0.4 grams of protein a day per pound

[Bicker]

Can anyone provide citations that show this information is
definitively incorrect? I'm prepared to send any citations
showing this information is inaccurate to Yahoo! I'm concerned
that they tend to engage partners to provide them content
quite often without fact-checking each article.

"Adults need about 0.4 grams of protein a day for each pound
of body weight. For example, a 120-pound woman needs about 48
grams of protein, which she could get with 2 cups soy milk (16
g), 2 slices whole wheat bread (6 g), 1/2 cup hummus (6 g), 3
ounces of cooked shrimp (18 g) and 1/4 cup of green peas (2
g). Most foods, particularly grains, contain small amounts of
protein that add up, so it's really not too difficult to meet
daily protein needs eating a varied, meatless diet."

[Source:
http://health.yahoo.com/search/miavita?lb=s&p=id%3A17801]

Here are some more quotes from this source:

"But there's little evidence that carbohydrates themselves
promote weight gain — or that restricting them will help in
long-term weight management. The truth is almost the
opposite."

What does "*almost* the opposite" mean?

Here's another quote that I happen to believe is true, but I'm
not sure everyone here does:

"You only need a few teaspoons of "good" fats to reap their
health benefits. The rest is just extra calories!"

And then they have some articles which are clearly,
unequivocally true, like
http://health.yahoo.com/search/miavita?lb=s&p=id%3A17803.

--
¤bicker¤ 263/161 fitness@brianandrobbie.com BP: 130/80 ->
100/60 See web site for Total Cholesterol: 256->200 before and
after photos. Waist: 46 -> 34 http://brianandrobbie.com BF%:
39% -> 13%

[Juli882]

Actually, this is exactly what I learned in my Nutrition
class. Alas, I have lost my text so I can't give you a source.
Actually, more likely, I threw it out because I tend to keep
reference materials for no longer three years (especially
since it takes about two years to get a text book published).

This is the traditional approach to nutrition. Many of the
older recommendations were aimed at preventing disease rather
than promoting health. If you recall, the old standards used
to advise that vitamin C intake should be 45 mgs/day which
should prevent scurvy in most people.

We were also well versed, in the dark ages, on the calories
per gram of food - 4 for fat and protein, 9 for fat, and
varied for the alcohol sugars. This is the logic from which
the 'low fat' fads had their beginning. The quality of fats
was limited to saturated vs unsaturated and we all had to draw
little fat molecules and memorize their structures (I have
since forgotten but not due to a memory problem but rather, it
is boring).

All of this information is still true, as far as I know.
Instead of being wrong, it seems that it is limited in scope.
There has been so much more research on foods and their
qualities in the last quarter century.

j

"bicker" <alt.support.diet@brianandrobbie.com.1NVAL1D> wrote
in message news:3d524ded.695341758@news7.beaconwoods.org...
> Can anyone provide citations that show this information is
> definitively incorrect? I'm prepared to send any citations
> showing this information is inaccurate to Yahoo! I'm
> concerned that they tend to engage partners to provide them
> content quite often without fact-checking each article.
>
> "Adults need about 0.4 grams of protein a day for each pound
> of body weight. For example, a 120-pound woman needs about
> 48 grams of protein, which she could get with 2 cups soy
> milk (16 g), 2 slices whole wheat bread (6 g), 1/2 cup
> hummus (6 g), 3 ounces of cooked shrimp (18 g) and 1/4 cup
> of green peas (2 g). Most foods, particularly grains,
> contain small amounts of protein that add up, so it's really
> not too difficult to meet daily protein needs eating a
> varied, meatless diet."
>
> [Source:
> http://health.yahoo.com/search/miavita?lb=s&p=id%3A17801]
>
> Here are some more quotes from this source:
>
> "But there's little evidence that carbohydrates themselves
> promote weight gain - or that restricting them will help in
> long-term weight management. The truth is almost the
> opposite."
>
> What does "*almost* the opposite" mean?
>
> Here's another quote that I happen to believe is true, but
> I'm not sure everyone here does:
>
> "You only need a few teaspoons of "good" fats to reap their
> health benefits. The rest is just extra calories!"
>
> And then they have some articles which are clearly,
> unequivocally true, like
> http://health.yahoo.com/search/miavita?lb=s&p=id%3A17803.
>
>
> --
> ¤bicker¤ 263/161 fitness@brianandrobbie.com BP: 130/80 ->
> 100/60 See web site for Total Cholesterol: 256->200 before
> and after photos. Waist: 46 -> 34 http://brianandrobbie.com
> BF%: 39% -> 13%

[Michael Ro]

On Thu, 08 Aug 2002 07:01:28 -0400, bicker
<alt.support.diet@brianandrobbie.com.1NVAL1D> wrote:

|Can anyone provide citations that show this information is
|definitively incorrect?

No. Required protein consumption is exercise/activity
dependent.

[Alex Brand]

On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, bicker wrote:

> Can anyone provide citations that show this information is
> definitively incorrect? I'm prepared to send any citations
> showing this information is inaccurate to Yahoo! I'm
> concerned that they tend to engage partners to provide them
> content quite often without fact-checking each article.
>
> "Adults need about 0.4 grams of protein a day for each pound
> of body weight. For example, a 120-pound woman needs about
> 48 grams of protein, which she could get with 2 cups soy
> milk (16 g), 2 slices whole wheat bread (6 g), 1/2 cup
> hummus (6 g), 3 ounces of cooked shrimp (18 g) and 1/4 cup
> of green peas (2 g). Most foods, particularly grains,
> contain small amounts of protein that add up, so it's really
> not too difficult to meet daily protein needs eating a
> varied, meatless diet."

They are talking about the amount needed to avoid tissue
wasting. I don't doubt that .4g/pound is enough to prevent
that provided calories are high enough, and activity levels
are low to moderate. For a very active person, the number will
be higher.

[Terri]

Michael Roose wrote:

> On Thu, 08 Aug 2002 07:01:28 -0400, bicker
> <alt.support.diet@brianandrobbie.com.1NVAL1D> wrote:
>
> |Can anyone provide citations that show this information is
> |definitively incorrect?
>
> No. Required protein consumption is exercise/activity
> dependent.

Can you explain? What body organs/tissues use protein for
fuel?

[Bicker]

On Thu, 08 Aug 2002 13:27:23 -0400, Michael Roose
<trainerofathletes@email.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Aug 2002 07:01:28 -0400, bicker
> <alt.support.diet@brianandrobbie.com.1NVAL1D> wrote: |Can
> anyone provide citations that show this information is
> |definitively incorrect? No. Required protein consumption is
> exercise/activity dependent.

So is the answer "yes" or "no"? If you're saying that protein
consumption is exercise/activity dependent, then it sounds
like you're saying that the information I quoted was wrong,
since that's not what IT said. Or perhaps you're saying that
you think it is wrong, but you can't provide citations to back
up your belief?

--
¤bicker¤ 263/161 fitness@brianandrobbie.com BP: 130/80 ->
100/60 See web site for Total Cholesterol: 256->200 before and
after photos. Waist: 46 -> 34 http://brianandrobbie.com BF%:
39% -> 13%

[Michael Ro]

On Thu, 8 Aug 2002 13:19:05 -0500, Alex Brands
<abbrands@artsci.wustl.edu> wrote:

|They are talking about the amount needed to avoid tissue
wasting. I don't |doubt that .4g/pound is enough to prevent
that provided calories are high |enough, and activity levels
are low to moderate. For a very active |person, the number
will be higher.

I would guess you are correct but I had a high school athlete
a couple of years ago that was on a zero protein intake "diet"
and gained significant hypertrophy over a four-five month
period. He eventually plateaued and I eventually found
out.....and canned him.

[Michael Ro]

On Thu, 08 Aug 2002 13:30:57 -0400, Terri
<vl-hb001@erols.com> wrote:

|> No. Required protein consumption is exercise/activity
|> dependent.
|
|Can you explain? What body organs/tissues use protein for
fuel?

Not for fuel, primarily, but for muscular hypertrophy, for
instance. An athlete who is lifting to gain muscular size (or
a BBuilder) would benefit from additional protein to provide
the organic building blocks (amino acids, etc) to develop a
larger musculature.

[Michael Ro]

On Thu, 08 Aug 2002 13:34:08 -0400, bicker
<alt.support.diet@brianandrobbie.com.1NVAL1D> wrote:

|> No. Required protein consumption is exercise/activity
|> dependent.
|
|So is the answer "yes" or "no"? If you're saying that protein
|consumption is exercise/activity dependent, then it sounds
like you're |saying that the information I quoted was wrong,
since that's not what |IT said.

I cannot justify with any research the info you posted. This
makes it what it is.

| Or perhaps you're saying that you think it is wrong,
| but you
|can't provide citations to back up your belief?

I can't provide citations that I am in complete trust in
regarding protein consumption rates.

For instance, there are several citations about that purport a
hypertrophying athlete should intake (take your pick) .08 to
2.0 grams of protein per (take your pick) pound or kilo of
bodyweight. Yet I have athletes who have blown up Hyooooge on
nowhere near these amounts.

It is very independent to digestion, uptake, biochemistry of
individuals, etc.

I do, however, recommend an increase in protein and water for
nearly every athlete I work with since I believe a little more
is better than a little less although I have no real clue what
the numbers might be at any given time for any particular
individual.

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow bicker rambled on about "0.4
grams of protein a day per pound." Our champion
De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>1/2 cup hummus (6 g),

The Arabs are still trying to kill us!
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!

Health-with-Attitude is a support group for people trying to
follow a Healthy Lifestyle.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Health-with-Attitude/

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow bicker rambled on about "0.4
grams of protein a day per pound." Our champion
De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>"Adults need about 0.4 grams of protein a day for each pound
>of body weight.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

I did the math. You say I need to eat 60 grams of protein a
day because I have the ideal body weight. But, if I ate a
starvation diet of 2,000 calories at 15% protein that would
work out to 75 grams a day?

However, if I was a FatSo weighing 300 pounds you formula
would demand that I eat 120 grams a day?

Ha, ... Hah, Ha! You are full of it!

Hark! My private health newsgroup beckons!
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is the foundation of
the biomedical model of natural health. Weighing in at 17
webpages, Nutrition (www.Food.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/)
is now with more documentation and sharper terminology than
ever before.

[Ben A. Gre]

It should be 0.5 to 1.0 grams (depending on activity level)
per pound of lean body mass. One must estimate the amount of
fat on the body and subtract
it.

"John 'the Man'" <DeMan[79]@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0k65lucpdgvc7jnolfotj68md59vuf316b@4ax.com...
> Once upon a time, our fellow bicker rambled on about "0.4
> grams of protein a day per pound." Our champion
> De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>
> >"Adults need about 0.4 grams of protein a day for each
> >pound of body weight.
>
> Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
>
> I did the math. You say I need to eat 60 grams of protein a
> day because I have the ideal body weight. But, if I ate a
> starvation diet of 2,000 calories at 15% protein that would
> work out to 75 grams a day?
>
> However, if I was a FatSo weighing 300 pounds you formula
> would demand that I eat 120 grams a day?
>
> Ha, ... Hah, Ha! You are full of it!
>
> Hark! My private health newsgroup beckons!
> --
> John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a
> Science!
>
> The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is the foundation of
> the biomedical model of natural health. Weighing in at 17
> webpages, Nutrition (www.Food.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/)
> is now with more documentation and sharper terminology than
> ever before.

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow Ben A. Green rambled on about
"Re: 0.4 grams of protein a day per pound." Our champion
De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>It should be 0.5 to 1.0 grams (depending on activity level)
>per pound of lean body mass. One must estimate the amount of
>fat on the body and subtract
>it.

I will tell you a little secrete.

activity level = caloric intake

An athlete consuming 4,000 calories a day @ 15% protein,
should consume 150 grams of protein a day.

You guys are really a trip. It is as if using "Percentages"
to convey information is totally alien to you. You must be
math phobic?
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!
http://NaturalHealthPerspective.com/ The ONLY Frauds in Health
are those who couldn't care less about prevention. Beware of
anybody who brags about eating a lousy diet, eating
crispbread, being overweight, or about smoking!

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow Michael Roose rambled on about
"Re: 0.4 grams of protein a day per pound." Our champion
De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>It is very independent to digestion, uptake, biochemistry of
>individuals, etc.

aka it depends on the total B/S of the poster

Hark! My private health newsgroup beckons!
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is the foundation of
the biomedical model of natural health. Weighing in at 17
webpages, Nutrition (www.Food.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/)
is now with more documentation and sharper terminology than
ever before.

[Sandra L]

"Michael Roose" <trainerofathletes@email.com> wrote in message
news:n9d5luc4tfh5a2r4f0sna0slv66jffp7l5@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 08 Aug 2002 13:30:57 -0400, Terri
> <vl-hb001@erols.com>
wrote:
>
> |> No. Required protein consumption is exercise/activity
> |> dependent.
> |
> |Can you explain? What body organs/tissues use protein
> for fuel?
>
> Not for fuel, primarily, but for muscular hypertrophy, for
> instance. An athlete who is lifting to gain muscular size
> (or a BBuilder)
would
> benefit from additional protein to provide the organic
> building
blocks
> (amino acids, etc) to develop a larger musculature.\

Gaining muscular size has nothing to do with health.

[Mistress K]

"Sandra L" <sfkr@axionet.com> wrote in message
news:aiv0lt$17ad5g$1@ID-99161.news.dfncis.de...
>
>
> Gaining muscular size has nothing to do with health.

Gaining LBM is clearly correlated with improving "real-world"
health and functionality. Not to the degree of competitive
bodybuilders, of course, but most folks would do well to focus
on gaining muscle as part of their fitness program.
Age-related sarcopenia is a significant threat to the
wellbeing of older folks.

Krista

--
--------------------
www.stumptuous.com/weights.html www.trans-health.com
mistresskrista@stumptuous.com

[Steve]

"bicker" <alt.support.diet@brianandrobbie.com.1NVAL1D> wrote
in message news:3d5dab58.520588066@news7.beaconwoods.org...
>
> So is the answer "yes" or "no"? If you're saying that
> protein consumption is exercise/activity dependent, then it
> sounds like you're saying that the information I quoted was
> wrong, since that's not what IT said. Or perhaps you're
> saying that you think it is wrong, but you can't provide
> citations to back up your belief?

J Appl Physiol 1988 Jan;64(1):187-93 Related Articles,
Books, LinkOut

Influence of protein intake and training status on nitrogen
balance and lean body mass.

Tarnopolsky MA, MacDougall JD, Atkinson SA.

Department of Physical Education and Pediatrics, McMaster
University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

The present study examined the effects of training status
(endurance exercise or body building) on nitrogen balance,
body composition, and urea excretion during periods of
habitual and altered protein intakes. Experiments were
performed on six elite bodybuilders, six elite endurance
athletes, and six sedentary controls during a 10-day period of
normal protein intake followed by a 10-day period of altered
protein intake. The nitrogen balance data revealed that
bodybuilders required 1.12 times and endurance athletes
required 1.67 times more daily protein than sedentary
controls. Lean body mass (density) was maintained in
bodybuilders consuming
1.05 g protein.kg-1.day-1. Endurance athletes excreted more
total daily urea than either bodybuilders or controls. We
conclude that bodybuilders during habitual training require
a daily protein intake only slightly greater than that for
sedentary individuals in the maintenance of lean body mass
and that endurance athletes require daily protein intakes
greater than either bodybuilders or sedentary individuals to
meet the needs of protein catabolism during exercise.

PMID: 3356636 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] J Appl Physiol
1988 Jan;64(1):187-93

Influence of protein intake and training status on nitrogen
balance and lean body mass.

Tarnopolsky MA, MacDougall JD, Atkinson SA.

Department of Physical Education and Pediatrics, McMaster
University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

The present study examined the effects of training status
(endurance exercise or body building) on nitrogen balance,
body composition, and urea excretion during periods of
habitual and altered protein intakes. Experiments were
performed on six elite bodybuilders, six elite endurance
athletes, and six sedentary controls during a 10-day period of
normal protein intake followed by a 10-day period of altered
protein intake. The nitrogen balance data revealed that
bodybuilders required 1.12 times and endurance athletes
required 1.67 times more daily protein than sedentary
controls. Lean body mass (density) was maintained in
bodybuilders consuming
2.05 g protein.kg-1.day-1. Endurance athletes excreted more
total daily urea than either bodybuilders or controls. We
conclude that bodybuilders during habitual training require
a daily protein intake only slightly greater than that for
sedentary individuals in the maintenance of lean body mass
and that endurance athletes require daily protein intakes
greater than either bodybuilders or sedentary individuals to
meet the needs of protein catabolism during exercise.

PMID: 3356636 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

> --
> ¤bicker¤ 263/161 fitness@brianandrobbie.com BP: 130/80 ->
> 100/60 See web site for Total Cholesterol: 256->200 before
> and after photos. Waist: 46 -> 34 http://brianandrobbie.com
> BF%: 39% -> 13%

[Pbeyer]

bicker wrote:

> Can anyone provide citations that show this information is
> definitively incorrect? I'm prepared to send any citations
> showing this information is inaccurate to Yahoo! I'm
> concerned that they tend to engage partners to provide them
> content quite often without fact-checking each article.
>
> "Adults need about 0.4 grams of protein a day for each pound
> of body weight. ¤bicker¤ This information is actually based
> on work done prior to the recommendation in the 1989 RDA.
> The general guideline is .8-1 gram protein for each kilogram
> body weight. The formula is again, just a guideline with
> variations for pathologic problems and for significant
> exercise. If one is significantly overweight or underweight,
> the formula doesn't work well and protein requirements are
> based on one's lean body mass.

Pete

[Bicker]

On Thu, 08 Aug 2002 20:31:34 GMT, John 'the Man'
<DeMan[79]@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Once upon a time, our fellow bicker rambled on about "0.4
> grams of protein a day per pound." Our champion
> De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
> >"Adults need about 0.4 grams of protein a day for each
> >pound of body weight.
> Ha, ... Hah, Ha! I did the math. You say I need to eat 60
> grams of protein a day because I have the ideal body weight.

Who are you talking to? I didn't say anything. I asked a
question.

> But, if I ate a starvation diet of 2,000 calories

2,000 calories isn't a starvation diet for someone at 150
pounds. A starvation diet is typically considered to be
anything under 1,000 calories per day, or sometimes 1,200.

> at 15% protein that would work out to 75 grams a day?

And 30% protein would work out to be 150 grams per day. What's
your point?

> However, if I was a FatSo weighing 300 pounds you formula
> would demand that I eat 120 grams a day?

Most people here have agreed with assertions that protein
intake should be proportional to body weight. If you have a
reason to doubt that, perhaps you should present some evidence
instead of false bravado.

> Ha, ... Hah, Ha! You are full of it!

I'm full of questions, looking for answers, not puerile
chest-thumping. Grow up.

--
¤bicker¤ 263/161 fitness@brianandrobbie.com BP: 130/80 ->
100/60 See web site for Total Cholesterol: 256->200 before and
after photos. Waist: 46 -> 34 http://brianandrobbie.com BF%:
39% -> 13%

[Bicker]

On Fri, 09 Aug 2002 09:46:58 -0500, pbeyer
<pbeyer@kumc.edu> wrote:
> This information is actually based on work done prior to the
> recommendation in the 1989 RDA. The general guideline is
> .8-1 gram protein for each kilogram body weight.

Yes, that's the citation I'm asking for. If you could provide
a link to the document where that general guideline is put
forward by the government, that'll do the trick. Thanks, in
advance, for your assistance.

--
¤bicker¤ 263/161 fitness@brianandrobbie.com BP: 130/80 ->
100/60 See web site for Total Cholesterol: 256->200 before and
after photos. Waist: 46 -> 34 http://brianandrobbie.com BF%:
39% -> 13%

[Bicker]

On Thu, 08 Aug 2002 21:22:50 GMT, "Ben A. Green"
<ben@greenba.com> wrote:
> It should be 0.5 to 1.0 grams (depending on activity level)
> per pound of lean body mass. One must estimate the amount of
> fat on the body and subtract
> it.

The original question was, "Based on what?" What is your
assertion based on? We've heard lots of numbers thrown about
on this newsgroup with respect to this, and I want to know
what to believe, based on what's supported by actual research.

--
¤bicker¤ 263/161 fitness@brianandrobbie.com BP: 130/80 ->
100/60 See web site for Total Cholesterol: 256->200 before and
after photos. Waist: 46 -> 34 http://brianandrobbie.com BF%:
39% -> 13%

[Pbeyer]

bicker wrote:

> On Fri, 09 Aug 2002 09:46:58 -0500, pbeyer
> <pbeyer@kumc.edu> wrote:
> > This information is actually based on work done prior to
> > the recommendation in the 1989 RDA. The general guideline
> > is .8-1 gram protein for each kilogram body weight.
>
> Yes, that's the citation I'm asking for. If you could
> provide a link to the document where that general guideline
> is put forward by the government, that'll do the trick.
> Thanks, in advance, for your assistance.
>
> --
> ¤bicker¤

Dunno the link since this is from the 10th edition of the
RDA-- the book-- not a web site. There is a whole chapter on
protein/nitrogen requirements. It has about 80 references
citing early works that were done in the consideration of the
recs for both RDA and WHO guidelines. Might try for searching
RDA with NEC (National Research Council). You'll find also the
charts for kids, pregnant and lactating females, etc. Pete

[Bicker]

On Fri, 09 Aug 2002 04:12:09 GMT, "Steve"
<********@****.com> wrote:
> "bicker" <alt.support.diet@brianandrobbie.com.1NVAL1D> wrote
> in message news:3d5dab58.520588066@news7.beaconwoods.org...
> > So is the answer "yes" or "no"? If you're saying that
> > protein consumption is exercise/activity dependent, then
> > it sounds like you're saying that the information I quoted
> > was wrong, since that's not what IT said. Or perhaps
> > you're saying that you think it is wrong, but you can't
> > provide citations to back up your belief?
> J Appl Physiol 1988 Jan;64(1):187-93 Related Articles,
> Books, LinkOut ... bodybuilders required 1.12 times
> and endurance athletes required 1.67 times more daily
> protein than sedentary controls. Lean body mass
> (density) was maintained in bodybuilders consuming
> 1.05 g protein.kg-1.day-1.

Hmmm... This is interesting, but does it defend its implicit
assertion that 1.05 gm protein/kg/day is actually the amount
necessary for bodybuilders? If it does, then we could
extrapolate that sedentary folks would need 0.9375 gm
protein/kg/day, or, as asserted by the article I quoted, that
sedentary folks need 0.4 gm protein/kg/day (.4219, really).

--
¤bicker¤ 263/161 fitness@brianandrobbie.com BP: 130/80 ->
100/60 See web site for Total Cholesterol: 256->200 before and
after photos. Waist: 46 -> 34 http://brianandrobbie.com BF%:
39% -> 13%

[Bicker]

On Thu, 08 Aug 2002 23:27:15 GMT, John 'the Man'
<DeMan[79]@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I will tell you a little secrete. activity level =
> caloric intake

Incorrect. Calorie intake and activity level are independent
variables.

> An athlete consuming 4,000 calories a day @ 15% protein,
> should consume 150 grams of protein a day.

Based on what research?

> You must be math phobic?

Are you able to engage in a mature discussion? While your
comment wasn't directed at me, I take exception to your
childish behavior.

--
¤bicker¤ 263/161 fitness@brianandrobbie.com BP: 130/80 ->
100/60 See web site for Total Cholesterol: 256->200 before and
after photos. Waist: 46 -> 34 http://brianandrobbie.com BF%:
39% -> 13%

[Ray]

> >It should be 0.5 to 1.0 grams (depending on activity level)
> >per pound of lean body mass. One must estimate the amount
> >of fat on the body and subtract
> >it.
>
> I will tell you a little secrete.
>
> activity level = caloric intake
>
> An athlete consuming 4,000 calories a day @ 15% protein,
> should consume 150 grams of protein a day.
>
> You guys are really a trip. It is as if using "Percentages"
> to convey information is totally alien to you. You must be
> math phobic?

Well your math is correct, but you don't seem to understand
the underlying concept. When calculating the body's protein
requirement (at least) two parameters are important: lean body
mass (~ amount of muscle) & activity level (how much those
muscles move).

While this is a simplification, your 15% protein model, is
even more so.

[Michael Ro]

On Thu, 8 Aug 2002 17:00:33 -0700, "Sandra L"
<sfkr@axionet.com> wrote:

|Gaining muscular size has nothing to do with health.

Tell that to a Biafran.

[Sandra L]

"Mistress Krista" <mistresskrista@stumptuous.com*rem0vethis*>
wrote in message news:fOD49.313907$WJf1.31182@news01.bloor.is-
.net.cable.rogers.com...
>
> "Sandra L" <sfkr@axionet.com> wrote in message
> news:aiv0lt$17ad5g$1@ID-99161.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> >
> > Gaining muscular size has nothing to do with health.
>
>
> Gaining LBM is clearly correlated with improving
> "real-world" health
and
> functionality. Not to the degree of competitive
> bodybuilders, of
course,
> but most folks would do well to focus on gaining muscle
> as part of
their
> fitness program. Age-related sarcopenia is a significant
> threat to
the
> wellbeing of older folks.
>
Mass, yes, correlates with health benefits. My point was that
size in and of itself is irrelevant. Just look at Kenyan
distance runners.

The post I was replying to was speaking to the original post
about protein requirements for health and stated that "An
athlete who is lifting to gain muscular size (or a BBuilder)
would benefit from additional protein to provide the organic
building blocks (amino acids, etc) to develop a larger
musculature." This may be true, but has nothing to do with
what a 'normal' person (read someone who isn't focussed on the
size of his musculature requires for health and well-being.

[Michael Ro]

On Fri, 09 Aug 2002 00:12:59 GMT, "Mistress Krista"
<mistresskrista@stumptuous.com*rem0vethis*> wrote:

| Age-related sarcopenia is a significant threat to the
|wellbeing of older folks.

And is the number one cause in declining movement skills.

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow bicker rambled on about "0.4
grams of protein a day per pound." Our champion
De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>"Adults need about 0.4 grams of protein a day for each pound
>of body weight. For example, a 120-pound woman needs about 48
>grams of protein,

This is YOUR original comment on this THREAD, bicker.

You don't mention anything about "lean body mass." Or,
anything else to that effect.

You specifically state: ""0.4 grams of protein a day for each
pound of body weight." And, you are positively WRONG in no
uncertain terms.

If you knew what you were talking about, you would have stated
your position CORRECTLY the first time around.

Protein needs are *always* stated as a percentage of total
caloric intake.

Hark! My private health newsgroup beckons!
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is the foundation of
the biomedical model of natural health. Weighing in at 17
webpages, Nutrition (www.Food.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/)
is now with more documentation and sharper terminology than
ever before.

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow bicker rambled on about "Re: 0.4
grams of protein a day per pound." Our champion
De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>2,000 calories isn't a starvation diet for someone at 150
>pounds. A starvation diet is typically considered to be
>anything under 1,000 calories per day, or sometimes 1,200.

The typical male consumes 2,800 calories a day.

The typical female consumes 2,300 calories a day.

Less than that and you are trying to lose weight. :-)

Hark! My private health newsgroup beckons!
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is the foundation of
the biomedical model of natural health. Weighing in at 17
webpages, Nutrition (www.Food.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/)
is now with more documentation and sharper terminology than
ever before.

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow bicker rambled on about "Re: 0.4
grams of protein a day per pound." Our champion
De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>Are you able to engage in a mature discussion? While your
>comment wasn't directed at me, I take exception to your
>childish behavior.

Well, let me be perfectly clear.

Anybody who says that protein need is computed on the basis of
WEIGHT is a total M-o-r-o-n.

I have already pointed out how a 300 pound FatSo blows your
nonsense to Kingdom Come.

Am I communicating, you immature imbecile?

I posted citations supporting my position on protein
requirements a half doze times over the years. Further, I have
a website with all the citations available to anybody who
would care to look. Plus, I have a Google search engine to
make the search even easier than easy.

Protein is *always* computed as a percentage of caloric
intake.

Hark! My private health newsgroup beckons!
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is the foundation of
the biomedical model of natural health. Weighing in at 17
webpages, Nutrition (www.Food.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/)
is now with more documentation and sharper terminology than
ever before.

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow bicker rambled on about "Re: 0.4
grams of protein a day per pound." Our champion
De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>Anybody who says that protein need is computed on the basis
>of WEIGHT is a total M-o-r-o-n.
...
>I posted citations supporting my position on protein
>requirements a half doze times over the years. Further, I
>have a website with all the citations available to anybody
>who would care to look. Plus, I have a Google search engine
>to make the search even easier than easy.

>Protein is *always* computed as a percentage of caloric
>intake.

"When protein intake is expressed as a percentage of daily
energy intake, physically active and sedentary individuals
have similar requirements (approximately 12 to 15% of total
energy as protein)" Paul GL. Dietary protein requirements of
physically active individuals. Sports Med 1989
Sep;8(3):154-76. PMID: 2690267

"These quantities of protein can be obtained from a diet which
consists of 12-15% energy from protein, unless total energy
intake is insufficient." Lemon PW. Effect of exercise on
protein requirements. J Sports Sci 1991 Summer;9 Spec
No:53-70. PMID: 1895363

Hark! My private health newsgroup beckons!
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is the foundation of
the biomedical model of natural health. Weighing in at 17
webpages, Nutrition (www.Food.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/)
is now with more documentation and sharper terminology than
ever before.

[Bicker]

On Fri, 09 Aug 2002 20:31:58 GMT, John 'the Man'
<DeMan[80]@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Once upon a time, our fellow bicker rambled on about "0.4
> grams of protein a day per pound." Our champion
> De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
> >"Adults need about 0.4 grams of protein a day for each
> >pound of body weight. For example, a 120-pound woman needs
> >about 48 grams of protein,
> This is YOUR original comment on this THREAD, bicker.

No, it isn't. Read the message again. That's not my comment.
My comment is this:

| Can anyone provide citations that show this information is
| definitively incorrect? I'm prepared to send any citations
| showing this information is inaccurate to Yahoo! I'm
| concerned that they tend to engage partners to provide them
| content quite often without fact-checking each article.

I cannot believe that your reading comprehension skills are so
poor as to have made the mistake you seem to be making up try
to believe you've made.

> You don't mention anything about "lean body mass." Or,
> anything else to that effect. You specifically state: ""0.4
> grams of protein a day for each pound of body weight." And,
> you are positively WRONG in no uncertain terms. If you knew
> what you were talking about, you would have stated your
> position CORRECTLY the first time around.

I said none of those things.

You're either a child, or a troll. Which one?

--
¤bicker¤ 263/161 fitness@brianandrobbie.com BP: 130/80 ->
100/60 See web site for Total Cholesterol: 256->200 before and
after photos. Waist: 46 -> 34 http://brianandrobbie.com BF%:
39% -> 13%

[jril3882]

On Fri, 09 Aug 2002 14:03:10 -0400, bicker
<alt.support.diet@brianandrobbie.com.1NVAL1D> wrote:

>On Fri, 09 Aug 2002 09:46:58 -0500, pbeyer
><pbeyer@kumc.edu> wrote:
>> This information is actually based on work done prior to
>> the recommendation in the 1989 RDA. The general guideline
>> is .8-1 gram protein for each kilogram body weight.
>
>Yes, that's the citation I'm asking for. If you could provide
>a link to the document where that general guideline is put
>forward by the government, that'll do the trick. Thanks, in
>advance, for your assistance.

Do a search on nephrology. They seem to have a bit to say
about protein intake IIRC.

jl remove digits to reply

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow bicker rambled on about "Re: 0.4
grams of protein a day per pound." Our champion
De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>No, it isn't. Read the message again. That's not my comment.
>My comment is this:

I have now read your original post again for the third time.

You are the idiot who wrote / formated your post, *not* me.
:-)

And, I have told you that assertion is WRONG, how many times
now? I have told you why it WRONG how many times now? And, I
have even bothered to post 2 citations on why it is WRONG,
which of course you have chosen to ignore. Probably because
you don't have a clue as what to do with them. That makes you
a rude A-HOLE in my book.

If you can not think for yourself, jack, that is YOUR problem.

Go complain to Yahoo! Go complain to my ISP. Go complain to
YOUR boss. Go complain to your Mother. Go complain to your
Congressmen! Go call up the Man in the Moon!!!

Just go away, A-Hole. :-)

Plonk!

[Bicker]

On Fri, 09 Aug 2002 20:20:10 GMT, John 'the Man'
<DeMan[80]@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Once upon a time, our fellow bicker rambled on about "Re:
> 0.4 grams of protein a day per pound." Our champion
> De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

Grow up.

> >2,000 calories isn't a starvation diet for someone at 150
> >pounds. A starvation diet is typically considered to be
> >anything under 1,000 calories per day, or sometimes 1,200.
> The typical male consumes 2,800 calories a day. The typical
> female consumes 2,300 calories a day. Less than that and you
> are trying to lose weight. :-)

There is no such thing as a "typical" male. An average male
burns about 2,200 calorie per day.

> Hark! My private health newsgroup beckons!

Looks like we have another Barbara on our hands.

--
¤bicker¤ 263/161 fitness@brianandrobbie.com BP: 130/80 ->
100/60 See web site for Total Cholesterol: 256->200 before and
after photos. Waist: 46 -> 34 http://brianandrobbie.com BF%:
39% -> 13%

[Bicker]

On Sat, 10 Aug 2002 13:24:13 GMT, John 'the Man'
<DeMan[80]@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Once upon a time, our fellow bicker rambled on about "Re:
> 0.4 grams of protein a day per pound." Our champion
> De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
> >No, it isn't. Read the message again. That's not my
> >comment. My comment is this:
> I have now read your original post again for the third time.

I suspect most people understood it on first-read. Sorry you
had such trouble.

> You are the idiot who wrote / formated your post,
> *not* me. :-)

Please ask your parents for permission to post messages in
the future.

> And, I have told you that assertion is WRONG, how many
> times now?

You haven't replied to my inquiry until this morning. Telling
me that they're wrong was useless. That's what I said. I asked
for citations, not childish grand-standing.

> That makes you a rude A-HOLE in my book.

I think it's clear who's rude. Grow up.

--
¤bicker¤ 263/161 fitness@brianandrobbie.com BP: 130/80 ->
100/60 See web site for Total Cholesterol: 256->200 before and
after photos. Waist: 46 -> 34 http://brianandrobbie.com BF%:
39% -> 13%

[Bicker]

On Fri, 09 Aug 2002 20:18:02 GMT, John 'the Man'
<DeMan[80]@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Once upon a time, our fellow bicker rambled on about "Re:
> 0.4 grams of protein a day per pound." Our champion
> De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
> >Are you able to engage in a mature discussion? While your
> >comment wasn't directed at me, I take exception to your
> >childish behavior.
> Well, let me be perfectly clear. Anybody who says that
> protein need is computed on the basis of WEIGHT is a total
> M-o-r-o-n.

Anyone who makes such assertions without backing them up,
given that the ORIGINAL QUESTION the thread was about was
specifically about CITATIONS for evidence to support one
position or the other, is a very poor contributor.

> I have already pointed out how a 300 pound FatSo blows your
> nonsense to Kingdom Come.

I don't have any nonsense. I don't have an opinion on the
issue. My message was ASKING for someone to provide PROOF of
one argument or the other, so I can take a position. I've told
you that twice now, and you've failed to acknowledge it. What
is your problem?

> Am I communicating, you immature imbecile?

You're communicating like an immature imbecile.

> I posted citations supporting my position on protein
> requirements a half doze times over the years.

Let me speak in your language:

DO IT AGAIN, POST LINKS, OR SHUT UP.

--
¤bicker¤ 263/161 fitness@brianandrobbie.com BP: 130/80 ->
100/60 See web site for Total Cholesterol: 256->200 before and
after photos. Waist: 46 -> 34 http://brianandrobbie.com BF%:
39% -> 13%

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow bicker rambled on about "Re: 0.4
grams of protein a day per pound." Our champion
De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>ASKING for someone to provide PROOF of one argument or
>the other, so I can take a position. I've told you that
>twice now, and you've failed to acknowledge it. What is
>your problem?

Your problem is that you keep on changing your story, every
time you post.

Hello, Mr. Liar. I have run into your type about a 100 times
before. In order to save face, Liars change their story in
each of their posts so that they wont look quite so stupid.

Let me give you a hint. It don't work!!!

[Bicker]

On Sat, 10 Aug 2002 13:13:47 GMT, John 'the Man'
<DeMan[80]@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Once upon a time, our fellow bicker rambled on about "Re:
> 0.4 grams of protein a day per pound." Our champion
> De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
> >ASKING for someone to provide PROOF of one argument or the
> >other, so I can take a position. I've told you that twice
> >now, and you've failed to acknowledge it. What is your
> >problem?
> Your problem is that you keep on changing your story, every
> time you post.

Not even a little.

> Hello, Mr. Liar.

Name-calling because I've highlighted your immaturity?

> I have run into your type about a 100 times before.

Luckily, I don't run into your kind very often.

> In order to save face, Liars change their story in each of
> their posts so that they wont look quite so stupid.

Here's my original message. What's changed, son?

> On Thu, 08 Aug 2002 07:01:28 -0400, bicker
> <alt.support.diet@brianandrobbie.com.1NVAL1D> wrote:
>
> > Can anyone provide citations that show this information is
> > definitively incorrect? I'm prepared to send any citations
> > showing this information is inaccurate to Yahoo! I'm
> > concerned that they tend to engage partners to provide
> > them content quite often without fact-checking each
> > article.
> >
> > "Adults need about 0.4 grams of protein a day for each
> > pound of body weight. For example, a 120-pound woman needs
> > about 48 grams of protein, which she could get with 2 cups
> > soy milk (16 g), 2 slices whole wheat bread (6 g), 1/2 cup
> > hummus (6 g), 3 ounces of cooked shrimp (18 g) and 1/4 cup
> > of green peas (2 g). Most foods, particularly grains,
> > contain small amounts of protein that add up, so it's
> > really not too difficult to meet daily protein needs
> > eating a varied, meatless diet."
> >
> > [Source:
> > http://health.yahoo.com/search/miavita?lb=s&p=id%3A17801]
> >
> > Here are some more quotes from this source:
> >
> > "But there's little evidence that carbohydrates themselves
> > promote weight gain — or that restricting them will help
> > in long-term weight management. The truth is almost the
> > opposite."
> >
> > What does "*almost* the opposite" mean?
> >
> > Here's another quote that I happen to believe is true, but
> > I'm not sure everyone here does:
> >
> > "You only need a few teaspoons of "good" fats to reap
> > their health benefits. The rest is just extra calories!"
> >
> > And then they have some articles which are clearly,
> > unequivocally true, like
> > http://health.yahoo.com/search/miavita?lb=s&p=id%3A17803.

--
¤bicker¤ 263/161 fitness@brianandrobbie.com BP: 130/80 ->
100/60 See web site for Total Cholesterol: 256->200 before and
after photos. Waist: 46 -> 34 http://brianandrobbie.com BF%:
39% -> 13%

[jril3882]

On Thu, 08 Aug 2002 20:31:34 GMT, John 'the Man'
<DeMan[79]@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Once upon a time, our fellow bicker rambled on about "0.4
>grams of protein a day per pound." Our champion
>De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>
>>"Adults need about 0.4 grams of protein a day for each pound
>>of body weight.
>
>Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
>
>I did the math. You say I need to eat 60 grams of protein a
>day because I have the ideal body weight. But, if I ate a
>starvation diet of 2,000 calories at 15% protein that would
>work out to 75 grams a day?

Sixty, seventy five, near enough. What is your
maintenance diet?

>However, if I was a FatSo weighing 300 pounds you formula
>would demand that I eat 120 grams a day?
>
>Ha, ... Hah, Ha! You are full of it!

Better than being empty, like you.

jl remove digits to reply

[jril3882]

On Thu, 08 Aug 2002 11:55:05 GMT, "juli882"
<juli882@cox.net> wrote:

>Actually, this is exactly what I learned in my Nutrition
>class. Alas, I have lost my text so I can't give you a
>source. Actually, more likely, I threw it out because I tend
>to keep reference materials for no longer three years
>(especially since it takes about two years to get a text book
>published).

My 40 year old texts are still pretty accurate in most areas.

>This is the traditional approach to nutrition. Many of the
>older recommendations were aimed at preventing disease rather
>than promoting health. If you recall, the old standards used
>to advise that vitamin C intake should be 45 mgs/day which
>should prevent scurvy in most people.

And scientists are realising now that that is about all it
does.

>We were also well versed, in the dark ages, on the calories
>per gram of food - 4 for fat and protein, 9 for fat, and
>varied for the alcohol sugars. This is the logic from which
>the 'low fat' fads had their beginning. The quality of fats
>was limited to saturated vs unsaturated and we all had to
>draw little fat molecules and memorize their structures (I
>have since forgotten but not due to a memory problem but
>rather, it is boring).

Pretty close and still true. If folks want to throw the basics
out, they will surely fail in their aims.

>All of this information is still true, as far as I know.
>Instead of being wrong, it seems that it is limited in scope.
>There has been so much more research on foods and their
>qualities in the last quarter century.

And not really changed the basic understanding which you seem
to be bored with

jl remove digits to reply

[jril3882]

On Thu, 08 Aug 2002 13:30:57 -0400, Terri
<vl-hb001@erols.com> wrote:

>Michael Roose wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 08 Aug 2002 07:01:28 -0400, bicker
>> <alt.support.diet@brianandrobbie.com.1NVAL1D> wrote:
>>
>> |Can anyone provide citations that show this information is
>> |definitively incorrect?
>>
>> No. Required protein consumption is exercise/activity
>> dependent.
>
>Can you explain? What body organs/tissues use protein
>for fuel?
>

All of them.

jl remove digits to reply

[jril3882]

On Fri, 09 Aug 2002 20:20:10 GMT, John 'the Man'
<DeMan[80]@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Once upon a time, our fellow bicker rambled on about "Re: 0.4
>grams of protein a day per pound." Our champion
>De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>
>>2,000 calories isn't a starvation diet for someone at 150
>>pounds. A starvation diet is typically considered to be
>>anything under 1,000 calories per day, or sometimes 1,200.
>
>The typical male consumes 2,800 calories a day.
>
>The typical female consumes 2,300 calories a day.
>
>Less than that and you are trying to lose weight. :-)

But not "starve"

jl remove digits to reply

[jril3882]

On Fri, 09 Aug 2002 20:18:02 GMT, John 'the Man'
<DeMan[80]@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Once upon a time, our fellow bicker rambled on about "Re: 0.4
>grams of protein a day per pound." Our champion
>De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>
>>Are you able to engage in a mature discussion? While your
>>comment wasn't directed at me, I take exception to your
>>childish behavior.
>
>Well, let me be perfectly clear.
>
>Anybody who says that protein need is computed on the basis
>of WEIGHT is a total M-o-r-o-n.

Yeah, those dumb nephrologists.

>I have already pointed out how a 300 pound FatSo blows your
>nonsense to Kingdom Come.
>
>Am I communicating, you immature imbecile?

As best you can, anyway.

>I posted citations supporting my position on protein
>requirements a half doze times over the years. Further, I
>have a website with all the citations available to anybody
>who would care to look. Plus, I have a Google search engine
>to make the search even easier than easy.
>
>Protein is *always* computed as a percentage of caloric
>intake.

Except when it is not.

>Hark! My private health newsgroup beckons!

I thought it was "Hawk!"

jl remove digits to reply

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow jril3882@digitsbigpond.net.au
rambled on about "Re: 0.4 grams of protein a day per pound."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts,
thusly ...

>My 40 year old texts are still pretty accurate in most areas.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

Most people on smn complain about citing research more than a
few years old. And, here you go referring to a TEXT written in
the Dark Ages.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!
http://NaturalHealthPerspective.com/ The ONLY Frauds in Health
are those who couldn't care less about prevention. Beware of
anybody who brags about eating a lousy diet, eating
crispbread, being overweight, or about smoking!

[Juli882]

<jril3882@digitsbigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:cu3clu06oa09jp808mi2tnd0h4h9jfi44d@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 08 Aug 2002 11:55:05 GMT, "juli882"
> <juli882@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >Actually, this is exactly what I learned in my Nutrition
> >class. Alas, I have lost my text so I can't give you a
> >source. Actually, more likely, I threw it out because I
> >tend to keep reference materials for no longer
three
> >years (especially since it takes about two years to get a
> >text book published).
>
> My 40 year old texts are still pretty accurate in most
> areas.

If you do any writing for publication, references beyond 5
years for texts and three years for periodicals is the
general rule.
>
> >This is the traditional approach to nutrition. Many of the
> >older recommendations were aimed at preventing disease
> >rather than promoting health. If you recall, the old
> >standards used to advise that vitamin C intake should be 45
> >mgs/day which should prevent scurvy in most people.
>
> And scientists are realising now that that is about all
> it does.

Apparently, you have never taken care of a patient who went to
heart surgery only to have the surgeon find that his aorta is
almost complete mush because the collagen didn't have the
vitamin C required for health. If all vitamin C does is
prevent scurvy, well, I'm all for that.

There is much scientific literature promoting additional
Vitamin C as an antioxidant as well as scores of articles
denouncing the claim as controversial. While Linus Pauling may
not have been exactly on the money, I don't think eating extra
sources of food high in antioxidants has ever harmed anyone.
>
> >We were also well versed, in the dark ages, on the calories
> >per gram of food - 4 for fat and protein, 9 for fat, and
> >varied for the alcohol
sugars.
> >This is the logic from which the 'low fat' fads had their
> >beginning. The quality of fats was limited to saturated vs
> >unsaturated and we all had to draw little fat molecules and
> >memorize their structures (I have since forgotten but not
> >due to a memory problem but rather, it is boring).
>
> Pretty close and still true. If folks want to throw the
> basics out, they will surely fail in their aims.

Has you noticed how the incident of obesity has risen since
the implementation of the food pyramid? While the basics are
still true, it is important to use them as a foundation for
building a greater body of knowledge. Look at current stats on
the rising incidence of diabetes that has occurred since the
food pyramid was implemented. Diabetes is an extremely ugly
disease and it costs billions of dollars every year in health
care expenses. Have you ever looked at how much it costs to
treat a single diabetic ulcer (greater than 20,000.00) or
place a patient on dialysis
(300.00 per treatment 3 X per week)? Most amputees are
diabetic and cardiovascular disease is common to
diabetics. The problem with diabetic heart patients is
that their vessels are so small that it is often
impossible to bypass or stent them. Therefore, they are
the repeat offenders admitted frequently to the hospital
for congestive heart failure. It is a crummy lifestyle
for them. The costs to society are enormous.
>
> >All of this information is still true, as far as I know.
> >Instead of
being
> >wrong, it seems that it is limited in scope. There has been
> >so much more research on foods and their qualities in the
> >last quarter century.
>
> And not really changed the basic understanding which you
> seem to be bored with

It is so unpleasant to read a sentence that ends in a
preposition. I don't know about you but when I was in college
I had dates and parties and other classes to attend and
incredible pressure to get grades. I found it exceedingly
difficult to get excited about drawing molecular structures.
If I was excited about any class, it was undoubtedly one that
focused on literature or the arts or politics. I understand
that interests vary among individuals but I reserve the right
to be bored with molecular structures.
>
>
>
> jl remove digits to reply

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow jril3882@digitsbigpond.net.au
rambled on about "Re: 0.4 grams of protein a day per pound."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts,
thusly ...

>>Less than that and you are trying to lose weight. :-)

>But not "starve"

CR with Adequate Nutrition is *not* for me.

I weigh around 145 pounds, so I am hardly pigging out
when I eat.
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!
http://NaturalHealthPerspective.com/ The ONLY Frauds in Health
are those who couldn't care less about prevention. Beware of
anybody who brags about eating a lousy diet, eating
crispbread, being overweight, or about smoking!

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow jril3882@digitsbigpond.net.au
rambled on about "Re: 0.4 grams of protein a day per pound."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts,
thusly ...

>>Hark! My private health newsgroup beckons!

>I thought it was "Hawk!"

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

Maybe our Steve Lemon would care to comment?

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!
http://NaturalHealthPerspective.com/ The ONLY Frauds in Health
are those who couldn't care less about prevention. Beware of
anybody who brags about eating a lousy diet, eating
crispbread, being overweight, or about smoking!

[Alex Brand]

On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Michael Roose wrote:

> On Thu, 8 Aug 2002 13:19:05 -0500, Alex Brands
> <abbrands@artsci.wustl.edu> wrote:
>
> |They are talking about the amount needed to avoid tissue
> wasting. I don't |doubt that .4g/pound is enough to prevent
> that provided calories are high |enough, and activity levels
> are low to moderate. For a very active |person, the number
> will be higher.
>
> I would guess you are correct but I had a high school
> athlete a couple of years ago that was on a zero protein
> intake "diet" and gained significant hypertrophy over a
> four-five month period. He eventually plateaued and I
> eventually found out.....and canned him.

What are you talking about?

[Michael Ro]

On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 16:41:33 -0500, Alex Brands
<abbrands@artsci.wustl.edu> wrote:

|> I would guess you are correct but I had a high school
|> athlete a couple of years ago that was on a zero protein
|> intake "diet" and gained significant hypertrophy over a
|> four-five month period. He eventually plateaued and I
|> eventually found out.....and canned him.
|
|What are you talking about?

I'm talking about a high school baseball player who had been
overweight and shunned by girls in his school. He started a
"diet" where he took in zero protein (according to him). His
bench, squat, power clean, etc hit a sticking point and no
improvement was being made while all of his compatriot
trainees were progressing quite nicely.

I saw the weight loss and encouraged it until I got concerned
about his strength regression. I called his parents and they
told me about his zero protein approach.

I require complete honesty from all my trainees....so i kicked
him out of my gym.

[Ascorbic M]

"juli882" <juli882@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<2Rt59.360035$DB.11125992@news1.east.cox.net>...
> <jril3882@digitsbigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> news:cu3clu06oa09jp808mi2tnd0h4h9jfi44d@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 08 Aug 2002 11:55:05 GMT, "juli882"
> > <juli882@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Actually, this is exactly what I learned in my Nutrition
> > >class. Alas, I have lost my text so I can't give you a
> > >source. Actually, more likely, I threw it out because I
> > >tend to keep reference materials for no longer
> three
> > >years (especially since it takes about two years to get a
> > >text book published).
> >
> > My 40 year old texts are still pretty accurate in most
> > areas.
>
> If you do any writing for publication, references beyond 5
> years for texts and three years for periodicals is the
> general rule.
> >
> > >This is the traditional approach to nutrition. Many of
> > >the older recommendations were aimed at preventing
> > >disease rather than promoting health. If you recall, the
> > >old standards used to advise that vitamin C intake should
> > >be 45 mgs/day which should prevent scurvy in most people.
> >
> > And scientists are realising now that that is about all
> > it does.
>
> Apparently, you have never taken care of a patient who went
> to heart surgery only to have the surgeon find that his
> aorta is almost complete mush because the collagen didn't
> have the vitamin C required for health. If all vitamin C
> does is prevent scurvy, well, I'm all for that.
>
> There is much scientific literature promoting additional
> Vitamin C as an antioxidant as well as scores of articles
> denouncing the claim as controversial. While Linus Pauling
> may not have been exactly on the money, I don't think
> eating extra sources of food high in antioxidants has ever
> harmed anyone.
> >
> > >We were also well versed, in the dark ages, on the
> > >calories per gram of food - 4 for fat and protein, 9 for
> > >fat, and varied for the alcohol
> sugars.
> > >This is the logic from which the 'low fat' fads had their
> > >beginning. The quality of fats was limited to saturated
> > >vs unsaturated and we all had to draw little fat
> > >molecules and memorize their structures (I have since
> > >forgotten but not due to a memory problem but rather, it
> > >is boring).
> >
> > Pretty close and still true. If folks want to throw the
> > basics out, they will surely fail in their aims.
>
> Has you noticed how the incident of obesity has risen since
> the implementation of the food pyramid? While the basics are
> still true, it is important to use them as a foundation for
> building a greater body of knowledge. Look at current stats
> on the rising incidence of diabetes that has occurred since
> the food pyramid was implemented. Diabetes is an extremely
> ugly disease and it costs billions of dollars every year in
> health care expenses. Have you ever looked at how much it
> costs to treat a single diabetic ulcer (greater than
> 20,000.00) or place a patient on dialysis
> (300.00 per treatment 3 X per week)? Most amputees are
> diabetic and cardiovascular disease is common to
> diabetics. The problem with diabetic heart patients is
> that their vessels are so small that it is often
> impossible to bypass or stent them. Therefore, they are
> the repeat offenders admitted frequently to the
> hospital for congestive heart failure. It is a crummy
> lifestyle for them. The costs to society are enormous.
> >
> > >All of this information is still true, as far as I know.
> > >Instead of
> being
> > >wrong, it seems that it is limited in scope. There has
> > >been so much more research on foods and their qualities
> > >in the last quarter century.
> >
> > And not really changed the basic understanding which you
> > seem to be bored with
>
> It is so unpleasant to read a sentence that ends in a
> preposition. I don't know about you but when I was in
> college I had dates and parties and other classes to attend
> and incredible pressure to get grades. I found it
> exceedingly difficult to get excited about drawing molecular
> structures. If I was excited about any class, it was
> undoubtedly one that focused on literature or the arts or
> politics. I understand that interests vary among individuals
> but I reserve the right to be bored with molecular
> structures.
> >
> >
> >
> > jl remove digits to reply

and do not remove digits and do not reply

[Dr. Dickie]

juli882 wrote:

> <jril3882@digitsbigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> news:cu3clu06oa09jp808mi2tnd0h4h9jfi44d@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 08 Aug 2002 11:55:05 GMT, "juli882"
> > <juli882@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Actually, this is exactly what I learned in my Nutrition
> > >class. Alas, I have lost my text so I can't give you a
> > >source. Actually, more likely, I threw it out because I
> > >tend to keep reference materials for no longer
> three
> > >years (especially since it takes about two years to get a
> > >text book published).
> >
> > My 40 year old texts are still pretty accurate in most
> > areas.
>
> If you do any writing for publication, references beyond 5
> years for texts and three years for periodicals is the
> general rule.
> >
> > >This is the traditional approach to nutrition. Many of
> > >the older recommendations were aimed at preventing
> > >disease rather than promoting health. If you recall, the
> > >old standards used to advise that vitamin C intake should
> > >be 45 mgs/day which should prevent scurvy in most people.
> >
> > And scientists are realising now that that is about all
> > it does.
>
> Apparently, you have never taken care of a patient who went
> to heart surgery only to have the surgeon find that his
> aorta is almost complete mush because the collagen didn't
> have the vitamin C required for health. If all vitamin C
> does is prevent scurvy, well, I'm all for that.
>
> There is much scientific literature promoting additional
> Vitamin C as an antioxidant as well as scores of articles
> denouncing the claim as controversial. While Linus Pauling
> may not have been exactly on the money, I don't think
> eating extra sources of food high in antioxidants has ever
> harmed anyone.
> >
> > >We were also well versed, in the dark ages, on the
> > >calories per gram of food - 4 for fat and protein, 9 for
> > >fat, and varied for the alcohol
> sugars.
> > >This is the logic from which the 'low fat' fads had their
> > >beginning. The quality of fats was limited to saturated
> > >vs unsaturated and we all had to draw little fat
> > >molecules and memorize their structures (I have since
> > >forgotten but not due to a memory problem but rather, it
> > >is boring).
> >
> > Pretty close and still true. If folks want to throw the
> > basics out, they will surely fail in their aims.
>
> Has you noticed how the incident of obesity has risen since
> the implementation of the food pyramid? While the basics are
> still true, it is important to use them as a foundation for
> building a greater body of knowledge. Look at current stats
> on the rising incidence of diabetes that has occurred since
> the food pyramid was implemented. Diabetes is an extremely
> ugly disease and it costs billions of dollars every year in
> health care expenses. Have you ever looked at how much it
> costs to treat a single diabetic ulcer (greater than
> 20,000.00) or place a patient on dialysis
> (300.00 per treatment 3 X per week)? Most amputees are
> diabetic and cardiovascular disease is common to
> diabetics. The problem with diabetic heart patients is
> that their vessels are so small that it is often
> impossible to bypass or stent them. Therefore, they are
> the repeat offenders admitted frequently to the
> hospital for congestive heart failure. It is a crummy
> lifestyle for them. The costs to society are enormous.

<Snip>

And people with short hair tend to be taller than people with
long hair. Damn, it must be the hair length that is effecting
their height! The fact that obesity and diabetes has risen
since the food pyramid was introducted is irrelevent.
Correlation is not causation, and in this case it most
certainty is not causation. Almost nobody eats the diet that
the food pyramid calls for. If, and that is a big if, they did
eat the diet recomended by the food pyramid and obesity and
diabetes increased then you would have an interesting
correlation that was worthy of study. The fact is that the
standard western diet puts fat as the base of the their food
pyramid and fruit and vegatables as the peak my give more
insite into why waistlines are increasing and the incidence of
diabetes is growing. On a personal note, I switched my eating
habits to the food pyramid and lost 100 pounds and got my
diabetes under control (T-2) without the use of drugs. Funny
that, huh?

--------------------------------------------------
Dr. Dickie Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
Poking kooks with a pointy stick
--------------------------------------------------
"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has
its own reason for existing."
E. Einstein

[Juli882]

I agree that correlation does equal causation but when looking
for answers retrospectively in a population with too many
variables to measure, it is a real good starting place.

I think the problem with the food pyramid isn't so much the
WOE it recommends but rather the message that most folks hear
- eat 6 or more servings of bread and grains a day without
realizing how large or small a serving is.

Also, the 'fat is evil' fad was born from these
recommendations. Suddenly, it was okay to eat just about
anything if it didn't have fat in it. The nation as a whole
gobbled up fat free bagels, cookies, pasta and baked potatoes
with ultra light margarine. Meanwhile, because of the evil fat
content, many healthy foods were ostracized such as cheese,
lean beef, etc..

Also, consider the food pyramid, itself, in it's most
correctly understood form. It gives the most fundamental
guidelines. For one thing, it states that recommendations are
based on an average diet of 2000 kcal. It doesn't really give
any guidelines as far as adjustment if your recommended
calories fall above or below that guideline.

And, within each level there are good choices one can make and
bad choices. For instance, a piece of fruit is almost always
better than a glass of fruit juice. Iceberg lettuce is a good
diet food because it has almost nothing to it but a poor
nutritional choice for the same reason. Where fats are
concerned, some are clearly more beneficial than others and
the diet doesn't make any distinction other than saturated vs.
non-saturated. And of course, whole wheat grains are usually
more nutritious than white flours.

I can see how choices, made within the guidelines could spawn
additional cases of obesity and diabetes in our society. This
does not negate other factors such as genetics, etc., but you,
of all people, realize the difference that diet has on type
two diabetes.

I am glad you found a WOE that works for you. I'm curious,
though..... what other explanation have you for the alarming
incidence of diabetes in the last decade?

j

"Dr. Dickie" <dr_dickie@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:3D58EAE8.7E4A6C54@my-deja.com...
>
>
> juli882 wrote:
>
> > <jril3882@digitsbigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:cu3clu06oa09jp808mi2tnd0h4h9jfi44d@4ax.com...
> > > On Thu, 08 Aug 2002 11:55:05 GMT, "juli882"
> > > <juli882@cox.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Actually, this is exactly what I learned in my
> > > >Nutrition class.
Alas, I
> > > >have lost my text so I can't give you a source.
> > > >Actually, more
likely, I
> > > >threw it out because I tend to keep reference materials
> > > >for no longer
> > three
> > > >years (especially since it takes about two years to get
> > > >a text book published).
> > >
> > > My 40 year old texts are still pretty accurate in most
> > > areas.
> >
> > If you do any writing for publication, references beyond 5
> > years for
texts
> > and three years for periodicals is the general rule.
> > >
> > > >This is the traditional approach to nutrition. Many of
> > > >the older recommendations were aimed at preventing
> > > >disease rather than
promoting
> > > >health. If you recall, the old standards used to advise
> > > >that vitamin
C
> > > >intake should be 45 mgs/day which should prevent scurvy
> > > >in most
people.
> > >
> > > And scientists are realising now that that is about all
> > > it does.
> >
> > Apparently, you have never taken care of a patient who
> > went to heart
surgery
> > only to have the surgeon find that his aorta is almost
> > complete mush
because
> > the collagen didn't have the vitamin C required for
> > health. If all
vitamin
> > C does is prevent scurvy, well, I'm all for that.
> >
> > There is much scientific literature promoting additional
> > Vitamin C as an antioxidant as well as scores of articles
> > denouncing the claim as controversial. While Linus Pauling
> > may not have been exactly on the
money,
> > I don't think eating extra sources of food high in
> > antioxidants has ever harmed anyone.
> > >
> > > >We were also well versed, in the dark ages, on the
> > > >calories per gram
of
> > > >food - 4 for fat and protein, 9 for fat, and varied for
> > > >the alcohol
> > sugars.
> > > >This is the logic from which the 'low fat' fads had
> > > >their beginning.
The
> > > >quality of fats was limited to saturated vs unsaturated
> > > >and we all
had to
> > > >draw little fat molecules and memorize their structures
> > > >(I have since forgotten but not due to a memory problem
> > > >but rather, it is boring).
> > >
> > > Pretty close and still true. If folks want to throw the
> > > basics out, they will surely fail in their aims.
> >
> > Has you noticed how the incident of obesity has risen
> > since the implementation of the food pyramid? While the
> > basics are still true, it
is
> > important to use them as a foundation for building a
> > greater body of knowledge. Look at current stats on the
> > rising incidence of diabetes
that
> > has occurred since the food pyramid was implemented.
> > Diabetes is an extremely ugly disease and it costs
> > billions of dollars every year in
health
> > care expenses. Have you ever looked at how much it costs
> > to treat a
single
> > diabetic ulcer (greater than 20,000.00) or place a patient
> > on dialysis
> > (300.00 per treatment 3 X per week)? Most amputees are
> > diabetic and cardiovascular disease is common to
> > diabetics. The problem with
diabetic
> > heart patients is that their vessels are so small that it
> > is often impossible to bypass or stent them. Therefore,
> > they are the repeat offenders admitted frequently to the
> > hospital for congestive heart
failure.
> > It is a crummy lifestyle for them. The costs to society
> > are enormous.
>
> <Snip>
>
> And people with short hair tend to be taller than people
> with long hair.
Damn,
> it must be the hair length that is effecting their height!
> The fact that obesity and diabetes has risen since the food
> pyramid was introducted is irrelevent. Correlation is not
> causation, and in this case
it
> most certainty is not causation. Almost nobody eats the diet
> that the food pyramid calls for. If, and that is a big if,
> they did eat the diet
recomended by
> the food pyramid and obesity and diabetes increased then you
> would have an interesting correlation that was worthy of
> study. The fact is that the
standard
> western diet puts fat as the base of the their food pyramid
> and fruit and vegatables as the peak my give more insite
> into why waistlines are
increasing
> and the incidence of diabetes is growing. On a personal
> note, I switched my eating habits to the food pyramid and
lost 100
> pounds and got my diabetes under control (T-2) without the
> use of drugs.
Funny
> that, huh?
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> Dr. Dickie Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
> Poking kooks with a pointy stick
> --------------------------------------------------
> "The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity
> has its own reason for existing."
> A. Einstein

[Dr. Dickie]

juli882 wrote:
>
> I agree that correlation does equal causation but when
> looking for answers retrospectively in a population with too
> many variables to measure, it is a real good starting place.
>
> I think the problem with the food pyramid isn't so much the
> WOE it recommends but rather the message that most folks
> hear - eat 6 or more servings of bread and grains a day
> without realizing how large or small a serving is.
>
> Also, the 'fat is evil' fad was born from these
> recommendations. Suddenly, it was okay to eat just about
> anything if it didn't have fat in it. The nation as a whole
> gobbled up fat free bagels, cookies, pasta and baked
> potatoes with ultra light margarine. Meanwhile, because of
> the evil fat content, many healthy foods were ostracized
> such as cheese, lean beef, etc..
>
> Also, consider the food pyramid, itself, in it's most
> correctly understood form. It gives the most fundamental
> guidelines. For one thing, it states that recommendations
> are based on an average diet of 2000 kcal. It doesn't really
> give any guidelines as far as adjustment if your recommended
> calories fall above or below that guideline.
>
> And, within each level there are good choices one can make
> and bad choices. For instance, a piece of fruit is almost
> always better than a glass of fruit juice. Iceberg lettuce
> is a good diet food because it has almost nothing to it but
> a poor nutritional choice for the same reason. Where fats
> are concerned, some are clearly more beneficial than others
> and the diet doesn't make any distinction other than
> saturated vs. non-saturated. And of course, whole wheat
> grains are usually more nutritious than white flours.
>
> I can see how choices, made within the guidelines could
> spawn additional cases of obesity and diabetes in our
> society. This does not negate other factors such as
> genetics, etc., but you, of all people, realize the
> difference that diet has on type two diabetes.
>
> I am glad you found a WOE that works for you. I'm curious,
> though..... what other explanation have you for the alarming
> incidence of diabetes in the last decade?
>
> j
>
First I said that correlation is NOT causation (I hope that
was a typo on your part). I agree that the food pyramid is not
the end all and begin all; however, I have never seen it
presented in a sterile, "this is all you need to know about
nutrition and nothing else," fashion. Good common sense eating
(none of these extreme all cream cheese diets), and always
with notion that calories are responsible for weight gain, not
the type of food you eat. Although the previous statement
comes with a caveat. That is, you can get the same calories
but eat more food (weight or volume) by staying away from high
fat foods (especially artificially high fat foods like fast
and or junk food). Since for most people the physical act of
eating is at least as important as consuming food for fuel, if
they can eat more (volume or weight) food they feel more
satisfied (at least short term--what they eat has a stronger
influence of how long they stay satisfied). I think that this
was original reason for keeping fats low and carbs high. Also,
most high fat foods (again I am talking about artificially
high fat foods)generally have poor nutritional value--another
reason to avoid them. To get all the nutrients that you need,
the pyramid does a good job. Of course, within the confines of
the pyramid you must make the healthiest choices, but it
provides a good working framework. Why the increase in
diabetes? Because people do not follow the food pyramid! They
get 60% of their calories from high fat, non nutritious foods
(junk food and crap). They have turned the pyramid on its top
and are suffering the consequences. Now, having said that. Do
I think that the food pyramid is the only way to go? No,
certainly it is not the only way to go. But I would say that
for the average person who is not going to take an active
interest in their nutritional intake, the food pyramid is
probably the safest and most effective way to get proper
nutrition and a balanced diet. Not an expert, just an opinion.

--------------------------------------------------
Dr. Dickie Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
Poking kooks with a pointy stick
--------------------------------------------------
"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has
its own reason for existing."
E. Einstein

[Wuzzy]

> Obesity and Overweight Obesity Trends U.S. Obesity
> Trends 1985 to 2000 During the past 20 years there has
> been a dramatic increase in obesity in the United
> States.

>doesn't this correlate with the BIG PUSH to LOW FAT in
>this country?

>read and post, rosie
>
>It is in pardoning that we are pardoned. ... Saint Francis
>of Assisi

You may get away with arguing that the amount of low fat, low
carb and diet-coke products sold correlates with obesity.
Particularly low carb products since this is a modern
phenomenon when obesity is at its highest..

[Wuzzy]

Dr Atkins in the 70s also correlates with the NHANES trend
to obesity..

[Wuzzy]

>"juli882" <juli882@cox.net> wrote in message
>
>Follow this link for CDC stats on the incidence of obesity.
>http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/trend/maps/index.htm
>
>Follow this page for CDC stats on the incidence of diabetes.
>http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/statistics/prev/state/Table16.htm
>
>Could there be a reason other than Americans were coached
>to change
the way
>they thought about food, fat, diet, etc. shortly before
>the upward
trend is
>noted? Certainly. I sure would be interested in knowing what
>it
is.
>
>j

First of all Incidence cannot possibly be assessed
cross-sectionally. There are some methods to approximate it
using prevalence data but for intents and purposes it is
impossible.

That aside, the trend of obesity from 1985-2000 has been
happening way before 1985, in fact NHANES 1 was from 1970s and
everyone knows that there is a trend from 1970 to 1980 (the
nhanes follow up study NHEFS which *WAS* a study on incidence
ie longitudinal, not cross-sectional).

Thirdly tell us how much of the percent of obesity that you
think the pyramid accounts for: 100% of all obesity cases is
from following pyramid? 10%? 1%?

Admittedly there are many problems presented with the
pyramid but it is untrue that the food pyramid has
"correlated" with obesity.

For history of food pyramid see
http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/history/

[Juli882]

First of all, the reason I went to nursing school is because
no math was involved. That is a true story. Nurses can figure
out how many micrograms of potent vasopressor drugs to give
you per kg per minute without ever taking college math. I will
not attempt percentages with such a large amount of unknowns.

Secondly, the numbers that are presented obviously mean
something different to you than to me.

Thirdly, while the food pyramid may not be intrinsically evil
and causative of all dietary ails in the world, I think the
general public has been misled by some of the fundamental
concepts. For instance, Low Fat was the mantra in the 80's and
90's. Large companies with highly paid ad execs jumped all
over this like white on rice. Even my favorite candy, red
hots, has a notation that it is fat free. Soft drinks, sugar
and I think rat poison, are all fat free. By touting this
principle, the average consumer is misled into believing that
they are healthy.

Meanwhile, it is an insulin fest out there. Hunger abounds
because we no longer eat the heart attack causing egg because
it has cholesterol for breakfast. (Eating only influences your
tchol readings by about 10 or 20 percent). Fat Free cereals
laced with skim milk became the norm. Kids buy cokes at school
in machines. We love bagels and pasta because they are fat
free. We avoid steak like the plague it is.

The food pyramid is printed on every loaf of bread and every
box of cereal in the country and is endorsed by the US gov.
The message received by the public is that eating lots and
lots of refined carbs is a good thing.

And heart disease rises. And diabetes and obesity.

I understand that Atkins was first introduced in the early
70's. Since it was even more controversial then than it is
now, I don't think the number of people who followed it could
be substantial to include. I think the numbers of people
following the US Gov endorse guidelines are far greater.
Admittedly, I have no earthly idea of where to find
substantiating data.

Again, if you can offer another reason for this increase, I
would love to know it. As a health care consultant I design
Disease state programs on a regular basis and teach other
professionals how to care for patients. Since approximately
100 billion (is that a trillion?) dollars are spent for direct
and indirect care of diabetes each year in this country, I
suspect a lot of people would be interested.

j

"wuzzy" <mypcos@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d996c21a.0208131430.7dbcfab7@posting.google.com...
> >"juli882" <juli882@cox.net> wrote in message
> >
> >Follow this link for CDC stats on the incidence of
> >obesity. http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/trend/ma-
> >ps/index.htm
> >
> >Follow this page for CDC stats on the incidence of
> >diabetes. http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/statistics/prev/stat-
> >e/Table16.htm
> >
> >Could there be a reason other than Americans were coached
> >to change
> the way
> >they thought about food, fat, diet, etc. shortly before
> >the upward
> trend is
> >noted? Certainly. I sure would be interested in knowing
> >what it
> is.
> >
> >j
>
> First of all Incidence cannot possibly be assessed
> cross-sectionally. There are some methods to approximate it
> using prevalence data but for intents and purposes it is
> impossible.
>
> That aside, the trend of obesity from 1985-2000 has been
> happening way before 1985, in fact NHANES 1 was from 1970s
> and everyone knows that there is a trend from 1970 to 1980
> (the nhanes follow up study NHEFS which *WAS* a study on
> incidence ie longitudinal, not cross-sectional).
>
> Thirdly tell us how much of the percent of obesity that you
> think the pyramid accounts for: 100% of all obesity cases is
> from following pyramid? 10%? 1%?
>
> Admittedly there are many problems presented with the
> pyramid but it is untrue that the food pyramid has
> "correlated" with obesity.
>
> For history of food pyramid see
> http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/history/

[Readandpos]

> Thirdly, while the food pyramid may not be intrinsically
> evil and
causative
> of all dietary ails in the world, I think the general public
> has been
misled
> by some of the fundamental concepts. For instance, Low Fat
> was the mantra in the 80's and 90's.

i TOTALLY agree! i went to high school in the late 60's and in
those days, ALL the girls "dieted" by stopping
carbs........................ meat, salads, no buns, no
potatoes, low, low carb! rosie

[Wuzzy]

"juli882" <juli882@cox.net> wrote in message

> Thirdly, while the food pyramid may not be intrinsically
> evil and causative of all dietary ails in the world, I
> think the general public has been misled by some of the
> fundamental concepts. For instance, Low Fat was the mantra
> in the 80's and 90's. Large companies with highly paid ad
> execs jumped all over this like white on rice. Even my
> favorite candy, red hots, has a notation that it is fat
> free. Soft drinks, sugar and I think rat poison, are all
> fat free. By touting this principle, the average consumer
> is misled into believing that they are healthy.

Hi Juli thanks for a good debate, I agree with you that "fat
free" has led many people to high calorie foods, however
carbohydrate-dense foods like chocolate, cake and soda have
known to be obesogenic. Note that your data includes the time
of marketing of sugar-free, or *diet* coke which began in 1982
showing that a concern over highsugar products has always been
around. Certainly no-one on a diet would eat cake! see
http://www2.netdoor.com/~davidroy/cocacola.html

It is no shock to anyone that these high calorie foods like
soda pop, cake, chips and chocolate bars are obesogenic.
Admittedly some researchers have been more reluctant to
believe that similar high-calorie foods like 70% starch
products are obesogenic.

> Meanwhile, it is an insulin fest out there. Hunger abounds
> because we no longer eat the heart attack causing egg
> because it has cholesterol for breakfast. (Eating only
> influences your tchol readings by about 10 or 20 percent).
> Fat Free cereals laced with skim milk became the norm.
> Kids buy cokes at school in machines. We love bagels and
> pasta because they are fat free. We avoid steak like the
> plague it is.

I agree, see below,

> The food pyramid is printed on every loaf of bread and
> every box of cereal in the country and is endorsed by the
> US gov. The message received by the public is that eating
> lots and lots of refined carbs is a good thing.

> And heart disease rises. And diabetes and obesity.

> I understand that Atkins was first introduced in the early
> 70's. Since it was even more controversial then than it is
> now, I don't think the number of people who followed it
> could be substantial to include. I think the numbers of
> people following the US Gov endorse guidelines are far
> greater. Admittedly, I have no earthly idea of where to
> find substantiating data.

> Again, if you can offer another reason for this increase, I
> would love to know it. As a health care consultant I design
> Disease state programs on a regular basis and teach other
> professionals how to care for patients. Since approximately
> 100 billion (is that a trillion?) dollars are spent for
> direct and indirect care of diabetes each year in this
> country, I suspect a lot of people would be interested.

> j

Well, Lots of reasons have been found I'll just post off the
top of my head therefore this isn't an exhaustive review by
any means. Keep in mind that when researchers study obesity in
large populations they must keep in mind all factors if they
miss anything their results are probably invalid. Rarely has
anyone believed that any advice being related let alone
positively related to obesity. To date the major factors that
I am aware of are:

-Number of vehicles. -Time spent watching TV. -Leisure and
work physical activity. -Time spent at supermarket -Amount per
capita spent on food/per capita available -portion size, eg.,
supersizing of restaurant foods. -amount of food consumed in
restaurants not at home -acculturation

-frequency of consumption of certain calorie dense foods
see below.
-----------------------------------------------------------
For diabetes 4 studies that I am aware of have all found the
following to cause diabetes> 3 of them are from different
years and genders from harvard and one from NHANES all found
these foods, I exclude foods that were found but not similar
across 3 studies:

Cause diabetes: (mostly refined products such as processed
meat and rice/bread) white bread, white rice, processed meat,
eggs. Pasta was assessed in 1 of the harvard and one of the
NHANES, it was positive and significantly correlated in
harvard and positive but not significant in NHANES.)

Protect against diabetes: yogurt, nuts, carrots, spinach, dark
bread, cakes+cookies (YEP! obviously discredit this one since
there is no plausible mechanism), wine.

Other studies have variously implicated high fat foods as well
as high sugar foods depending on population and gender. Water
as a marker of low energy density is negatively correlated.
Fiber may prevent obesity.

This was just off the top of my head but the subject is by no
means simple. It is much more complex..

To my knowledge attempt to go on a low fat diet is a predictor
of baseline body weight but I doubt it predicts change in
bodyweight when you account for kcal consumed, obviously.

[Wuzzy]

and I've forgotten some of the major ones likely alot more
I've forgotten..: parity (for women, ie. number of births),
parental weight, birth-weight, prior bmi, age, race, social
status, education, location..

[Wuzzy]

"Dr. Dickie" <dr_dickie@chembench.com> wrote in message
news:<3D591BDD.E1DE239F@chembench.com>...
> juli882 wrote:
> >
> > I agree that correlation does equal causation but when
> > looking for answers retrospectively in a population with
> > too many variables to measure, it is a real good starting
> > place.
> >

Did I miss something what correlation?? There is no
correlation between following the pyramid and degree of
obesity.

Specifically what year was this "cross sectional" study done,
eg. in the year 1994 obese persons followed the pyramid while
non-obese did not?

[Juli882]

Likewise, thank you for a good debate!

I agree with you when you state that immobility relating to
riding in cars, spending time in front of the TV, etc. is a
huge contributor to obesity and diabetes. In fact, if ever
there was a silver bullet for insulin resistance, it would
be exercise. It has immediate effects (when done correctly)
that last for 24 to 48 hours and there is no real danger of
overdose if not taken to the extreme. (See the post
regarding the marathon runner who died of hyponatremia
during a 26 mile run.)

The sugar free coke example is interesting. I read, many
years ago, that drinking diet drinks did not cause weight
loss. Do these people make up for calories elsewhere? Do they
justify cheesecake or inactivity because they drank a calorie
free coke?

Still, I hold true to my contention that the advent of the
food pyramid has led to an increased incidence of obesity and
diabetes. While I concede that the food pyramid in it's purist
form is not at fault, the message that the American public has
heard is not the same as what was intended to be delivered.

In my profession (nursing), education is a huge component of
our daily tasks. You seem like a very intelligent and educated
person who automatically assumes that the people you run toe
to toe with are equally as intelligent and educated. This is
refreshing. It is to be admired.

Meanwhile, I deal daily with clients who deal with John Q.
Public. Not everyone is as educated, interested or able to
learn as we are. They want to be told what they can and cannot
eat in black and white terms. The food pyramid has done this
for them, often with disastrous results. I won't even get into
the economy of the whole thing except to say that many times
it is cheaper to eat high sugar meals in good faith even
though they are killing food stamp patients.

Therefore, I would like to see the food pyramid altered
somewhat. I would like to see the bread and grains category
divided to include whole grains vs refined grains. I would
like to see the fat category expanded to make clearer
distinctions between bad fats and good fats and neutral fats.
I would like to see fruits and veggies broken down to
differentiate between high sugar candidates and those high in
nutrients.

Meanwhile, there are a good many Americans who will assume
that bagels made from white flour and eaten in abundance
are good for them even though they are hungry all the
time, gaining weight and having heart attacks. But... At
least I know CPR!

j

"wuzzy" <mypcos@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d996c21a.0208131614.5f3f229@posting.google.com...
> "juli882" <juli882@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> > Thirdly, while the food pyramid may not be intrinsically
> > evil and
causative
> > of all dietary ails in the world, I think the general
> > public has been
misled
> > by some of the fundamental concepts. For instance, Low
> > Fat was the
mantra
> > in the 80's and 90's. Large companies with highly paid ad
> > execs jumped
all
> > over this like white on rice. Even my favorite candy, red
> > hots, has a notation that it is fat free. Soft drinks,
> > sugar and I think rat
poison,
> > are all fat free. By touting this principle, the average
> > consumer is
misled
> > into believing that they are healthy.
>
> Hi Juli thanks for a good debate, I agree with you that "fat
> free" has led many people to high calorie foods, however
> carbohydrate-dense foods like chocolate, cake and soda have
> known to be obesogenic. Note that your data includes the
> time of marketing of sugar-free, or *diet* coke which began
> in 1982 showing that a concern over highsugar products has
> always been around. Certainly no-one on a diet would eat
> cake! see http://www2.netdoor.com/~davidroy/cocacola.html
>
> It is no shock to anyone that these high calorie foods like
> soda pop, cake, chips and chocolate bars are obesogenic.
> Admittedly some researchers have been more reluctant to
> believe that similar high-calorie foods like 70% starch
> products are obesogenic.
>
> > Meanwhile, it is an insulin fest out there. Hunger
> > abounds because we
no
> > longer eat the heart attack causing egg because it has
> > cholesterol for breakfast. (Eating only influences your
> > tchol readings by about 10 or
20
> > percent). Fat Free cereals laced with skim milk became
> > the norm. Kids
buy
> > cokes at school in machines. We love bagels and pasta
> > because they are
fat
> > free. We avoid steak like the plague it is.
>
> I agree, see below,
>
> > The food pyramid is printed on every loaf of bread and
> > every box of
cereal
> > in the country and is endorsed by the US gov. The message
> > received by
the
> > public is that eating lots and lots of refined carbs is a
> > good thing.
>
> > And heart disease rises. And diabetes and obesity.
>
> > I understand that Atkins was first introduced in the
> > early 70's. Since
it
> > was even more controversial then than it is now, I don't
> > think the
number of
> > people who followed it could be substantial to include. I
> > think the numbers of people following the US Gov endorse
> > guidelines are far
greater.
> > Admittedly, I have no earthly idea of where to find
> > substantiating
data.
>
> > Again, if you can offer another reason for this increase,
> > I would love
to
> > know it. As a health care consultant I design Disease
> > state programs
on a
> > regular basis and teach other professionals how to care
> > for patients.
Since
> > approximately 100 billion (is that a trillion?) dollars
> > are spent for
direct
> > and indirect care of diabetes each year in this country,
> > I suspect a
lot of
> > people would be interested.
>
> > j
>
> Well, Lots of reasons have been found I'll just post off the
> top of my head therefore this isn't an exhaustive review by
> any means. Keep in mind that when researchers study obesity
> in large populations they must keep in mind all factors if
> they miss anything their results are probably invalid.
> Rarely has anyone believed that any advice being related let
> alone positively related to obesity. To date the major
> factors that I am aware of are:
>
> -Number of vehicles. -Time spent watching TV. -Leisure and
> work physical activity. -Time spent at supermarket -Amount
> per capita spent on food/per capita available -portion size,
> eg., supersizing of restaurant foods. -amount of food
> consumed in restaurants not at home -acculturation
>
> -frequency of consumption of certain calorie dense foods
> see below.
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> For diabetes 4 studies that I am aware of have all found the
> following to cause diabetes> 3 of them are from different
> years and genders from harvard and one from NHANES all found
> these foods, I exclude foods that were found but not similar
> across 3 studies:
>
> Cause diabetes: (mostly refined products such as processed
> meat and rice/bread) white bread, white rice, processed
> meat, eggs. Pasta was assessed in 1 of the harvard and one
> of the NHANES, it was positive and significantly correlated
> in harvard and positive but not significant in NHANES.)
>
> Protect against diabetes: yogurt, nuts, carrots, spinach,
> dark bread, cakes+cookies (YEP! obviously discredit this one
> since there is no plausible mechanism), wine.
>
> Other studies have variously implicated high fat foods as
> well as high sugar foods depending on population and gender.
> Water as a marker of low energy density is negatively
> correlated. Fiber may prevent obesity.
>
> This was just off the top of my head but the subject is by
> no means simple. It is much more complex..
>
> To my knowledge attempt to go on a low fat diet is a
> predictor of baseline body weight but I doubt it predicts
> change in bodyweight when you account for kcal consumed,
> obviously.

[Juli882]

Follow this link for CDC stats on the incidence of obesity.
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/trend/maps/index.htm

Follow this page for CDC stats on the incidence of diabetes.
http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/statistics/prev/st