There are no healthy or unhealthy foods

[Mad McFarq]

Lets get it straight - there is no food that is harmful in
small doses or harmless in sufficiently high doses.

Eating a single 50g pack of potato chips won't do much -
100 packs in a sitting will probably kill you with
sodium toxicity.

If you get sufficient of a nutrient you're getting enough -
much more is too much. I'm sure a little of most things is
good, I can't think of much that is safe to eat in large
quantities. A cup of green tea, a couple of fishoil
capsules, a dash of olive oil dressing are all good. So why
are people encouraged to take large quantities of these
foods on a daily basis.

In a pre-agrarian society it is difficult to eat a lot of any
one food. Hunting and gathering is highly seasonal and
serendipitous -eggs are only available a few months a year,
fruit trees are widely spaced and the fruit is only edible for
short periods. There are other staples that tend to be
available most of the year in the topics and subtropics, meat,
tubers and fish.

We think that we have a huge variety of foods available. The
reality is that we have a tiny range of foods repackaged to
give the illusion of variety. I doubt whether your supermarket
sells parrot, crocodile, swallow or seagull eggs. Any
aardvark, walrus or zebra meat? How many types of snake,
turtle or lizard meat? How many edible insects, cacti or yams?

The reality is you can buy about 3 mammals (pigs, cattle
sheep), 3 birds (chickens, turkeys, ducks), about 6 grains, a
dozen separate vegetable genuses and a dozen separate fruit
genuses at supermarkets. No reptiles, no insects.

If you live in an affluent area you can buy up to a dozen
varieties of each common food, however a spud is still
basically a spud. Broccoli, cabbage, kale and brussel sprouts
are the same species. Pears, nashi and apples are closely
related and nutritionally similar. The reality is that most
common food plants are closely related members of the malus
(apple), prunus (plum), curcurbaceae (melons + squashes) and
solanaceae (eggplants, tomatoes, potatoes + chillies).

Your diet really needs a huge amount of variety not just
wheat, milk, chicken and a handful of supplements,

[Sir John]

My, how you babble on so?

"Mad McFarqhuar" <antispam@address..com> wrote in message
news:3deebc38$0$12758$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Lets get it straight - there is no food that is harmful in
> small doses or harmless in sufficiently high doses.
>
> Eating a single 50g pack of potato chips won't do much - 100
> packs in a sitting will probably kill you with sodium
> toxicity.
>
> If you get sufficient of a nutrient you're getting enough -
> much more is
too
> much. I'm sure a little of most things is good, I can't
> think of much
that
> is safe to eat in large quantities. A cup of green tea, a
> couple of
fishoil
> capsules, a dash of olive oil dressing are all good. So why
> are people encouraged to take large quantities of these
> foods on a daily basis.
>
> In a pre-agrarian society it is difficult to eat a lot of
> any one food. Hunting and gathering is highly seasonal and
> serendipitous -eggs are only available a few months a year,
> fruit trees are widely spaced and the
fruit
> is only edible for short periods. There are other staples
> that tend to be available most of the year in the topics and
> subtropics, meat, tubers and fish.
>
> We think that we have a huge variety of foods available. The
> reality is
that
> we have a tiny range of foods repackaged to give the
> illusion of variety.
I
> doubt whether your supermarket sells parrot, crocodile,
> swallow or seagull eggs. Any aardvark, walrus or zebra meat?
> How many types of snake, turtle or lizard meat? How many
> edible insects, cacti or yams?
>
> The reality is you can buy about 3 mammals (pigs, cattle
> sheep), 3 birds (chickens, turkeys, ducks), about 6 grains,
> a dozen separate vegetable genuses and a dozen separate
> fruit genuses at supermarkets. No reptiles,
no
> insects.
>
> If you live in an affluent area you can buy up to a dozen
> varieties of
each
> common food, however a spud is still basically a spud.
> Broccoli, cabbage, kale and brussel sprouts are the same
> species. Pears, nashi and apples are closely related and
> nutritionally similar. The reality is that most common
> food plants are closely related members of the malus
> (apple), prunus
(plum),
> curcurbaceae (melons + squashes) and solanaceae (eggplants,
> tomatoes, potatoes + chillies).
>
> Your diet really needs a huge amount of variety not just
> wheat, milk, chicken and a handful of supplements,

[Quentin Gr]

This post not CC'd by email On Thu, 5 Dec 2002 12:38:47 +1000,
"Mad McFarqhuar" <antispam@address..com> wrote:

>How many edible insects, cacti or yams?

G'day G'day Mad,

The problem with rhetorical questions is that sometimes they
are not so rhetorical.

While you probably weren't thinking of NZ yams when you
asked the question, NZ yams are available in most every
supermarket here. The most common one is red but there are
usually some of three other different colours; orange, pink
and yellow on sale.

A cactus liqueur is sometimes available. Nopalitos <sp?> is
sometimes available in glass jars or cans in the Mexican
food shelves.

While I happen to agree with your general synopsis, IMHO it is
becoming less true here than it used to be. One could easily
live off the narrow groups of foods you have described and
many people do from culturally determined habits but it is
also possible to eat a much wider range of meats such as
ostrich, venison ; vegetables such as sweet potato, florence
fennel, asparagus, taro, water cress : fruit such as avocados,
loquats, guavas, mulberries, feijoas, kiwfruit, tamarillos, if
one is prepared to hunt around a bit.

Best wishes,

--
Quentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the
blind dog was leading."

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin

[Mad McFarq]

Most people would rather hear that you can eat crap all day
and solve your health problems by popping a few overpriced
pills than maintain a rigorous diet and exercise routine.

Sorry folks it ain't true - and you are probably still going
to die in your 80s regardless of your diet.

"Sir John" <Do-NOT-Even-Think-About-It@Hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:Y9zH9.38605$vM1.3021403@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldn-
et.att.net...
> My, how you babble on so?
>
> "Mad McFarqhuar" <antispam@address..com> wrote in message
> news:3deebc38$0$12758$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > Lets get it straight - there is no food that is harmful in
> > small doses
or
> > harmless in sufficiently high doses.
> >
> > Eating a single 50g pack of potato chips won't do much -
> > 100 packs in a sitting will probably kill you with sodium
> > toxicity.
> >
> > If you get sufficient of a nutrient you're getting enough
> > - much more is
> too
> > much. I'm sure a little of most things is good, I can't
> > think of much
> that
> > is safe to eat in large quantities. A cup of green tea, a
> > couple of
> fishoil
> > capsules, a dash of olive oil dressing are all good. So
> > why are people encouraged to take large quantities of
> > these foods on a daily basis.
> >
> > In a pre-agrarian society it is difficult to eat a lot of
> > any one food. Hunting and gathering is highly seasonal and
> > serendipitous -eggs are
only
> > available a few months a year, fruit trees are widely
> > spaced and the
> fruit
> > is only edible for short periods. There are other staples
> > that tend to
be
> > available most of the year in the topics and subtropics,
> > meat, tubers
and
> > fish.
> >
> > We think that we have a huge variety of foods available.
> > The reality is
> that
> > we have a tiny range of foods repackaged to give the
> > illusion of
variety.
> I
> > doubt whether your supermarket sells parrot, crocodile,
> > swallow or
seagull
> > eggs. Any aardvark, walrus or zebra meat? How many types
> > of snake,
turtle
> > or lizard meat? How many edible insects, cacti or yams?
> >
> > The reality is you can buy about 3 mammals (pigs, cattle
> > sheep), 3 birds (chickens, turkeys, ducks), about 6
> > grains, a dozen separate vegetable genuses and a dozen
> > separate fruit genuses at supermarkets. No
reptiles,
> no
> > insects.
> >
> > If you live in an affluent area you can buy up to a dozen
> > varieties of
> each
> > common food, however a spud is still basically a spud.
> > Broccoli,
cabbage,
> > kale and brussel sprouts are the same species. Pears,
> > nashi and apples
are
> > closely related and nutritionally similar. The reality is
> > that most
common
> > food plants are closely related members of the malus
> > (apple), prunus
> (plum),
> > curcurbaceae (melons + squashes) and solanaceae
> > (eggplants, tomatoes, potatoes + chillies).
> >
> > Your diet really needs a huge amount of variety not just
> > wheat, milk, chicken and a handful of supplements,
> >
>

[Markus]

I agree if you meant that its not so much about the individual
foods than about the diets. Some things that have effects on
an idividual food level are various toxins of course-
cyanogene glucosides, solanine in solanaceae and so on. but
probably, on the long run, even those won't matter much if you
don't eat them every day.

I also think that trying to reach the RDA every single day is
absolute nonsense- Nobody can do that longer than a week
anyway.. I just remember when we had to put together diets
that met the RDA for a week for an internal study- thats a
total horror even if you have the software and the background-
and there is not so much variation possible.

However I'd say that we do have more choice of foods than we
had before. Think of imported fruits for example.. you didnt
have access to high vit C fruit much.. over here in europe the
and only vit C provider in winter was fermented cabbage-
sauerkraut. Now we have the choice of kiwis, oranges, lemons..
at any season. Also meat is now readily available for anyone
at any time (which probably isn't a good thing at all)

We have only access to very few food groups, I agree.. mostly
due to business reasons and agricultural efficiency I would
say. its easier to have 4 fields of one plant to maintain than
4 fields with 4 different plants (need diffent care, know-how,
different machines to harvest, storage, different
processing.).

you do get a lot of unconventional food types here too- not in
the supermarket but in ordinary conventional street-markets or
special shops. for a supermarket it might not be profitable to
provide a kind of food that most people don't know or don't
want to taste because of biases (lizards and insects I'd say).

[Markus]

> over here in europe the and only vit C provider in winter
> was fermented cabbage- sauerkraut.

central europe I meant

[Larry Hoov]

"Markus" <brilhasti@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:3def372e$0$13944$3b214f66@news.univie.ac.at...
> I also think that trying to reach the RDA every single day
> is absolute nonsense- Nobody can do that longer than a week
> anyway.. I just remember when we had to put together diets
> that met the RDA for a week for an internal study- thats a
> total horror even if you have the software and the
> background- and there is not so much variation possible.

I don't mean to sound pedantic, but the RDA is meant to be a
mean intake, not a threshold to be met every day. And do you
know what the definition is based on? Using American standards
(I haven't compared the definitions used elsewhere), the RDA
is that amount of a nutrient that will prevent deficiency
symptoms in 97.5% (2 standard deviations above mean intake) of
healthy people. TDI (tolerable daily intake) is that level
which prevents toxicity symptoms in 97.5% of people. That's
the scientific basis, but then there are fudge factors tossed
in. RDAs have been going down over the last couple decades
because they are based on dietary supply (i.e. actual intake)
rather than proven need.

h

[Markus]

over here its calculated with the mean of the minimum
requirement + 2 times Std. .. sometimes a bit more to ensure
some storage of the vitamins.

I know that the recommended dietary allowance is not supposed
to be met every day- but I get the impression that this is not
so widely known as supposed. at least i know a lot of people
who firmly belive that if they don't meet their vitamin or
mineral levels every day they will instantly be subject to
infections, diseases and whatnot. maybe the public nutritional
information is better in your country.

[the study I mentioned was a low protein diet for clinical
patients- they used our food data as a reference for diet
plans so we had to stick to the RDA's more or less to give a
balanced result]

[Larry Hoov]

"Markus" <brilhasti@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:3def854b$0$16532$3b214f66@news.univie.ac.at...
> over here its calculated with the mean of the minimum
> requirement + 2
times
> Std. .. sometimes a bit more to ensure some storage of the
> vitamins.

One more part of the definition that I'd like to emphasize:
the part about healthy people. This is the recommendation for
healthy people. Just considering intestinal disorders, the sum
of things like Crohn's, celiac, lactose intolerance, irritable
bowel, you're talking a lot of people (many of whom are not
identified as such). Add in the fact that intake that prior
deficiency can reduce uptake of nutrients, which might
otherwise be adequate for health. And, even 2 standard
deviations gives 1 out of 40 still functionally deficient.
Your comment about how hard it would be to even compute a diet
that met all RDA levels certainly implies that deficiency is
really a common state of being.

[Markus]

> Your comment about how hard it would be to even compute a
> diet that met all RDA levels certainly implies that
> deficiency
is
> really a common state of being.

I would think so- Mostly not really defincieny but marginal
supply or stores. Risk of deficieny here (central europe) is
mostly for Fe(women), Vit D- also for Folate (women)-
marginally for vit B1, B6, Zn (esp. children ), Vit E, J On
the other side up to 200+ % RDA with Vitamin B12

[this data is from the national nutrition report 1998. the
numbers, especially for J got a bit better in between]

[Markd...]

"Larry Hoover" <larryhoover@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:K1LH9.7730$mj2.1142182@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> "Markus" <brilhasti@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:3def372e$0$13944$3b214f66@news.univie.ac.at...
> > I also think that trying to reach the RDA every single day
> > is absolute nonsense- Nobody can do that longer than a
> > week anyway.. I just remember when we
had
> > to put together diets that met the RDA for a week for an
> > internal study- thats a total horror even if you have the
> > software and the background-
and
> > there is not so much variation possible.
>
> I don't mean to sound pedantic, but the RDA is meant to be a
> mean intake, not a threshold to be met every day. And do you
> know what the definition
is
> based on? Using American standards (I haven't compared the
> definitions
used
> elsewhere), the RDA is that amount of a nutrient that will
> prevent deficiency symptoms in 97.5% (2 standard deviations
> above mean intake) of healthy people. TDI (tolerable daily
> intake) is that level which prevents toxicity symptoms in
> 97.5% of people. That's the scientific basis, but
then
> there are fudge factors tossed in. RDAs have been going down
> over the last couple decades because they are based on
> dietary supply (i.e. actual
intake)
> rather than proven need.

If I may add a non-expert comment or two: (i) the level that
prevents frank deficiency symptoms might reasonably be thought
to be some way below that which would be considered required
for 'optimal' health; (ii) lowering RDAs in line with
decreasing dietary supply allows governments to claim that
their populations are adequately nourished when by an
objective standard this might not be true. I think one ought
to be bothered by both these thoughts.

Mark D.

[Larry Hoov]

"MarkD..." <blocked.acct@bigtrousers.com> wrote in message
news:3defe51c$1_2@news1.vip.uk.com...
> "Larry Hoover" <larryhoover@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > I don't mean to sound pedantic, but the RDA is meant to be
> > a mean
intake,
> > not a threshold to be met every day. And do you know what
> > the definition
> is
> > based on? Using American standards (I haven't compared the
> > definitions
> used
> > elsewhere), the RDA is that amount of a nutrient that will
> > prevent deficiency symptoms in 97.5% (2 standard
> > deviations above mean intake)
of
> > healthy people. TDI (tolerable daily intake) is that
> > level which
prevents
> > toxicity symptoms in 97.5% of people. That's the
> > scientific basis, but
> then
> > there are fudge factors tossed in. RDAs have been going
> > down over the
last
> > couple decades because they are based on dietary supply
> > (i.e. actual
> intake)
> > rather than proven need.
>
>
> If I may add a non-expert comment or two: (i) the level that
> prevents
frank
> deficiency symptoms might reasonably be thought to be some
> way below that which would be considered required for
> 'optimal' health; (ii) lowering
RDAs
> in line with decreasing dietary supply allows governments to
> claim that their populations are adequately nourished when
> by an objective standard this might not be true. I think one
> ought to be bothered by both these thoughts.
>
> Mark D.

There is absolutely no consideration of the concept of optimal
nutrition. Nor is there any consideration for people not
considered to be healthy (although I was unable to find a
definition for that term, it is embedded into the greater
definition of RDA). It is government policy that we are
adequately nourished. They say so, therefore we are.

Or, you could look at NHANES data, and see for yourself.

http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/131/8/2177

The situation is similar in other first world nations, and
from other American studies.

Environ Res 2001 Dec;87(3):160-74

Dietary intakes of selected elements from longitudinal 6-day
duplicate diets for pregnant and nonpregnant subjects and
elemental concentrations of breast milk and infant formula.

Gulson BL, Mizon KJ, Korsch MJ, Mahaffey KR, Taylor AJ.

Graduate School of the Environment, Macquarie University,
Sydney, New South Wales, 2109, Australia.
bgulson@gse.mq.edu.au

As part of a longitudinal investigation into mobilization of
lead from the maternal skeleton during pregnancy and
lactation, we have determined the daily intake of selected
elements (hereafter called micronutrients) for various
subjects and compared these intakes with recommended and/or
published intakes, especially those of the United States,
through the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey (NHANES). We also sought to ascertain whether there was
any seasonal effect in the diets. Six-day duplicate diets were
collected from 15 pregnant and 16 nonpregnant migrants to
Australia, 6 pregnant Australian control subjects, and 8
children of nonpregnant migrants (6 to 11 years). Samples of
breast milk and infant formula were also analyzed. Blended
samples were analyzed by inductively coupled plasma mass
spectrometry for the elements Ca, Cu, Fe, Mg, P, K, Na, Zn,
Ba, Sr, and Pb. Daily intakes of micronutrients were only
about half of the daily intake estimated for non-Hispanic
white females and infants in the U.S. NHANES III. Estimates of
daily intakes from breast milk were also considerably lower
for the migrant and Australian infants compared with the
values extracted from tables of food composition and dietary
recall for non-Hispanic white infants in the U.S. NHANES III.
For example, Ca was a factor of approximately 3 times lower,
Fe approximately 50, and Zn approximately 4. We consider our
estimates a reliable indication of the daily intakes for
several reasons, including the collection of up to nine
quarterly collections of 6-day duplicate diets and retention
of subjects in a longitudinal prospective study. The low
intakes of the essential elements such as Ca, Fe, and Zn in
all these population groups are of potential concern from a
public health viewpoint.

Am J Clin Nutr 1989 Oct;50(4):718-27

Nutrient intake and vitamin status of healthy French
vegetarians and nonvegetarians.

Millet P, Guilland JC, Fuchs F, Klepping J.

Department of Physiology, School of Medicine, University of
Dijon, France.

The status of thiamin, riboflavin, folate, and vitamins B-6,
B-12, C, A, D, and E was investigated in 37 middle-aged and
healthy French vegetarians by means of a dietary survey and
biochemical studies. Values were compared with those of a
group of nonvegetarians. Unsatisfactory intakes of vitamin B-6
were observed: vitamin B-6 intake as a percentage of the
French Recommended Dietary Allowances was approximately 66%
for vegetarians and approximately 58% for nonvegetarians.
Vegetarians had a higher mean intake of thiamin, riboflavin,
and vitamins C, A, D, and E than did nonvegetarians.
Vegetarians did not have a higher risk rate for a biochemical
vitamin deficiency of thiamin, riboflavin, folates, and
vitamins B-6, C, A, and E than the nonvegetarians. The
percentage of subjects assessed as abnormal by blood vitamin
concentrations was higher in vegetarians for vitamin B-12
(serum vitamin B-12) and vitamin D, which indicated a higher
risk for a deficiency of vitamins B-12 and D in this group.

J Adolesc Health 1996 Jul;19(1):39-47

Marginal vitamin and mineral intakes of young adults: the
Bogalusa Heart Study.

Zive MM, Nicklas TA, Busch EC, Myers L, Berenson GS.

Department of Pediatrics, University of California at San
Diego, La Jolla, USA.

PURPOSE: To determine reported vitamin and mineral intakes,
vitamin supplement use, and food consumption patterns of young
adults. METHODS: Twenty-four-hour dietary recalls were
collected from 1988-1991 on a cross-sectional sample of 504
young adults in Bogalusa, Louisiana, between the ages of 19
and 28 years (58% female; 70% white). Reported vitamin and
mineral intake data were analyzed for race and gender
differences. Descriptive and inferential statistics were
calculated where appropriate. Food sources of selected
vitamins and minerals were also examined. RESULTS: Reported
intakes of vitamins A, B6, E, D, and C, folacin, magnesium,
iron, zinc, and calcium were most likely to be inadequate
compared with the Recommended dietary Allowances (RDA); with
more females than males reported nutrient intakes less than
two thirds of the RDA. Approximately 10% of the population
reported taking a vitamin/mineral supplement over the 24-h
survey period. Food source data indicated that breads and
grains, milk, vegetables and soups, fruits, and beef were the
primary contributors of the selected vitamins and minerals.
CONCLUSIONS: Public health organizations and dietitians need
to educate young adults on practical strategies for making
wise food choices rich in nutrient content relative to energy
value to ensure intakes that approach the RDAs.

Ann Nutr Metab 1996;40(1):24-51

Vitamin status of healthy subjects in Burgundy (France).

de Carvalho MJ, Guilland JC, Moreau D, Boggio V, Fuchs F.

Department of Nutrition, University of Paraiba, Jaoa
Pessoa, Brazil.

A nutrition survey was conducted in Burgundy (France) with a
population sample of 337 middle-aged and healthy subjects (157
males and 180 females) recruited at a health examination
center in 1985-1986. The status of beta-carotene, thiamin,
riboflavin, folate, vitamin B6, B12, C, A, D, and E was
assessed by means of 7-day food records and biochemical
studies. Results were compared with two other recent
nutritional surveys conducted in France: ESVITAF (control
group only) and Val de Marne surveys. The dietary information
collected for each subject was compared to the 1992 French
Recommended Dietary Allowances (FRDA). Dietary vitamin intakes
were higher in males than in females. Low vitamin intakes (<
1/2 FRDA) were found in 5% of males and 7% of females for
thiamin, in 11% of males and 28% of females for vitamin B6, in
6% of males and 3% of females for vitamin C, in 87% of males
and 91% of females for vitamin D, and in 8% of males and 13%
of females for vitamin E. No subject had a vitamin intake <
1/2 FRDA for riboflavin, folate, vitamins A and B12. ESVITAF
and Val de Marne studies also show low vitamin intakes for
vitamin B6, thiamin, riboflavin, vitamins D and E. Biochemical
status was examined using erythrocyte enzyme function and
blood vitamin levels. The percent of subjects with deficient
biochemical values was high for vitamin B6 (15% of all males
and 20% of all females), and vitamin D (13% of all males, and
15% of all females). With regard to thiamin, riboflavin,
vitamin C, folate, vitamin B12, vitamin A, and vitamin E, < 5%
of subjects had values in the range of major vitamin
deficiency. However, in both genders, except for vitamin C and
vitamin A (only for females), low values corresponding to a
moderate risk of vitamin deficiency was high for most
vitamins. The incidence of a severe deficient vitamin status
for thiamin and riboflavin was higher in Val de Marne than in
Burgundy, or ESVITAF. In Val de Marne, the probability of a
moderate risk of vitamin deficiency was high for thiamin,
riboflavin, vitamin B6, vitamin A and vitamin E. Our results
(as other studies performed in France and in other
industrialized countries) raise the issue of the health
significance of marginally deficient vitamin status.

Ann N Y Acad Sci 1993 Mar 15;678:244-54

Vitamin and mineral status of women of childbearing potential.

Block G, Abrams B.

Public Health Nutrition Program, School of Public Health,
University of California, Berkeley 94720.

Increasing data suggest a role for micronutrients in pregnancy
outcome, and in some cases nutritional status must be adequate
in the first weeks of pregnancy. We examined nationally
representative survey data on women of childbearing age: the
NHANES II data for serum measures of iron status and the CSFII
four-day data for dietary measures of intake of protein, iron,
zinc, folic acid, and vitamins A, C, and B6. For those
nutrients, women below or near poverty had consistently lower
levels, with median intakes below the RDA for all but protein
(e.g., folic acid, 150 micrograms in contrast with the RDA of
180 for nonpregnant and 400 for pregnant women; for B6, 0.96
mg instead of 1.6 or 2.2). Even among women with incomes as
high as three times the poverty level or more, large segments
of the population had very low intakes. For example, the 25th
percentile in that group was only 142 micrograms/day of folic
acid, 4.6 alpha-tocopherol equivalents of vitamin E, 6.7 mg
zinc, and 433 mg of calcium. Approximately 15% of women had
low transferrin saturation.

Exp Gerontol 1993 Jul-Oct;28(4-5):473-83

Does diet provide adequate amounts of calcium, iron,
magnesium, and zinc in a well-educated adult population?

Hallfrisch J, Muller DC.

Metabolism Section, National Institute of Aging, Baltimore,
Maryland 21224.

Standard advice from dietitians, nutritionists, and physicians
is that if one eats a well-balanced diet containing a variety
of foods, supplements are not necessary. Little information is
available, especially in those over 75, to determine whether
actual diets do provide adequate amounts of these minerals.
The participants of the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging
provide seven-day records which include vitamin and mineral
supplement intakes. Median daily dietary intakes from diet in
all 564 subjects and from diet plus supplements in those who
use them were analyzed by age group and gender. More women
than men took supplements. Median intakes of calcium from diet
were below the recommended dietary allowance (RDA) for
unsupplemented women and for supplemented women over 60.
Approximately 25% of women under 50 and 10% of women over 50
consumed less than two thirds of the RDA for iron from diet.
For both men and women, all groups had median diet intakes
below the RDA for magnesium. Forty percent of men and about
half of women consumed less than two thirds of the RDA. These
results indicate that many people in this well-educated,
presumably well-nourished population did not consume adequate
amounts of calcium, iron, magnesium, and zinc from diet. More
women than men are at risk. Even those taking supplements did
not consume adequate levels of some minerals.

Just read the next three papers (two by Bruce Ames, a renowned
geneticist), if you need further inspiration.

Med Hypotheses 1999 May;52(5):417-22

Toward a new definition of essential nutrients: is it now time
for a third 'vitamin' paradigm?

Challem JJ.

Aloha, Oregon 97006, USA. 74543.2122@compuserve.com

The concepts of vitamin 'deficiency' diseases and the
recommended dietary allowances (RDAs) have not kept pace with
the growing understanding of the cellular and molecular
functions of vitamins and other micronutrients. As a
consequence, many researchers and clinicians rely on outdated
signs and symptoms in assessing nutritional deficiencies. A
new paradigm, presented here, proposes that: (1) deficiencies
can be identified on biochemical and molecular levels long
before they become clinically visible; (2) the definition of
essential micronutrients be broadened to include some
carotenoids and flavonoids, as well as various human
metabolites, such as coenzyme Q10, carnitine, and alpha-lipoic
acid, which are also dietary constituents; (4) individual
nutritional requirements are partly fixed by genetics but also
dynamically influenced by variations in the body's biochemical
milieu and external stresses; and (5) the distinction between
nutritional and pharmacological doses of vitamins is
meaningless, since high doses of micronutrients may be
required to achieve normal metabolic processes in some people.

Am J Clin Nutr 2002 Apr;75(4):616-58

High-dose vitamin therapy stimulates variant enzymes with
decreased coenzyme binding affinity (increased K(m)):
relevance to genetic disease and polymorphisms.

Ames BN, Elson-Schwab I, Silver EA.

Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, University of
California, Berkeley, USA. bames@chori.org

As many as one-third of mutations in a gene result in the
corresponding enzyme having an increased Michaelis constant,
or K(m), (decreased binding affinity) for a coenzyme,
resulting in a lower rate of reaction. About 50 human
genetic dis-eases due to defective enzymes can be remedied
or ameliorated by the administration of high doses of the
vitamin component of the corresponding coenzyme, which at
least partially restores enzymatic activity. Several
single-nucleotide polymorphisms, in which the variant amino
acid reduces coenzyme binding and thus enzymatic activity,
are likely to be remediable by raising cellular
concentrations of the cofactor through high-dose vitamin
therapy. Some examples include the alanine-to-valine
substitution at codon 222 (Ala222-->Val) [DNA: C-to-T
substitution at nucleo-tide 677 (677C-->T)] in
methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (NADPH) and the cofactor
FAD (in relation to cardiovascular disease, migraines, and
rages), the Pro187-->Ser (DNA: 609C-->T) mutation in
NAD(P):quinone oxidoreductase 1 [NAD(P)H dehy-drogenase
(quinone)] and FAD (in relation to cancer), the Ala44-->Gly
(DNA: 131C-->G) mutation in glucose-6-phosphate
1-dehydrogenase and NADP (in relation to favism and
hemolytic anemia), and the Glu487-->Lys mutation (present in
one-half of Asians) in aldehyde dehydrogenase (NAD + ) and
NAD (in relation to alcohol intolerance, Alzheimer disease,
and cancer).

Mutat Res 2001 Apr 18;475(1-2):7-20

DNA damage from micronutrient deficiencies is likely to be a
major cause of cancer.

Ames BN.

University of California, 94720-3202, Berkeley, CA, USA.
bnames@uclink4.berkeley.edu

A deficiency of any of the micronutrients: folic acid, Vitamin
B12, Vitamin B6, niacin, Vitamin C, Vitamin E, iron, or zinc,
mimics radiation in damaging DNA by causing single- and
double-strand breaks, oxidative lesions, or both. For example,
the percentage of the US population that has a low intake
(<50% of the RDA) for each of these eight micronutrients
ranges from 2 to >20%. A level of folate deficiency causing
chromosome breaks was present in approximately 10% of the US
population, and in a much higher percentage of the poor.
Folate deficiency causes extensive incorporation of uracil
into human DNA (4 million/cell), leading to chromosomal
breaks. This mechanism is the likely cause of the increased
colon cancer risk associated with low folate intake. Some
evidence, and mechanistic considerations, suggest that Vitamin
B12 (14% US elderly) and B6 (10% of US) deficiencies also
cause high uracil and chromosome breaks. Micronutrient
deficiency may explain, in good part, why the quarter of the
population that eats the fewest fruits and vegetables (five
portions a day is advised) has about double the cancer rate
for most types of cancer when compared to the quarter with the
highest intake. For example, 80% of American children and
adolescents and 68% of adults do not eat five portions a day.
Common micronutrient deficiencies are likely to damage DNA by
the same mechanism as radiation and many chemicals, appear to
be orders of magnitude more important, and should be compared
for perspective. Remedying micronutrient deficiencies should
lead to a major improvement in health and an increase in
longevity at low cost.

[Mad McFarq]

Basically nutrient levels above those needed to prevent
clinical disease are considered 'satisfactory' by most
governments. In some cases these levels are probably far below
a desirable intake eg vitamin C intake probably should be
10-100 times the RDA of most countries.

"Larry Hoover" <larryhoover@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:Z0SH9.8574$mj2.1235684@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> "MarkD..." <blocked.acct@bigtrousers.com> wrote in message
> news:3defe51c$1_2@news1.vip.uk.com...
> > "Larry Hoover" <larryhoover@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > > I don't mean to sound pedantic, but the RDA is meant to
> > > be a mean
> intake,
> > > not a threshold to be met every day. And do you know
> > > what the
definition
> > is
> > > based on? Using American standards (I haven't compared
> > > the definitions
> > used
> > > elsewhere), the RDA is that amount of a nutrient that
> > > will prevent deficiency symptoms in 97.5% (2 standard
> > > deviations above mean intake)
> of
> > > healthy people. TDI (tolerable daily intake) is that
> > > level which
> prevents
> > > toxicity symptoms in 97.5% of people. That's the
> > > scientific basis, but
> > then
> > > there are fudge factors tossed in. RDAs have been going
> > > down over the
> last
> > > couple decades because they are based on dietary supply
> > > (i.e. actual
> > intake)
> > > rather than proven need.
> >
> >
> > If I may add a non-expert comment or two: (i) the level
> > that prevents
> frank
> > deficiency symptoms might reasonably be thought to be some
> > way below
that
> > which would be considered required for 'optimal' health;
> > (ii) lowering
> RDAs
> > in line with decreasing dietary supply allows governments
> > to claim that their populations are adequately nourished
> > when by an objective standard this might not be true. I
> > think one ought to be bothered by both these thoughts.
> >
> > Mark D.
>
> There is absolutely no consideration of the concept of
> optimal nutrition. Nor is there any consideration for people
> not considered to be healthy (although I was unable to find
> a definition for that term, it is embedded into the greater
> definition of RDA). It is government policy that we are
> adequately nourished. They say so, therefore we are.
>
> Or, you could look at NHANES data, and see for yourself.
>
> http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/131/8/2177
>
> The situation is similar in other first world nations, and
> from other American studies.
>
> Environ Res 2001 Dec;87(3):160-74
>
> Dietary intakes of selected elements from longitudinal 6-day
> duplicate
diets
> for pregnant and nonpregnant subjects and elemental
> concentrations of
breast
> milk and infant formula.
>
> Gulson BL, Mizon KJ, Korsch MJ, Mahaffey KR, Taylor AJ.
>
> Graduate School of the Environment, Macquarie University,
> Sydney, New
South
> Wales, 2109, Australia. bgulson@gse.mq.edu.au
>
> As part of a longitudinal investigation into mobilization of
> lead from the maternal skeleton during pregnancy and
> lactation, we have determined the daily intake of selected
> elements (hereafter called micronutrients) for various
> subjects and compared these intakes with recommended and/or
> published intakes, especially those of the United States,
> through the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination
> Survey (NHANES). We also sought
to
> ascertain whether there was any seasonal effect in the
> diets. Six-day duplicate diets were collected from 15
> pregnant and 16 nonpregnant
migrants
> to Australia, 6 pregnant Australian control subjects, and 8
> children of nonpregnant migrants (6 to 11 years). Samples of
> breast milk and infant formula were also analyzed. Blended
> samples were analyzed by inductively coupled plasma mass
> spectrometry for the elements Ca, Cu, Fe, Mg, P, K,
Na,
> Zn, Ba, Sr, and Pb. Daily intakes of micronutrients were
> only about half
of
> the daily intake estimated for non-Hispanic white females
> and infants in
the
> U.S. NHANES III. Estimates of daily intakes from breast milk
> were also considerably lower for the migrant and Australian
> infants compared with
the
> values extracted from tables of food composition and dietary
> recall for non-Hispanic white infants in the U.S. NHANES
> III. For example, Ca was a factor of approximately 3 times
> lower, Fe approximately 50, and Zn approximately 4. We
> consider our estimates a reliable indication of the daily
> intakes for several reasons, including the collection of up
> to nine quarterly collections of 6-day duplicate diets and
> retention of subjects
in
> a longitudinal prospective study. The low intakes of the
> essential
elements
> such as Ca, Fe, and Zn in all these population groups are of
> potential concern from a public health viewpoint.
>
> Am J Clin Nutr 1989 Oct;50(4):718-27
>
> Nutrient intake and vitamin status of healthy French
> vegetarians and nonvegetarians.
>
> Millet P, Guilland JC, Fuchs F, Klepping J.
>
> Department of Physiology, School of Medicine, University of
> Dijon, France.
>
> The status of thiamin, riboflavin, folate, and vitamins B-6,
> B-12, C, A,
D,
> and E was investigated in 37 middle-aged and healthy French
> vegetarians by means of a dietary survey and biochemical
> studies. Values were compared
with
> those of a group of nonvegetarians. Unsatisfactory intakes
> of vitamin B-6 were observed: vitamin B-6 intake as a
> percentage of the French
Recommended
> Dietary Allowances was approximately 66% for vegetarians and
> approximately 58% for nonvegetarians. Vegetarians had a
> higher mean intake of thiamin, riboflavin, and vitamins C,
> A, D, and E than did nonvegetarians.
Vegetarians
> did not have a higher risk rate for a biochemical vitamin
> deficiency of thiamin, riboflavin, folates, and vitamins
> B-6, C, A, and E than the nonvegetarians. The percentage of
> subjects assessed as abnormal by blood vitamin
> concentrations was higher in vegetarians for vitamin B-12
> (serum vitamin B-12) and vitamin D, which indicated a higher
> risk for a
deficiency
> of vitamins B-12 and D in this group.
>
> J Adolesc Health 1996 Jul;19(1):39-47
>
> Marginal vitamin and mineral intakes of young adults: the
> Bogalusa Heart Study.
>
> Zive MM, Nicklas TA, Busch EC, Myers L, Berenson GS.
>
> Department of Pediatrics, University of California at San
> Diego, La Jolla, USA.
>
> PURPOSE: To determine reported vitamin and mineral intakes,
> vitamin supplement use, and food consumption patterns of
> young adults. METHODS: Twenty-four-hour dietary recalls were
> collected from 1988-1991 on a cross-sectional sample of 504
> young adults in Bogalusa, Louisiana, between the ages of 19
> and 28 years (58% female; 70% white). Reported vitamin and
> mineral intake data were analyzed for race and gender
> differences. Descriptive and inferential statistics were
> calculated where appropriate. Food sources of selected
> vitamins and minerals were also examined.
RESULTS:
> Reported intakes of vitamins A, B6, E, D, and C, folacin,
> magnesium, iron, zinc, and calcium were most likely to be
> inadequate compared with the Recommended dietary Allowances
> (RDA); with more females than males
reported
> nutrient intakes less than two thirds of the RDA.
> Approximately 10% of the population reported taking a
> vitamin/mineral supplement over the 24-h
survey
> period. Food source data indicated that breads and
> grains, milk,
vegetables
> and soups, fruits, and beef were the primary contributors of
> the selected vitamins and minerals. CONCLUSIONS: Public
> health organizations and dietitians need to educate young
> adults on practical strategies for making wise food choices
> rich in nutrient content relative to energy value to ensure
> intakes that approach the RDAs.
>
> Ann Nutr Metab 1996;40(1):24-51
>
> Vitamin status of healthy subjects in Burgundy (France).
>
> de Carvalho MJ, Guilland JC, Moreau D, Boggio V, Fuchs F.
>
> Department of Nutrition, University of Paraiba, Jaoa
> Pessoa, Brazil.
>
> A nutrition survey was conducted in Burgundy (France) with a
> population sample of 337 middle-aged and healthy subjects
> (157 males and 180 females) recruited at a health
> examination center in 1985-1986. The status of
> beta-carotene, thiamin, riboflavin, folate, vitamin B6, B12,
> C, A, D, and
E
> was assessed by means of 7-day food records and biochemical
> studies.
Results
> were compared with two other recent nutritional surveys
> conducted in
France:
> ESVITAF (control group only) and Val de Marne surveys. The
> dietary information collected for each subject was compared
> to the 1992 French Recommended Dietary Allowances (FRDA).
> Dietary vitamin intakes were higher in males than in
> females. Low vitamin intakes (< 1/2 FRDA) were found in
5%
> of males and 7% of females for thiamin, in 11% of males and
> 28% of females for vitamin B6, in 6% of males and 3% of
> females for vitamin C, in 87% of males and 91% of females
> for vitamin D, and in 8% of males and 13% of females for
> vitamin E. No subject had a vitamin intake < 1/2 FRDA for
> riboflavin, folate, vitamins A and B12. ESVITAF and Val de
> Marne studies also show low vitamin intakes for vitamin B6,
> thiamin, riboflavin,
vitamins
> D and E. Biochemical status was examined using erythrocyte
> enzyme function and blood vitamin levels. The percent of
> subjects with deficient
biochemical
> values was high for vitamin B6 (15% of all males and 20% of
> all females), and vitamin D (13% of all males, and 15% of
> all females). With regard to thiamin, riboflavin, vitamin C,
> folate, vitamin B12, vitamin A, and
vitamin
> E, < 5% of subjects had values in the range of major vitamin
> deficiency. However, in both genders, except for vitamin C
> and vitamin A (only for females), low values corresponding
> to a moderate risk of vitamin
deficiency
> was high for most vitamins. The incidence of a severe
> deficient vitamin status for thiamin and riboflavin was
> higher in Val de Marne than in Burgundy, or ESVITAF. In Val
> de Marne, the probability of a moderate risk
of
> vitamin deficiency was high for thiamin, riboflavin, vitamin
> B6, vitamin A and vitamin E. Our results (as other studies
> performed in France and in other industrialized countries)
> raise the issue of the health significance of marginally
> deficient vitamin status.
>
> Ann N Y Acad Sci 1993 Mar 15;678:244-54
>
> Vitamin and mineral status of women of childbearing
> potential.
>
> Block G, Abrams B.
>
> Public Health Nutrition Program, School of Public Health,
> University of California, Berkeley 94720.
>
> Increasing data suggest a role for micronutrients in
> pregnancy outcome,
and
> in some cases nutritional status must be adequate in the
> first weeks of pregnancy. We examined nationally
> representative survey data on women of childbearing age: the
> NHANES II data for serum measures of iron status and the
> CSFII four-day data for dietary measures of intake of
> protein, iron, zinc, folic acid, and vitamins A, C, and B6.
> For those nutrients, women below or near poverty had
> consistently lower levels, with median intakes below the RDA
> for all but protein (e.g., folic acid, 150 micrograms in
> contrast with the RDA of 180 for nonpregnant and 400 for
> pregnant women;
for
> B6, 0.96 mg instead of 1.6 or 2.2). Even among women with
> incomes as high
as
> three times the poverty level or more, large segments of the
> population
had
> very low intakes. For example, the 25th percentile in that
> group was only 142 micrograms/day of folic acid, 4.6
> alpha-tocopherol equivalents of vitamin E, 6.7 mg zinc, and
> 433 mg of calcium. Approximately 15% of women had low
> transferrin saturation.
>
>
> Exp Gerontol 1993 Jul-Oct;28(4-5):473-83
>
> Does diet provide adequate amounts of calcium, iron,
> magnesium, and zinc
in
> a well-educated adult population?
>
> Hallfrisch J, Muller DC.
>
> Metabolism Section, National Institute of Aging, Baltimore,
> Maryland
21224.
>
> Standard advice from dietitians, nutritionists, and
> physicians is that if one eats a well-balanced diet
> containing a variety of foods, supplements
are
> not necessary. Little information is available, especially
> in those over
75,
> to determine whether actual diets do provide adequate
> amounts of these minerals. The participants of the Baltimore
> Longitudinal Study of Aging provide seven-day records which
> include vitamin and mineral supplement intakes. Median daily
> dietary intakes from diet in all 564 subjects and
from
> diet plus supplements in those who use them were analyzed by
> age group and gender. More women than men took supplements.
> Median intakes of calcium
from
> diet were below the recommended dietary allowance (RDA) for
> unsupplemented women and for supplemented women over 60.
> Approximately 25% of women under 50 and 10% of women over 50
> consumed less than two thirds of the RDA for iron from diet.
> For both men and women, all groups had median diet intakes
> below the RDA for magnesium. Forty percent of men and about
> half of women consumed less than two thirds of the RDA.
> These results indicate that many people in this
> well-educated, presumably well-nourished population did not
> consume adequate amounts of calcium, iron, magnesium, and
> zinc from diet. More women than men are at risk. Even those
> taking supplements did not consume adequate levels of some
> minerals.
>
>
>
> Just read the next three papers (two by Bruce Ames, a
> renowned
geneticist),
> if you need further inspiration.
>
> Med Hypotheses 1999 May;52(5):417-22
>
> Toward a new definition of essential nutrients: is it now
> time for a third 'vitamin' paradigm?
>
> Challem JJ.
>
> Aloha, Oregon 97006, USA. 74543.2122@compuserve.com
>
> The concepts of vitamin 'deficiency' diseases and the
> recommended dietary allowances (RDAs) have not kept pace
> with the growing understanding of the cellular and molecular
> functions of vitamins and other micronutrients. As
a
> consequence, many researchers and clinicians rely on
> outdated signs and symptoms in assessing nutritional
> deficiencies. A new paradigm, presented here, proposes that:
> (1) deficiencies can be identified on biochemical and
> molecular levels long before they become clinically visible;
> (2) the definition of essential micronutrients be broadened
> to include some carotenoids and flavonoids, as well as
> various human metabolites, such as coenzyme Q10, carnitine,
> and alpha-lipoic acid, which are also dietary constituents;
> (4) individual nutritional requirements are partly fixed by
> genetics but also dynamically influenced by variations in
> the body's biochemical milieu and external stresses; and (5)
> the distinction between nutritional and pharmacological
> doses of vitamins is meaningless, since
high
> doses of micronutrients may be required to achieve normal
> metabolic processes in some people.
>
> Am J Clin Nutr 2002 Apr;75(4):616-58
>
> High-dose vitamin therapy stimulates variant enzymes with
> decreased
coenzyme
> binding affinity (increased K(m)): relevance to genetic
> disease and polymorphisms.
>
> Ames BN, Elson-Schwab I, Silver EA.
>
> Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, University of
> California, Berkeley, USA. bames@chori.org
>
> As many as one-third of mutations in a gene result in the
> corresponding enzyme having an increased Michaelis constant,
> or K(m), (decreased binding affinity) for a coenzyme,
> resulting in a lower rate of reaction. About 50 human
> genetic dis-eases due to defective enzymes can be remedied
> or ameliorated by the administration of high doses of the
> vitamin component
of
> the corresponding coenzyme, which at least partially
> restores enzymatic activity. Several single-nucleotide
> polymorphisms, in which the variant amino acid reduces
> coenzyme binding and thus enzymatic activity, are
likely
> to be remediable by raising cellular concentrations of the
> cofactor
through
> high-dose vitamin therapy. Some examples include the
> alanine-to-valine substitution at codon 222 (Ala222-->Val)
> [DNA: C-to-T substitution at nucleo-tide 677 (677C-->T)] in
> methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (NADPH) and the cofactor
> FAD (in relation to cardiovascular disease, migraines,
and
> rages), the Pro187-->Ser (DNA: 609C-->T) mutation in
> NAD(P):quinone oxidoreductase 1 [NAD(P)H dehy-drogenase
> (quinone)] and FAD (in relation
to
> cancer), the Ala44-->Gly (DNA: 131C-->G) mutation in
> glucose-6-phosphate 1-dehydrogenase and NADP (in relation to
> favism and hemolytic anemia), and the Glu487-->Lys mutation
> (present in one-half of Asians) in aldehyde dehydrogenase
> (NAD + ) and NAD (in relation to alcohol intolerance,
> Alzheimer disease, and cancer).
>
> Mutat Res 2001 Apr 18;475(1-2):7-20
>
> DNA damage from micronutrient deficiencies is likely to be a
> major cause
of
> cancer.
>
> Ames BN.
>
> University of California, 94720-3202, Berkeley, CA, USA.
> bnames@uclink4.berkeley.edu
>
> A deficiency of any of the micronutrients: folic acid,
> Vitamin B12,
Vitamin
> B6, niacin, Vitamin C, Vitamin E, iron, or zinc, mimics
> radiation in damaging DNA by causing single- and
> double-strand breaks, oxidative
lesions,
> or both. For example, the percentage of the US population
> that has a low intake (<50% of the RDA) for each of these
> eight micronutrients ranges
from
> 2 to >20%. A level of folate deficiency causing chromosome
> breaks was present in approximately 10% of the US
> population, and in a much higher percentage of the poor.
> Folate deficiency causes extensive incorporation
of
> uracil into human DNA (4 million/cell), leading to
> chromosomal breaks.
This
> mechanism is the likely cause of the increased colon
> cancer risk
associated
> with low folate intake. Some evidence, and mechanistic
> considerations, suggest that Vitamin B12 (14% US elderly)
> and B6 (10% of US) deficiencies also cause high uracil and
> chromosome breaks. Micronutrient deficiency may explain, in
> good part, why the quarter of the population that eats the
> fewest fruits and vegetables (five portions a day is
> advised) has about double the cancer rate for most types of
> cancer when compared to the
quarter
> with the highest intake. For example, 80% of American
> children and adolescents and 68% of adults do not eat five
> portions a day. Common micronutrient deficiencies are likely
> to damage DNA by the same mechanism
as
> radiation and many chemicals, appear to be orders of
> magnitude more important, and should be compared for
> perspective. Remedying micronutrient deficiencies should
> lead to a major improvement in health and an increase
in
> longevity at low cost.
>
>
>
>

[Klmok]

>Lets get it straight - there is no food that is harmful in
>small doses or harmless in sufficiently high doses.

First off. Thanks "Mad McFarqhuar" for saying what I had
always wated to say about food. I had always lived by the
philosophy to enjoy what I eat and don't worry about nutrition
theories. If I look and feel healthy, have no recurrent
illness and my bodyweight and shape is stable and average for
my height. I am likley as healthy as I am ever going to get. I
don't seek superior strength or health, just what I can
sustain without too much effort. So I don't do weights, walk
or run miles daily, count calories or look for elixirs. To
date I can do the tasks I should be able to do like heavy
lifting and precision hand work. My bones don't ache or groan.
My eyesight needs mild correction, my teeth are all there and
strong, etc. The annual clinical tests never turned up
anything that required further tests. Worked pretty well for
me so far and at 61 I'm too old to change my lifestyle anyway
or to expect to prolong my life or health prospects by
changing my habits.

>Eating a single 50g pack of potato chips won't do much - 100
>packs in a sitting will probably kill you with sodium
>toxicity.

>If you get sufficient of a nutrient you're getting enough -
>much more is too much. I'm sure a little of most things is
>good, I can't think of much that is safe to eat in large
>quantities. A cup of green tea, a couple of fishoil
>capsules, a dash of olive oil dressing are all good. So why
>are people encouraged to take large quantities of these
>foods on a daily basis.

Exactly. Everything in moderation including "good stuff" like
exercise. Overdoing that can tear tendons, muscles and break
bones. Former weightlifters have terrible sagging skin once
they stop. They look terrible. Seen the horror results of
suntan worshippers. What about toxicity from eating too much
of a good thing.

>In a pre-agrarian society it is difficult to eat a lot of any
>one food. Hunting and gathering is highly seasonal and
>serendipitous -eggs are only available a few months a year,
>fruit trees are widely spaced and the fruit is only edible
>for short periods. There are other staples that tend to be
>available most of the year in the topics and subtropics,
>meat, tubers and fish.

Again agree here. It is not necessary that all the right
(balance of) foods must be present at every meal. It is only
necessary that over the course of several months that a good
mix of foods be eaten. This really simplifies food preparation
and food costs. I live alone and the last thing I want to do
is to spend hours on food.

>We think that we have a huge variety of foods available.
>The reality is that we have a tiny range of foods
>repackaged to give the illusion of variety. I doubt whether
>your supermarket sells parrot, crocodile, swallow or
>seagull eggs. Any aardvark, walrus or zebra meat? How many
>types of snake, turtle or lizard meat? How many edible
>insects, cacti or yams?

There is a fly in the ointment to what I have said so far. I
did not find out until I was 50 that I had food intolerance
to stuff like soy, gluten, legumes and quite a few plant
products. The symptoms were inexplicable tiredness, brain fog
and other "markers" for chronic fatigue syndrome. But I
looked very healthy and hardly ever ill with a real illness
that a doctor could identify and medicate for. So no one
including myself ever suspected I had an illness. The CFS
problems are pretty much under control by just avoiding
"problem foods" which are among the very normal grocery store
foods noted below.

>The reality is you can buy about 3 mammals (pigs, cattle
>sheep), 3 birds (chickens, turkeys, ducks), about 6 grains, a
>dozen separate vegetable genuses and a dozen separate fruit
>genuses at supermarkets. No reptiles, no insects.

>If you live in an affluent area you can buy up to a dozen
>varieties of each common food, however a spud is still
>basically a spud. Broccoli, cabbage, kale and brussel sprouts
>are the same species. Pears, nashi and apples are closely
>related and nutritionally similar. The reality is that most
>common food plants are closely related members of the malus
>(apple), prunus (plum), curcurbaceae (melons + squashes) and
>solanaceae (eggplants, tomatoes, potatoes + chillies).

>Your diet really needs a huge amount of variety not just
>wheat, milk, chicken and a handful of supplements,

The point here is that my food choices are even more
restricted than what "Mad McFarqhuar" describes. But limited
and bland as my diet may be in terms of food variety I have
never felt better or been healthier in my life. This is no
surprise when one considers that the poor of the third world
have even less choice of foods. Yet they seem to thrive quite
well once past the perils of infant mortality.

For variety, more to satisfy culinary preferences than a stab
at nutrition, I still treat myself to an occasional
"intolerance" food and suffer no consequences other than a
short duration discomfort..

In other words, "Mad McFarqhuar" has my ardent support that
we should just enjoy our meals and do everything in
moderation. Insofar as nutrition is concerned the foods we
get from any grocery store is more than adequate to
constitute a healthy diet.

[Pbeyer]

Larry Hoover wrote:

> "There is absolutely no consideration of the concept of
> optimal nutrition. Nor is there any consideration for people
> not considered to be healthy (although I was unable to find
> a definition for that term, it is embedded into the greater
> definition of RDA). It is government policy that we are
> adequately nourished. They say so, therefore we are.
>

Hi Larry-- I'm really surprised at your statment-- Have you
not read the DRI's and the text that comes with it? Part of
the whole reason for the revisions of the RDA's and new DRI's
was the consideration of the role of some nutrients beyond
preventing deficiency. That's why several were raised in the
recent change. Point 2-- people tend to refer to the
"government" as being the ones who make these recommendations
when in fact they are people from universities around the
country who have knowledge of medicine, science and nutrition
who are charged with the weighty task of applying the
information available. Anyone can go the NRC, IOM or whatever
agencies one is interested in and find who those persons.
There are usually "public" presentations of their work and
their results. Just a couple thoughts. Pete

[Larry Hoov]

"pbeyer" <pbeyer@kumc.edu> wrote in message
news:3DF0AB16.287C10D5@kumc.edu...
>
>
> Larry Hoover wrote:
>
> > "There is absolutely no consideration of the concept of
> > optimal
nutrition.
> > Nor is there any consideration for people not considered
> > to be healthy (although I was unable to find a definition
> > for that term, it is
embedded
> > into the greater definition of RDA). It is government
> > policy that we are adequately nourished. They say so,
> > therefore we are.
> >
>
> Hi Larry-- I'm really surprised at your statment-- Have you
> not read the
DRI's
> and the text that comes with it? Part of the whole
> reason for the
revisions of
> the RDA's and new DRI's was the consideration of the
> role of some
nutrients
> beyond preventing deficiency. That's why several were
> raised in the
recent
> change.

The reason I focussed on RDAs is that the RDA is still the
dominant concept in nutritional intake, and remains in use
over much of the world (although levels differ under different
authorities). The biggest change arising from adoption of the
DRI is the gender/age segregation, rather than any substantive
changes in philosophy, IMHO. Take a look at the 'new'
standards for vitamin C, for example. Less than 100 mg across
the board, unless you're a smoker. I don't have the reference
at hand, but for lab primates which require vitamin C from
diet, the minimum is set at 900 mg/day. That should give one
something to think about.

I'm not suggesting there has been no change, but that the
change has been inadequate.

What I cannot quite understand is why there is such political
resistance to the concept of nutrition as therapy. Or,
nutrition as prophylaxis, for that matter.

> Point 2-- people tend to refer to the "government" as being
> the ones who
make
> these recommendations when in fact they are people from
> universities
around the
> country who have knowledge of medicine, science and
> nutrition who are
charged
> with the weighty task of applying the information available.
> Anyone can
go the
> NRC, IOM or whatever agencies one is interested in and find
> who those
persons.
> There are usually "public" presentations of their work and
> their results. Just a couple thoughts. Pete

I was generalizing, obviously. The policies presented by the
FDA, NAS, or whomever, are political statements. The
statements are made by scientists, but they are not scientific
statements. The argument embedded in the statements is a
circular one: the average diet provides all the nutrition
required for health; healthy people are consuming x amount of
nutrient y; x amount of nutrient y can be obtained from the
average diet. I would argue that most people are not, in fact,
at their optimal health, as the average nutrient intake is
insufficient save to avoid most frank symptoms of
malnutrition.

[Pbeyer]

Larry Hoover wrote:

> "pbeyer" <pbeyer@kumc.edu> wrote in message
> news:3DF0AB16.287C10D5@kumc.edu...
> >
> >
> > Larry Hoover wrote:
> >
> > > "There is absolutely no consideration of the concept of
> > > optimal
> nutrition.
> > > Nor is there any consideration for people not considered
> > > to be healthy (although I was unable to find a
> > > definition for that term, it is
> embedded
> > > into the greater definition of RDA). It is government
> > > policy that we are adequately nourished. They say so,
> > > therefore we are.
> > >
> >
> > Hi Larry-- I'm really surprised at your statment-- Have
> > you not read the
> DRI's
> > and the text that comes with it? Part of the whole reason
> > for the
> revisions of
> > the RDA's and new DRI's was the consideration of the role
> > of some
> nutrients
> > beyond preventing deficiency. That's why several were
> > raised in the
> recent
> > change.
>
> The reason I focussed on RDAs is that the RDA is still the
> dominant concept in nutritional intake, and remains in use
> over much of the world (although levels differ under
> different authorities). The biggest change arising from
> adoption of the DRI is the gender/age segregation, rather
> than any substantive changes in philosophy, IMHO. Take a
> look at the 'new' standards for vitamin C, for example. Less
> than 100 mg across the board, unless you're a smoker. I
> don't have the reference at hand, but for lab primates which
> require vitamin C from diet, the minimum is set at 900
> mg/day. That should give one something to think about.
>
> I'm not suggesting there has been no change, but that the
> change has been inadequate.
>
> What I cannot quite understand is why there is such
> political resistance to the concept of nutrition as therapy.
> Or, nutrition as prophylaxis, for that matter.
>
> > Point 2-- people tend to refer to the "government" as
> > being the ones who
> make
> > these recommendations when in fact they are people from
> > universities
> around the
> > country who have knowledge of medicine, science and
> > nutrition who are
> charged
> > with the weighty task of applying the information
> > available. Anyone can
> go the
> > NRC, IOM or whatever agencies one is interested in and
> > find who those
> persons.
> > There are usually "public" presentations of their work and
> > their results. Just a couple thoughts. Pete
>
> I was generalizing, obviously. The policies presented by the
> FDA, NAS, or whomever, are political statements. The
> statements are made by scientists, but they are not
> scientific statements. The argument embedded in the
> statements is a circular one: the average diet provides all
> the nutrition required for health; healthy people are
> consuming x amount of nutrient y; x amount of nutrient y can
> be obtained from the average diet. I would argue that most
> people are not, in fact, at their optimal health, as the
> average nutrient intake is insufficient save to avoid most
> frank symptoms of malnutrition.

Appreciate your response You certainly have the right to your
opinion but I feel that the scientists who make the
contributions to dietary guidelines, recommmendations are the
same ones who are studying the issues in their labs, practices
and reporting the results in scientific journals such as Am J
Clin Nutr, J Nutr, Nutr Reviews, etc for us to ponder. they
are considering prevention of depletion and they are
considering disease prevention. To responsibly make these
recommendations based on the strength of data available is a
whopping chore. Each of the DRI's now show the review process
and strength statements that were used in the interpretation.
Reading the decisions eg regarding ascorbic acid was
interesting but considered both animal and human studies as
well as epidemiologic, cohort studies, etc. We may not agree
with all of the results but they lay them out openly. At least
to me they don't look much like political statements. Pete

[Larry Hoov]

"pbeyer" <pbeyer@kumc.edu> wrote in message
news:3DF0CB1C.2A412474@kumc.edu...
> Appreciate your response You certainly have the right to
> your opinion but I feel that the
scientists who
> make the contributions to dietary guidelines,
> recommmendations are the
same ones
> who are studying the issues in their labs, practices and
> reporting the
results
> in scientific journals such as Am J Clin Nutr, J Nutr, Nutr
> Reviews, etc
for us
> to ponder. they are considering prevention of depletion and
> they are considering
disease
> prevention. To responsibly make these recommendations
> based on the
strength of
> data available is a whopping chore. Each of the DRI's now
> show the review process and strength statements that were
> used in the interpretation.
Reading
> the decisions eg regarding ascorbic acid was interesting but
> considered
both
> animal and human studies as well as epidemiologic, cohort
> studies, etc.
We may
> not agree with all of the results but they lay them out
> openly. At least
to me
> they don't look much like political statements. Pete
>

Perhaps reading this essay might give a greater context to
the issue:

http://www.internetwks.com/pauling/hoffer.html

[Sandy]

On Thu, 5 Dec 2002 12:38:47 +1000, "Mad McFarqhuar"
<antispam@address..com> wrote:

>Lets get it straight - there is no food that is harmful in
>small doses or harmless in sufficiently high doses.

Great philosophy. Forget supplements, and deliberately eating
much of this or that food component.

>Eating a single 50g pack of potato chips won't do much - 100
>packs in a sitting will probably kill you with sodium
>toxicity.

Even if I liked them? I don't remember the last time I even
tasted one.

>If you get sufficient of a nutrient you're getting enough -
>much more is too much. I'm sure a little of most things is
>good, I can't think of much that is safe to eat in large
>quantities. A cup of green tea, a couple of fishoil capsules,

What's wrong with occasional fish?

> a dash of olive oil dressing are all good. So why are people
> encouraged to take large quantities of these foods on a
> daily basis.

Profit and paranoia.

>In a pre-agrarian society it is difficult to eat a lot of any
>one food. Hunting and gathering is highly seasonal and
>serendipitous -eggs are only available a few months a year,
>fruit trees are widely spaced and the fruit is only edible
>for short periods. There are other staples that tend to be
>available most of the year in the topics and subtropics,
>meat, tubers and fish.

Grains, milk, seafood, seeds...

>We think that we have a huge variety of foods available. The
>reality is that we have a tiny range of foods repackaged to
>give the illusion of variety.

Where do you live? Have you looked in your local supermarket?
I often see fruit there that I have never seen before. I
bought a lovely durian that I devoured over several nights
while my wife was away -:)

>I doubt whether your supermarket sells parrot, crocodile,
>swallow or seagull eggs.

Quail, turkey, my brother gives me free-range bantam eggs.
Really, an egg is an egg is an egg.

> Any aardvark, walrus or zebra meat?

Kangaroo, crocodile emu. But it is much the same as deer or
any other animal protein.

>How many types of snake, turtle or lizard meat? How many
>edible insects, cacti or yams?

Yams, and cacti in season, but is there something unique here?

>The reality is you can buy about 3 mammals (pigs,
>cattle sheep),

A little of just one is plenty.

> 3 birds (chickens, turkeys, ducks),

A little of just one is plenty.

>about 6 grains,

Wheat, rye, oats, barley, corn, rice, millet, sesame, etc

>a dozen separate vegetable genuses

Genera is more euphonious IMHO -:)

>and a dozen separate fruit genuses at supermarkets. No
>reptiles, no insects.

You forgot fish (and marine insects, crustacea) and dairy
(cheese), and all the wonderful pulses. Just fruit, there are
the rutaceae, musaceae, rosaceae, vitaceae.....

>If you live in an affluent area you can buy up to a dozen
>varieties of each common food, however a spud is still
>basically a spud. Broccoli, cabbage, kale and brussel sprouts
>are the same species. Pears, nashi and apples are closely
>related and nutritionally similar. The reality is that most
>common food plants are closely related members of the malus
>(apple), prunus (plum), curcurbaceae (melons + squashes) and
>solanaceae (eggplants, tomatoes, potatoes + chillies).

Bananas, avocado, grapes, onions, berries, lettuce
(compositae), carrots, coconut, olives, different nuts, pulses
(legumes peas, beans, soy), citrus, figs, pineapple,
passionfruit, dates, spices, rhubarb, asparagus, sweet potato,
mushrooms.... Geez you lead a sheltered life -:)

>Your diet really needs a huge amount of variety not just
>wheat, milk, chicken and a handful of supplements,

Great variety here (forget the supplements) Use your
imagination.

Sandy