda
>
>> > Replace with homemade whole-wheat crust/sesame seeds +
>> > tomato sauce + green/red/yellow peppers, onions,
>> > mushrooms, pineapple + tall glass of water
>
>> Of course you could get real. People have a life and work
>> for a living and one of the worst things one can do is
>> bring their lunch. Going out (anyplace) is the most healthy
>> thing one can do.
>
> Damn!! You're not kidding... you really believe this.

It's been proven over and over. What one puts in their mouth
is not all of life.

>
> Restaurants compete against each other, and like other
> businesses most times the one that offers the lowest price
> wins the most customers. So, in order to offer the lowest
> (or lower) price, the fast food places often use the
> cheapest ingredients - refined grains/sugar, lots of salt,
> low-grade meats and oils. And since most fast food comsumers
> base their food choices on "taste" alone there's little
> reason for them offer anything better/decent.

You have NEVER been associated with the buisiness in ANY form,
unless bussing dishes. I'll give you 300 guesses as to which
company of any type buys the highest grade hamburger
available.

>
>> > So we're in agreement then? The whole fast food meal is
>> > crap -- crappy meat and crappy carbs, and too much of
>> > both, rrrrighttttt....?
>
>> Fast food is for people with a life and that have to earn a
>> living.
>
> No. [Most] fast food is for people who don't know how it
> will negatively affect the quality of their life as they're
> earning their living.

You are ignorantly associating "fast food" with some imaginary
cuisine. You imagine yourself as some prima donna, when in
fact you are too stupid to get a fast "NUTRITIOUS" meal from
almost any food vender around.

>
>> Next time you make suggestions, pretend you work for a
>> living on a typical job Truck driver, construction
>> worker, landscape helper, busy office, engineer, retail
>> store clerk.
>
> I'm in this group and I pack my lunch EVERY day.

No wonder you have a problem. I suppose you take a break for
lunch to mix with others. ha ha ha ha ha The "break" and
mixing is more important than eating unless it is your only
meal of the day. Looking at the volume of you menu, iy better
be your only meal.

>
> Here's what I ate today:
>
> 1 apple small bag of raw brocolli 6-7 cherry tomatos
> 1/3 can of salmon small bag of raw pea pods 1 sliced orange
> 5-6 Muscadine grapes 1 baked potato 2 pieces of
> [whole-grain] rye Wasa bread 1 cup of plain yogurt -- with
> raisens, dried apple, and pumpkins seeds added

Sounds like a pig meal, if ever I heard one Now try 1 apple
small bag of raw brocolli 6-7 cherry tomatos
1/3 can of salmon (or piece of pre cooked salmon, not canned)
small bag of raw pea pods 1 sliced orange (what's the
purpose of slicing? the best part of an orange is just
under the skin and the fibers) 5-6 Muscadine grapes 1 baked
potato (to thow at someone or give to someone you hate) 2
pieces of [whole-grain] rye Wasa bread ( to wipe your butt
with) 1 cup of plain yogurt -- with raisens, dried apple,
and pumpkins seeds added (only if you made the yogurt
yourself and added the other ingredients at the last
minute. Real yogurt wont tolerate those things for more
than an hour, if that long)

>
> It took me a staggering 15-20 minutes to make that lunch,
> and I somehow pulled it off while eating a bowl of my own
> special whole grain cereal mix with some nuts, seeds and
> this morning I tossed in some blueberries as I poured the
> milk on top.

If you were other than a nut, it would take about 5 - 10
minutes to toss an apple, couple stalks of celery, Asparagas,
couple carrots (not peeled), some peapods and brocolli in a
cold container along with a bottle of highly alkaline water.
(You can skip meat for lunch as it is too difficult to pack
and preserve)

Then, you go to a park or convening place with others who
bring their whatever and "take a break".

>> About the only person who could follow your suggestions
>> would be a stay at home mom, a worker, but access to a
>> stove and refrigerator. The alternative is someone who is
>> "kept" by someone else.
>
> If you can't get a clue, buy one.
>
> Patrick
Patrick Obviously over weight or some other physical illness
which would allow reasonable weight with that high intake.

Vernon

Fri, Sep-29-06, 17:16

"TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159537881.073144.228490@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Vernon wrote:
>> "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1159453-
>> 905.851727.246220@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > NoOption5L@aol.com wrote:
>> >> TC wrote:
>> >>
>> >
>> > I've seen the difference first hand regarding eating
>> > copious amounts of supposedly unhealthy animal-sourced
>> > foods vs. eating supposed healthy grains. And what I've
>> > seen is not what you and the medical "experts" are keep
>> > insisting on.
>>
>> The "experts" (people who actually study and research)
>> found that the entire low fat bit was a total fallacy and
>> that has been over twenty years ago. They further found
>> that we are not getting enough fiber (normally obtained
>> from vegetables and fruits). The also found that we need
>> meat. With regard to fats, what they did find was that THE
>> most dangerous thing you can eat next to excess sugar is
>> hydrogenated or partially hydrogenated oils. (Nothing is
>> worse that margarine) They found that you cannot raise
>> serum cholesterol by eating it. This is not to say that the
>> two to three hour system reaction of eating high
>> cholesterol (or sugar) is not a good thing for people with
>> circulation problems due to restrictions..
>
> The "experts" I am talking about are those guys wearing
> white lab coats in commercials and your local medical
> doctors and nutritionists. Not to mention Dr Phil et al. And
> they all insist that fat is what makes you fat and sick and
> that blood cholesterol levels is directly impacted by
> dietary cholesterol consumption that we must all eat 60% of
> our diet as carbs and meat is evil etc etc.
>
> And don't forget about the "experts" in this ng who believe
> the exact same line of nonsense.
>
> These media "experts" are quoted ad infinitum in most
> popular media. You know magazines and TV shows that depend
> on advertising for its survival. You know advertising from
> the food and pharmaceutical industries where they spend
> trillions every year on advertising.
>
> TC

Naw, you don't mean to tell me that those guys in the white
lab coats on TV are actors?????

What is sad is the number of doctors and "nutritionists" that
grabbed on to the "theory" of a couple decades ago and are
still running with it and TEACHING it.

>
>
>>
>> >
>> > Grains are the bane of human existence. They are
>> > completely un-necessary and, in fact, are contrary to
>> > what we need to be healthy.

>> >
>> > TC
>

Vernon

Fri, Sep-29-06, 17:16

"TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159544616.564421.24450@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> Vernon wrote:
>> "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1159537-
>> 881.073144.228490@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Vernon wrote:
>> >> "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1159-
>> >> 453905.851727.246220@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > NoOption5L@aol.com wrote:
>> >> >> TC wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > I've seen the difference first hand regarding eating
>> >> > copious amounts of supposedly unhealthy animal-sourced
>> >> > foods vs. eating supposed healthy grains. And what
>> >> > I've seen is not what you and the medical "experts"
>> >> > are keep insisting on.
>> >>
>> >> The "experts" (people who actually study and research)
>> >> found that the entire low fat bit was a total fallacy
>> >> and that has been over twenty years ago. They further
>> >> found that we are not getting enough fiber (normally
>> >> obtained from vegetables and fruits). The also found
>> >> that we need meat. With regard to fats, what they did
>> >> find was that THE most dangerous thing you can eat next
>> >> to excess sugar is hydrogenated or partially
>> >> hydrogenated oils. (Nothing is worse that margarine)
>> >> They found that you cannot raise serum cholesterol by
>> >> eating it. This is not to say that the two to three hour
>> >> system reaction of eating high cholesterol (or sugar) is
>> >> not a good thing for people with circulation problems
>> >> due to restrictions..
>> >
>> > The "experts" I am talking about are those guys wearing
>> > white lab coats in commercials and your local medical
>> > doctors and nutritionists. Not to mention Dr Phil et
>> > al. And they all insist that fat is what makes you fat
>> > and sick and that blood cholesterol levels is directly
>> > impacted by dietary cholesterol consumption that we
>> > must all eat 60% of our diet as carbs and meat is evil
>> > etc etc.
>> >
>> > And don't forget about the "experts" in this ng who
>> > believe the exact same line of nonsense.
>> >
>> > These media "experts" are quoted ad infinitum in most
>> > popular media. You know magazines and TV shows that
>> > depend on advertising for its survival. You know
>> > advertising from the food and pharmaceutical industries
>> > where they spend trillions every year on advertising.
>> >
>> > TC
>>
>> Naw, you don't mean to tell me that those guys in the white
>> lab coats on TV are actors?????
>>
>> What is sad is the number of doctors and "nutritionists"
>> that grabbed on to the "theory" of a couple decades ago and
>> are still running with it and TEACHING it.
>
> But worse is these self-appointed scientific mouthpieces
> that get paid massive consulting fees to keep repeating
> these falsehoods to any media outlet willing to continue
> propagating them. They are termed "thought leaders" by the
> pharma and food industry people. And often these are highly
> (on the surface anyways) respected university-based
> researchers or even heads of departments.
>
> TC
>

Sort of justifying the old saying with an addition. "Those
that can, do. The others teach (or consult)"

I hated the word consultant when a company hired me or
contracted for my services. I insisted that any
"recommendation" made would not be mine but a result of
empirical and physical evidence. THEY would make any
recommendations. A lot of it had to do with reliability of
products and components that were used. You can only imagine
the attempts by the manufacturers to influence the research
and provide the "REAL" data. One time I actually made a
recommendation to fix a $150,000.00 per month total
maintenance problem on about 2500 systems. It would cost
$1,000,000 to fix all of them and reduce the maintenance due
to failures to about $2,000.00 per month. Low maintenance
was, in a large part, sort of guaranteed by 5 year warrantees
from vendors.

Answers
1. We can't afford it
2. What will the customers say?

Result

4 million excess dollars and just over two years later, the
product was replaced by the competition with an inferior
operating product. Sure glad they were concerned about what
the customer would say.

What has that to do with this thread? It's the way dishonest
companies work and many "consultants" hide the hard truth just
to give a company what the consultant thinks the company wants
to hear. The company, in turn, claims that they "researched"
and the poor performance or negative performance MUST have
been from improper use by the customer.

I did all right. No one said I was wrong. I said they were
wrong and moved on before I might be personally associated
with the results. It was a hard decision, only 50%
increase in pay.

NoOption5L

Sat, Sep-30-06, 06:15

TC wrote:

<snip>

> > You don't need to eat grains to survive... now that's a
> > real startling revelation. But did you know that could be
> > said of any food -- meat, eggs, milk, cheese, citrus
> > fruits, beans, nuts, seeds, green beans or pumpkin pie?

> I did not say that you don't need grains to *survive*. What
> I essentially said and meant was that you can and will
> *thrive* without grains. I am saying that you must remove
> grains or at least greatly limit them from your diet in
> order to thrive.

The human race as been "thriving" on grains for thousands of
years. And are an integral part of many cultures. I'm sure if
any of these cultures suspected their beloved grain(s)
was/were curtailing/adversely affecting their people they
would have figured it out llllooooonnnnggggg ago.

> They are a nutritionally modest food. Grains are not all
> that nutritious no matter how whole grain they are.

BS! I already proved to you in a previous post that ounce for
ounce grains rivaled your precious meat. Did you not read what
I wrote or did you forget what I wrote?

> There is nothing magical about grains that we need that
> we can't get in larger amounts and in better forms from
> other foods.

"Magical"? Wow! Grains have to be "magical" to get respect
from you, huh?

Oh, I'd like to know what foods earn your "magical rating".

> They are a second rate food.

In my book, a "second rate", or cut under "magical", would be
something like... super awesome.

> And yes, you can survive, for a while at least, without
> animal-sourced foods, but you have zero chance of thriving
> on a diet bereft of animal-sourced foods.

This is the part that you continually miss. So here it is, yet
again: I am NOT advocating a diet WITHOUT animal-sourced
foods. I think meat, fish, eggs and milk are great! But
they're not "magical". They should only be a part of your
diet, so that you have plenty of room for a CONSTANT VARIETY
of fruits, veggies, nuts, seeds, spices, and whole grains.

> Get it? Surviving is NOT the same as THRIVING.

Yep, like the human race has been doing for thousands of years
while eating grains.

> > So why do you continue to crack on _whole_ grains? They're
> > packed with nutrients and fiber.

> That is it in a nutshell. You think they are "packed" with
> nutrients, which they are not.

> They lack some very important nutrients that we need to get
> from other foods.

Holy crap! Using this critera to determine what we eat would
mean we'd have to stave to death because there isn't ANY food
that offers every important nutrient.

> Like vitamin C, like some proteins, fats and collagen. Then
> there are the fat soluble vitamins, A, D, E and K.

Beef doesn't have any A, C or K and is very low in D and E. So
I guess that means you'll have to scratch that off your
shopping list too.

> Grains are poor in these important vitamins, or poor in the
> form of these vitamins that they contain. Beta-carotene
> from grains are useless to us because we cannot use them in
> that form.

You forgot to mention beef doesn't have beta-carotene either.

> And fiber is completely empty food. By definition we cannot
> get nutrients from fiber. And the whole concept of us eating
> fiber and roughage in order to maintain regular bowel
> movements is nonsense. Inuits and Eskimos were extremely
> healthy and for much of the year they ate little or no fiber
> in their diets.

Well, fruits and veggies have fiber too, and I can't find
anyone who advocates not eating them.

> The funny thing is that these grains that are supposed to
> give us this great life-saving fiber is the main culprit in
> many chronic lower GI diseases, like Chrohn's, IBS and such.
> Fiber only exarcerbates these problems in most cases.

Clarification: Grains do not cause these diseases. However,
*gluten* does the exacerbate symptoms. And some grains do not
contain [enough] gluten to exacerbate the symptoms.

> > Plus, unlike the white bread buns and crusts served in the
> > fast food places and most everywhere else, whole grain
> > breads fill you up and keep you filled up. Don't believe
> > me? Try eating a bowl of hot oatmeal in the morning.

> Are you aware that grains need to be soaked and/or fermented
> for us to maximize its usefulness as a food? And are you
> aware that no bread or flour manufacturer actually soaks or
> ferments the grains used in bread making? They are just
> ground up raw.

This thinking fits right in there with those who are
concerned about how acidic or alkaline their foods are. Are
you into that too?

> And are you aware that most, if not all, commercial whole
> grain flour is basically white flour that has been processed
> as usual, then they take some of the left over roughage
> (that would usually be used as animal feed),

WIth refined grains they remove the bran and germ and feed it
to animals because it helps them grow. And the faster they
grow the faster they can bring them to slaughter and charge
you bigger money for meat.

Oh, you forgot to mention the crap left over in MEAT packing
plants that either gets made into DOG FOOD or
hotdogs/sausages.

> and they add it back to the flour, and as long as more than
> (i think) 40% of the flour is made up of this roughage, it
> can be labelled as whole grain?

Whole grain consists of both the bran or "roughage" and germ.

> Refine and processed re-constituted "whole grain" flour is
> still overly processed crap and offer very little advantage
> overly refined and processed white flour.

"Overly processed"? Grain is ground. One process. And meat is
cooked. One process.

> > > Name me one vegetable oil that is not refined. Except
> > > for extra virgin olive oil. Name me one that isn't
> > > heated, treated, filtered and processed to death. Do you
> > > know what they do to corn oil, canola oil, soy oil and
> > > other vegetable oils before it is poured in a bottle and
> > > shipped to your grocer? You would be surprised how
> > > heavily processed it actually is. It is rendered as dead
> > > a food as refined white flour and ultra high temp
> > > pasteurized milk. These foods are processed to death and
> > > it does not matter how fancy, glossy and green the label
> > > is, it is still a dead food.

> > Have you seen the processing that takes place in our meat
> > industry and packing plants? If you have, why don't you
> > EVER mention it?

> I get my meat from the local butcher who gets it from a
> local farmer who feeds them the best feeds he can. Other
> than a knife and a band saw, there is no more "processing"
> involved other than hanging the carcass in a cold room for a
> week or three.

Is it certified organic? And how do you cook your meat?

> > > There is nothing mischievous about the crap that is
> > > foisted upon us as supposedly healthy foods.

> > I agree. My beef <no pun intended> is that you EXCLUSIVELY
> > rail against grains/carbs, but NEVER say a negative word
> > about the dog food served in fast food restaurants and
> > elsewhere that the meat industry calls fit for human
> > consumption.

> > So I for one would like to know why you're so damned
> > biased.

> I don't go on against the meat processing because I do not
> buy processed meat.

And apparently you don't buy any grains, but that hasn't
stopped you from lambasting them in every one of your posts.
So, again, why are you so damned biased?

> Especially the new concoctions with a ingredients label 5
> inches long filled with binder, colorants, preservatives and
> added soy protein isolates. These are perversions of what
> real food is supposed to be. I buy real meat like I buy real
> produce.

And most of the meat in supermarkets is from animals doped up
with all sorts of chemicals.

> If you look at all the fake manufactured foods in the centre
> aisles of the grocery stores, verye very few of them are not
> carbohydrates and very very few of them are not perversities
> of grains. Whether labelled "whole grains" or not, the vast
> majority of the frankenfoods being sold in boxes with fancy
> graphics aimed at kids are grain foods and are extremely
> processed and full of colorants, preservatives and
> high-pressure high-temperature extruded grain starches. And
> the mainstream has done all it can to keep this crap food
> under the radar.

"Mainstream" you mean corporations. Do you know what goes on
behind the walls of the meat industry's (corporations)
packing plants?

If not, check it out. You'll like this!

http://www.meat.org/

> To this day, medical "experts" tell you to cut the "bad"
> animal fats and eat the "good" grains, and that is complete
> bullshit.

The advice is, and has been, lean meat (like wild animals or
*naturally raised* farm animals are), fish and to include good
[whole] grains in your diet. And there's [still] nothing wrong
with this advice.

> In the last 30 years when obesity and chronic disease has
> quadrupled, grain and carb consumption went up by about 12%

Is it grains or just carbs in general? And what percentage of
the grains is whole?

The overall percntage I can believe because most people now
drink soda, "fruit" juices, and "sport" drinks instead of
water. In fact, I've heard people say they don't even drink
water because they don't like
it/it doesn't taste like anything. Did you take this
into account?

> while animal fat consumption has gone down about 10%,

And McDonalds has sold so many hamburgers in the last thirty
years they stopped counting.

> and this happened in perfect co-ordination with the increase
> in obesity and chronic disease.

And you conveniently forgot to mention that people have grown
MUCH more sedentary in the last 30 years. Geeze, I wonder if a
lack of exercise would have anything to do with this?

> If you want ot be fat and sick, keep it up. Eat your grains.
> I upped my animal-source fat and protein consumption and cut
> my grain consumption and lost my 25 excess pounds easily.

And you still have a 35"+ waist. Let me know when you get in
down to under a *healthy* 32" like this grain eater has/and
every male should.

> My family and I went from dozens of prescriptions per year
> to none, zero, zip, nada. No more IBS, no more hunger from
> trying to eat less, no more throat infections, colds, flus,
> etc. I haven't had a sick day in years. And I eat virtually
> no grains.

And I eat plenty of grains and I'm in better health than you.

> My BMs are perfectly regular and normal. I need no
> stinking fiber.

If you're eating fruit and veggies, you're getting
fiber... trust me.

> I've seen the difference first hand regarding eating copious
> amounts of supposedly unhealthy animal-sourced foods vs.
> eating supposed healthy grains. And what I've seen is not
> what you and the medical "experts" are keep insisting on.

Somehow I highly doubt you were you eating *whole* grains
prior to your change in diet? I have the feeling you didn't
have a clue until you picked up your Zone Diet book and then
cut out all enriched flour products. And now think you think
you're improved health is the result of not eating any grain,
whole grain included. There's a problem with this/your
thinking, you know?

> Grains are the bane of human existence. They are completely
> un-necessary and, in fact, are contrary to what we need to
> be healthy.

Yea, sure... grains they've been an integral part of many
cultures for thousands of years and now, somehow, they're
taboo... you're funny...

Patrick

Mr. Natura

Sat, Sep-30-06, 06:15

NoOption5L@aol.com wrote:

> The human race as been "thriving" on grains for thousands of
> years. And are an integral part of many cultures. I'm sure
> if any of these cultures suspected their beloved grain(s)
> was/were curtailing/adversely affecting their people they
> would have figured it out llllooooonnnnggggg ago.

Please, ... please, please let us not forget that TC is
obviously mentally challenged.

Human culture says we have to tolerate Dumb-Arses like TC.

Hell no!!!

TC, you suck!

Just thought that TC might want to know.

Vernon

Sat, Sep-30-06, 06:15

"TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159558421.119280.30570@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Roman Bystrianyk wrote:
>> Vernon wrote:
>> > "Roman Bystrianyk" <rbystrianyk@gmail.com> wrote in
>> > message news:1159447850.241714.190250@h48g2000cwc.google-
>> > groups.com...
>> > > FYI
>> > >
>> > > Roman Bystrianyk, "Vegetable protein lowers high blood
>> > > pressure", Health Sentinel, May 1, 2006,
>> >
>> > Totally wrong. A lie. Increased intake of vegetables is
>> > the result of the study.
>> >
>> Karen Pallarito, "Veggie Diet May Lower High Blood
>> Pressure", ABC News, January 21, 2005, Link: http://www.fo-
>> rbes.com/lifestyle/health/feeds/hscout/2005/01/21/hscout52-
>> 3461.html
>>
>> Vegetarians tend to have lower blood pressure than the
>> general population, but it hasn't been clear whether their
>> diet or their lifestyle guards them against hypertension.
>>
>> Now, a new review of previously published studies claims
>> that diet provides the protection.
>>
>> "It's the diet itself, and it is clearly the diet of choice
>> for people who want to get their blood pressure under
>> control," said Dr. Neal D. Barnard, president and founder
>> of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and
>> co-author of the report, which appears in the January issue
>> of Nutrition Reviews.
>>
>> Barnard, a nutritionist and author of the book Breaking the
>> Food Seduction: The Hidden Reasons Behind Food Cravings and
>> Seven Steps to End Them Naturally, concluded that a person
>> who suffers from hypertension and has yet to switch to a
>> vegetarian diet is "really trying to fight their condition
>> with one arm tied behind their back."
>>
>> About 65 million American adults have high blood pressure,
>> according to the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
>> Hypertension is often called the "silent killer" because it
>> usually has no symptoms but leads to increased risk for
>> heart disease, congestive heart failure, stroke and kidney
>> failure.
>>
>> Barnard and committee nutritionist Susan Berkow analyzed 80
>> scientific studies, including observational studies of
>> individuals on vegetarian diets compared with
>> non-vegetarians and randomized, controlled trials in which
>> outcomes of people who switch to a plant-based diet were
>> compared with control subjects.
>>
>> "The purpose of our review was to bring together what is
>> known about the effect of the diet, but also what we know
>> about the mechanism and try to explain why this occurs,"
>> Barnard explained.
>>
>> Some of the best observational data, according to the
>> report, come from studies involving Seventh-Day Adventists,
>> who advocate an alcohol-free, tobacco-free, vegetarian
>> lifestyle. About 50 percent of Adventists follow a
>> lacto-ovo-vegetarian diet, which includes dairy products
>> and eggs, the authors noted.
>>
>> One study involving California Adventists found that
>> vegetarians have about half the prevalence of hypertension
>> compared to non-vegetarian Adventists. When hypertensives
>> were defined as those taking medication intended to reduce
>> their blood pressure, a nearly threefold difference in the
>> prevalence of hypertension was seen between the groups.
>>
>> Overall, the randomized controlled trials included in the
>> review found that blood pressure is lowered when animal
>> products were replaced with vegetable products in both
>> people with normal blood pressure and those who are
>> hypertensive.
>>
>> To understand the blood-pressure-lowering effects of a
>> plant-based diet, the authors examined changes in body
>> weight and intake of specific food groups and nutrients.
>>
>> Studies show that vegetarians tend to be slimmer, on
>> average, which may help explain their lower incidence of
>> hypertension. A vegetarian diet also is significantly lower
>> in saturated fat, reducing the viscosity, or thickness, of
>> the blood.
>>
>> Blood becomes "less like oil, more like water," Barnard
>> explained.
>>
>> And because vegetarian diets are generally high in fruits
>> and vegetables, people who follow this diet consume more
>> potassium than those who eat a diet of meat and vegetables.
>> The analysis cites two reviews involving a total of 52
>> randomized clinical trials showing potassium
>> supplementation significantly lowered blood pressure in
>> people with normal and elevated blood pressure.
>>
>> There are those who disagree with the finding, however.
>>
>> Dr. Lawrence J. Appel, a nutrition specialist at the Johns
>> Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said the
>> paper fails to establish a clear cause-and-effect
>> relationship between consuming a plant-based diet and
>> lowering one's blood pressure.
>>
>> "It's a good review, but there are still unanswered
>> questions," he said.
>>
>> He also noted that very few clinical trials have been
>> conducted, and that those that have been done are small and
>> not tightly controlled. Much of the data is observational.
>>
>> So, he said, it remains unclear whether a vegetarian diet
>> alone is responsible for lowering blood pressure or whether
>> some aspect of a vegetarian regimen -- such as eating lots
>> of fruits and vegetables rich in potassiumand fiber while
>> maintaining a desirable body weight -- could have the same
>> effect.
>>
>> And then there there is the fact that not everyone who has
>> high blood pressure eats poorly or is overweight; genetic
>> factors significantly influence a person's risk for
>> hypertension.
>>
>> Still, Barnard insists a vegetarian diet is healthy for
>> everyone, whether or not they have high blood pressure.
>>
>> He offers this caveat for people taking blood pressure
>> medication: "Don't throw your medication in the trash."
>> High blood pressure is a serious medical condition
>> requiring immediate medical attention. Even if you switch
>> to a vegetarian diet to trim down, you won't lose the
>> weight overnight, he said. It could take more than a year
>> for a person who is 60 pounds overweight to drop that
>> excess baggage.
>>
>> Barnard hopes the review will prompt more doctors to
>> recommend a vegetarian diet. Many are reluctant to do
>> because they fear that patients won't stick with it, but
>> there's no reason to believe patients would be less likely
>> to go vegetarian than to comply with other diets, he said.
>>
>> "They may not hit the mark 100 percent, but they'd do much
>> better if a doctor recommended it," he said.
>>
>> Barnard's group, the physicians committee, is a Washington,
>> D.C.-based nonprofit that promotes good nutrition, opposes
>> unethical human experimentation and advocates alternatives
>> to animal research.
>
> I always find the "scientific" findings of non-practicing
> psychiatrists and head of radical vegan and animal rights
> groups sooooooo convincing on the topic of nutrition.
>
> TC

he he he he he he he It's like asking Dean the facts of
Bush or V.V.

Vernon

Sat, Sep-30-06, 06:15

<NoOption5L@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1159591885.769664.144610@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> TC wrote:
>
> BS! I already proved to you in a previous post that ounce
> for ounce grains rivaled your precious meat. Did you not
> read what I wrote or did you forget what I wrote?
>

Meat is basic. Grains are not basic. No amount of grains can
give the proteins (ounce for ounce) No amount of grains can
provide the required amino acids compared to meat. No amount
of nutrients can correct the mental aberrations of vegans.

Max C.

Sat, Sep-30-06, 17:16

NoOption5L@aol.com wrote:
> TC wrote: <snip>
> > I did not say that you don't need grains to *survive*.
> > What I essentially said and meant was that you can and
> > will *thrive* without grains. I am saying that you must
> > remove grains or at least greatly limit them from your
> > diet in order to thrive.
>
> The human race as been "thriving" on grains for thousands of
> years. And are an integral part of many cultures. I'm sure
> if any of these cultures suspected their beloved grain(s)
> was/were curtailing/adversely affecting their people they
> would have figured it out llllooooonnnnggggg ago.

Wow... you really don't know your history. The Egyptians lived
primarily on grains and suffered horrible health as a result.
Have you ever seen even one of the documentaries on the health
of Egyptian mummies? Even their royalty was in poor health.
Their teeth were greatly worn, their bones were brittle and
they weren't that long lived. They showed signs of poor
overall health:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mummy "Ancient Egyptian mummies
from circa 3200 BC show signs of severe anemia and hemolitic
disorders."

I'm especially amused by your assumption that suspicion of a
food as the source of a problem would automatically lead to
abondment of that food. That's certainly not what has happened
in modern times with things like high fructose corn syrup and
trans fats. We KNOW those foods are killing us, yet millions
of people continue to eat them every day.

> > They are a nutritionally modest food. Grains are not all
> > that nutritiou=
s no matter how whole
> > grain they are.
>
> BS! I already proved to you in a previous post that ounce
> for ounce grains rivaled your precious meat. Did you not
> read what I wrote or did you forget what I wrote?

I couldn't find such a post, but I'd be interested to read it.
Could you please provide a link?

> > There is nothing magical about grains that we need that we
> > can't get in=
larger amounts
> > and in better forms from other foods.
>
> "Magical"? Wow! Grains have to be "magical" to get respect
> from you, huh?
>
> Oh, I'd like to know what foods earn your "magical rating".

If you read the history of raw milk from grass fed cows,
especially as it pertained to medical treatment in the 19th
century, I think you'd agree that it had near magical
qualities.

This might be a good place to start:

http://www.karlloren.com/aajonus/p15.htm The British journal
The Lancet reported, "Resistance to tuberculosis increased in
children fed raw milk instead of pasteurized, to the point
that in five years only one case of pulmonary TB had
developed, whereas in the previous five years, when children
had been given pasteurized milk, 14 cases of pulmonary TB had
developed."

Hippocrates, the father of medicine, prescribed raw milk for
tuberculosis.

Johns Hopkins University and the University of Maryland found
that raw cows milk contains 2=BD times more of the enzyme lgG
than pasteurized
milk. This important enzyme inhibits rotavirus organisms that
cause diarrhea in infants.

Really, that page is full of examples of the "magic" of raw
milk. It's a good read.

> > They are a second rate food.
>
> In my book, a "second rate", or cut under "magical", would
> be something like... super awesome.

Given the topic, I assume you're talking about grains. What is
it that's "super awesome" about grains?

> > And yes, you can survive, for a while at least, without
> > animal-sourced foods, but you have zero chance of thriving
> > on a diet bereft of animal-sourced foods.
>
> This is the part that you continually miss. So here it is,
> yet again: I am NOT advocating a diet WITHOUT animal-sourced
> foods. I think meat, fish, eggs and milk are great! But
> they're not "magical". They should only be a part of your
> diet, so that you have plenty of room for a CONSTANT VARIETY
> of fruits, veggies, nuts, seeds, spices, and whole grains.
>
> > Get it? Surviving is NOT the same as THRIVING.
>
> Yep, like the human race has been doing for thousands of
> years while eating grains.

Really, you need to read the history of the health of the
Egyptians. You'll quickly see that they ate grains as a staple
food and suffered for it. They certainly did not thrive as the
traditional people studied by Weston Price did.

> > > So why do you continue to crack on _whole_ grains?
> > > They're packed wi=
th
> > > nutrients and fiber.
>
> > That is it in a nutshell. You think they are "packed" with
> > nutrients, which they are not.
>
> > They lack some very important nutrients that we need to
> > get from other =
foods.
>
> Holy crap! Using this critera to determine what we eat would
> mean we'd have to stave to death because there isn't ANY
> food that offers every important nutrient.
>
> > Like vitamin C, like some proteins, fats and collagen.
> > Then there are t=
he fat soluble
> > vitamins, A, D, E and K.
>
> Beef doesn't have any A, C or K and is very low in D and E.
> So I guess that means you'll have to scratch that off your
> shopping list too.

That's only true if you exclude everything but the muscle
tissue. Traditionally, humans ate practically every part of
the kill. For example:

http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/cgi-bin/list_nut_edit.pl

You can see here that liver has many of the nutrients you
claim aren't in beef.

> > Grains are poor in these important vitamins, or poor in
> > the form of these vitamins that they contain.
> > Beta-carotene from grains are useless to us because we
> > cannot use them in that form.
>
> You forgot to mention beef doesn't have beta-carotene
> either.

Beta carotene is converted into vitamin A once inside the
body. I've seen estimates that say it takes 4 units of beta
carotene to make 1 unit of vitamin A. Then there are some
people whose bodies can barely make the conversion at all.

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2001/010323.htm "About half of
Burri's 45 volunteers--male and female--didn't take up much
beta-carotene at all. And about half of the volunteers didn't
form much vitamin A from the beta-carotene they did absorb."

> > And fiber is completely empty food. By definition we
> > cannot get nutrients from fiber. And the whole concept of
> > us eating fiber and roughage in order to maintain regular
> > bowel movements is nonsense. Inuits and Eskimos were
> > extremely healthy and for much of the year they ate little
> > or no fiber in their diets.
>
> Well, fruits and veggies have fiber too, and I can't find
> anyone who advocates not eating them.

That assumes that grains have similar nutritional profiles as
fruits and vegetables, which is not the case. Even *IF* you
find a grain that has similar nutrients as a fruit, many of
the nutrients in the grain will be bound up by phytonutrients
in the grain designed to keep the seed alive while waiting for
the right time to germinate. Such bound nutrients would not be
available to the human body.

> > The funny thing is that these grains that are supposed to
> > give us this great life-saving fiber is the main culprit
> > in many chronic lower GI diseases, like Chrohn's, IBS and
> > such. Fiber only exarcerbates these problems in most
> > cases.
>
> Clarification: Grains do not cause these diseases. However,
> *gluten* does the exacerbate symptoms. And some grains do
> not contain [enough] gluten to exacerbate the symptoms.

That's very debatable. At the very least, it can cause
enteropathy, which can have identical symptoms as IBS.

http://www.drhotze.com/EN/online_articles/391.html "Gluten
is a protein that is mainly found in four grains: wheat,
rye, oats, and barley. (Yes, that's toast, rye crackers,
oatmeal, and barley soup!) Enteropathy is quite simply
defined as a disease of the gastrointestinal tract. In this
case, the disease is caused by gluten. Some people are
extremely allergic to gluten, and some of the symptoms are
identical to IBS."

> > > Plus, unlike the white bread buns and crusts served in
> > > the fast food places and most everywhere else, whole
> > > grain breads fill you up and keep you filled up. Don't
> > > believe me? Try eating a bowl of hot oatmeal in the
> > > morning.
>
> > Are you aware that grains need to be soaked and/or
> > fermented for us to maximize its usefulness as a food? And
> > are you aware that no bread or flour manufacturer actually
> > soaks or ferments the grains used in bread making? They
> > are just ground up raw.
>
> This thinking fits right in there with those who are
> concerned about how acidic or alkaline their foods are. Are
> you into that too?

The pH levels of food as it is eaten is unimportant. What *IS*
important is the pH levels of what's left after the food has
been digested (often called "ash.") Every fluid in the body
has an ideal pH range. Eating a lot of food with ash balanced
in one direction or the other can cause problems. For example,
if you eat a lot of foods that present alkaline ash, body
fluids will begin to rise in pH. Orange juice is probably the
best example of this. The juice itself is acidic, with a pH
around 3.5. However, once the citric acid is burned off by
digestion, you're left with alkaline minerals like calcium,
sodium, magnesium and potassium.

I'm curious to know if you think that pH is completely
unimportant.

> > And are you aware that most, if not all, commercial whole
> > grain flour is basically white flour that has been
> > processed as usual, then they take some of the left over
> > roughage (that would usually be used as animal feed),
>
> WIth refined grains they remove the bran and germ and feed
> it to animals because it helps them grow. And the faster
> they grow the faster they can bring them to slaughter and
> charge you bigger money for meat.

This is one of my favorite vegan arguments (not saying you're
vegan.) I constantly hear from them how humans' digestive
tracts are more like an obligate herbavore's than a
carnivore's. Of course, that's completely wrong, but the same
people that make that claim also claim that we should be
eating plenty of grains... ignoring that grains are what's
used to fatten cows before slaughter. Those cows also get very
sick while eating grains and are in need of constant
antibiotics and antacids.

> Oh, you forgot to mention the crap left over in MEAT packing
> plants that either gets made into DOG FOOD or
> hotdogs/sausages.
>
> > and they add it back to the flour, and as long as more
> > than (i think) 40% of the flour is made up of this
> > roughage, it can be labelled as whole grain?
>
> Whole grain consists of both the bran or "roughage"
> and germ.
>
> > Refine and processed re-constituted "whole grain" flour is
> > still overly processed crap and offer very little
> > advantage overly refined and processed white flour.
>
> "Overly processed"? Grain is ground. One process. And meat
> is cooked. One process.

That's not necessarily true. According to US law, a "whole
grain" product only has to contain about 1/2 whole grain. The
rest can legally be refined flour. Of course this doesn't even
begin to address the rancidity of the fat in the grain. Grain
oil is highly polyunsaturated. Polyunsaturated fats are the
most unstable of all the fats. They go rancid very quickly
when exposed to air. According to
Dr. Royal Lee of the Standard Process vitamin company, once
you crack open a grain seed, you have about 10 days before
the fats in it have become completely rancid and all of
the vitamin E is gone. That assumes that the grain is at
room temperature and not exposed to sunlight.

> > > > Name me one vegetable oil that is not refined. Except
> > > > for extra vir=
gin
> > > > olive oil. Name me one that isn't heated, treated,
> > > > filtered and processed to death. Do you know what they
> > > > do to corn oil, canola oi=
l,
> > > > soy oil and other vegetable oils before it is poured
> > > > in a bottle and shipped to your grocer? You would be
> > > > surprised how heavily processe=
d it
> > > > actually is. It is rendered as dead a food as refined
> > > > white flour a=
nd
> > > > ultra high temp pasteurized milk. These foods are
> > > > processed to death and it does not matter how fancy,
> > > > glossy and green the label is, it=
is
> > > > still a dead food.
>
> > > Have you seen the processing that takes place in our
> > > meat industry and packing plants? If you have, why don't
> > > you EVER mention it?
>
> > I get my meat from the local butcher who gets it from a
> > local farmer who feeds them the best feeds he can. Other
> > than a knife and a band saw, there is no more "processing"
> > involved other than hanging the carcass in a cold room for
> > a week or three.

The best feed would be grass. The fat ratios in grass fed beef
are almost exactly what the human body requires. Once you
start feeding a cow grains, the omega 6 PUFAs start increasing
while the omega 3 PUFAs decrease. That higher ratio has been
linked to heart disease.

> Is it certified organic? And how do you cook your meat?

Certified organic does not mean grass fed. While it's better
than conventional, it is more than likely coming from cows
eating an improper diet.

> > > > There is nothing mischievous about the crap that is
> > > > foisted upon us=
as
> > > > supposedly healthy foods.
>
> > > I agree. My beef <no pun intended> is that you
> > > EXCLUSIVELY rail against grains/carbs, but NEVER say a
> > > negative word about the dog food served in fast food
> > > restaurants and elsewhere that the meat industry calls
> > > fit for human consumption.
>
> > > So I for one would like to know why you're so damned
> > > biased.
>
> > I don't go on against the meat processing because I do not
> > buy processed meat.
>
> And apparently you don't buy any grains, but that hasn't
> stopped you from lambasting them in every one of your posts.
> So, again, why are you so damned biased?

It could be that he's one of the many, MANY people that have
discovered that he is sensitive to gluten. People make that
discovery every day.

> > Especially the new concoctions with a ingredients label 5
> > inches long filled with binder, colorants, preservatives
> > and added soy protein isolates. These are perversions of
> > what real food is supposed to be. I buy real meat like I
> > buy real produce.
>
> And most of the meat in supermarkets is from animals doped
> up with all sorts of chemicals.
>
> > If you look at all the fake manufactured foods in the
> > centre aisles of the grocery stores, verye very few of
> > them are not carbohydrates and very very few of them are
> > not perversities of grains. Whether labelled "whole
> > grains" or not, the vast majority of the frankenfoods
> > being sold in boxes with fancy graphics aimed at kids are
> > grain foods and are extremely processed and full of
> > colorants, preservatives and high-pressure
> > high-temperature extruded grain starches. And the
> > mainstream has done all it can to keep this crap food
> > under the radar.
>
> "Mainstream" you mean corporations. Do you know what goes on
> behind the walls of the meat industry's (corporations)
> packing plants?
>
> If not, check it out. You'll like this!
>
> http://www.meat.org/
>
> > To this day, medical "experts" tell you to cut the "bad"
> > animal fats and eat the "good" grains, and that is
> > complete bullshit.
>
> The advice is, and has been, lean meat (like wild animals or
> *naturally raised* farm animals are), fish and to include
> good [whole] grains in your diet. And there's [still]
> nothing wrong with this advice.
>
> > In the last 30 years when obesity and chronic disease has
> > quadrupled, g=
rain and
> > carb consumption went up by about 12%
>
> Is it grains or just carbs in general? And what percentage
> of the grains is whole?
>
> The overall percntage I can believe because most people now
> drink soda, "fruit" juices, and "sport" drinks instead of
> water. In fact, I've heard people say they don't even drink
> water because they don't like
> it/it doesn't taste like anything. Did you take this into
> account?
>
> > while animal fat consumption has gone down about 10%,
>
> And McDonalds has sold so many hamburgers in the last thirty
> years they stopped counting.

I love how people try to use McDonalds as proof that eating
meat is bad for you. Ever see "SuperSize Me" ? At the very end
the vegan girlfriend is blathering away and says something
like "Look at what all the saturated fat did to you." Yeah,
that's it. It had to be the saturated fat. It couldn't have
been all the refined carbs... or the trans fats... or the
rancid fats from the cooking oil... or any of the other
unpronounceable ingredients.

> > and this happened in perfect co-ordination with the
> > increase in obesity=
and chronic
> > disease.
>
> And you conveniently forgot to mention that people have
> grown MUCH more sedentary in the last 30 years. Geeze, I
> wonder if a lack of exercise would have anything to do
> with this?

30 years? What happened 30 years ago that allowed humans to be
more sedentary than, say, 40 or 50 years ago?

> > If you want ot be fat and sick, keep it up. Eat your
> > grains. I upped my animal-source fat and protein
> > consumption and cut my grain consumption and lost my 25
> > excess pounds easily.
>
> And you still have a 35"+ waist. Let me know when you get in
> down to under a *healthy* 32" like this grain eater has/and
> every male should.

First, I'm a 32" waist and 5' 10". Second, that doesn't
mean I'm healthy. Weight loss can be a symptom of disease.
Don't confuse weight with health. I know a very tall woman
that biked from Houston to Austin... and she weighed 275
at the time.

> > My family and I went from dozens of prescriptions per year
> > to none, zero, zip, nada. No more IBS, no more hunger from
> > trying to eat less, no more throat infections, colds,
> > flus, etc. I haven't had a sick day in years. And I eat
> > virtually no grains.
>
> And I eat plenty of grains and I'm in better health
> than you.

Based on what evidence?

> > My BMs are perfectly regular and normal. I need no
> > stinking fiber.
>
> If you're eating fruit and veggies, you're getting fiber...
> trust me.

But the point is that it's not needed to have a BM. Take his
example of the Inuit Eskimos.

> > I've seen the difference first hand regarding eating
> > copious amounts of supposedly unhealthy animal-sourced
> > foods vs. eating supposed healthy grains. And what I've
> > seen is not what you and the medical "experts" are keep
> > insisting on.
>
> Somehow I highly doubt you were you eating *whole* grains
> prior to your change in diet? I have the feeling you didn't
> have a clue until you picked up your Zone Diet book and then
> cut out all enriched flour products. And now think you think
> you're improved health is the result of not eating any
> grain, whole grain included. There's a problem with
> this/your thinking, you know?

Ds. Joseph Mercola has written a great deal about the health
implications of grains, whole or otherwise. This is more
than just a fad. There is real science behind the idea of
avoiding grains.

> > Grains are the bane of human existence. They are
> > completely un-necessary and, in fact, are contrary to what
> > we need to be healthy.
>
> Yea, sure... grains they've been an integral part of many
> cultures for thousands of years and now, somehow, they're
> taboo... you're funny...
>
> Patrick

Thousands of years is a drop in the bucket compared to human
existence. It is unfortunate that we have little information
about life expectancy before man started farming. As of now,
there's really no indisputable way to say that the advent of
grain farming increased or decreased average life expectancy.

Max.

Mr. Natura

Sat, Sep-30-06, 17:16

Max C. wrote:
> NoOption5L@aol.com wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mummy
> "Ancient Egyptian mummies from circa 3200 BC show signs of
> severe anemia and hemolitic disorders."
>
> I'm especially amused by your assumption that suspicion of a
> food as the source of a problem would automatically lead to
> abondment of that food. That's certainly not what has
> happened in modern times with things like high fructose corn
> syrup and trans fats. We KNOW those foods are killing us,
> yet millions of people continue to eat them every day.

We went over this Eygptian crap before, Moron!

There is absolutely no evidence about the actual longevity of
the ancient eyptians. Absolutely none. Furthermore, there is
absolutely no evidence concerning the exact diet of a
particular mummy, their working conditions, etc., etc., etc.
Ancient Eygpt happens to cover a period of thousands of years.
There is no evidence concerning either their precise diet,
their precise lifestyle, nor their precise longevity.

The little that I was able to verify was that these
ancient Egyptians were pretty much drunk all day long from
drinking beer. :)

As usual it is just pure wild and totally irresponsible
conjecture on your part. Which is totally typical of ALL
research regarding the paleolithic diet and / or
anti-grain diet.

Just total B/S on your part, and I do NOT mind saying so.

Max C.

Sun, Oct-01-06, 06:17

Mr. Natural-Health wrote:
> Max C. wrote:
> > NoOption5L@aol.com wrote:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mummy "Ancient Egyptian
> > mummies from circa 3200 BC show signs of severe anemia and
> > hemolitic disorders."
> >
> > I'm especially amused by your assumption that suspicion of
> > a food as the source of a problem would automatically lead
> > to abondment of that food. That's certainly not what has
> > happened in modern times with things like high fructose
> > corn syrup and trans fats. We KNOW those foods are killing
> > us, yet millions of people continue to eat them every day.
>
> We went over this Eygptian crap before, Moron!
>
> There is absolutely no evidence about the actual longevity
> of the ancient eyptians. Absolutely none. Furthermore, there
> is absolutely no evidence concerning the exact diet of a
> particular mummy, their working conditions, etc., etc., etc.
> Ancient Eygpt happens to cover a period of thousands of
> years. There is no evidence concerning either their precise
> diet, their precise lifestyle, nor their precise longevity.

If you remember going over it, then why don't you remember
anything from the discussion? Let me help you out.

http://tinyurl.com/j2qhf

In the above link, you said:

"Here is one example.
http://www.uic.edu/classes/osci/osci590/11_1Epidemiology.htm

That web pages states that the Egyptians wore out their teeth.
And, ended up catching an infection. This could explain why
most Egyptians died in their 30's?"

So, at one time you understood that Egyptians commonly
died in their
30s. You also knew that they had bad teeth. Weston Price
positively linked poor teeth to poor diet. He was a
dentist, you know.

So, it would appear you're the moron. You can't even remember
what you typed.

Of course, it was around that same time that you were claiming
that diseases like arteriosclerosis were only found in modern
times. I presented you with evidence to the contrary that went
like this:

"http://www2.tulane.edu/article_news_details.cfm?ArticleID=2-
916 "Study of Egyptian mummies has revealed the presence of
schistosomiasis (a parasitic disease that continues to plague
Egypt), bone disorders and vascular diseases such as
arteriosclerosis. Evidence of these diseases in ancient
populations sheds light on the causes of disease. The
presence of arteriosclerosis, for example, shows that the
stress of a modern, civilized life is not the sole cause of
heart disease."

That one paragraph completely debunks your position that these
diseases are only found in modern times. "

So, strike 2.

> The little that I was able to verify was that these ancient
> Egyptians were pretty much drunk all day long from drinking
> beer. :)

I can't help that you're incapable of performing even a basic
search on the internet. If you've ever heard of Google, I
think it might help you. When I used it, it took me about 2
seconds to find this:

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/diet.htm And what's
the title of this page? "The Diet of the Ancient Egyptians"

Now, how could this page have been written if we can't find
precise information about their diet? The answer is, we DO
have precise information. Lest you forget, the Egyptians were
great at documentation. We have written accounts of much of
their lives. From that page:

"For the common people of Egypt, cereal foods formed the main
backbone of their diet from the predynastic period onward.
Even for The Diet of the Ancient Egyptians the rich, this
staple mean generally consisted of a variety of different
breads, often with other ingredients mixed in."

It's also funny that you admit that they drank a lot of beer
and still wonder how much grain was in their diet. Either you
don't know how beer is made or your just playing dumb hoping
the rest of us don't know how it's made. For the record, beer
is made from fermented grains.

Here's another page with some info about ancient Egyptian
food: http://www2.sptimes.com/Egypt/EgyptCredit.4.2.html "Beer
was the most popular beverage, and bread was the staple food
in the Egyptian diet. The beer was made with barley. The
barley was left to dry, and then baked into loaves of bread.
The baked barley loaves were then broken into pieces and mixed
with the dried grain in a large jug of water and left to
ferment. Wine was a drink that was produced by the Egyptians,
however, it was usually found only at the tables of the
wealthy. To make the bread, women ground wheat into flour. The
flour was then pounded by men to make a fine grain. Sesame
seeds, honey, fruit, butter, and herbs were often added to the
dough to help flavor the bread."

So, I don't know what to tell you except that you must be
really bad at searching the web... and that your memory needs
some serious help. Maybe if you'd cut back on your grain
intake. ;)

Now for strike 3. You claim we don't know about a mummy's
diet. Again, it took me 2 seconds to find this:

http://www2.uiuc.edu/unit/ATAM/mummy/diet.html "Chemical and
isotopic analyses of collagen and carbonate preserved in
ancient bone make it possible for archaeologists to
reconstruct some human diets. Tiny samples of mummy bone were
taken to the stable isotope laboratory in the department of
Anthropology at the University of Illinois."

Stable isotope analysis can reveal quite a bit about the
overall diet of a particular mummy. So, feel free to keep
making stuff up, but I'll feel free to keep putting you in
your place with facts.

> As usual it is just pure wild and totally irresponsible
> conjecture on your part. Which is totally typical of ALL
> research regarding the paleolithic diet and / or
> anti-grain diet.
>
> Just total B/S on your part, and I do NOT mind saying so.

You don't mind saying a lot of things... most of which are
untrue. I can't help but laugh at you. After all this time
you're still here picking fights with what amounts to
outright lies... trying to pass of your BS as if it were
fact... and then when you're proven wrong the best you can
come up with are shallow insults. The irony is that an insult
from you is no insult. You're so pathetic that your insults
only draw more pity.

Max.

NoOption5L

Sun, Oct-01-06, 06:17

Vernon wrote:

> Too much grain in relation to all other sources of calories.
> Note calories, not volume or food. Some grains are good for
> fiber. Excess carbs are excess carbs.

And excess fat is excess fat and excess protein is excess
protein. If you don't burn up the excess calories any of them
provide it turns to fat.

> It is nearly impossible to have much grains and still have
> room in a good diet for vegetables, fruits, oils, proteins.

Huh? A closer to accurate statement would be 'nearly
impossible to have much meat & oils and have room in a good
diet for vegatables and fruits'?

4 oz of *lean* beef tenderloin = 240 calories 1 cup of bulgur
wheat = 151 calories

> Then there is el fatto American diet.

I think one of the most overlooked sources of calories in the
typical "el fatto American diet" is liquids - sodas, fruit
punches and sports drinks. People down numerous cans & bottles
of this crap every day and then turn right around and eat
because the drinks don't fill them up. If you measure the
calories from a few cans/bottles of this stuff, it adds up to
an extra mini meal every day.

> Then there is the "Oh it's unrefined", "It's the pure
> stuff", "It's organic"

What's wrong with unrefined, pure stuff and organic?

> Then there are the real sickos who consume sugar as if it
> were a nutrient.

Agreed.

> >> >> > to make no mention of, or worse completely
> >> >> > exonerate, deep-fried [Long John Silver's] fish,

> >> >> with a large order of chips and a large soda

> >> > Instead exchange for: Broiled salmon + baked sweet
> >> > potato + green tea

> >> Baked sweet potato or yams are some of my favorites but
> >> carrots, bell peppers, onions are really good and a lot
> >> better choice.

> > Saying the others are "a lot better choice" than a sweet
> > potato or yam is like saying strawberries are a lot better
> > choice than blueberries. It depends... it all depends on
> > what you're measuring for. But I don't measure food this
> > way. I know they each bring their own special,
> > good-for-you properties so it's best to constantly eat a
> > variety.

> >> >> > greasy [Big Mac/Burger

> >> >> with a super sized fry and a 3/4 gallon jug of sugar
> >> >> water

> >> > Replace with: Lean roast beef + whole wheat bread +
> >> > romaine lettuce + tomatos + water with a slice of lemon

> >> Of course you could get real. People have a life and work
> >> for a living and one of the worst things one can do is
> >> bring their lunch. Going out (anyplace) is the most
> >> healthy thing one can do.

> > Hahahahahaha.... funny stuff... this IS a joke, right?

> >> >> > King/Wendy's] double-bacon cheeseburgers,

> >> >> and a fries and drink

> >> > Replace with: Ostrich burger + spinach salad + glass of
> >> > milk

> >> >> > slimey [Kentucky Fried] chicken,

> >> >> and a fries and drink

> >> > Replace with: Baked chicken breast + brown rice + glass
> >> > of fresh squeezed orange juice

> >> Brown rice? why? How about wild rice or cooked raw rice?

> > Because it's whole grain.

> Brown rice is brown rice. You have obviously never been
> associated with the industry enough to know how they make
> nearly white rice brown.

It depends on what brands and style of brown rice you buy.

> > Wild rice is good too.

> > "Cooked raw rice" ?

> Yes

Please define.

> >> >> > and artery-stopping [Pizza Hut] "Meat Lovers" pizza
> >> >> > is a huge disservice to this NG.

> >> >> on a one-inch thick white flour crust and with a large
> >> >> soda

> >> > Replace with homemade whole-wheat crust/sesame seeds +
> >> > tomato sauce + green/red/yellow peppers, onions,
> >> > mushrooms, pineapple + tall glass of water

> >> Of course you could get real. People have a life and work
> >> for a living and one of the worst things one can do is
> >> bring their lunch. Going out (anyplace) is the most
> >> healthy thing one can do.

> > Damn!! You're not kidding... you really believe this.

> It's been proven over and over. What one puts in their mouth
> is not all of life.

Don't get all profound on me. What the heck are you
alluding to?

> > Restaurants compete against each other, and like other
> > businesses most times the one that offers the lowest price
> > wins the most customers. So, in order to offer the lowest
> > (or lower) price, the fast food places often use the
> > cheapest ingredients - refined grains/sugar, lots of salt,
> > low-grade meats and oils. And since most fast food
> > comsumers base their food choices on "taste" alone there's
> > little reason for them offer anything better/decent.

> You have NEVER been associated with the buisiness in ANY
> form, unless bussing dishes. I'll give you 300 guesses as to
> which company of any type buys the highest grade hamburger
> available.

Why didn't/don't you just tell us?

> >> > So we're in agreement then? The whole fast food meal is
> >> > crap -- crappy meat and crappy carbs, and too much of
> >> > both, rrrrighttttt....?

> >> Fast food is for people with a life and that have to earn
> >> a living.

> > No. [Most] fast food is for people who don't know how it
> > will negatively affect the quality of their life as
> > they're earning their living.

> You are ignorantly associating "fast food" with some
> imaginary cuisine.

FAST FOOD... the names that pop in the minds of most people
would be McDonalds, Burger King, Wendys, KFC, White Castle
etc. THAT'S what I'm talking about.

Now what are you talking about?

> You imagine yourself as some prima donna, when in fact you
> are too stupid to get a fast "NUTRITIOUS" meal from almost
> any food vender around.

Since you don't have a clue here are you ready to buy one?

> >> Next time you make suggestions, pretend you work for a
> >> living on a typical job Truck driver, construction
> >> worker, landscape helper, busy office, engineer, retail
> >> store clerk.

> > I'm in this group and I pack my lunch EVERY day.

> No wonder you have a problem. I suppose you take a break for
> lunch to mix with others. ha ha ha ha ha The "break" and
> mixing is more important than eating unless it is your only
> meal of the day.

You really do need to buy a clue.

> Looking at the volume of you menu, iy better be your
> only meal.

It's not. Normally, if it's a gym day, I have two others, plus
two or three snacks.

> > Here's what I ate today:

> > 1 apple small bag of raw brocolli 6-7 cherry tomatos
> > 1/3 can of salmon small bag of raw pea pods 1 sliced
> > orange 5-6 Muscadine grapes 1 baked potato 2 pieces of
> > [whole-grain] rye Wasa bread 1 cup of plain yogurt --
> > with raisens, dried apple, and pumpkins seeds added

> Sounds like a pig meal, if ever I heard one Now try 1 apple
> small bag of raw brocolli 6-7 cherry tomatos
> 1/3 can of salmon (or piece of pre cooked salmon, not
> canned)

Obviously, I'd prefer precooked over canned, but I don't have
my chef following me around every day.

> small bag of raw pea pods 1 sliced orange (what's the
> purpose of slicing? the best part of an orange is just
> under the skin and the fibers)

Yea, I know. But once it's sliced I can more easily peel
the fruit.

> 5-6 Muscadine grapes 1 baked potato (to thow at someone or
> give to someone you hate)

It's sad. A very nutritious vegetable is being demonized much
like the egg was once demonized.

http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=48

> 2 pieces of [whole-grain] rye Wasa bread ( to wipe your
> butt with)

http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=65

> 1 cup of plain yogurt -- with raisens, dried apple, and
> pumpkins seeds added (only if you made the yogurt yourself
> and added the other ingredients at the last minute. Real
> yogurt wont tolerate those things for more than an hour, if
> that long)

You're suggesting I make my own yogurt, yet you apparently
often eat at fast food resturaunts. Hmmmm...

> > It took me a staggering 15-20 minutes to make that lunch,
> > and I somehow pulled it off while eating a bowl of my own
> > special whole grain cereal mix with some nuts, seeds and
> > this morning I tossed in some blueberries as I poured the
> > milk on top.

> If you were other than a nut, it would take about 5 - 10
> minutes to toss an apple, couple stalks of celery,
> Asparagas, couple carrots (not peeled), some peapods and
> brocolli in a cold container along with a bottle of highly
> alkaline water.

Since nuts are good and wholesome I'll take that as a
compliment.

"Alkaline water"?

Thanks for the suggestions, but my current diet is providing
me with all the results I could ever ask for.

> (You can skip meat for lunch as it is too difficult to pack
> and preserve)

Not if you have access to a fridge.

> Then, you go to a park or convening place with others who
> bring their whatever and "take a break".

I do, every day, for a full hour. Thanks for your concern.

> >> About the only person who could follow your suggestions
> >> would be a stay at home mom, a worker, but access to a
> >> stove and refrigerator. The alternative is someone who is
> >> "kept" by someone else.

> > If you can't get a clue, buy one.

> Patrick Obviously over weight or some other physical illness
> which would allow reasonable weight with that high intake.

It's called exercise.

I'm 5'9", 165-170 pounds, and have a 30 inch waist = 10-11%
body fat. My resting heart rate is in the 30s and I'm 43
years old.

Patrick

NoOption5L

Sun, Oct-01-06, 06:17

Vernon wrote:
> <NoOption5L@aol.com> wrote in message news:1159591885.76966-
> 4.144610@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> > TC wrote:

> > BS! I already proved to you in a previous post that ounce
> > for ounce grains rivaled your precious meat. Did you not
> > read what I wrote or did you forget what I wrote?

> Meat is basic. Grains are not basic.

Whatever "basic" means.

> No amount of grains can give the proteins (ounce for ounce)
> No amount of grains can provide the required amino acids
> compared to meat.

I never said they could. TC had listed a few nutrients that he
thought grains lacked and I showed him that ounce for ounce
that [just] wheat stacked up pretty well against pork, chicken
and beef in, again the nutrients he had listed.

> No amount of nutrients can correct the mental aberrations
> of vegans.

Your brain needs more carbs.

Patrick

Mr. Natura

Sun, Oct-01-06, 06:17

Max C. wrote:
> Mr. Natural-Health wrote:
> > Max C. wrote:
> > > NoOption5L@aol.com wrote:
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mummy "Ancient Egyptian
> > > mummies from circa 3200 BC show signs of severe anemia
> > > and hemolitic disorders."
> > >
> > > I'm especially amused by your assumption that suspicion
> > > of a food as the source of a problem would automatically
> > > lead to abondment of that food. That's certainly not
> > > what has happened in modern times with things like high
> > > fructose corn syrup and trans fats. We KNOW those foods
> > > are killing us, yet millions of people continue to eat
> > > them every day.
> >
> > We went over this Eygptian crap before, Moron!
> >
> > There is absolutely no evidence about the actual longevity
> > of the ancient eyptians. Absolutely none. Furthermore,
> > there is absolutely no evidence concerning the exact diet
> > of a particular mummy, their working conditions, etc.,
> > etc., etc. Ancient Eygpt happens to cover a period of
> > thousands of years. There is no evidence concerning either
> > their precise diet, their precise lifestyle, nor their
> > precise longevity.
>
> If you remember going over it, then why don't you remember
> anything from the discussion? Let me help you out.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/j2qhf
>
> In the above link, you said:
>
> "Here is one example. http://www.uic.edu/classes/osci/osci5-
> 90/11_1Epidemiology.htm
>
> That web pages states that the Egyptians wore out their
> teeth. And, ended up catching an infection. This could
> explain why most Egyptians died in their 30's?"

So, the problem is what?

Oh, I know. Perhaps, if you were to concentrate?

Wearing out of ones teeth means death for humans and
animals, a like, just as long as you are living at the level
of an animal.

The problem here is characteristic of the milling method the
Egyptians used to grind their grain rather than a negative
characteristic of the grain itself, Dork! Stone ground corn,
or worst, is hard on your teeth. But, that fact has absolutely
nothing to do with the health value of eating corn.

You are operating at such a level of lunacy that it would be
a total waste of my time to point out point-by-point your
total lack of commonsense. Just like I wrote before, you are
full of crap. :)

You have my my condolences. :(

Vernon

Sun, Oct-01-06, 06:17

<NoOption5L@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1159668276.941611.204330@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Vernon wrote:
>
>> Too much grain in relation to all other sources of
>> calories. Note calories, not volume or food. Some grains
>> are good for fiber. Excess carbs are excess carbs.
>
> And excess fat is excess fat and excess protein is excess
> protein. If you don't burn up the excess calories any of
> them provide it turns to fat.

The discussion was around GRAINS. To be kept to a minimum.
Most get too much carbs. Most people get TWICE the carbs that
is optimum and close to three times minimum. Almost no one
gets any where near too much protein. Most could quadruple
their intake with no danger. Most get around the right
"quantity" of fats. The problem lies in hydrogenated vegetable
and grain fats.
>
>> It is nearly impossible to have much grains and still have
>> room in a good diet for vegetables, fruits, oils, proteins.
>
> Huh? A closer to accurate statement would be 'nearly
> impossible to have much meat & oils and have room in a good
> diet for vegatables and fruits'?

NO

>
> 4 oz of *lean* beef tenderloin = 240 calories 1 cup of
> bulgur wheat = 151 calories

AND A cup of water has none. Which could a diabetic eat? The
beef.

>
>> Then there is el fatto American diet.
>
> I think one of the most overlooked sources of calories in
> the typical "el fatto American diet" is liquids - sodas,
> fruit punches and sports drinks. People down numerous cans &
> bottles of this crap every day and then turn right around
> and eat because the drinks don't fill them up. If you
> measure the calories from a few cans/bottles of this stuff,
> it adds up to an extra mini meal every day.

Carbohydrates carbohydrates and yes the worst of the worst is
the entire soda world. Independant of the sugar, it takes six
glasses of water to compensate (correct) the other problems of
sodas, INCLUDING diet varieties, which are worse.

>
>> Then there is the "Oh it's unrefined", "It's the pure
>> stuff", "It's organic"
>
> What's wrong with unrefined, pure stuff and organic?

Carbs are carbs. Refined, pure and organic have ZERO standards
and are hyperbole semantics.

>
>> Then there are the real sickos who consume sugar as if it
>> were a nutrient.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> >> >> > to make no mention of, or worse completely
>> >> >> > exonerate, deep-fried [Long John Silver's] fish,
>
>> >> >> with a large order of chips and a large soda
>
>> >> > Instead exchange for: Broiled salmon + baked sweet
>> >> > potato + green tea
>
>> >> Baked sweet potato or yams are some of my favorites but
>> >> carrots, bell peppers, onions are really good and a lot
>> >> better choice.
>
>> > Saying the others are "a lot better choice" than a sweet
>> > potato or yam is like saying strawberries are a lot
>> > better choice than blueberries. It depends... it all
>> > depends on what you're measuring for. But I don't measure
>> > food this way. I know they each bring their own special,
>> > good-for-you properties so it's best to constantly eat a
>> > variety.
>
>> >> >> > greasy [Big Mac/Burger
>
>> >> >> with a super sized fry and a 3/4 gallon jug of sugar
>> >> >> water
>
>> >> > Replace with: Lean roast beef + whole wheat bread +
>> >> > romaine lettuce + tomatos + water with a slice of
>> >> > lemon
>
>> >> Of course you could get real. People have a life and
>> >> work for a living and one of the worst things one can do
>> >> is bring their lunch. Going out (anyplace) is the most
>> >> healthy thing one can do.
>
>> > Hahahahahaha.... funny stuff... this IS a joke, right?
>
>> >> >> > King/Wendy's] double-bacon cheeseburgers,
>
>> >> >> and a fries and drink
>
>> >> > Replace with: Ostrich burger + spinach salad + glass
>> >> > of milk
>
>> >> >> > slimey [Kentucky Fried] chicken,
>
>> >> >> and a fries and drink
>
>> >> > Replace with: Baked chicken breast + brown rice +
>> >> > glass of fresh squeezed orange juice
>
>> >> Brown rice? why? How about wild rice or cooked raw rice?
>
>> > Because it's whole grain.
>
>> Brown rice is brown rice. You have obviously never been
>> associated with the industry enough to know how they make
>> nearly white rice brown.
>
> It depends on what brands and style of brown rice you buy.

I have never found one that is different from white except for
what is ADDED to the brown.

>
>> > Wild rice is good too.
>
>> > "Cooked raw rice" ?
>
>> Yes
>
> Please define.

Take raw rice and cook it. No preprocessing. Cooked raw rice

>
>> >> >> > and artery-stopping [Pizza Hut] "Meat Lovers" pizza
>> >> >> > is a huge disservice to this NG.
>
>> >> >> on a one-inch thick white flour crust and with a
>> >> >> large soda
>
>> >> > Replace with homemade whole-wheat crust/sesame seeds +
>> >> > tomato sauce + green/red/yellow peppers, onions,
>> >> > mushrooms, pineapple + tall glass of water
>
>> >> Of course you could get real. People have a life and
>> >> work for a living and one of the worst things one can do
>> >> is bring their lunch. Going out (anyplace) is the most
>> >> healthy thing one can do.
>
>> > Damn!! You're not kidding... you really believe this.
>
>> It's been proven over and over. What one puts in their
>> mouth is not all of life.
>
> Don't get all profound on me. What the heck are you
> alluding to?
>
>> > Restaurants compete against each other, and like other
>> > businesses most times the one that offers the lowest
>> > price wins the most customers. So, in order to offer the
>> > lowest (or lower) price, the fast food places often use
>> > the cheapest ingredients - refined grains/sugar, lots of
>> > salt, low-grade meats and oils. And since most fast food
>> > comsumers base their food choices on "taste" alone
>> > there's little reason for them offer anything
>> > better/decent.
>
>> You have NEVER been associated with the buisiness in ANY
>> form, unless bussing dishes. I'll give you 300 guesses as
>> to which company of any type buys the highest grade
>> hamburger available.
>
> Why didn't/don't you just tell us?

Mc Donalds. No, it isn't for health. There is less volume and
weight loss for the price they pay.

Oh yes, the worst place to get ANY fish or chicken is ANY
hamburger shop.

>
>> >> > So we're in agreement then? The whole fast food meal
>> >> > is crap -- crappy meat and crappy carbs, and too much
>> >> > of both, rrrrighttttt....?
>
>> >> Fast food is for people with a life and that have to
>> >> earn a living.
>
>> > No. [Most] fast food is for people who don't know how it
>> > will negatively affect the quality of their life as
>> > they're earning their living.
>
>> You are ignorantly associating "fast food" with some
>> imaginary cuisine.
>
> FAST FOOD... the names that pop in the minds of most people
> would be McDonalds, Burger King, Wendys, KFC, White Castle
> etc. THAT'S what I'm talking about.
>
> Now what are you talking about?
>
>> You imagine yourself as some prima donna, when in fact you
>> are too stupid to get a fast "NUTRITIOUS" meal from almost
>> any food vender around.
>
> Since you don't have a clue here are you ready to buy one?
>
>> >> Next time you make suggestions, pretend you work for a
>> >> living on a typical job Truck driver, construction
>> >> worker, landscape helper, busy office, engineer, retail
>> >> store clerk.
>
>> > I'm in this group and I pack my lunch EVERY day.
>
>> No wonder you have a problem. I suppose you take a break
>> for lunch to mix with others. ha ha ha ha ha The "break"
>> and mixing is more important than eating unless it is your
>> only meal of the day.
>
> You really do need to buy a clue.
>
>> Looking at the volume of you menu, iy better be your
>> only meal.
>
> It's not. Normally, if it's a gym day, I have two others,
> plus two or three snacks.
>
>> > Here's what I ate today:
>
>> > 1 apple small bag of raw brocolli 6-7 cherry tomatos
>> > 1/3 can of salmon small bag of raw pea pods 1 sliced
>> > orange 5-6 Muscadine grapes 1 baked potato 2 pieces of
>> > [whole-grain] rye Wasa bread 1 cup of plain yogurt --
>> > with raisens, dried apple, and pumpkins seeds added
>
>> Sounds like a pig meal, if ever I heard one Now try 1 apple
>> small bag of raw brocolli 6-7 cherry tomatos
>> 1/3 can of salmon (or piece of pre cooked salmon, not
>> canned)
>
> Obviously, I'd prefer precooked over canned, but I don't
> have my chef following me around every day.
>
>> small bag of raw pea pods 1 sliced orange (what's the
>> purpose of slicing? the best part of an orange is just
>> under the skin and the fibers)
>
> Yea, I know. But once it's sliced I can more easily peel
> the fruit.
>
>> 5-6 Muscadine grapes 1 baked potato (to thow at someone or
>> give to someone you hate)
>
> It's sad. A very nutritious vegetable is being demonized
> much like the egg was once demonized.
>
> http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=48
>
>> 2 pieces of [whole-grain] rye Wasa bread ( to wipe your
>> butt with)
>
> http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=65
>
>> 1 cup of plain yogurt -- with raisens, dried apple, and
>> pumpkins seeds added (only if you made the yogurt yourself
>> and added the other ingredients at the last minute. Real
>> yogurt wont tolerate those things for more than an hour,
>> if that long)
>
> You're suggesting I make my own yogurt, yet you apparently
> often eat at fast food resturaunts. Hmmmm...
>
>> > It took me a staggering 15-20 minutes to make that lunch,
>> > and I somehow pulled it off while eating a bowl of my own
>> > special whole grain cereal mix with some nuts, seeds and
>> > this morning I tossed in some blueberries as I poured the
>> > milk on top.
>
>> If you were other than a nut, it would take about 5 - 10
>> minutes to toss an apple, couple stalks of celery,
>> Asparagas, couple carrots (not peeled), some peapods and
>> brocolli in a cold container along with a bottle of highly
>> alkaline water.
>
> Since nuts are good and wholesome I'll take that as a
> compliment.
>
> "Alkaline water"?
>
> Thanks for the suggestions, but my current diet is providing
> me with all the results I could ever ask for.
>
>> (You can skip meat for lunch as it is too difficult to pack
>> and preserve)
>
> Not if you have access to a fridge.
>
>> Then, you go to a park or convening place with others who
>> bring their whatever and "take a break".
>
> I do, every day, for a full hour. Thanks for your concern.

With others? Total break?

>
>> >> About the only person who could follow your suggestions
>> >> would be a stay at home mom, a worker, but access to a
>> >> stove and refrigerator. The alternative is someone who
>> >> is "kept" by someone else.
>
>> > If you can't get a clue, buy one.
>
>> Patrick Obviously over weight or some other physical
>> illness which would allow reasonable weight with that high
>> intake.
>
> It's called exercise.
>
> I'm 5'9", 165-170 pounds, and have a 30 inch waist = 10-11%
> body fat. My resting heart rate is in the 30s and I'm 43
> years old.

Yep, you have a problem and don't know it.

>
> Patrick

Vernon

Sun, Oct-01-06, 06:17

<NoOption5L@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1159668932.723948.190640@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Vernon wrote:
>> <NoOption5L@aol.com> wrote in message news:1159591885.7696-
>> 64.144610@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>> > TC wrote:
>
>> > BS! I already proved to you in a previous post that ounce
>> > for ounce grains rivaled your precious meat. Did you not
>> > read what I wrote or did you forget what I wrote?
>
>> Meat is basic. Grains are not basic.
>
> Whatever "basic" means.

Basic to human good health.

>
>> No amount of grains can give the proteins (ounce for ounce)
>> No amount of grains can provide the required amino acids
>> compared to meat.
>
> I never said they could. TC had listed a few nutrients that
> he thought grains lacked and I showed him that ounce for
> ounce that [just] wheat stacked up pretty well against pork,
> chicken and beef in, again the nutrients he had listed.
>
>> No amount of nutrients can correct the mental aberrations
>> of vegans.
>
> Your brain needs more carbs.

The brain DEPENDS on Cholesterol and the amino acids
from meat.

>
> Patrick

Max C.

Sun, Oct-01-06, 17:19

Mr. Natural-Health wrote:
> So, the problem is what?

The problem is that you seem to require 100% indesputable
proof of a mummy's exact diet while you accept speculation
about why their teeth eroded. You have no absolute proof that
their teeth were worn away as a result of their milling
methods. That is a hypothesis. It is just as likely that their
grain filled diet did not allow their bodies to repair damaged
teeth as those of Weston Price's traditional people did.
Neither of us have any positive way to prove either hypothesis
is true. However, if you'll look at the many wild animals that
chew on the bones of their kill, you'll see that chewing on
hard things is not an automatic tooth killer.

Ms. Price was able to allow his patients to rebuild their own
teeth by diet alone. His book has several pictures and
x-rays of such rebuilding.

> Oh, I know. Perhaps, if you were to concentrate?

I always consider it a good thing when you start to make
personal attacks. It means you have no data to support
your position.

> Wearing out of ones teeth means death for humans and
> animals, a like, just as long as you are living at the level
> of an animal.
>
> The problem here is characteristic of the milling method
> the Egyptians used to grind their grain rather than a
> negative characteristic of the grain itself, Dork! Stone
> ground corn, or worst, is hard on your teeth. But, that
> fact has absolutely nothing to do with the health value of
> eating corn.

Of courses, since you're so convinced that's what it is, you
obviously have irrefutable proof that that was the case and
that diet couldn't have possibly had anything to do with
tooth loss.

> You are operating at such a level of lunacy that it would be
> a total waste of my time to point out point-by-point your
> total lack of commonsense. Just like I wrote before, you are
> full of crap. :)
>
> You have my my condolences. :(

As if your condolences could possibly mean anything to anyone
in this group. You're about as pitiful as they come.

Max.

Max C.

Sun, Oct-01-06, 17:19

NoOption5L@aol.com wrote:
> And this "poor health" can all be attributed to the
> consumption of

> > Really, you need to read the history of the health of
> > the Egyptians. You'll quickly see that they ate grains
> > as a staple food and suffered for it. They certainly did
> > not thrive as the traditional people studied by Weston
> > Price did.
>
> Please don't bring me back to this Weston Price character.

If you have any legit reasons to not believe this Weston Price
character, I'd be happy to read them. I've been following the
recommendations of the Weston A Price Foundation for many
years and have yet to find one single person with legit
reasons to ignore that advice. It usually has to do with some
sort of conspiracy theory of the foundation being funded by
cattle farmers or some such nonsense... but no one has ever
presented even a shred of evidence to support it.

So, I'll continue to use that info until such time that you
can show why I shouldn't.

> > That's only true if you exclude everything but the muscle
> > tissue. Traditionally, humans ate practically every part
> > of the kill. For example:
>
> > http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/cgi-bin/list_nut_e-
> > dit.pl
>
> > You can see here that liver has many of the nutrients you
> > claim aren't in beef.
>
> Good point. (But keep it hush hush or you'll have TC eating
> it exclusively.) Though keep in mind the function of the
> liver, and what that could mean in today's "less that pure"
> environment.

Agreed. Liver from feed lot cows shouldn't be touched... much
less eaten. I would only consider liver from animals that have
eaten a diet nature intended for them.

> > Beta carotene is converted into vitamin A once inside the
> > body. I've seen estimates that say it takes 4 units of
> > beta carotene to make 1 unit of vitamin A.
>
> That's why there are sweet potatoes.

I mentioned it because you said that beef didn't have beta
carotene... not because I wanted to provide an alternative
source of it. Why eat foods that your body has to convert to
vitamin A when you can just get your vitamin A directly?

Of course I'm not advocating avoiding foods with beta carotene
and eating animal foods instead. I just don't think it's fair
to bring up beta carotene as though beef has no form of
vitamin A. Clearly it does.

> > That assumes that grains have similar nutritional profiles
> > as fruits and vegetables, which is not the case. Even *IF*
> > you find a grain that has similar nutrients as a fruit,
>
> That's the point. Every food is different. Each food brings
> its strengths to the [pun intended] table. And there are so
> many little chemicals in foods that we haven't hardly begun
> to figure out how they all work together. That's why I
> advocate a large and constant variety, and that variety
> includes whole grains.

But my point is that since grains are one of the newest foods
in the human diet, it's probably a safe assumption that we can
do without them and still thrive. And given the contraversy
surrounding the whole gluten issue, what's the harm is
avoiding grains? I'm not saying that I eat no grains. In fact,
every now and then soak some wheat or barley, grind it fresh
and make some bread of my own. It really is delicious. But I
don't feel compelled to do that on a regular basis.

> > many of the nutrients in the grain will be bound up by
> > phytonutrients in the grain designed to keep the seed
> > alive while waiting for the right time to germinate. Such
> > bound nutrients would not be available to the human body.
>
> Everything I've read about phytonutrients says they are
> potent antioxidants that can neutralize free radical damage.

It would depend on which phytonutrient you're talking about.
Perhaps I should have typed "phytochemical" rather than
phytonutrient to distinguish a difference between something
that's good for you and something that is potentially harmful.
Phyto simply means plant. So we're just talking about plant
nutrients and plant chemicals.

A common example of a phytochemical that is potentially
harmful is the phytoestrogen in soy. These plant estrogens
have been shown to have similar effects on the human body as
estrogen therapy... though in smaller measurements.

Sure there are some studies touting the benefits of
phytoestrogen, but most of them are controversial in that the
test subjects often made changes to their diets other than
adding soy. Those other changes may be the cause of the
benefits seen and not the soy.

> > That's very debatable. At the very least, it can cause
> > enteropathy, which can have identical symptoms as IBS.
>
> > http://www.drhotze.com/EN/online_articles/391.html "Gluten
> > is a protein that is mainly found in four grains: wheat,
> > rye, oats, and barley. (Yes, that's toast, rye crackers,
> > oatmeal, and barley soup!) Enteropathy is quite simply
> > defined as a disease of the gastrointestinal tract. In
> > this case, the disease is caused by gluten. Some people
> > are extremely allergic to gluten, and some of the symptoms
> > are identical to IBS."
>
> There are many foods that can be harmful to certain people.
> I say if gluten causes _you_ problems then stopping eating
> it. But don't demonize it for the rest of us.
>
> > The pH levels of food as it is eaten is unimportant. What
> > *IS* important is the pH levels of what's left after the
> > food has been digested (often called "ash.") Every fluid
> > in the body has an ideal pH range. Eating a lot of food
> > with ash balanced in one direction or the other can cause
> > problems. For example, if you eat a lot of foods that
> > present alkaline ash, body fluids will begin to rise in
> > pH. Orange juice is probably the best example of this. The
> > juice itself is acidic, with a pH around 3.5. However,
> > once the citric acid is burned off by digestion, you're
> > left with alkaline minerals like calcium, sodium,
> > magnesium and potassium.
>
> > I'm curious to know if you think that pH is completely
> > unimportant.
>
> Excluding, limiting, or trying to balance foods because
> of/by PH is a waste of time/efforts.

Again, are you talking about selecting foods based on the Ph
of the food or the effects that food has on your body's pH?

> > This is one of my favorite vegan arguments (not saying
> > you're vegan.) I constantly hear from them how humans'
> > digestive tracts are more like an obligate herbavore's
> > than a carnivore's.
>
> I say omnivore/opportunist.
>
> > Of course, that's completely wrong, but the same people
> > that make that claim also claim that we should be eating
> > plenty of grains... ignoring that grains are what's used
> > to fatten cows before slaughter. Those cows also get very
> > sick while eating grains and are in need of constant
> > antibiotics and antacids.
>
> And that's completely wrong. Cows get sick because of the
> conditions they're held in. You could eat all the liver and
> meat you want but if you lived in similiar conditions you'd
> also likely be very sick.
>
> Man, who has you all brainwashed into thinking grains are
> some sort of poison?

If you would care to show how grains are a natural part of a
cow's diet, I'd love to see it... because the fact is, when a
farmer wants to fatten an animal, they feed it grains. Either
you've never been on a farm or you're choosing to ignore this
VERY commonly known fact.

Also, because grains cause the rumen to become too acidic, one
of the largest purchasers of antacids in the US is the beef
industry. I just found this blog that discusses the issue.

http://bensbookblog.blogspot.com/ "A corn diet can also give a
cow acidosis. The normal pH of the rumen is neutral. Corn
renders it acidic... Over time the acid eat away at the rumen,
allowing bacteria to enter the bloodstream. The microbes end
up in the liver, where they impair the liver function. Between
15 to 30% of feedlot cows have diseased livers. Some pens have
rates as high as 70%. Feedlots use anti-biotics and antacids
to counter this, but this is leading to the evolution of
superbugs. The animals probably wouldn't be sick if not for
the diet of corn we feed them."

Oh, and it also talks about the e coli issue we mentioned
above: "Most the microbes that reside in the gut of the cow
and find their way into our food get killed off by the strong
acids in our stomach, since those microbes evolved to live in
the neutral pH of the rumen. But the rumen of a feed-lot cow
is nearly as acidic as our own, and in this environment new
acid-resistant strains of E. Coli have evolved - such as
0157:H7 (which caused the Jack In Box hamburger deaths)...
Switching a cow's diet from corn to grass for a few days prior
to slaughter reduces the population of 0157:H7 by as much as
80%. But such a solution is considered wildly impractical by
the cattle industry and the USDA. Their preferred solution is
irradiation."

You gotta love that. It could potentially reduce e coli
contamination by 80%, but that's just too impractical. Human
life isn't worth the effort.

> > That's not necessarily true. According to US law, a "whole
> > grain" product only has to contain about 1/2 whole grain.
> > The rest can legally be refined flour. Of course this
> > doesn't even begin to address the rancidity of the fat in
> > the grain. Grain oil is highly polyunsaturated.
> > Polyunsaturated fats are the most unstable of all the
> > fats. They go rancid very quickly when exposed to air.
> > According to
> > Dr. Royal Lee of the Standard Process vitamin company,
> > once you crack open a grain seed, you have about 10
> > days before the fats in it have become completely
> > rancid and all of the vitamin E is gone. That assumes
> > that the grain is at room temperature and not exposed
> > to sunlight.
>
> Oh, be careful about quoting reps from vitamin companys.
>
> I like the claim about our soils now lacking nutrients.

Dr. Royal Lee was often called the Einstein of nutrition. He
started his company back in 1929 with the idea that
supplements should be made at room temperature and should
have minimal processing. That still holds true today. The
company has their own 1000 acre farm where they
organically grow many of the ingredients they put in their
supplements. I have personally listed to over 40 hours of
recorded lecture from Dr. Lee from the 40's 50's and 60's.
Out of those 40 hours, I can count on one hand how many
times he mentioned specific products of his company. He
most often told his audience how to achieve desired
results using whole foods. While he did not have anything
against grains, he also recommended that they be soaked to
neutralize harmful phytochemicals (like enzyme inhibitors)
and be ground fresh AT LEAST on a weekly basis... and the
flour should be kept in the freezer in a sealed container
to retard rancidification.

> > The best feed would be grass. The fat ratios in grass fed
> > beef are almost exactly what the human body requires. Once
> > you start feeding a cow grains, the omega 6 PUFAs start
> > increasing while the omega 3 PUFAs decrease. That higher
> > ratio has been linked to heart disease.
>
> My father always used to tell me the deer that eat the
> farmers' corn were the biggest and best tasting deer.

Well SURE they were. It's the same concept as using corn and
other grain products (corn is a grain) to fatten cows before
slaughter. Better tasting doesn't mean better for you.

> > > Is it certified organic? And how do you cook your meat?
>
> > Certified organic does not mean grass fed. While it's
> > better than conventional, it is more than likely coming
> > from cows eating an improper diet.
>
> Oh no, sounds like a reason to scratch beef of the
> shopping list.

It's a good reason to scratch grain fed beef on the list.

> > It could be that he's one of the many, MANY people that
> > have discovered that he is sensitive to gluten. People
> > make that discovery every day.
>
> Then he should state this and press on, so the rest of us
> who are not affected can enjoy them.

As I said before, many people do not know they are gluten
sensitive. If one of them happens to read a post like this, it
may make them think. They can then try avoiding grains to see
if perhaps their recurring problems go away.

> > I love how people try to use McDonalds as proof that
> > eating meat is bad for you. Ever see "SuperSize Me" ? At
> > the very end the vegan girlfriend is blathering away and
> > says something like "Look at what all the saturated fat
> > did to you." Yeah, that's it. It had to be the saturated
> > fat. It couldn't have been all the refined carbs... or the
> > trans fats... or the rancid fats from the cooking oil...
> > or any of the other unpronounceable ingredients.
>
> I did see it. I don't remember the line, but the point of
> the miovie was that the typical fast food "meal" -- burger,
> fries and a coke/shake -- isn't a healthy one.
>
> > 30 years? What happened 30 years ago that allowed humans
> > to be more sedentary than, say, 40 or 50 years ago?
>
> He mentioned 30 years. But yes, the decline in exercise has
> been happening for a while.
>
> > First, I'm a 32" waist and 5' 10". Second, that doesn't
> > mean I'm healthy.
>
> I agree. I see many slender people who are not healthy. But
> that's also not an excuse to be fat.
>
> > Weight loss can be a symptom of disease. Don't confuse
> > weight with health.
>
> If you're a male with a waist over 32 inches you have an
> increased risk for health problems.
>
> > I know a very tall woman that biked from Houston to
> > Austin... and she weighed 275 at the time.
>
> If she weighs 275, she needs to keep on biking.

That would be your opinion, based on nothing more than
conjecture.

> > Based on what evidence?
>
> We've compared stats before.
>
> > But the point is that it's not needed to have a BM. Take
> > his example of the Inuit Eskimos.
>
> Does anyone in the lower 48 eat the exact same foods/and
> live like an Inuit Eskimo?

That we do not eat exactly like eskimos is not evidence that
we would have to in order to have regular BMs.

> > Dr. Joseph Mercola has written a great deal about the
> > health implications of grains, whole or otherwise.
> > This is more than just a fad. There is real science
> > behind the idea of avoiding grains.
>
> Seems there's more science that's says to include [whole]
> grains in your diet.

There's more MONEY behind the idea... not more science.
Farmers have a vested interest in grain crops. The #1 reason
for that is subsidization. Do you have any idea the amount of
grain rots in silos every year? The government buys the excess
from big business farms who have split their companies up into
pseudo sub businesses and then make the government buy what's
left over. Grain crops are easy to raise, and because of the
subsidies, are more profitable than animal foods. Add to that
the fact that many of these large farm companies influence or
sit directly on the board of the FDA and you have a perfect
reason why grains are so recommended. It really has everything
to do with money and little to do with science. Mr. Natural
Health has been trying to prove the point for a long time that
whole grains are good for you by posting studies. Out of the
dozens (maybe hundreds) he's posted, almost all of them were
comparing whole grains to refined grains. None of them
compared groups of people eating a healthy diet without grains
to a group eating a similarly healthy diet with grains. If
such a study exists, I'd love to see it.

> > Thousands of years is a drop in the bucket compared to
> > human existence. It is unfortunate that we have little
> > information about life expectancy before man started
> > farming. As of now, there's really no indisputable way to
> > say that the advent of grain farming increased or
> > decreased average life expectancy.
>
> Yet, over the last few thousands years the human population
> has exploded.

That means absolutely zilch. It only takes an average of 13 to
14 years for a human to reproduce. It certainly does not prove
that grains have anything to do with life expectancy. True
farming may have allowed us to populate more, but that doesn't
mean we're living longer.

Max.

Mr. Natura

Sun, Oct-01-06, 17:19

Max C. wrote:
> Mr. Natural-Health wrote:
> > So, the problem is what?
>
> The problem is that you seem to require 100% indesputable
> proof of a mummy's exact diet while you accept speculation
> about why their teeth eroded. You have no absolute proof
> that their teeth were worn away as a result of their
> milling methods. That is a hypothesis. It is just as likely
> that their grain filled diet did not allow their bodies to
> repair damaged teeth as those of Weston Price's traditional
> people did. Neither of us have any positive way to prove
> either hypothesis is true. However, if you'll look at the
> many wild animals that chew on the bones of their kill,
> you'll see that chewing on hard things is not an automatic
> tooth killer.

Only if you believe in energy therapies, UFOs, and Ghosts!

Ha, ... Hah, Ha! Where do these rubs come from?

Of course, anyone remotely familiar with the literature
knows that the teeth of animals and primitive man wore out
from eating an all raw diet. Naturally, adding sand to your
diet from primitive milling techniques would only speed up
the natural wearing out process from eating raw food your
entire life.

And, that also applies to an ALL meat diet. Even Eskimos who
eat only meat have bad teeth contrary to the myth being spread
around by Weston Price, Droogies.

You and your low IQ have my condolences.

PS: The teeth of some animals, unlike those of man, never
stop growing. And, they have to literally chew hard stuff
in order to constantly wear down their teeth.

Mr. Natura

Mon, Oct-02-06, 06:16

Vernon wrote:
> "Max C." <maxc246@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:11597117-
> 08.350170.307480@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Mr. Natural-Health wrote:
> >> So, the problem is what?
> >
> > The problem is that you seem to require 100% indesputable
> > proof of a mummy's exact diet while you accept speculation
> > about why their teeth eroded. You have no absolute proof
> > that their teeth were worn away as a result of their
> > milling methods. That is a hypothesis. It is just as
> > likely that their grain filled diet did not allow their
> > bodies to repair damaged teeth as those of Weston Price's
> > traditional people did. Neither of us have any positive
> > way to prove either hypothesis is true. However, if you'll
> > look at the many wild animals that chew on the bones of
> > their kill, you'll see that chewing on hard things is not
> > an automatic tooth killer.
>
> The tooth hypothoses is just that , theory.

SORRY, but it is proven fact. :)

> BUT grain is a lot more abrasive than ANY bone or bone
> material.

Ooooh! Then you must never have heard of cream corn, or soup?

You and your low IQ have my condolences.

Max C.

Mon, Oct-02-06, 06:16

Mr. Natural-Health wrote:
> Max C. wrote:
> > Mr. Natural-Health wrote:
> > > So, the problem is what?
> >
> > The problem is that you seem to require 100% indesputable
> > proof of a mummy's exact diet while you accept speculation
> > about why their teeth eroded. You have no absolute proof
> > that their teeth were worn away as a result of their
> > milling methods. That is a hypothesis. It is just as
> > likely that their grain filled diet did not allow their
> > bodies to repair damaged teeth as those of Weston Price's
> > traditional people did. Neither of us have any positive
> > way to prove either hypothesis is true. However, if you'll
> > look at the many wild animals that chew on the bones of
> > their kill, you'll see that chewing on hard things is not
> > an automatic tooth killer.
>
> Only if you believe in energy therapies, UFOs, and Ghosts!
>
> Ha, ... Hah, Ha! Where do these rubs come from?

I'm glad you can amuse yourself. Since insults seem to be a
form of masturbation for you, you probably need some tissue
right about now. Hope it was good for you.

> Of course, anyone remotely familiar with the literature
> knows that the teeth of animals and primitive man wore out
> from eating an all raw diet. Naturally, adding sand to your
> diet from primitive milling techniques would only speed up
> the natural wearing out process from eating raw food your
> entire life.

And I'm sure you won't mind posting some links to show how
primitive man lost his teeth... because I *JUST* saw a show on
Discovery Health last week that talked about a specimen that
had remarkably good teeth for its estimated age.

> And, that also applies to an ALL meat diet. Even Eskimos who
> eat only meat have bad teeth contrary to the myth being
> spread around by Weston Price, Droogies.

You must get really tied of being wrong all the time. The only
Eskimos you'll find with bad teeth are those that were studied
AFTER they discovered modern refined foods. Those studied by
Weston Price had very good teeth. It would seem you've already
forgotten that Dr. Price was a dentist. His MAIN PURPOSE for
his travels was to study teeth. It's quite obvious that you've
never even picked up his book. If you had, you would have at
least seen the dozens of pictures of teeth in
Ms.

Oh, sorry to ruin your orgasm.

> You and your low IQ have my condolences.
>
> PS: The teeth of some animals, unlike those of man, never
> stop growing. And, they have to literally chew hard
> stuff in order to constantly wear down their teeth.

Why don't you list those animals and then compare them with
humans. Get back to me when you've figured out why I've asked
you to list them.

Max.

Max C.

Mon, Oct-02-06, 06:16

Mr. Natural-Health wrote:
> > The tooth hypothoses is just that , theory.
>
> SORRY, but it is proven fact. :)

Provide said proof.

> > BUT grain is a lot more abrasive than ANY bone or bone
> > material.
>
> Ooooh! Then you must never have heard of cream corn,
> or soup?

So you're saying that in order to in order to get the benefits
of grains we should only eat them in cream or soup form? Do
you follow such a recommendation?

> You and your low IQ have my condolences.

Is this your new sign off? Must have taken you months to come
up with that gem. One more display of your unparalleled lack
of originality.

Max.

Mon, Oct-02-06, 17:16

Max C. wrote:
> NoOption5L@aol.com wrote:
> > TC wrote: <snip>
> > > I did not say that you don't need grains to *survive*.
> > > What I essentially said and meant was that you can and
> > > will *thrive* without grains. I am saying that you must
> > > remove grains or at least greatly limit them from your
> > > diet in order to thrive.
> >
> > The human race as been "thriving" on grains for
> > thousands of years. And are an integral part of many
> > cultures. I'm sure if any of these cultures suspected
> > their beloved grain(s) was/were curtailing/adversely
> > affecting their people they would have figured it out
> > llllooooonnnnggggg ago.
>
> Wow... you really don't know your history. The Egyptians
> lived primarily on grains and suffered horrible health as a
> result. Have you ever seen even one of the documentaries on
> the health of Egyptian mummies? Even their royalty was in
> poor health. Their teeth were greatly worn, their bones were
> brittle and they weren't that long lived. They showed signs
> of poor overall health:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mummy "Ancient Egyptian mummies
> from circa 3200 BC show signs of severe anemia and hemolitic
> disorders."
>
> I'm especially amused by your assumption that suspicion of a
> food as the source of a problem would automatically lead to
> abondment of that food. That's certainly not what has
> happened in modern times with things like high fructose corn
> syrup and trans fats. We KNOW those foods are killing us,
> yet millions of people continue to eat them every day.
>
> > > They are a nutritionally modest food. Grains are not all
> > > that nutriti=
ous no matter how whole
> > > grain they are.
> >
> > BS! I already proved to you in a previous post that ounce
> > for ounce grains rivaled your precious meat. Did you not
> > read what I wrote or did you forget what I wrote?
>
> I couldn't find such a post, but I'd be interested to read
> it. Could you please provide a link?
>
> > > There is nothing magical about grains that we need that
> > > we can't get =
in larger amounts
> > > and in better forms from other foods.
> >
> > "Magical"? Wow! Grains have to be "magical" to get respect
> > from you, huh?
> >
> > Oh, I'd like to know what foods earn your "magical
> > rating".
>
> If you read the history of raw milk from grass fed cows,
> especially as it pertained to medical treatment in the 19th
> century, I think you'd agree that it had near magical
> qualities.
>
> This might be a good place to start:
>
> http://www.karlloren.com/aajonus/p15.htm The British journal
> The Lancet reported, "Resistance to tuberculosis increased
> in children fed raw milk instead of pasteurized, to the
> point that in five years only one case of pulmonary TB had
> developed, whereas in the previous five years, when children
> had been given pasteurized milk, 14 cases of pulmonary TB
> had developed."
>
> Hippocrates, the father of medicine, prescribed raw milk for
> tuberculosis.
>
> Johns Hopkins University and the University of Maryland
> found that raw cows milk contains 2=BD times more of the
> enzyme lgG than pasteurized
> milk. This important enzyme inhibits rotavirus organisms
> that cause diarrhea in infants.
>
> Really, that page is full of examples of the "magic" of raw
> milk. It's a good read.
>
> > > They are a second rate food.
> >
> > In my book, a "second rate", or cut under "magical", would
> > be something like... super awesome.
>
> Given the topic, I assume you're talking about grains. What
> is it that's "super awesome" about grains?
>
> > > And yes, you can survive, for a while at least, without
> > > animal-sourced foods, but you have zero chance of
> > > thriving on a diet bereft of animal-sourced foods.
> >
> > This is the part that you continually miss. So here it is,
> > yet again: I am NOT advocating a diet WITHOUT
> > animal-sourced foods. I think meat, fish, eggs and milk
> > are great! But they're not "magical". They should only be
> > a part of your diet, so that you have plenty of room for a
> > CONSTANT VARIETY of fruits, veggies, nuts, seeds, spices,
> > and whole grains.
> >
> > > Get it? Surviving is NOT the same as THRIVING.
> >
> > Yep, like the human race has been doing for thousands of
> > years while eating grains.
>
> Really, you need to read the history of the health of
> the Egyptians. You'll quickly see that they ate grains
> as a staple food and suffered for it. They certainly did
> not thrive as the traditional people studied by Weston
> Price did.
>
> > > > So why do you continue to crack on _whole_ grains?
> > > > They're packed =
with
> > > > nutrients and fiber.
> >
> > > That is it in a nutshell. You think they are "packed"
> > > with nutrients, which they are not.
> >
> > > They lack some very important nutrients that we need to
> > > get from othe=
r foods.
> >
> > Holy crap! Using this critera to determine what we eat
> > would mean we'd have to stave to death because there isn't
> > ANY food that offers every important nutrient.
> >
> > > Like vitamin C, like some proteins, fats and collagen.
> > > Then there are=
the fat soluble
> > > vitamins, A, D, E and K.
> >
> > Beef doesn't have any A, C or K and is very low in D and
> > E. So I guess that means you'll have to scratch that off
> > your shopping list too.
>
> That's only true if you exclude everything but the muscle
> tissue. Traditionally, humans ate practically every part of
> the kill. For example:
>
> http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/cgi-bin/list_nut-
> _edit.pl
>
> You can see here that liver has many of the nutrients you
> claim aren't in beef.
>
> > > Grains are poor in these important vitamins, or poor in
> > > the form of these vitamins that they contain.
> > > Beta-carotene from grains are usele=
ss
> > > to us because we cannot use them in that form.
> >
> > You forgot to mention beef doesn't have beta-carotene
> > either.
>
> Beta carotene is converted into vitamin A once inside the
> body. I've seen estimates that say it takes 4 units of beta
> carotene to make 1 unit of vitamin A. Then there are some
> people whose bodies can barely make the conversion at all.
>
> http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2001/010323.htm "About half of
> Burri's 45 volunteers--male and female--didn't take up much
> beta-carotene at all. And about half of the volunteers
> didn't form much vitamin A from the beta-carotene they did
> absorb."
>
> > > And fiber is completely empty food. By definition we
> > > cannot get nutrients from fiber. And the whole concept
> > > of us eating fiber and roughage in order to maintain
> > > regular bowel movements is nonsense. Inuits and Eskimos
> > > were extremely healthy and for much of the year th=
ey
> > > ate little or no fiber in their diets.
> >
> > Well, fruits and veggies have fiber too, and I can't find
> > anyone who advocates not eating them.
>
> That assumes that grains have similar nutritional profiles
> as fruits and vegetables, which is not the case. Even *IF*
> you find a grain that has similar nutrients as a fruit, many
> of the nutrients in the grain will be bound up by
> phytonutrients in the grain designed to keep the seed alive
> while waiting for the right time to germinate. Such bound
> nutrients would not be available to the human body.
>
> > > The funny thing is that these grains that are supposed
> > > to give us this great life-saving fiber is t=
he
> > > main culprit in many chronic lower GI diseases, like
> > > Chrohn's, IBS and such. Fiber only exarcerbates these
> > > problems in most cases.
> >
> > Clarification: Grains do not cause these diseases.
> > However, *gluten* does the exacerbate symptoms. And some
> > grains do not contain [enough] gluten to exacerbate the
> > symptoms.
>
> That's very debatable. At the very least, it can cause
> enteropathy, which can have identical symptoms as IBS.
>
> http://www.drhotze.com/EN/online_articles/391.html "Gluten
> is a protein that is mainly found in four grains: wheat,
> rye, oats, and barley. (Yes, that's toast, rye crackers,
> oatmeal, and barley soup!) Enteropathy is quite simply
> defined as a disease of the gastrointestinal tract. In this
> case, the disease is caused by gluten. Some people are
> extremely allergic to gluten, and some of the symptoms are
> identical to IBS."
>
> > > > Plus, unlike the white bread buns and crusts served in
> > > > the fast food places and most everywhere else, whole
> > > > grain breads fill you up and keep you filled up. Don't
> > > > believe me? Try eating a bowl of hot oatmeal in the
> > > > morning.
> >
> > > Are you aware that grains need to be soaked and/or
> > > fermented for us to maximize its usefulness as a food?
> > > And are you aware that no bread or flour manufacturer
> > > actually soaks or ferments the grains used in bread
> > > making? They are just ground up raw.
> >
> > This thinking fits right in there with those who are
> > concerned about how acidic or alkaline their foods are.
> > Are you into that too?
>
> The pH levels of food as it is eaten is unimportant. What
> *IS* important is the pH levels of what's left after the
> food has been digested (often called "ash.") Every fluid in
> the body has an ideal pH range. Eating a lot of food with
> ash balanced in one direction or the other can cause
> problems. For example, if you eat a lot of foods that
> present alkaline ash, body fluids will begin to rise in pH.
> Orange juice is probably the best example of this. The juice
> itself is acidic, with a pH around 3.5. However, once the
> citric acid is burned off by digestion, you're left with
> alkaline minerals like calcium, sodium, magnesium and
> potassium.
>
> I'm curious to know if you think that pH is completely
> unimportant.
>
> > > And are you aware that most, if not all, commercial
> > > whole grain flour is basically white flour that has been
> > > processed as usual, then they take some of the left over
> > > roughage (that would usually be used as animal feed),
> >
> > WIth refined grains they remove the bran and germ and feed
> > it to animals because it helps them grow. And the faster
> > they grow the faster they can bring them to slaughter and
> > charge you bigger money for meat.
>
> This is one of my favorite vegan arguments (not saying
> you're vegan.) I constantly hear from them how humans'
> digestive tracts are more like an obligate herbavore's than
> a carnivore's. Of course, that's completely wrong, but the
> same people that make that claim also claim that we should
> be eating plenty of grains... ignoring that grains are
> what's used to fatten cows before slaughter. Those cows also
> get very sick while eating grains and are in need of
> constant antibiotics and antacids.
>
> > Oh, you forgot to mention the crap left over in MEAT
> > packing plants that either gets made into DOG FOOD or
> > hotdogs/sausages.
> >
> > > and they add it back to the flour, and as long as more
> > > than (i think) 40% of the flour is made up of this
> > > roughage, it can be labelled as whole grain?
> >
> > Whole grain consists of both the bran or "roughage"
> > and germ.
> >
> > > Refine and processed re-constituted "whole grain" flour
> > > is still overly processed crap and offer very little
> > > advantage overly refined and processed white flour.
> >
> > "Overly processed"? Grain is ground. One process. And meat
> > is cooked. One process.
>
> That's not necessarily true. According to US law, a "whole
> grain" product only has to contain about 1/2 whole grain.
> The rest can legally be refined flour. Of course this
> doesn't even begin to address the rancidity of the fat in
> the grain. Grain oil is highly polyunsaturated.
> Polyunsaturated fats are the most unstable of all the
> fats. They go rancid very quickly when exposed to air.
> According to
> Dr. Royal Lee of the Standard Process vitamin company, once
> you crack open a grain seed, you have about 10 days
> before the fats in it have become completely rancid and
> all of the vitamin E is gone. That assumes that the
> grain is at room temperature and not exposed to
> sunlight.
>
> > > > > Name me one vegetable oil that is not refined.
> > > > > Except for extra v=
irgin
> > > > > olive oil. Name me one that isn't heated, treated,
> > > > > filtered and processed to death. Do you know what
> > > > > they do to corn oil, canola =
oil,
> > > > > soy oil and other vegetable oils before it is poured
> > > > > in a bottle =
and
> > > > > shipped to your grocer? You would be surprised how
> > > > > heavily proces=
sed it
> > > > > actually is. It is rendered as dead a food as
> > > > > refined white flour=
and
> > > > > ultra high temp pasteurized milk. These foods are
> > > > > processed to de=
ath
> > > > > and it does not matter how fancy, glossy and green
> > > > > the label is, =
it is
> > > > > still a dead food.
> >
> > > > Have you seen the processing that takes place in our
> > > > meat industry =
and
> > > > packing plants? If you have, why don't you EVER
> > > > mention it?
> >
> > > I get my meat from the local butcher who gets it from a
> > > local farmer who feeds them the best feeds he can. Other
> > > than a knife and a band saw, there is no more
> > > "processing" involved other than hanging the carcass in
> > > a cold room for a week or three.
>
> The best feed would be grass. The fat ratios in grass fed
> beef are almost exactly what the human body requires. Once
> you start feeding a cow grains, the omega 6 PUFAs start
> increasing while the omega 3 PUFAs decrease. That higher
> ratio has been linked to heart disease.
>
> > Is it certified organic? And how do you cook your meat?
>
> Certified organic does not mean grass fed. While it's better
> than conventional, it is more than likely coming from cows
> eating an improper diet.
>
> > > > > There is nothing mischievous about the crap that is
> > > > > foisted upon =
us as
> > > > > supposedly healthy foods.
> >
> > > > I agree. My beef <no pun intended> is that you
> > > > EXCLUSIVELY rail against grains/carbs, but NEVER say a
> > > > negative word about the dog f=
ood
> > > > served in fast food restaurants and elsewhere that the
> > > > meat industry calls fit for human consumption.
> >
> > > > So I for one would like to know why you're so damned
> > > > biased.
> >
> > > I don't go on against the meat processing because I do
> > > not buy processed meat.
> >
> > And apparently you don't buy any grains, but that hasn't
> > stopped you from lambasting them in every one of your
> > posts. So, again, why are you so damned biased?
>
> It could be that he's one of the many, MANY people that have
> discovered that he is sensitive to gluten. People make that
> discovery every day.
>
> > > Especially the new concoctions with a ingredients label
> > > 5 inches long filled with binder, colorants,
> > > preservatives and added soy protein isolates. These are
> > > perversions of what real food is supposed to be. I buy
> > > real meat like I buy real produce.
> >
> > And most of the meat in supermarkets is from animals doped
> > up with all sorts of chemicals.
> >
> > > If you look at all the fake manufactured foods in the
> > > centre aisles of the grocery stores, verye very few of
> > > them are not carbohydrates and very very few of them are
> > > not perversities of grains. Whether labelled "whole
> > > grains" or not, the vast majority of the frankenfoods
> > > being so=
ld
> > > in boxes with fancy graphics aimed at kids are grain
> > > foods and are extremely processed and full of colorants,
> > > preservatives and high-pressure high-temperature
> > > extruded grain starches. And the mainstream has done all
> > > it can to keep this crap food under the radar.
> >
> > "Mainstream" you mean corporations. Do you know what goes
> > on behind the walls of the meat industry's (corporations)
> > packing plants?
> >
> > If not, check it out. You'll like this!
> >
> > http://www.meat.org/
> >
> > > To this day, medical "experts" tell you to cut the "bad"
> > > animal fats and eat the "good" grains, and that is
> > > complete bullshit.
> >
> > The advice is, and has been, lean meat (like wild animals
> > or *naturally raised* farm animals are), fish and to
> > include good [whole] grains in your diet. And there's
> > [still] nothing wrong with this advice.
> >
> > > In the last 30 years when obesity and chronic disease
> > > has quadrupled,=
grain and
> > > carb consumption went up by about 12%
> >
> > Is it grains or just carbs in general? And what percentage
> > of the grains is whole?
> >
> > The overall percntage I can believe because most people
> > now drink soda, "fruit" juices, and "sport" drinks instead
> > of water. In fact, I've heard people say they don't even
> > drink water because they don't like
> > it/it doesn't taste like anything. Did you take this into
> > account?
> >
> > > while animal fat consumption has gone down about 10%,
> >
> > And McDonalds has sold so many hamburgers in the last
> > thirty years they stopped counting.
>
> I love how people try to use McDonalds as proof that eating
> meat is bad for you. Ever see "SuperSize Me" ? At the very
> end the vegan girlfriend is blathering away and says
> something like "Look at what all the saturated fat did to
> you." Yeah, that's it. It had to be the saturated fat. It
> couldn't have been all the refined carbs... or the trans
> fats... or the rancid fats from the cooking oil... or any of
> the other unpronounceable ingredients.
>
> > > and this happened in perfect co-ordination with the
> > > increase in obesi=
ty and chronic
> > > disease.
> >
> > And you conveniently forgot to mention that people have
> > grown MUCH more sedentary in the last 30 years. Geeze, I
> > wonder if a lack of exercise would have anything to do
> > with this?
>
> 30 years? What happened 30 years ago that allowed humans to
> be more sedentary than, say, 40 or 50 years ago?
>
> > > If you want ot be fat and sick, keep it up. Eat your
> > > grains. I upped =
my
> > > animal-source fat and protein consumption and cut my
> > > grain consumption and lost my 25 excess pounds easily.
> >
> > And you still have a 35"+ waist. Let me know when you get
> > in down to under a *healthy* 32" like this grain eater
> > has/and every male should.
>
> First, I'm a 32" waist and 5' 10". Second, that doesn't
> mean I'm healthy. Weight loss can be a symptom of disease.
> Don't confuse weight with health. I know a very tall woman
> that biked from Houston to Austin... and she weighed 275 at
> the time.
>
> > > My family and I went from dozens of prescriptions per
> > > year to none, zero, zip, nada. No more IBS, no more
> > > hunger from trying to eat less, no more throat
> > > infections, colds, flus, etc. I haven't had a sick day
> > > in years. And I eat virtually no grains.
> >
> > And I eat plenty of grains and I'm in better health
> > than you.
>
> Based on what evidence?
>
> > > My BMs are perfectly regular and normal. I need no
> > > stinking fiber.
> >
> > If you're eating fruit and veggies, you're getting
> > fiber... trust me.
>
> But the point is that it's not needed to have a BM. Take his
> example of the Inuit Eskimos.
>
> > > I've seen the difference first hand regarding eating
> > > copious amounts =
of
> > > supposedly unhealthy animal-sourced foods vs. eating
> > > supposed healthy grains. And what I've seen is not what
> > > you and the medical "experts" are keep insisting on.
> >
> > Somehow I highly doubt you were you eating *whole* grains
> > prior to your change in diet? I have the feeling you
> > didn't have a clue until you picked up your Zone Diet book
> > and then cut out all enriched flour products. And now
> > think you think you're improved health is the result of
> > not eating any grain, whole grain included. There's a
> > problem with this/your thinking, you know?
>
> Dr. Joseph Mercola has written a great deal about the health
> implications of grains, whole or otherwise. This is more
> than just a fad. There is real science behind the idea
> of avoiding grains.
>
> > > Grains are the bane of human existence. They are
> > > completely un-necessary and, in fact, are contrary to
> > > what we need to be healthy.
> >
> > Yea, sure... grains they've been an integral part of many
> > cultures for thousands of years and now, somehow, they're
> > taboo... you're funny...
> >
> > Patrick
>
> Thousands of years is a drop in the bucket compared to human
> existence. It is unfortunate that we have little information
> about life expectancy before man started farming. As of now,
> there's really no indisputable way to say that the advent of
> grain farming increased or decreased average life
> expectancy.
>
> Max.

Very well said Max. You hit every nail right on the head.

This is why I stopped eating grains. I was getting fat,
approaching 200 lbs on a 5' 10" frame. Following the
mainstreams urgings of eating less fat and more carbs, I ended
up eating mostly grains. Pasta with low-fat sauces, bread with
margarine, cereals, and eating very little meat and animal
fats, etc. And me and my family were getting sicker. Now I did
not realize it at the time. I thought we were normal. We'd get
various infections and colds and flus and we muddled our way
through life having to be on prescribed meds half the time. nd
we were NOT losing weight, as was supposed to happen when you
eat less and exercise more.

Eventually we tried a low carb diet. And lo and behold we
started losing weight on a higher calorie diet. That is when I
stared educating myself about diet and one of the first things
I found out was that todays grains are not being processed
properly for best nutrition. They are processed to be clean,
white and tasteless, which happens to render them
nutritionally empty. Then there is the gluten issue. Then
there is the whole grain issue, where they take nutritionally
empty white four and add overly process semi-rancid leavings
back to them and they are now magically transformed inot the
almighty "whole grain".

Anyways, the upshot is that we changed the way we eat by
cutting out virtually all grains, eating only real fresh whole
foods like meats and veggies and we are back to our normal
weights and have had ZERO prescriptions in the last 3 or 4
years. All this with no grains.

TC

Mr. Natura

Tue, Oct-03-06, 17:16

Max C. wrote:
> Mr. Natural-Health wrote:
> > > The tooth hypothoses is just that , theory.
> >
> > SORRY, but it is proven fact. :)
>
> Provide said proof.

Sorry, but I do NOT have to provide proof for the theory of
anything that is generally accepted as fact.

> > > BUT grain is a lot more abrasive than ANY bone or bone
> > > material.
> >
> > Ooooh! Then you must never have heard of cream corn,
> > or soup?
>
> So you're saying that in order to in order to get the
> benefits of grains we should only eat them in cream or soup
> form? Do you follow such a recommendation?

Grains should be cooked before eaten.

I eat whole-grain wheat bread, too.

> > You and your low IQ have my condolences.
>
> Is this your new sign off? Must have taken you months to
> come up with that gem. One more display of your unparalleled
> lack of originality.

Max, are you always so boring?

And, do you always post at the intellectual level of a third
grader? Your nonsense is getting quite tiresome.

Just thought that you might want to try harder, next time.

Max C.

Tue, Oct-03-06, 17:16

Mr. Natural-Health wrote:
> Max C. wrote:
> > Mr. Natural-Health wrote:
> > > > The tooth hypothoses is just that , theory.
> > >
> > > SORRY, but it is proven fact. :)
> >
> > Provide said proof.
>
> Sorry, but I do NOT have to provide proof for the theory of
> anything that is generally accepted as fact.

"do not have to" = can not. You're the only one accepting it
as fact. Provide evidence that any authority on the subject is
accepting it as fact.

> > > > BUT grain is a lot more abrasive than ANY bone or bone
> > > > material.
> > >
> > > Ooooh! Then you must never have heard of cream corn, or
> > > soup?
> >
> > So you're saying that in order to in order to get the
> > benefits of grains we should only eat them in cream or
> > soup form? Do you follow such a recommendation?
>
> Grains should be cooked before eaten.
>
> I eat whole-grain wheat bread, too.

What are you saying... that the Egyptians ate their
grains raw? Your argument is so faulty you can't even
keep it straight.

> > > You and your low IQ have my condolences.
> >
> > Is this your new sign off? Must have taken you months to
> > come up with that gem. One more display of your
> > unparalleled lack of originality.
>
> Max, are you always so boring?
>
> And, do you always post at the intellectual level of a third
> grader? Your nonsense is getting quite tiresome.

BWWAAAAAAHAHHAAAHAHHAHAHAHHHHAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! Oh the
irony!!! I ask you to support your position with data and the
best you can come up with are more insults. More masturbation
for you? Your keyboard must be awefully sticky.

Max.

Mr. Natura

Tue, Oct-03-06, 17:16

Max C. wrote:
> Mr. Natural-Health wrote:
> > Max C. wrote:
> > > Mr. Natural-Health wrote:
> > > > > The tooth hypothoses is just that , theory.
> > > >
> > > > SORRY, but it is proven fact. :)
> > >
> > > Provide said proof.
> >
> > Sorry, but I do NOT have to provide proof for the theory
> > of anything that is generally accepted as fact.
>
> "do not have to" = can not. You're the only one accepting it
> as fact. Provide evidence that any authority on the subject
> is accepting it as fact.
>
> > > > > BUT grain is a lot more abrasive than ANY bone or
> > > > > bone material.
> > > >
> > > > Ooooh! Then you must never have heard of cream corn,
> > > > or soup?
> > >
> > > So you're saying that in order to in order to get the
> > > benefits of grains we should only eat them in cream or
> > > soup form? Do you follow such a recommendation?
> >
> > Grains should be cooked before eaten.
> >
> > I eat whole-grain wheat bread, too.
>
> What are you saying... that the Egyptians ate their grains
> raw? Your argument is so faulty you can't even keep it
> straight.
>
> > > > You and your low IQ have my condolences.
> > >
> > > Is this your new sign off? Must have taken you months to
> > > come up with that gem. One more display of your
> > > unparalleled lack of originality.
> >
> > Max, are you always so boring?
> >
> > And, do you always post at the intellectual level of a
> > third grader? Your nonsense is getting quite tiresome.
>
> BWWAAAAAAHAHHAAAHAHHAHAHAHHHHAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! Oh the
> irony!!! I ask you to support your position with data and
> the best you can come up with are more insults. More
> masturbation for you? Your keyboard must be awefully sticky.

I cannot carry on an intelligent conversation with a jackass
who is NOT even aware of the fact that animals wear their
teeth out from eating raw food their entire lives and end up
starving to death.

Your ignorance is truly amazing.

You have my condolences. And, tell your 3rd grade
teacher hello for
me.

You and your Low IQ have my condolences.

Max C.

Tue, Oct-03-06, 17:16

Vernon wrote:
> "Max C." <maxc246@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:11598872-
> 08.505623.294930@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Mr. Natural-Health wrote:
> >> Max C. wrote:
> >> > Mr. Natural-Health wrote:
> >> > > > The tooth hypothoses is just that , theory.
> >> > >
> >> > > SORRY, but it is proven fact. :)
> >> >
> >> > Provide said proof.
> >>
> >> Sorry, but I do NOT have to provide proof for the theory
> >> of anything that is generally accepted as fact.
> >
> > "do not have to" = can not. You're the only one accepting
> > it as fact. Provide evidence that any authority on the
> > subject is accepting it as fact.
> >
> >> > > > BUT grain is a lot more abrasive than ANY bone or
> >> > > > bone material.
> >> > >
> >> > > Ooooh! Then you must never have heard of cream corn,
> >> > > or soup?
> >> >
> >> > So you're saying that in order to in order to get the
> >> > benefits of grains we should only eat them in cream or
> >> > soup form? Do you follow such a recommendation?
> >>
> >> Grains should be cooked before eaten.
> >>
> >> I eat whole-grain wheat bread, too.
> >
> > What are you saying... that the Egyptians ate their grains
> > raw? Your argument is so faulty you can't even keep it
> > straight.
>
> Actually, many did and it ground their teeth down.

I'd be interested to see data on that. Seriously, have you
ever tried to eat uncooked grains? I've tried it a few times
while grinding flour. It's nearly impossible to eat. I can't
imagine trying to fill your stomach on uncooked grains. Your
teeth would be gone in far less than 30 years.

Max.

Vernon

Tue, Oct-03-06, 17:16

"Max C." <maxc246@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159887208.505623.294930@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> Mr. Natural-Health wrote:
>> Max C. wrote:
>> > Mr. Natural-Health wrote:
>> > > > The tooth hypothoses is just that , theory.
>> > >
>> > > SORRY, but it is proven fact. :)
>> >
>> > Provide said proof.
>>
>> Sorry, but I do NOT have to provide proof for the theory of
>> anything that is generally accepted as fact.
>
> "do not have to" = can not. You're the only one accepting it
> as fact. Provide evidence that any authority on the subject
> is accepting it as fact.
>
>> > > > BUT grain is a lot more abrasive than ANY bone or
>> > > > bone material.
>> > >
>> > > Ooooh! Then you must never have heard of cream corn, or
>> > > soup?
>> >
>> > So you're saying that in order to in order to get the
>> > benefits of grains we should only eat them in cream or
>> > soup form? Do you follow such a recommendation?
>>
>> Grains should be cooked before eaten.
>>
>> I eat whole-grain wheat bread, too.
>
> What are you saying... that the Egyptians ate their grains
> raw? Your argument is so faulty you can't even keep it
> straight.

Actually, many did and it ground their teeth down.

>
>> > > You and your low IQ have my condolences.
>> >
>> > Is this your new sign off? Must have taken you months to
>> > come up with that gem. One more display of your
>> > unparalleled lack of originality.
>>
>> Max, are you always so boring?
>>
>> And, do you always post at the intellectual level of a
>> third grader? Your nonsense is getting quite tiresome.
>
> BWWAAAAAAHAHHAAAHAHHAHAHAHHHHAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! Oh the
> irony!!! I ask you to support your position with data and
> the best you can come up with are more insults. More
> masturbation for you? Your keyboard must be awefully sticky.
>
> Max.

Vernon

Tue, Oct-03-06, 17:16

"Max C." <maxc246@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159902932.309761.262640@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> Vernon wrote:
>> "Max C." <maxc246@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1159887-
>> 208.505623.294930@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Mr. Natural-Health wrote:
>> >> Max C. wrote:
>> >> > Mr. Natural-Health wrote:
>> >> > > > The tooth hypothoses is just that , theory.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > SORRY, but it is proven fact. :)
>> >> >
>> >> > Provide said proof.
>> >>
>> >> Sorry, but I do NOT have to provide proof for the theory
>> >> of anything that is generally accepted as fact.
>> >
>> > "do not have to" = can not. You're the only one accepting
>> > it as fact. Provide evidence that any authority on the
>> > subject is accepting it as fact.
>> >
>> >> > > > BUT grain is a lot more abrasive than ANY bone or
>> >> > > > bone material.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Ooooh! Then you must never have heard of cream corn,
>> >> > > or soup?
>> >> >
>> >> > So you're saying that in order to in order to get the
>> >> > benefits of grains we should only eat them in cream or
>> >> > soup form? Do you follow such a recommendation?
>> >>
>> >> Grains should be cooked before eaten.
>> >>
>> >> I eat whole-grain wheat bread, too.
>> >
>> > What are you saying... that the Egyptians ate their
>> > grains raw? Your argument is so faulty you can't even
>> > keep it straight.
>>
>> Actually, many did and it ground their teeth down.
>
> I'd be interested to see data on that. Seriously, have you
> ever tried to eat uncooked grains? I've tried it a few times
> while grinding flour. It's nearly impossible to eat. I can't
> imagine trying to fill your stomach on uncooked grains. Your
> teeth would be gone in far less than 30 years.
>
> Max.
>

That's one of the reasons for what they found in mummies. Our
friend blamed it on animal bones. Animal bones can break a
tooth but not grind them down.
Note: I said many, not all. Yes, grains are really tough. Our
neat little ways of processing were not always around.
They (a sub group of the royalty) ground much but
thought of grains (no cooking, No adulterations) as
"better". Anecdotes from the time talk of people walking
through fields and eating raw wheat as they go. Need
less to say we are quite spoiled.

Max C.

Wed, Oct-04-06, 06:16

Vernon wrote:

> That's one of the reasons for what they found in mummies.
> Our friend blamed it on animal bones. Animal bones can break
> a tooth but not grind them down.
> Note: I said many, not all. Yes, grains are really tough.
> Our neat little ways of processing were not always
> around. They (a sub group of the royalty) ground much
> but thought of grains (no cooking, No adulterations)
> as "better". Anecdotes from the time talk of people
> walking through fields and eating raw wheat as they
> go. Need less to say we are quite spoiled.

Sorry, but without at least SOME kind of evidence to support
that, I just don't buy it. The Egyptians weren't stupid. Why
would they attempt to eat grain raw when they knew very well
how to make it into bread and beer?

I just did a little search and found this web site:

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/egypt/dailylife/diet-
_egypt.htm

>From that site:
"Grains offered an endless supply of food to the ancient
Egyptians and could be stored with little spoiling. The grain
raised in ancient Egypt was taken and stored in local
community granaries. The grain could be used for making bread,
pastries, and cakes. The process of turning the grain into
usable flour was a long and daily process. The grain first had
to be pounded, and then ground. The ground grain would be put
into a simple mill that would refine the grain even more until
it become the consistency of flour. Sour dough was often used
in replacement of yeast, and even barm from the last brewing
of beer would be used as a replacement. The breads would be
flavored by adding honey, fruits, nuts, and oils to the dough
before baking."

In fact, I just searched for ancient Egyptians + raw grains on
google. I got several hits, but the only things directly
linking the 2 were referring to raw grains being offered as a
sacrifice.

I just don't see anyone eating grains raw. I'm going to need
more than just hearsay to believe it.

Max.

Vernon

Wed, Oct-04-06, 06:17

"Max C." <maxc246@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159924592.300963.215520@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Vernon wrote:
>
>> That's one of the reasons for what they found in mummies.
>> Our friend blamed it on animal bones. Animal bones can
>> break a tooth but not grind them down.
>> Note: I said many, not all. Yes, grains are really tough.
>> Our neat little ways of processing were not always
>> around. They (a sub group of the royalty) ground much
>> but thought of grains (no cooking, No adulterations)
>> as "better". Anecdotes from the time talk of people
>> walking through fields and eating raw wheat as they
>> go. Need less to say we are quite spoiled.
>
> Sorry, but without at least SOME kind of evidence to support
> that, I just don't buy it. The Egyptians weren't stupid. Why
> would they attempt to eat grain raw when they knew very well
> how to make it into bread and beer?
>
> I just did a little search and found this web site:
>
> http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/egypt/dailylife/diet-
> _egypt.htm
>
>>From that site:
> "Grains offered an endless supply of food to the ancient
> Egyptians and could be stored with little spoiling. The
> grain raised in ancient Egypt was taken and stored in local
> community granaries. The grain could be used for making
> bread, pastries, and cakes. The process of turning the grain
> into usable flour was a long and daily process. The grain
> first had to be pounded, and then ground. The ground grain
> would be put into a simple mill that would refine the grain
> even more until it become the consistency of flour. Sour
> dough was often used in replacement of yeast, and even barm
> from the last brewing of beer would be used as a
> replacement. The breads would be flavored by adding honey,
> fruits, nuts, and oils to the dough before baking."
>
> In fact, I just searched for ancient Egyptians + raw grains
> on google. I got several hits, but the only things directly
> linking the 2 were referring to raw grains being offered as
> a sacrifice.
>
> I just don't see anyone eating grains raw. I'm going to need
> more than just hearsay to believe it.
>
> Max.
>

http://www.kingtutone.com/mummies/examination/

http://www.uic.edu/classes/osci/osci590/6_2Mummies%20Mummies%-
20and%20Disease%20in%20Egypt.htm

http://www.internet-at-work.com/hos_mcgrane/egypt/egypt6.htm

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/ancient_egypt_for_chil-
dren/32721

Now, they either ate grain (Coarse bread) or sand. Take
your pick. OR Identify some other food that can actually
grind teeth.

Just for starters.

Next check the religious beliefs.

Bottom line. It has never been identified as from eating meat.

Mr. Natura

Wed, Oct-04-06, 17:16

Max C. wrote:
> Vernon wrote:
> > "Max C." <maxc246@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:115988-
> > 7208.505623.294930@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > Mr. Natural-Health wrote:
> > >> Max C. wrote:
> > >> > Mr. Natural-Health wrote:
> > >> > > > The tooth hypothoses is just that , theory.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > SORRY, but it is proven fact. :)
> > >> >
> > >> > Provide said proof.
> > >>
> > >> Sorry, but I do NOT have to provide proof for the
> > >> theory of anything that is generally accepted as fact.
> > >
> > > "do not have to" = can not. You're the only one
> > > accepting it as fact. Provide evidence that any
> > > authority on the subject is accepting it as fact.
> > >
> > >> > > > BUT grain is a lot more abrasive than ANY bone or
> > >> > > > bone material.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Ooooh! Then you must never have heard of cream
> > >> > > corn, or soup?
> > >> >
> > >> > So you're saying that in order to in order to get the
> > >> > benefits of grains we should only eat them in cream
> > >> > or soup form? Do you follow such a recommendation?
> > >>
> > >> Grains should be cooked before eaten.
> > >>
> > >> I eat whole-grain wheat bread, too.
> > >
> > > What are you saying... that the Egyptians ate their
> > > grains raw? Your argument is so faulty you can't even
> > > keep it straight.
> >
> > Actually, many did and it ground their teeth down.
>
> I'd be interested to see data on that. Seriously, have you
> ever tried to eat uncooked grains? I've tried it a few times
> while grinding flour. It's nearly impossible to eat. I can't
> imagine trying to fill your stomach on uncooked grains. Your
> teeth would be gone in far less than 30 years.

PS: Sand does not soften up from cooking.

Just thought that you might want to know.

Max C.

Wed, Oct-04-06, 17:16

These links do not support your claim that Egyptians ate raw
grains. Our discussion went like this:

Max C. said to Mr. Nat:
>> What are you saying... that the Egyptians ate their grains
>> raw? Your argument is so faulty you can't even keep it
>> straight.

Vernon said:
>Actually, many did and it ground their teeth down.

I'll address these links one at a time.

Vernon wrote:
> http://www.kingtutone.com/mummies/examination/

This link mentions nothing at all about grains. It just said
"Deciduous teeth are found in small children, while young
adults have teeth that are grinded down due to Ancient
Egyptian diet." That's a pretty big leap to assume from that
that they ate raw grains.

>http://www.uic.edu/classes/osci/osci590/6_2Mummies%20Mummies-
>%20and%20Disease%20in%20Egypt.htm

This one just says "In ancient Egypt, the greatest single
problem was attrition (wear). The teeth were rapidly worn down
throughout life by the consumption of a course diet." No
mention of grains anywhere, raw or otherwise.

> http://www.internet-at-work.com/hos_mcgrane/egypt/egypt6.htm

This one disputes your claim that they ate raw grains. It says
"Studies of mummies have shown how coarse bread made the
people's teeth wear away." Bread would be a cooked grain.

> http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/ancient_egypt_for_child-
> ren/32721

Once again, this one talks about the foods they *cooked.*

> Now, they either ate grain (Coarse bread) or sand. Take
> your pick. OR Identify some other food that can actually
> grind teeth.

That they ate grains was never in question. That was actually
my point in this thread (Remember, I'm the one that brought up
the ancient Egyptians.) I asked Mr. Nat if he was trying to
claim that the Egyptians ate their grains raw (see above
reference.) You claimed that some of them did. None of these
links support that claim.

> Just for starters.
>
> Next check the religious beliefs.
>
> Bottom line. It has never been identified as from
> eating meat.

I never said it had been... but I also do not accept that it
came from eating raw grains. Raw = uncooked. My position is
exactly what was studied and shown by Weston Price. If a
person (or an entire culture) can not get adequate nutrition,
the body will start to fail. Teeth can often show signs of a
body that is nutritionally under supplied. It is my belief
that the Egyptians had bad teeth because they weren't getting
the nutrients they needed to have good teeth to begin with. I
believe that the rough food only added to the problem that
their teeth weren't strong to begin with... due to lack of
nutrition.

I'm still open to evidence that they ate raw grains... but
from my own personal experience, I just don't see how that
could be. I could believe that they ate soaked, uncooked
grains... but not completely unprepared, right off the plant.

Max.

Max C.

Wed, Oct-04-06, 17:16

Mr. Natural-Health wrote:
> PS: Sand does not soften up from cooking.
>
> Just thought that you might want to know.

PS: you're avoiding my challange to you where I said "Provide
evidence that any authority on the subject is accepting it
as fact." with regards to this subject. What's wrong?
Can't come up with any evidence to support your claim?

Your attacks mean nothing if you can't support your own
claims. Just thought you might want to know.

Max.

Mr. Natura

Wed, Oct-04-06, 17:16

Max C. wrote:
> Mr. Natural-Health wrote:
> > PS: Sand does not soften up from cooking.
> >
> > Just thought that you might want to know.
>
> Your attacks mean nothing if you can't support your own
> claims. Just thought you might want to know.
>
> Max.

Well, I thought that you thought that cooking would soften up
sand. Thanks for verifying just how stupid you really are.

You have my never ending condolences.

Max C.

Wed, Oct-04-06, 17:16

Mr. Natural-Health wrote:
> Max C. wrote:
> > Mr. Natural-Health wrote:
> > > PS: Sand does not soften up from cooking.
> > >
> > > Just thought that you might want to know.
> >
> > Your attacks mean nothing if you can't support your own
> > claims. Just thought you might want to know.
> >
> > Max.
>
> Well, I thought that you thought that cooking would
> soften up sand. Thanks for verifying just how stupid you
> really are.
>
> You have my never ending condolences.

Thank you. (Really... no one ever helps me prove them wrong as
much as you.)

Max C.

Wed, Oct-04-06, 17:16

Vernon wrote:
> "Max C." <maxc246@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:11599698-
> 63.802762.49360@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> You are not open to any discussion.
>
> What is course bread? What causes worn teeth?
>
> If you don't like it, tough.
>
> The Egyptians ate raw wheat, coarsely ground wheat, coarsely
> ground baked bread, coarsely ground fried bread.
>
> You said you found "no" references. I said "here's a
> beginning"
>
> Your next argument is not what "coarsely ground" means.
>
> The references I gave only pointed out the piece of very
> course bread found in one tomb. It was not worth the extra
> lines to state what most know. There was always a pile of
> wheat for their food.
>
> You wouldn't eat it. I wouldn't. They did. When in school, I
> did try it, raw and straight from the plant. Then I tried it
> with the chaff removed.

I'm very open. If you can show me some evidence that they ate
raw wheat, I'll look at it. There's no need to get upset about
it. Just show me some evidence. Being buried with raw wheat is
only an indication that they consider wheat a food. It
certainly doesn't prove they ate it raw.

So what is course bread? How can you make bread without first
breaking down the wheat berry somehow? How can you make bread
without cooking it?

I'm asking real questions, but the answers you're giving don't
answer them. They are answers to questions that have not been
asked, mainly because those issues are not in dispute. We know
they ate wheat. You said they ate it raw, right from the
plant. I'm just asking for some evidence. That doesn't seem to
me to be a reason to get upset.

Max.

Vernon

Wed, Oct-04-06, 17:16

"Max C." <maxc246@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159969863.802762.49360@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

You are not open to any discussion.

What is course bread? What causes worn teeth?

If you don't like it, tough.

The Egyptians ate raw wheat, coarsely ground wheat, coarsely
ground baked bread, coarsely ground fried bread.

You said you found "no" references. I said "here's a
beginning"

Your next argument is not what "coarsely ground" means.

The references I gave only pointed out the piece of very
course bread found in one tomb. It was not worth the extra
lines to state what most know. There was always a pile of
wheat for their food.

You wouldn't eat it. I wouldn't. They did. When in school, I
did try it, raw and straight from the plant. Then I tried it
with the chaff removed.

Vernon

Wed, Oct-04-06, 17:16

"Max C." <maxc246@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159985619.291421.9150@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Mr. Natural-Health wrote:
>> Max C. wrote:
>> > Mr. Natural-Health wrote:
>> > > PS: Sand does not soften up from cooking.
>> > >
>> > > Just thought that you might want to know.
>> >
>> > Your attacks mean nothing if you can't support your own
>> > claims. Just thought you might want to know.
>> >
>> > Max.
>>
>> Well, I thought that you thought that cooking would
>> soften up sand. Thanks for verifying just how stupid you
>> really are.
>>
>> You have my never ending condolences.
>
> Thank you. (Really... no one ever helps me prove them wrong
> as much as you.)
>

A theory mostly (note mostly) (sand theory) disproved when the
methods were tested with steel holders.

Terry Shre

Mon, Oct-09-06, 17:16

Weightlifters gave up soy years ago, it did not do the
job for them.

Terry a3587s@att.net

<NoOption5L@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1159668276.941611.204330@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Vernon wrote:
>
>> Too much grain in relation to all other sources of
>> calories. Note calories, not volume or food. Some grains
>> are good for fiber. Excess carbs are excess carbs.
>
> And excess fat is excess fat and excess protein is excess
> protein. If you don't burn up the excess calories any of
> them provide it turns to fat.
>
>> It is nearly impossible to have much grains and still have
>> room in a good diet for vegetables, fruits, oils, proteins.
>
> Huh? A closer to accurate statement would be 'nearly
> impossible to have much meat & oils and have room in a good
> diet for vegatables and fruits'?
>
> 4 oz of *lean* beef tenderloin = 240 calories 1 cup of
> bulgur wheat = 151 calories
>
>> Then there is el fatto American diet.
>
> I think one of the most overlooked sources of calories in
> the typical "el fatto American diet" is liquids - sodas,
> fruit punches and sports drinks. People down numerous cans &
> bottles of this crap every day and then turn right around
> and eat because the drinks don't fill them up. If you
> measure the calories from a few cans/bottles of this stuff,
> it adds up to an extra mini meal every day.
>
>> Then there is the "Oh it's unrefined", "It's the pure
>> stuff", "It's organic"
>
> What's wrong with unrefined, pure stuff and organic?
>
>> Then there are the real sickos who consume sugar as if it
>> were a nutrient.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> >> >> > to make no mention of, or worse completely
>> >> >> > exonerate, deep-fried [Long John Silver's] fish,
>
>> >> >> with a large order of chips and a large soda
>
>> >> > Instead exchange for: Broiled salmon + baked sweet
>> >> > potato + green tea
>
>> >> Baked sweet potato or yams are some of my favorites but
>> >> carrots, bell peppers, onions are really good and a lot
>> >> better choice.
>
>> > Saying the others are "a lot better choice" than a sweet
>> > potato or yam is like saying strawberries are a lot
>> > better choice than blueberries. It depends... it all
>> > depends on what you're measuring for. But I don't measure
>> > food this way. I know they each bring their own special,
>> > good-for-you properties so it's best to constantly eat a
>> > variety.
>
>> >> >> > greasy [Big Mac/Burger
>
>> >> >> with a super sized fry and a 3/4 gallon jug of sugar
>> >> >> water
>
>> >> > Replace with: Lean roast beef + whole wheat bread +
>> >> > romaine lettuce + tomatos + water with a slice of
>> >> > lemon
>
>> >> Of course you could get real. People have a life and
>> >> work for a living and one of the worst things one can do
>> >> is bring their lunch. Going out (anyplace) is the most
>> >> healthy thing one can do.
>
>> > Hahahahahaha.... funny stuff... this IS a joke, right?
>
>> >> >> > King/Wendy's] double-bacon cheeseburgers,
>
>> >> >> and a fries and drink
>
>> >> > Replace with: Ostrich burger + spinach salad + glass
>> >> > of milk
>
>> >> >> > slimey [Kentucky Fried] chicken,
>
>> >> >> and a fries and drink
>
>> >> > Replace with: Baked chicken breast + brown rice +
>> >> > glass of fresh squeezed orange juice
>
>> >> Brown rice? why? How about wild rice or cooked raw rice?
>
>> > Because it's whole grain.
>
>> Brown rice is brown rice. You have obviously never been
>> associated with the industry enough to know how they make
>> nearly white rice brown.
>
> It depends on what brands and style of brown rice you buy.
>
>> > Wild rice is good too.
>
>> > "Cooked raw rice" ?
>
>> Yes
>
> Please define.
>
>> >> >> > and artery-stopping [Pizza Hut] "Meat Lovers" pizza
>> >> >> > is a huge disservice to this NG.
>
>> >> >> on a one-inch thick white flour crust and with a
>> >> >> large soda
>
>> >> > Replace with homemade whole-wheat crust/sesame seeds +
>> >> > tomato sauce + green/red/yellow peppers, onions,
>> >> > mushrooms, pineapple + tall glass of water
>
>> >> Of course you could get real. People have a life and
>> >> work for a living and one of the worst things one can do
>> >> is bring their lunch. Going out (anyplace) is the most
>> >> healthy thing one can do.
>
>> > Damn!! You're not kidding... you really believe this.
>
>> It's been proven over and over. What one puts in their
>> mouth is not all of life.
>
> Don't get all profound on me. What the heck are you
> alluding to?
>
>> > Restaurants compete against each other, and like other
>> > businesses most times the one that offers the lowest
>> > price wins the most customers. So, in order to offer the
>> > lowest (or lower) price, the fast food places often use
>> > the cheapest ingredients - refined grains/sugar, lots of
>> > salt, low-grade meats and oils. And since most fast food
>> > comsumers base their food choices on "taste" alone
>> > there's little reason for them offer anything
>> > better/decent.
>
>> You have NEVER been associated with the buisiness in ANY
>> form, unless bussing dishes. I'll give you 300 guesses as
>> to which company of any type buys the highest grade
>> hamburger available.
>
> Why didn't/don't you just tell us?
>
>> >> > So we're in agreement then? The whole fast food meal
>> >> > is crap -- crappy meat and crappy carbs, and too much
>> >> > of both, rrrrighttttt....?
>
>> >> Fast food is for people with a life and that have to
>> >> earn a living.
>
>> > No. [Most] fast food is for people who don't know how it
>> > will negatively affect the quality of their life as
>> > they're earning their living.
>
>> You are ignorantly associating "fast food" with some
>> imaginary cuisine.
>
> FAST FOOD... the names that pop in the minds of most people
> would be McDonalds, Burger King, Wendys, KFC, White Castle
> etc. THAT'S what I'm talking about.
>
> Now what are you talking about?
>
>> You imagine yourself as some prima donna, when in fact you
>> are too stupid to get a fast "NUTRITIOUS" meal from almost
>> any food vender around.
>
> Since you don't have a clue here are you ready to buy one?
>
>> >> Next time you make suggestions, pretend you work for a
>> >> living on a typical job Truck driver, construction
>> >> worker, landscape helper, busy office, engineer, retail
>> >> store clerk.
>
>> > I'm in this group and I pack my lunch EVERY day.
>
>> No wonder you have a problem. I suppose you take a break
>> for lunch to mix with others. ha ha ha ha ha The "break"
>> and mixing is more important than eating unless it is your
>> only meal of the day.
>
> You really do need to buy a clue.
>
>> Looking at the volume of you menu, iy better be your
>> only meal.
>
> It's not. Normally, if it's a gym day, I have two others,
> plus two or three snacks.
>
>> > Here's what I ate today:
>
>> > 1 apple small bag of raw brocolli 6-7 cherry tomatos
>> > 1/3 can of salmon small bag of raw pea pods 1 sliced
>> > orange 5-6 Muscadine grapes 1 baked potato 2 pieces of
>> > [whole-grain] rye Wasa bread 1 cup of plain yogurt --
>> > with raisens, dried apple, and pumpkins seeds added
>
>> Sounds like a pig meal, if ever I heard one Now try 1 apple
>> small bag of raw brocolli 6-7 cherry tomatos
>> 1/3 can of salmon (or piece of pre cooked salmon, not
>> canned)
>
> Obviously, I'd prefer precooked over canned, but I don't
> have my chef following me around every day.
>
>> small bag of raw pea pods 1 sliced orange (what's the
>> purpose of slicing? the best part of an orange is just
>> under the skin and the fibers)
>
> Yea, I know. But once it's sliced I can more easily peel
> the fruit.
>
>> 5-6 Muscadine grapes 1 baked potato (to thow at someone or
>> give to someone you hate)
>
> It's sad. A very nutritious vegetable is being demonized
> much like the egg was once demonized.
>
> http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=48
>
>> 2 pieces of [whole-grain] rye Wasa bread ( to wipe your
>> butt with)
>
> http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=65
>
>> 1 cup of plain yogurt -- with raisens, dried apple, and
>> pumpkins seeds added (only if you made the yogurt yourself
>> and added the other ingredients at the last minute. Real
>> yogurt wont tolerate those things for more than an hour,
>> if that long)
>
> You're suggesting I make my own yogurt, yet you apparently
> often eat at fast food resturaunts. Hmmmm...
>
>> > It took me a staggering 15-20 minutes to make that lunch,
>> > and I somehow pulled it off while eating a bowl of my own
>> > special whole grain cereal mix with some nuts, seeds and
>> > this morning I tossed in some blueberries as I poured the
>> > milk on top.
>
>> If you were other than a nut, it would take about 5 - 10
>> minutes to toss an apple, couple stalks of celery,
>> Asparagas, couple carrots (not peeled), some peapods and
>> brocolli in a cold container along with a bottle of highly
>> alkaline water.
>
> Since nuts are good and wholesome I'll take that as a
> compliment.
>
> "Alkaline water"?
>
> Thanks for the suggestions, but my current diet is providing
> me with all the results I could ever ask for.
>
>> (You can skip meat for lunch as it is too difficult to pack
>> and preserve)
>
> Not if you have access to a fridge.
>
>> Then, you go to a park or convening place with others who
>> bring their whatever and "take a break".
>
> I do, every day, for a full hour. Thanks for your concern.
>
>> >> About the only person who could follow your suggestions
>> >> would be a stay at home mom, a worker, but access to a
>> >> stove and refrigerator. The alternative is someone who
>> >> is "kept" by someone else.
>
>> > If you can't get a clue, buy one.
>
>> Patrick Obviously over weight or some other physical
>> illness which would allow reasonable weight with that high
>> intake.
>
> It's called exercise.
>
> I'm 5'9", 165-170 pounds, and have a 30 inch waist = 10-11%
> body fat. My resting heart rate is in the 30s and I'm 43
> years old.
>
> Patrick

Vernon

Tue, Oct-10-06, 06:15

"Terry Shreve" <a3587s@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message new-
s:F3xWg.44401$QZ1.25935@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Weightlifters gave up soy years ago, it did not do the job
> for them.

Actually it did the opposite of that desired.

>
> Terry a3587s@att.net
>
> <NoOption5L@aol.com> wrote in message news:1159668276.94161-
> 1.204330@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> Vernon wrote:
>>
>>> Too much grain in relation to all other sources of
>>> calories. Note calories, not volume or food. Some grains
>>> are good for fiber. Excess carbs are excess carbs.
>>
>> And excess fat is excess fat and excess protein is excess
>> protein. If you don't burn up the excess calories any of
>> them provide it turns to fat.
>>
>>> It is nearly impossible to have much grains and still have
>>> room in a good diet for vegetables, fruits, oils,
>>> proteins.
>>
>> Huh? A closer to accurate statement would be 'nearly
>> impossible to have much meat & oils and have room in a good
>> diet for vegatables and fruits'?
>>
>> 4 oz of *lean* beef tenderloin = 240 calories 1 cup of
>> bulgur wheat = 151 calories
>>
>>> Then there is el fatto American diet.
>>
>> I think one of the most overlooked sources of calories in
>> the typical "el fatto American diet" is liquids - sodas,
>> fruit punches and sports drinks. People down numerous cans
>> & bottles of this crap every day and then turn right around
>> and eat because the drinks don't fill them up. If you
>> measure the calories from a few cans/bottles of this stuff,
>> it adds up to an extra mini meal every day.
>>
>>> Then there is the "Oh it's unrefined", "It's the pure
>>> stuff", "It's organic"
>>
>> What's wrong with unrefined, pure stuff and organic?
>>
>>> Then there are the real sickos who consume sugar as if it
>>> were a nutrient.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>>> >> >> > to make no mention of, or worse completely
>>> >> >> > exonerate, deep-fried [Long John Silver's] fish,
>>
>>> >> >> with a large order of chips and a large soda
>>
>>> >> > Instead exchange for: Broiled salmon + baked sweet
>>> >> > potato + green tea
>>
>>> >> Baked sweet potato or yams are some of my favorites but
>>> >> carrots, bell peppers, onions are really good and a lot
>>> >> better choice.
>>
>>> > Saying the others are "a lot better choice" than a sweet
>>> > potato or yam is like saying strawberries are a lot
>>> > better choice than blueberries. It depends... it all
>>> > depends on what you're measuring for. But I don't
>>> > measure food this way. I know they each bring their own
>>> > special, good-for-you properties so it's best to
>>> > constantly eat a variety.
>>
>>> >> >> > greasy [Big Mac/Burger
>>
>>> >> >> with a super sized fry and a 3/4 gallon jug of sugar
>>> >> >> water
>>
>>> >> > Replace with: Lean roast beef + whole wheat bread +
>>> >> > romaine lettuce + tomatos + water with a slice of
>>> >> > lemon
>>
>>> >> Of course you could get real. People have a life and
>>> >> work for a living and one of the worst things one can
>>> >> do is bring their lunch. Going out (anyplace) is the
>>> >> most healthy thing one can do.
>>
>>> > Hahahahahaha.... funny stuff... this IS a joke, right?
>>
>>> >> >> > King/Wendy's] double-bacon cheeseburgers,
>>
>>> >> >> and a fries and drink
>>
>>> >> > Replace with: Ostrich burger + spinach salad + glass
>>> >> > of milk
>>
>>> >> >> > slimey [Kentucky Fried] chicken,
>>
>>> >> >> and a fries and drink
>>
>>> >> > Replace with: Baked chicken breast + brown rice +
>>> >> > glass of fresh squeezed orange juice
>>
>>> >> Brown rice? why? How about wild rice or cooked raw
>>> >> rice?
>>
>>> > Because it's whole grain.
>>
>>> Brown rice is brown rice. You have obviously never been
>>> associated with the industry enough to know how they make
>>> nearly white rice brown.
>>
>> It depends on what brands and style of brown rice you buy.
>>
>>> > Wild rice is good too.
>>
>>> > "Cooked raw rice" ?
>>
>>> Yes
>>
>> Please define.
>>
>>> >> >> > and artery-stopping [Pizza Hut] "Meat Lovers"
>>> >> >> > pizza is a huge disservice to this NG.
>>
>>> >> >> on a one-inch thick white flour crust and with a
>>> >> >> large soda
>>
>>> >> > Replace with homemade whole-wheat crust/sesame seeds
>>> >> > + tomato sauce + green/red/yellow peppers, onions,
>>> >> > mushrooms, pineapple + tall glass of water
>>
>>> >> Of course you could get real. People have a life and
>>> >> work for a living and one of the worst things one can
>>> >> do is bring their lunch. Going out (anyplace) is the
>>> >> most healthy thing one can do.
>>
>>> > Damn!! You're not kidding... you really believe this.
>>
>>> It's been proven over and over. What one puts in their
>>> mouth is not all of life.
>>
>> Don't get all profound on me. What the heck are you
>> alluding to?
>>
>>> > Restaurants compete against each other, and like other
>>> > businesses most times the one that offers the lowest
>>> > price wins the most customers. So, in order to offer the
>>> > lowest (or lower) price, the fast food places often use
>>> > the cheapest ingredients - refined grains/sugar, lots of
>>> > salt, low-grade meats and oils. And since most fast food
>>> > comsumers base their food choices on "taste" alone
>>> > there's little reason for them offer anything
>>> > better/decent.
>>
>>> You have NEVER been associated with the buisiness in ANY
>>> form, unless bussing dishes. I'll give you 300 guesses as
>>> to which company of any type buys the highest grade
>>> hamburger available.
>>
>> Why didn't/don't you just tell us?
>>
>>> >> > So we're in agreement then? The whole fast food meal
>>> >> > is crap -- crappy meat and crappy carbs, and too much
>>> >> > of both, rrrrighttttt....?
>>
>>> >> Fast food is for people with a life and that have to
>>> >> earn a living.
>>
>>> > No. [Most] fast food is for people who don't know how it
>>> > will negatively affect the quality of their life as
>>> > they're earning their living.
>>
>>> You are ignorantly associating "fast food" with some
>>> imaginary cuisine.
>>
>> FAST FOOD... the names that pop in the minds of most people
>> would be McDonalds, Burger King, Wendys, KFC, White Castle
>> etc. THAT'S what I'm talking about.
>>
>> Now what are you talking about?
>>
>>> You imagine yourself as some prima donna, when in fact you
>>> are too stupid to get a fast "NUTRITIOUS" meal from almost
>>> any food vender around.
>>
>> Since you don't have a clue here are you ready to buy one?
>>
>>> >> Next time you make suggestions, pretend you work for a
>>> >> living on a typical job Truck driver, construction
>>> >> worker, landscape helper, busy office, engineer, retail
>>> >> store clerk.
>>
>>> > I'm in this group and I pack my lunch EVERY day.
>>
>>> No wonder you have a problem. I suppose you take a break
>>> for lunch to mix with others. ha ha ha ha ha The "break"
>>> and mixing is more important than eating unless it is your
>>> only meal of the day.
>>
>> You really do need to buy a clue.
>>
>>> Looking at the volume of you menu, iy better be your
>>> only meal.
>>
>> It's not. Normally, if it's a gym day, I have two others,
>> plus two or three snacks.
>>
>>> > Here's what I ate today:
>>
>>> > 1 apple small bag of raw brocolli 6-7 cherry tomatos
>>> > 1/3 can of salmon small bag of raw pea pods 1 sliced
>>> > orange 5-6 Muscadine grapes 1 baked potato 2 pieces of
>>> > [whole-grain] rye Wasa bread 1 cup of plain yogurt --
>>> > with raisens, dried apple, and pumpkins seeds added
>>
>>> Sounds like a pig meal, if ever I heard one Now try 1
>>> apple small bag of raw brocolli 6-7 cherry tomatos
>>> 1/3 can of salmon (or piece of pre cooked salmon, not
>>> canned)
>>
>> Obviously, I'd prefer precooked over canned, but I don't
>> have my chef following me around every day.
>>
>>> small bag of raw pea pods 1 sliced orange (what's the
>>> purpose of slicing? the best part of an orange is just
>>> under the skin and the fibers)
>>
>> Yea, I know. But once it's sliced I can more easily peel
>> the fruit.
>>
>>> 5-6 Muscadine grapes 1 baked potato (to thow at someone
>>> or give to someone you hate)
>>
>> It's sad. A very nutritious vegetable is being demonized
>> much like the egg was once demonized.
>>
>> http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=48
>>
>>> 2 pieces of [whole-grain] rye Wasa bread ( to wipe your
>>> butt with)
>>
>> http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=65
>>
>>> 1 cup of plain yogurt -- with raisens, dried apple, and
>>> pumpkins seeds added (only if you made the yogurt
>>> yourself and added the other ingredients at the last
>>> minute. Real yogurt wont tolerate those things for more
>>> than an hour, if that long)
>>
>> You're suggesting I make my own yogurt, yet you apparently
>> often eat at fast food resturaunts. Hmmmm...
>>
>>> > It took me a staggering 15-20 minutes to make that
>>> > lunch, and I somehow pulled it off while eating a bowl
>>> > of my own special whole grain cereal mix with some nuts,
>>> > seeds and this morning I tossed in some blueberries as I
>>> > poured the milk on top.
>>
>>> If you were other than a nut, it would take about 5 - 10
>>> minutes to toss an apple, couple stalks of celery,
>>> Asparagas, couple carrots (not peeled), some peapods and
>>> brocolli in a cold container along with a bottle of highly
>>> alkaline water.
>>
>> Since nuts are good and wholesome I'll take that as a
>> compliment.
>>
>> "Alkaline water"?
>>
>> Thanks for the suggestions, but my current diet is
>> providing me with all the results I could ever ask for.
>>
>>> (You can skip meat for lunch as it is too difficult to
>>> pack and preserve)
>>
>> Not if you have access to a fridge.
>>
>>> Then, you go to a park or convening place with others who
>>> bring their whatever and "take a break".
>>
>> I do, every day, for a full hour. Thanks for your concern.
>>
>>> >> About the only person who could follow your suggestions
>>> >> would be a stay at home mom, a worker, but access to a
>>> >> stove and refrigerator. The alternative is someone who
>>> >> is "kept" by someone else.
>>
>>> > If you can't get a clue, buy one.
>>
>>> Patrick Obviously over weight or some other physical
>>> illness which would allow reasonable weight with that high
>>> intake.
>>
>> It's called exercise.
>>
>> I'm 5'9", 165-170 pounds, and have a 30 inch waist = 10-11%
>> body fat. My resting heart rate is in the 30s and I'm 43
>> years old.
>>
>> Patrick
>