 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / August 2005WHAT MILK IS THE RIGHT MILK FOR CHILDREN?
WHAT MILK IS THE RIGHT MILK FOR CHILDREN? Forwarded message from Fidyl <fidyl@yahoo.com> [ Subject: What Milk is the Right Milk For Children? [ From: Fidyl <fidyl@yahoo.com> [ Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 What Milk is the Right Milk For Children? By Frederick Patenaude The article: "What milk to feed a newborn baby?" by Professor J. Lestradet, published in the scientific journal: Journal of Nutrition and Diet (Cahiers de nutrition et de diététique), March 1982, stated: "Any kind of milk other than mother's milk, used in an unaltered state, will cause major disruptions. Differences between types of milk are fundamental. As a matter of fact, there is twice as much lactose in human milk as in cow's milk, and it is known that lactose is vital for brain growth, which is twice as quick in a baby as in a calf. There is an overload of protein in cow's milk, which contains three times as much protein as human milk. It is to be noted that the liver and kidneys of a bottle-fed child are 30% larger than the very same organs in a breast-fed child. Cow's milk doesn't address calcium absorption better than human milk, although it contains three times as much calcium. Cow's milk contains five times as much phosphate as human milk, and this causes two-thirds of the calcium to be retained in the gut -- the result being that a bottle-fed child tends to have low blood calcium. Furthermore, cow's milk, whether formulated or not, contains iron and this enhances the growth of pathogenic bacteria (which accounts for excretory smells in the feeding bottle). Using partly skimmed spray-dried milk, one is going the other way and setting up an iron deficiency in the newborn, which is, additionally, worsened since cow's milk protein irritates the digestive tract and causes microscopic bleeding. As for salt, which cow's milk is three times as high in, it is known to cause water retention and high blood pressure. There are grounds for thinking that starting a child out on too much salt could well account for some cases of adult high blood pressure." End of forwarded message from Fidyl <fidyl@yahoo.com> Jai Maharaj http://www.mantra.com/jai Om Shanti Hindu Holocaust Museum http://www.mantra.com/holocaust Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy http://www.hindu.org http://www.hindunet.org The truth about Islam and Muslims http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate The terrorist mission of Jesus stated in the Christian bible: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not so send peace, but a sword. "For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. "And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. - Matthew 10:34-36. o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works. o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read, considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number. o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article. FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Since newsgroup posts are being removed by forgery by one or more net terrorists, this post may be reposted several times. > What Milk is the Right Milk For Children? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > journal: Journal of Nutrition and Diet (Cahiers de > nutrition et de diététique), March 1982, stated: I noticed the date from 1982. Why did it take so long for medicine / science / lay persons to realize cow's milk may not be suitable for humans? > "Any kind of milk other than mother's milk, used in an > unaltered state, will cause major disruptions. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > of a bottle-fed child are 30% larger than the very same > organs in a breast-fed child. The casein protein contained within cow's milk may be difficult for many humans to digest. > I noticed the date from 1982. Why did it take so long for > medicine / science / lay persons to realize cow's milk may not be suitable > for humans? > The casein protein contained within cow's milk may be difficult > for many humans to digest. I've already discussed this topic with you and given you links to research the information. I'm starting to think you aren't really interested in the answer, but rather you're just here to bash cow's milk. There are many Masai tribes, some healthier than others. One specific tribe was studied by Dr. Weston Price in the early 1900's. Dr. Price studied their health as related to their diet, which was mainly cow's milk, meat and cow's blood. He found that they had excellent health, strong teeth and lived long lives... quite different from Masai tribes that lived hundreds of miles away and did not use cow's milk. Go to www.westonaprice.org and search for the word "masai" You'll find several articles talking about their health and diet. The issue is not casein. It's the lack of other nutrients in today's milk as a result of A) pasteurization and B) poor diets of the animals the milk comes from. It is a well known fact that milk from animals eating the diet nature intended will have a different (and more appropriate) nutritional profile than milk from today's factory farmed animals. Additionally, the constant antibiotics received by the cows makes its way into milk. That, in turn, kills of beneficial bacteria in our digestive tract, making it even more difficult for us to digest our food. If you're going to run around the news group bashing milk, you should at least take the time to educate yourself about all sides of the argument. Max. George wrote: > The casein protein contained within cow's milk may be difficult > for many humans to digest. >Max C." <me@noemail.com> replied: > I've already discussed this topic with you and given you links to > research the information. I'm starting to think you aren't really > interested in the answer, but rather you're just here to bash cow's > milk. I know that you say raw cow's milk is acceptable for human consumption. Which may be fine since its enzymes is still active. But what percentage of the total cow's milk drinkers population actually drink raw cow's milk? The percentage should be quite small. > I know that you say raw cow's milk is acceptable for human > consumption. Which may be fine since its enzymes is still active. But > what percentage of the total cow's milk drinkers population actually drink > raw cow's milk? The percentage should be quite small. Well, it depends on where you live. In California, raw milk is legal to sell in retail stores. In most other states, it's only legal to sell at grade a raw certified farms. In other states, it's totally illegal. So, yes, it's a fairly small percentage. However, for those that CAN obtain it (like me) it's a very high quality, health promoting food. So, why spin your wheels trying to tell everyone that ALL milk is bad, when it clearly isn't? If you spent that time trying to educate people of the pitfalls of pasteurized milk AND the benefits of raw milk, our country could see a come-back of a very health promoting food. Breast milk is best.  SignatureI made magic once. Now, the sofa is gone... http://www.dwacon.com > WHAT MILK IS THE RIGHT MILK FOR CHILDREN? > Hindu Holocaust Museum > http://www.mantra.com/holocaust Should there be a Cow's Milk Holocaust Museum? > > WHAT MILK IS THE RIGHT MILK FOR CHILDREN? > > Hindu Holocaust Museum > > http://www.mantra.com/holocaust > > Should there be a Cow's Milk Holocaust Museum? Er, no. > > WHAT MILK IS THE RIGHT MILK FOR CHILDREN? > > Hindu Holocaust Museum > > http://www.mantra.com/holocaust > > Should there be a Cow's Milk Holocaust Museum? That's an excellent idea. The hundreds of millions who've died or had their lives shortened and made miserable by cow milk would applaud the idea. Incidentally the UN Cancer Agency has reviewed a number of studies and determined that combination hormone replacement is no longer a "possible" carcinogen but is now upgraded to definately a carcinogen raising risk of breast cancer. Now how much of a leap is it to conclude that the hormones becoming systemic from cow milk have the same risk? This should be a wakeup to all practicing medical personnel to start weaning their patients from cow milk products. :: George Lagergren wrote: ::: "Dr. Jai Maharaj" <usenet@mantra.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] :: This should be a wakeup to all practicing medical personnel to start :: weaning their patients from cow milk products. Or a Vegan Holocaust Museum? If milk were that bad I wonder why lactovegetarians have a much longer life expectancy than vegans. SignatureJuhana > Or a Vegan Holocaust Museum? If milk were that bad I wonder why > lactovegetarians have a much longer life expectancy than vegans. Touché! Excellent point Juhana? and here's a HUGE study that shows what you just said? just in case there are any doubters. http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/516S See table 7 for a breakdown of causes of death. Max. >> Or a Vegan Holocaust Museum? If milk were that bad I wonder why >> lactovegetarians have a much longer life expectancy than vegans. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > See table 7 for a breakdown of causes of death. 'The evidence suggests that getting adequate B12 could result in vegans living about 4 years longer than meat eaters and 2 years longer than lacto-vegetarians. ...........' http://www.vegansociety.com/phpws/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_ printable&PAGE_id=29&lay_quiet=1 ( http://tinyurl.com/dkwmb ) 'The B12-Cobalt Connection .. To prevent or alleviate cobalt-B12 deficiency, farmers routinely add cobalt to animal feeds or salt licks. Some fertilize pastures with cobalt- enriched fertilizers; others opt for periodic quick-fix B12 injections. With any of these measures, all symptoms are reversed and B12 in milk and colostrum dramatically increases. B12 synthesis by indigenous bacteria is known to occur naturally in the human small intestine, primary site of B12 absorption. As long as gut bacteria have cobalt and certain other nutrients, they produce B12. In principle then, internal B12 synthesis could fulfill our needs without any B12 provided by diet. .. The emerging nutritional crisis of B12 deficiency calls for remedial action in the macro- as well as micro-environment. Broad-spectrum remineralization of topsoils using crushed rock or dried seaweed from ocean areas known to contain sufficient cobalt can reestablish mineral balances necessary for healthy food supply able to fulfill our requirement, both direct and indirect, for B12 . The cobalt connection is especially relevant to us growing our own food, since cobalt-deficient areas likely are well-established. Beyond promoting remineralization to the farm community, we can adopt the practice in our gardens. ..' http://www.championtrees.org/topsoil/b12coblt.htm 'The mineral content of organic food - Rutgers University USA Percentage of | Quantities per 100 Grams | Trace Elements. Parts per million Dry Weight | Dry Weight | Dry matter Vegetable: Mineral Ash | Calcium Magnesium | Boron Manganese Iron Copper Cobalt # Snap Beans Organic 10.45 40.5 60 73 60 227 69 0.26 Non-organic 4.04 15.5 14.8 10 2 10 3 0 Cabbage Organic 10.38 60 43.6 42 13 94 48 0.15 Non-organic 6.12 17.5 13.6 7 2 20 0.4 0 Lettuce Organic 24.48 71 49.3 37 169 516 60 0.19 Non-organic 7.01 16 13.1 6 1 9 3 0 Tomatoes Organic 14.2 23 59.2 36 68 1938 53 0.63 Non-organic 6.07 4.5 4.5 3 1 1 0 0 Spinach Organic 28.56 96 203.9 88 117 1584 32 0.25 Non-organic 12.38 47.5 46.9 12 1 49 0.3 0.2 http://www.organicnutrition.co.uk/whyorganic/whyorganic.htm > 'The evidence suggests that getting adequate B12 could result > in vegans living about 4 years longer than meat eaters and 2 years > longer than lacto-vegetarians. You didn't read the study. The study I posted... consisting of over 76,000 people, shows an elivated death rate among vegans in lung cancer and stomach cancer. Adding B12 isn't going to help with those problems. If we're going to go the "evidence suggests" then I'm going to have to say "evidence suggests" that dietary cholesterol plays a protective role in the digestive tract. > > 'The evidence suggests that getting adequate B12 could result > > in vegans living about 4 years longer than meat eaters and 2 years [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 76,000 people, shows an elivated death rate among vegans in lung cancer > and stomach cancer. Adding B12 isn't going to help with those problems. I read it: ' The number of vegans was small (n = 753 subjects, 68 deaths), so the analyses in Table 7 were repeated with the inclusion of data from the Health Food Shoppers Study, making the assumptions that all nonvegetarians were regular meat eaters and that vegetarians who reported that they did not consume dairy products were vegans. ' Excuse me- but vegans also abstain from eggs. 'This increased the number of vegans to 1146, of whom 165 died before age 90 y. However, the numbers of deaths from individual cancers among vegans remained small (range: 3-8). The death rate ratios for the vegans compared with the regular meat eaters from the other causes of death were: for ischemic heart disease, 0.89 (95% CI: 0.65, 1.24; NS); for cerebrovascular disease, 0.51 (95% CI: 0.26, 1.00; NS); for other causes, 1.39 (95% CI: 1.12, 1.72; P < 0.01); and for all causes, 1.06 (95% CI: 0.81, 1.38). However, these death rate ratios should be interpreted with caution because of the uncertainty of the dietary classification of subjects in the Health Food Shoppers Study. ' - meaning that you're trumpeting results a study which the authors themselves state should be _interpreted with caution_. It also doesn't make sense.. 'A 1979 study from Japan, including 265,118 men and women, both smokers and nonsmokers, found that frequent consumption of green and yellow vegetables was associated with a 20 to 60 percent reduction in lung cancer risk compared to those who consumed these products less often.15 A later American Cancer Society cohort study of one million subjects and a study in Norway yielded similar findings.16 ... http://www.pcrm.org/magazine/GM97Autumn/GM97Autumn1.html Other studies show otherwise.. 'Cancer rates for vegetarians are 25 to 50% below population averages, even after controlling for smoking, body mass index, and socioeconomic status.[1,2] Vegans show even better results. One study found that people who include generous amounts of fruits and vegetables in their daily diets have lower rates of cancers of the lung, breast, colon, bladder, stomach, mouth, larynx, esophagus, pancreas, and cervix compared to people who avoid such foods.[3] Fruits and vegetables contain antioxidant substances, such as vitamin C, vitamin E, and carotenoids, which protect cells against oxidative damage, which is related to cancer risk and other health problems.[4] The multitude of phytochemicals found in various fruits, vegetables, grains, legumes, and nuts are thought to protect against heart disease and cancer.[5] 1. Chang-Claude J, Frentzel-Beyme R, Eilber U. Mortality pattern of German vegetarians after 11 years of follow-up. Epidemiology 1992;3:395-401 2. Thorogood M, Mann J, Appleby P, McPherson K. Risk of death from cancer and ischemic heart disease in meat and non-meat eaters. Brit Med J 1994;308:1667-70 3. Block G. Epidemiologic evidence regarding vitamin C and cancer. Am J Clin Nutr 1991;54:1310S-4S 4. Jacob RA, Burri BJ. Oxidative damage and defense. Am J Clin Nutr 1996;63:985S-90S 5. Craig WJ. Phytochemicals: guardians of our health. J Am Diet Assoc 1997;97:S199-S204 .. http://www.diagnose-me.com/cond/C483505.html > If we're going to go the "evidence suggests" then I'm going to have to > say "evidence suggests" that dietary cholesterol plays a protective role > in the digestive tract. Protective role? Against what? > > > 'The evidence suggests that getting adequate B12 could result > > > in vegans living about 4 years longer than meat eaters and 2 years [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > > Protective role? Against what? A longer healthier life.;o) > > > > 'The evidence suggests that getting adequate B12 could result > > > > in vegans living about 4 years longer than meat eaters and 2 years [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > > A longer healthier life.;o) :). Signature"All truth passes through 3 stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." -- Arthur Schopenhauer > Excuse me- but vegans also abstain from eggs. OK, let's suppose that some of these "vegans" were also eating eggs... however unlikely that may be. We can assume that because of their dietary and lifestyle choices, they *probably* spent the extra money to buy good quality eggs. By your own admission, that should add about 4 years to their lives... since eggs are high in B12. Eggs have often been called nature's perfect food. The only studies I've seen implicating eggs as a health hazard were those done on factory-farmed eggs where the chickens are basically fed their own poop. > It also doesn't make sense.. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > ... > http://www.pcrm.org/magazine/GM97Autumn/GM97Autumn1.html Speaking of trumpeting... I love how vegans grabbed this study and adulterated it to extremes. Hirayama was NOT trying to tell everyone on the planet that they should be vegan... only that they should add green and yellow veggies to their diet. Only a vegan could read his data and conclude that one must avoid meat all together to be totally healthy. If you'd like a good, non-partisan look at the data used, I suggest this site: http://www.okinawa-nurs.ac.jp/kiyo/no3/07-1.htm Here's a quote from the bottom of that page: "In conclusion, the joint effect of animal protein and fat on the basis of the DMF [Dairy, Meat, Fish] combination was not strongly associated with the cancers in the present analysis. On the other hand, substantial rises in animal protein and fat intake may have had a protective role for mortality from vascular diseases in this cohort." But how can that be?!? How can something that is so full of "toxins" and other nonsensical stuff *protect* the body from disease? How can this study conflict with ALL THOSE OTHER STUDIES I've read telling me to eat less meat? Here's your answer. The difference is in the diet, nay the LIFE of the animal. Dr. Weston Price traveled the globe for years looking for the answer to the question "What are humans meant to eat?" What he found was that, although humans could live healthy lives on almost total meat diets AND on almost total plant diets, those that had the fewest problems and longest lives were those that ate an unadulterated omnivorous diet. By unadulterated, I mean that even the animals ate what they were supposed to eat=3F and weren't specially bred to produce a desired outcome. They were natural animals in every way. Dr. Price was not concerned with selling a product. He spent his own money to travel the globe. He wanted the truth. He wanted the world to know what modern, refined foods were doing to peoples' health. Which brings up another interesting point. I've had this discussion with dozens of vegans in the past. How is it that you all manage to lump "meat eaters" in with the same crowd that eats refined junk food? Actually, I guess that's a rhetorical question. The answer is that you're not really looking for the truth. You've decided that veganism is the way for you, so you'll do anything to the truth to make it bend to your views. > Other studies show otherwise.. > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > .. > http://www.diagnose-me.com/cond/C483505.html I don't doubt these studies. I never said that one should avoid veggies. But once again, you've managed to take studies that show one should increase their plant food intake and twisted it to mean that one should avoid all meat products. The information you just posted DOESN'T SAY THAT. It speaks of vegetarians having a lower cancer rate than the average population. Adjusting for smoking, body mass index, and socioeconomic status doesn't really mean squat. You're still comparing a group of people VERY concerned about their health (AND that eats some animal products) with a group of people that, on average, knows NOTHING about health. How is that data meaningful? > > If we're going to go the "evidence suggests" then I'm going to have to > > say "evidence suggests" that dietary cholesterol plays a protective role > > in the digestive tract. > > Protective role? Against what? The cancers I mentioned. That's why the study I posted is WAY more valuable than any you've posted so far. It adjusts for not only smoking, body mass index, and socioeconomic status, but also life-style choices and health consciousness. One can assume that the meat eaters in the study I posted didn't go out of their way to obtain grass-fed beef and free-range chicken. But even with those things, they still faired better than the "vegans." Then if you look at the vegetarians, those that ate the most animal foods (except for common meat products) lived the longest=3F being those that ate dairy I suppose you think dietary cholesterol will give you heart disease. Nothing could be further from the truth. Don't believe me, check out www.thincs.org The bottom line is, humans are designed to be omnivorous=3F and nothing you've posted so far disputes that. As I posted in another thread, we're built like omnivores. Our teeth, eyes and digestive tracts are like omnivores. We're healthiest when we eat an omnivorous diet of unrefined, unadulterated foods. History proves that. > > Excuse me- but vegans also abstain from eggs. > > OK, let's suppose that some of these "vegans" were also eating eggs... Then they were not vegans. From that point on your argument is kaput. > however unlikely that may be. Why do you think that? People who are lactose-intolerant may abstain from consuming dairy, but continue to eat eggs. > We can assume that because of their > dietary and lifestyle choices, they *probably* spent the extra money Huh? Sure, meat is relatively expensive - but a variety of good quality fruits, nuts, etc. are hardly cheap. Check out the prices for organic produce.. > to > buy good quality eggs. By your own admission, that should add about 4 > years to their lives... since eggs are high in B12. No need to eat eggs for B12. Suggest you re-read that post. > Eggs have often > been called nature's perfect food. The only studies I've seen > implicating eggs as a health hazard were those done on factory-farmed > eggs where the chickens are basically fed their own poop. 'RELATIVE risk of breast cancer among Japanese woman Meat Eggs Butter/cheese less than once per week 1.0 1.0 1.0 2-4 times per week 2.55 1.91 2.10 almost daily 3.83 2.86 3.23 (from a paper by Hirayama cited in John Scharffenberg's Problems with Meat", 1989) . > > It also doesn't make sense.. > > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > this study conflict with ALL THOSE OTHER STUDIES I've read telling me to > eat less meat? Does it really? '.. DMF (D, M, F) means the combination of dairy milk (1-3 times/week or more), meat (1-3 times/week or more) and fish (4 times/week or more). Thus DMF (d, m, f) was the reference group having dairy milk (less than 1 time/week), meat (less than 1 time/week) and fish (less than 4 times/week). .. The present study showed that cancer mortality was relatively lower within the dietary pattern of DMF ((d, m, f) and (d, m, F)). .. the present analysis could not confirm such an effect in cancer of the colon, rectum, breast or prostate (Figures 1 and 2) although those cancers are considered to be related to animal fat and their incidence rates in Japan gradually increased since 1960. .. Data obtained from the National Nutritional Survey in Japan showed the increased consumption of green-yellow vegetables, milk and dairy to present, stabilization in animal fat consumption after 1974, and reduction of salt consumption until 1987. However, salt intake increased after 1987, and animal protein intake and fat consumption increased slightly in the corresponding period. Those trends may be related to increasing mortality rates of heart disease, colon and breast cancers. The possibility can be examined in depth by the recent cohort studies in Japan. 21, 22) ' > Here's your answer. The difference is in the diet, nay the LIFE of the > animal. China: '.. disease rates were significantly associated within a range of dietary plant food composition that suggested an absence of a disease prevention threshold. That is, the closer a diet is to an all-plant foods diet, the greater will be the reduction in the rates of these diseases.' http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Nov98/thermogenesis_paper.html > Dr. Weston Price traveled the globe for years looking for the > answer to the question "What are humans meant to eat?" "The human appears organized to feed on fruits, roots and the succulent parts of vegetables. His short mandibles of medium force, his canines of the same length as his other teeth, and his tuberous molars do not permit him to chew grass or devour meat without preparing these foods through cooking. His organs are formed in accordance with the disposition of his teeth. His stomach is simple and his intestinal tract is of medium length and very well fixed to his large intestine." -Georges Cuvier (1769-1832), Regne Animal, Vol 1, p73 > What he found > was that, although humans could live healthy lives on almost total meat [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > what they were supposed to eat=3F and weren't specially bred to produce a > desired outcome. They were natural animals in every way. 'Anthropologically speaking, humans were high consumers of calcium until the onset of the Agricultural Age, 10,000 years ago. Current calcium intake is one-quarter to one-third that of our evolutionary diet and, if we are genetically identical to the Late Paleolithic Homo sapiens, we may be consuming a calcium-deficient diet our bodies cannot adjust to by physiologic mechanisms. The anthropological approach says, with the exception of a few small changes related to genetic blood diseases, that humans are basically identical biologically and medically to the hunter-gatherers of the late Paleolithic Era.17 During this period, calcium content of the diet was much higher than it is currently. Depending on the ratio of animal to plant foods, calcium intake could have exceeded 2000 mg per day.17 Calcium was largely derived from wild plants, which had a very high calcium content; animal protein played a small role, and the use of dairy products did not come into play until the Agricultural Age 10,000 years ago. Compared to the current intake of approximately 500 mg per day for women age 20 and over in the United States,18 hunter-gatherers had a significantly higher calcium intake and apparently much stronger bones. As late as 12,000 years ago, Stone Age hunters had an average of 17-percent more bone density (as measured by humeral cortical thickness). Bone density also appeared to be stable over time with an apparent absence of osteoporosis.17 High levels of calcium excretion via renal losses are seen with both high salt and high protein diets, in each case at levels common in the United States.10,11 .. The only hunter-gatherers that seemed to fall prey to bone loss were the aboriginal Inuit (Eskimos). Although their physical activity level was high, their osteoporosis incidence exceeded even present-day levels in the United States. The Inuit diet was high in phosphorus and protein and low in calcium.20 ..' http://www.thorne.com/altmedrev/fulltext/calcium4-2.html > Dr. Price was not concerned with selling a product. No? ... ' The main sources of support for the Weston A. Price Foundation are the dues and contributions of its members. The Foundation receives no funding from any government agency or private corporation. Although many of our members are farmers, the Foundation has no ties with the meat or dairy industry, nor with any organization promoting these industries. .. http://www.westonaprice.org/fu nding.html 'Free range eggs, chickens, meat, soupbones, pet food, rabbit. .. Veal, beef, chickens and eggs, dairy, cheeses, seasonal produce .. grass-fed beef and pork .. nitrite-free bacon, grass-fed beef .. http://www.westonaprice.org/local_chapters/alexva_resources.html "Julie and Joe [Morris] contacted me through the Weston Price foundation and I was glad to know that grass-fed beef was available in our area. ..." http://www.alderspring.com/articles/html/latest%20research.html > He spent his own money to travel > the globe. He wanted the truth. He wanted the world to know what > modern, refined foods were doing to peoples' health. Sure. 'Analyses of data from the China studies by his collaborators and others, Campbell told the epidemiology symposium, is leading to policy recommendations. He mentioned three: * The greater the variety of plant-based foods in the diet, the greater the benefit. Variety insures broader coverage of known and unknown nutrient needs. * Provided there is plant food variety, quality and quantity, a healthful and nutritionally complete diet can be attained without animal-based food. * The closer the food is to its native state - with minimal heating, salting and processing - the greater will be the benefit. http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et 1101/et1101s18.html > Which brings up another interesting point. I've had this discussion > with dozens of vegans in the past. How is it that you all manage to > lump "meat eaters" in with the same crowd that eats refined junk food? I haven't. > Actually, I guess that's a rhetorical question. The answer is that > you're not really looking for the truth. You've decided that veganism > is the way for you, so you'll do anything to the truth to make it bend > to your views. I think you're projecting. > > Other studies show otherwise.. > > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > should increase their plant food intake and twisted it to mean that one > should avoid all meat products. 'Cancer rates for vegetarians are 25 to 50% below population averages, ... Vegans show even better results.' - can't get much clearer than that. > The information you just posted DOESN'T > SAY THAT. It speaks of vegetarians having a lower cancer rate than the > average meat-eating > population. Adjusting for smoking, body mass index, and > socioeconomic status doesn't really mean squat. You're still comparing > a group of people VERY concerned about their health (AND that eats some > animal products) with a group of people that, on average, knows NOTHING > about health. How is that data meaningful? I don't understand what you're saying. That the better-informed are veg*n? > > > If we're going to go the "evidence suggests" then I'm going to have to > > > say "evidence suggests" that dietary cholesterol plays a protective role [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The cancers I mentioned. "The present study showed that cancer mortality was relatively lower within the dietary pattern of DMF ((d, m, f) and (d, m, F)). " > That's why the study I posted is WAY more > valuable than any you've posted so far. It adjusts for not only > smoking, body mass index, and socioeconomic status, but also life-style > choices and health consciousness. Most studies do, but we don't even know who was or wasn't vegan. > One can assume that the meat eaters > in the study I posted didn't go out of their way to obtain grass-fed > beef and free-range chicken. Assume away.. > But even with those things, they still > faired better than the "vegans." "vegans". Indeed. According to the results of a study which the authors themselves state should be *interpreted with caution*. > Then if you look at the vegetarians, > those that ate the most animal foods (except for common meat products) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Nothing could be further from the truth. Don't believe me, check out > www.thincs.org 'Plasma lipids and diet groups The first article published about this study compared concentrations of total cholesterol and various lipoprotein fractions in 4 diet groups: vegans, who never ate animal products; vegetarians, who never ate meat or fish but did eat dairy products, eggs, or both; fish eaters, who ate fish but no meat; and meat eaters (4). Both total- and LDL-cholesterol concentrations were significantly lower in vegans than in meat eaters, whereas vegetarians and fish eaters had similar, intermediate values. HDL-cholesterol concentrations were highest in fish eaters but did not differ among the other diet groups. Mean cholesterol concentrations for vegans, vegetarians, fish eaters, and meat eaters, adjusted for age and sex, are shown in Table 1. On the basis of these results, it was predicted that the incidence of ischemic heart disease might be 24% lower in lifelong vegetarians and 57% lower in lifelong vegans than in meat eaters. .... The most striking results from the analysis were the strong positive associations between increasing consumption of animal fats and ischemic heart disease mortality [death rate ratios (and 95% CIs) for the highest third of intake compared with the lowest third in subjects with no prior disease were 3.29 (1.50, 7.21) for total animal fat, 2.77 (1.25, 6.13) for saturated animal fat, and 3.53 (1.57, 7.96) for dietary cholesterol; P for trend: <0.01, <0.01, and <0.001, respectively]. In contrast, no protective effects were noted for dietary fiber, fish, or alcohol consumption. Consumption of eggs and cheese were both positively associated with ischemic heart disease mortality in these subjects (P for trend, < 0.01 for both foods). .. http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/conten t/full/70/3/525S > The bottom line is, humans are designed to be omnivorous=3F and nothing > you've posted so far disputes that. As I posted in another thread, > we're built like omnivores. Our teeth, eyes and digestive tracts are > like omnivores. We're healthiest when we eat an omnivorous diet of > unrefined, unadulterated foods. History proves that. "Cognitive Dissonance." - When someone has a long held belief rooted so deeply in their psyche that they can not see anything else, even if visible facts present themselves that prove contrary to their belief. Metabolism 1997 May;46(5):530-7 Effect of a diet high in vegetables, fruit, and nuts on serum lipids. Jenkins DJ, Popovich DG, Kendall CW, Vidgen E, Tariq N, Ransom TP, Wolever TM, Vuksan V, Mehling CC, Boctor DL, Bolognesi C, Huang J, Patten R. Clinical Nutrition and Risk Factor Modification Center, Division of Endocrinology, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. We assessed the effect of a diet high in leafy and green vegetables, fruit, and nuts on serum lipid risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Ten healthy volunteers (seven men and three women aged 33 +/- 4 years [mean +/- SEM]; body mass index, 23 +/- 1 kg/m2) consumed their habitual diet (control diet, 29% +/- 2% fat calories) and a diet consisting largely of leafy and other low-calorie vegetables, fruit, and nuts (vegetable diet, 25% +/- 3% fat calories) for two 2-week periods in a randomized crossover design. After 2 weeks on the vegetable diet, lipid risk factors for cardiovascular disease were significantly reduced by comparison with the control diet (low-density lipoprotein [LDL] cholesterol, 33% +/- 4%, P < .001; ratio of total to high-density lipoprotein [HDL] cholesterol, 21% +/- 4%, P X .001; apolipoprotein [apo] B:A-I, 23% +/- 2%, P < .001; and lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)], 24% +/- 9%, P = .031). The reduction in apo B was related to increased intakes of soluble fiber (r = .84, P = .003) and vegetable protein (r = -.65, P = .041). On the vegetable compared with the control diet, the reduction in total serum cholesterol was 34% to 49% greater than would be predicted by differences in dietary fat and cholesterol. A diet consisting largely of low-calorie vegetables and fruit and nuts markedly reduced lipid risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Several aspects of such diets, which may have been consumed early in human evolution, have implications for cardiovascular disease prevention.' :: 'RELATIVE risk of breast cancer among Japanese woman :: Meat Eggs Butter/cheese :: Butter/cheese :: less than once per week 1.0 1.0 1.0 :: 2-4 times per week 2.55 1.91 2.10 :: almost daily 3.83 2.86 3.23 :: (from a paper by Hirayama cited in John Scharffenberg's :: Problems with Meat", 1989) . I would like to see the original study. Could you find it Pearl? SignatureJuhana > :: 'RELATIVE risk of breast cancer among Japanese woman > :: Meat Eggs Butter/cheese [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I would like to see the original study. Could you find it Pearl? I've found a reference on the net, which looks thus: 'RELATIVE risk of breast cancer among Japanese woman Meat Eggs Butter/cheese less than once per week 1.0 1.0 1.0 2-4 times per week 2.55 1.91 3.23 almost daily 3.83 2.86 2.10 http://home.iae.nl/users/lightnet/paramahamsa/cancerbreast.htm .. but as they state " The more butter and cheese consumed, the greater the risk of breast cancer." maybe that's an error. A better reference is the best I can do, .. check your library. - Hirayama T. Paper presented at conference on breast cancer and diet, US-Japan Co-operative Cancer Research Program, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Centre, Seattle WA Mar 14-15 1977. ['Some of the largest studies on breast cancer in medical history have been conducted by Dr Takeshi Hirayama, at the National Cancer Research Institute in Tokyo. Monitoring over 122,000 women over decades, Dr Hirayama discovered that women who eat meat daily have four times the risk of developing breast cancer than those women who eat little or no meat (5). Those women who eat eggs daily also have 286% more cancers than those women who eat one or less a week. A similar finding was discovered in respect to consumption of butter and cheese. Dr Hirayama also found that girls who ate meat tended to have an earlier onset of menstruation than girls who were vegetarian. Those girls who did have an earlier menstruation (below 13 years of age) had four times the incidence of breast cancer than those girls whose periods began later (6). The latest study from the Department of Public Health, School of Medicine, University of Tokushima, Japan (7), monitored the effects of various dietary and nutritional factors on regional differences in breast cancer mortality in Japan over a 14 year period (1966-1980). The analysis between food or nutrient intake and breast cancer mortality revealed that dietary factors including milk, meats, animal fat, animal protein, total fat, saturated fatty acid (SF) and monounsaturated fatty acid (MUF) were all highly positively correlated (after age adjustment) with breast cancer mortality. The findings suggested that the dietary factors due to intake of Westernised meals, especially saturated fats had a significant effect on breast cancer mortality in Japan. Studies from other countries including Israel (8), Northern Italy & France (9), and the USA (10)(11) to name but a few have all reported similar findings to Dr Hirayama’s work. Remarkably, the Cancer Research Campaign’s (CRC) current literature sent to enquirer’s is over five years out-of-date and only mentions consumption of fat as a risk factor ‘still unproven’. Curiously, the CRC ‘s literature does acknowledge the fact that late menopause and early menstruation are causative factors, but fails to explore the factors that can cause these phenomena, one of which is the dietary intake of fat and protein. A report in the British Medical Journal (12) back in 1964 first revealed that women whose diets are high in fat and protein reach menopause at an average age of 50 whereas women whose diets were low in fat and protein reach the menopause at an average age of 46. In 1972 it was demonstrated that the risk of breast cancer increases the later the menopause occurs (13). More recently, re-searchers from Germany, after reviewing the current medical data, also concluded that a vegetarian diet significantly reduces the risks of breast cancer (14). The same conclusions came from a further German epidemiological study (15). Researchers at the University of Munich found that there was a high correlation between high levels of fat and mammary carcinomas. Conversely, it was found that a high fibre diet (i.e. containing fresh fruits, vegetables and wholegrains) seems to reduce the risk of breast cancer. The WHO now advise that "correlation studies provide evidence of a direct association between breast cancer mortality and the intake of energy, fats and specific sources of dietary fats, such as milk and beef. ... http://www.internethealthlibrary.com/Health-problems/Breast%20Cancer%20-%20resea rchDiet&Lifestyle.htm ] ::: pearl wrote: ::: [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] :: such as milk and beef. :: ... http://www.internethealthlibrary.com/Health-problems/Breast%20Cancer%20-%20resea rchDiet&Lifestyle.htm :: ] Thanks, Pearl. SignatureJuhana > however unlikely that may be. > Why do you think that? People who are lactose-intolerant > may abstain from consuming dairy, but continue to eat eggs. Because they were also abstaining from meat. The vast majority of the time, avoiding meat is a direct result of a dietary choice. >> We can assume that because of their >> dietary and lifestyle choices, they *probably* spent the extra money > Huh? Sure, meat is relatively expensive - but a variety of good > quality fruits, nuts, etc. are hardly cheap. Check out the prices > for organic produce.. Has nothing to do with the price of meat, or the price of veggies. It has to do with the quality of the food. If they're health-conscious enough to avoid meat and dairy, they're more-than-likely willing to spend the extra money on good quality food. > No need to eat eggs for B12. Suggest you re-read that post. Oh, I read the post. It was a bunch of ill-informed bull honkey. Vitamin B12 is not absorbed from plant sources. (Soybeans: Chemistry & Technology Vol 1 1972) When Vitamin B12 was first introduced as a supplement, it had to be injected. It could not be taken by mouth. Dr. Royal Lee (often called the Einstein of nutrition... he had over 70 patents) thought there must be some reason for this. It is not that an enzyme destroys the Vitamin B12 in the stomach, as some felt. Rather, because of a deficiency of certain factors in the stomach, Vitamin B12 simply is not assimilated, so Dr. Lee put those specific synergistic factors into his B12 supplement. These factors are extracted from the stomach of hogs and added to the Vitamin B12. Now, mind you, Dr. Royal Lee was a vegetarian. If he had been able to find a way to make B12 absorbable via a plant source, that's exactly what he would have done. As much as I admire the man, I don't agree with his dietary choice. His death is evidence of his choice. He died in his early 70s from a stroke. His wife, who benefited from his wisdom, but chose to incorporate some animal foods in her diet, lived to 103. Still don't believe me, here's a nice, well informed article on B12... from people who *used* to think just like you. http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-7a.shtml A quote right from the top of the article says: "Vitamin B-12 is made only by bacteria; it is not synthesized by plants or animals. The very limited (usually only trace) amount of B-12 in plants comes from uptake of the vitamin from the soil, and from surface contamination with B-12 producing bacteria. (This is discussed in detail below.) Animals concentrate B-12 from the food they eat, and, in the case of folivores, biologically active B-12 may be produced by bacteria in the fermenting chambers in the digestive system. The end result of this is that plant foods provide little (if any) B-12, and animal foods are the only reliable food sources for B-12." > 'RELATIVE risk of breast cancer among Japanese woman > Meat Eggs Butter/cheese [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > (from a paper by Hirayama cited in John Scharffenberg's > Problems with Meat", 1989) . This is meaningless. Anything from 1989 is almost certainly going to be using factory farmed animal foods for the study. It doesn't discredit what I said, which was "The only studies I've seen implicating eggs as a health hazard were those done on factory-farmed eggs..." These eggs would have been seriously lacking in many vital nutrients, and even worse, would have had an unnaturally skewed polyunsaturated fat makeup. Omega 3 and Omega 6 PU Fats are usually found in nature in a near 1 to 1 ratio. Factory farmed eggs have been found with Omega 6 as much as 40 times higher than Omega 3. ***That alone can account for the increase in cancer in your posted numbers.*** I emphasize that with *** because it's important. The vast majority of studies vegan are constantly spouting use factory farmed meat products to prove their point. I'm not advocating eating that type of meat. The meat I use and recommend has NEVER been implicated as a souce of ill health. I challenge you to find a study that says 100% grass fed beef (which mean not even "finished" on grains) will cause ANY type of disease. If you don't believe me, try Googling the terms omega 3 omega 6 ratio and cancer. The first result when I did said the following: "Researchers evaluated over 250 patients with breast cancer and analyzed their fat relative to 90 women without breast cancer. The analysis showed that there was indeed a protect effect of omega-3 fatty acids on breast cancer risk and supports the imperative balance of the omega-3 to omega-6 ratio as being important in the development of breast cancer. Int J Cancer March 2002 1;98(1):78-83 > China: > '.. disease rates were significantly associated within a range [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the rates of these diseases.' > http://www.news.cornell.edu/re leases/Nov98/thermogenesis_pap er.html Again, this is a study focusing on fat content and the typical western diet. Unless the study differentiates between high quality animal products from animals fed a natural diet and the most common animal foods which are from factory farms, the results are meaningless in the context of our discussion. I do not argue that factory farmed animal foods are disease causing. I whole-heartedly agree with it. Not to mention you're trumpeting a study by Professor T. Colin Campbell, Ph.D. If anyone is interested, Google "T. Colin Campbell, Ph.D." It's pretty obvious where his interests lie. I don't think we can consider him a non-biased source. > "The human appears organized to feed on fruits, roots and the succulent parts of vegetables. His short mandibles of > medium force, his canines of the same length as his other teeth, and his tuberous molars do not permit him to chew grass or devour meat without preparing these foods through cooking. His organs are formed in accordance with the disposition of his teeth. His stomach is simple and his intestinal tract is of medium length and very well fixed to his large intestine." > -Georges Cuvier (1769-1832), Regne Animal, Vol 1, p73 You're quoting someone who died in 1832? Humans were just getting in to the internal working of the body at that point. Why in the world would this guy's opinion have any weight with anyone? If you're really interested in comparing digestive tracts and using the data to see what we should be eating, you won't find a more complete analysis of the data than this: http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-6c.shtml > As late as 12,000 years ago, Stone Age hunters had an average of > 17-percent more bone density (as measured by humeral cortical > thickness). Bone density also appeared to be stable over time with > an apparent absence of osteoporosis.17 Well, # 1, how do you post this and assume that it means that humans are designed to eat ONLY plant foods? I think that's just silly. And #2, there's a little, but very important piece of information missing from this data. Calcium can be consumed in large quantities, but if it isn't accompanied with the proper fat soluble vitamins, it won't be utilized properly. Vitamin D is responsible for transporting calcium into the blood and bones. Vitamin F is responsible for transporting calcium into tissue. The most abundant source of Vitamins D and F are animal fats. Dr. Weston Price found, without exception, that primitive tribes valued the fatty parts of their kills. Liver was especially prized, and often considered sacred. > The only hunter-gatherers that seemed to fall prey to bone loss > were the aboriginal Inuit (Eskimos). Although their physical > activity level was high, their osteoporosis incidence exceeded > even present-day levels in the United States. The Inuit diet was > high in phosphorus and protein and low in calcium.20 This is exactly what I said. The 2 extremes that Dr. Price studied (those that ate almost all meat and those that ate almost all plants) were the least healthy regarding groups that did not eat refined foods. The healthiest groups incorporated BOTH foods. Plus, one would THINK that if you're posting data that talks about "hunter-gatherers" you'd be on board with the "hunter-gatherer" diet. Ironically, you say that "humans are basically identical biologically and medically to the hunter-gatherers of the late Paleolithic Era" and then extrapolate from that that we should eat only plants. I can't believe that that seems logical to you. >> Dr. Price was not concerned with selling a product. > No? ... > ' The main sources of support for the Weston A. Price Foundation [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > any organization promoting these industries. .. > http://www.westonaprice.org/fu <http://www.westonaprice.org/fu> nding.html You *DO* love to try to discredit things... but you're not very good at it. "The Weston A. Price Foundation is a nonprofit, tax-exempt charity founded in *1999* to disseminate the research of nutrition pioneer Dr. Weston Price." http://www.westonaprice.org/splash_2.htm In other words, the WAP Foundation was founded DECADES after his death. Unless Dr Price not only found a way to take it with him, but also KEEP taking it with him, I fail to see your point. > 'Free range eggs, chickens, meat, soupbones, pet food, rabbit. > .. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > .. > http://www.westonaprice.org/lo cal_chapters/alexva_resources. html Yup! Did you LOOK at those local chapters? The people selling these products, more often than not, are NOT affiliated with the WAP foundation. The chapter leaders find people or businesses that sell food products that people like me are looking for and put them in a list for easy access. Once again, I fail to see your point. > "Julie and Joe [Morris] contacted me through the Weston Price > foundation and I was glad to know that grass-fed beef was > available in our area. ..." > http://www.alderspring.com/art icles/html/latest%20research.h tml You still have no point. As a matter of fact, you're more dastardly than not having a point. You're purposefully trying to deceive those reading our discussion. You purposefully omitted the fact that the WAP Foundation is a non-profit charity. Instead you seem to be trying to make the WAP Foundation seem evil. To me, this is hard evidence that you're not really interested in finding the truth. You're more interested in trying to prove to yourself why veganism is right... no matter the cost. That's fine by me. You have to live with your choices... but obviously I can't let you get away with blatant misinformation and twisting of the truth. > 'Analyses of data from the China studies by his collaborators > and others, Campbell told the epidemiology symposium, is leading > to policy recommendations. He mentioned three: > * The greater the variety of plant-based foods in the diet, the greater > the benefit. Variety insures broader coverage of known and unknown > nutrient needs. Yup! And here we are once again... you're taking a statement that says "increase your plant food variety and intake" and twisting it to mean "I should avoid all animal foods." I'm going to say this one more time... "THE DATA DOESN'T SAY THAT." > * Provided there is plant food variety, quality and quantity, a healthful and nutritionally complete diet can be attained without animal-based food.> This is an opinion. There were no facts in the study to bear this out. > * The closer the food is to its native state - with minimal heating, salting > and processing - the greater will be the benefit. Just as Dr. Weston Price said. And since you seem to respect Roger Segelken so much, perhaps you should read this little article he wrote on cattle feed. As I said, the healthiness of our animal foods totally depends on the diet, and therefore the health of the animals we eat. http://www.whiteoakpastures.com/healthinfo.html Scroll down about 2/3 of the page. The point is, animal foods aren't killing us. Animal foods from big, money hungry companies that treat their animals worse than dirt *ARE* killing us. The problem is that you don't seem to understand that distinction. You use studies based on the latter to prove that veganism is the optimum human diet... when , in fact, MOST of the data you've provided so far says nothing of the kind. Rather, it says to increase plant food intake. For most americans, adding 1 serving of squash to dinner would be an increase. When your data is added to the data I have provided about what types of animal foods cause disease, you have the perfect diet. It's a diet that incorporates BOTH organic plant foods with nutrient dense animal foods from healthy, properly fed animals. Max > > however unlikely that may be. > > > [..] [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > this is that plant foods provide little (if any) B-12, and animal foods > are the only reliable food sources for B-12." Discussed in detail below where? What evidence is there that no B-12 is produced by the large variety of bacteria in our "fermenting chambers"? If some soil bacteria can do it, and some bovine stomach fauna, we can be pretty sure some of our faunta and mitochondria can pull it off. If we get the cobalt, that is. Got cobalt? > > 'RELATIVE risk of breast cancer among Japanese woman > > Meat Eggs Butter/cheese [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > grass fed beef (which mean not even "finished" on grains) will cause ANY > type of disease. Here's one: Matos EL, Thomas DB, Sobel N, Vuoto D. Neoplasma. 1991;38(3):357-66. "Breast cancer in Argentina: case-control study with special reference to meat eating habits." Argentine steer mostly graze their whole lives. > If you don't believe me, try Googling the terms omega 3 omega 6 ratio > and cancer. The first result when I did said the following: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > omega-6 ratio as being important in the development of breast cancer. > Int J Cancer March 2002 1;98(1):78-83 Hey, why not try comparing cancer rates to diet? Maybe you'll find something more pertinent. > > China: > > '.. disease rates were significantly associated within a range [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > the internal working of the body at that point. Why in the world would > this guy's opinion have any weight with anyone? "Without a doubt, Georges Cuvier possessed one of the finest minds in history. Almost single-handedly, he founded vertebrate paleontology as a scientific discipline and created the comparative method of organismal biology, an incredibly powerful tool. It was Cuvier who firmly established the fact of the extinction of past lifeforms. He contributed an immense amount of research in vertebrate and invertebrate zoology and paleontology, and also wrote and lectured on the history of science." > If you're really interested in comparing digestive tracts and using the > data to see what we should be eating, you won't find a more complete [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > fatty parts of their kills. Liver was especially prized, and often > considered sacred. Those parts do indeed have more valuable nutrients in them than the bland and empty muscle meats so often consumed by fools. > > The only hunter-gatherers that seemed to fall prey to bone loss > > were the aboriginal Inuit (Eskimos). Although their physical [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > plant food intake. For most americans, adding 1 serving of squash to > dinner would be an increase. Yes, and by increase the plant food intake you mean decrease the meat intake as well of course. > When your data is added to the data I have provided about what types of > animal foods cause disease, you have the perfect diet. It's a diet that > incorporates BOTH organic plant foods with nutrient dense animal foods > from healthy, properly fed animals. ...in as minimal quantities as efficiently possible. Your point is a good one - that much of the blame for poor health of meat eaters lies with the poor care for the animals, and not just the diets too high in animal protein. Cheers - shevek > Discussed in detail below where? What evidence is there that no B-12 > is produced by the large variety of bacteria in our "fermenting > chambers"? If some soil bacteria can do it, and some bovine stomach > fauna, we can be pretty sure some of our faunta and mitochondria can > pull it off. If we get the cobalt, that is. Got cobalt? Discussed below in the link I posted. What you read of my post was quoted from a section in the link I provided. Humans don't have "fermenting chambers." Our digestive tracts are not designed to allow food to sit in them long enough to ferment. I'm not saying that doesn't happen. "Acid reflux disease" happens specifically because food sits in our stomachs too long and begins to ferment. That produces acids that our bodies aren't designed to handle, thus causing heart burn or "acid reflux disease." You can't take inorganic cobalt and expect to absorb it. It just doesn't work. Why not try clicking on some of the links I provided instead of just blindly blasting my post? If you want to know why B12 is not usable in plant or inorganic form, click on the link I posted. The answer to your question is in there. For cobalt to be assimilated, it must be chelated to very specific organic compounds. Those compounds are only found in animal foods. Read the link. > > ***That alone can account for the increase in cancer in your posted > > numbers.*** I emphasize that with *** because it's important. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > grass fed beef (which mean not even "finished" on grains) will cause > > ANY type of disease. > Here's one: > Matos EL, Thomas DB, Sobel N, Vuoto D. > Neoplasma. 1991;38(3):357-66. > "Breast cancer in Argentina: case-control study with special reference > to meat eating habits." Did you actually *READ* the study you just referenced? I'm thinking "No" because if you had, you would have read this: "After controlling for other risk factors for breast cancer ***the major dietary associations observed were a STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT trend of increasing risk with amount of beef consumed***, an increase in risk in women who ate more than 3 eggs per week, and an increase in risk in women who ate a variety of fried foods." Make sure you get a good look at the part between the "***" It's saying that after looking at the data, increase in breast cancer as related to beef consumption was STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT. The difference in breast cancer between women who ate little or no beef and those who ate a lot was not significant enough to matter. The study clearly states that the breast cancer increase was mostly in women who ate more eggs (which I'm sure had a skewed polyunsaturated fat makeup, which I'll address below) and who ate fried foods... which, by the way, are usually fried in *vegetable oil.* Want to know more about beef and disease, see here: http://www.westonaprice.org/mythstruths/mtbeef.html > Argentine steer mostly graze their whole lives. Do you have any evidence of this? I can't just take your word for it. Additionally, a lifetime of grazing can be completely ruined by 1 or 2 months of finishing. Most farms practice finishing with grains, which make the cow fat and unhealthy... and unnaturally skew the polyunsaturated fat ratio that I will be talking about below. Read on. > > If you don't believe me, try Googling the terms omega 3 omega 6 ratio > > and cancer. The first result when I did said the following: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > omega-6 ratio as being important in the development of breast cancer. > > Int J Cancer March 2002 1;98(1):78-83 > Hey, why not try comparing cancer rates to diet? Maybe you'll find > something more pertinent. Hey, why not try Googling the terms I mentioned before spouting out your opinions? I'll do this for you one more time, but that's it. You wanted something more pertinent, here you go: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi? cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12442909&dopt=Citation The importance of the ratio of omega-6/omega-3 essential fatty acids "A lower ratio of omega-6/omega-3 fatty acids is more desirable in reducing the risk of many of the chronic diseases of high prevalence [including cancer, as you'll see if you click on that link] in Western societies, as well as in the developing countries, that are being exported to the rest of the world." http://www.healthyeatingclub.com/info/articles/fats-chol/balance-of- fats.htm The result, Simopoulos (1999) suggests is chronic disease (diabetes, cancer, obesity, CVD) and believes the n-6 to n-3 imbalance also explains why, although CHD deaths have dropped due to better treatment and secondary prevention, a reduction in recognized risk factors has failed to have an impact on the incidence of myocardial infarction. http://www.health24.com/dietnfood/What_is_in_food/15-1167-1171,18302.asp Omega-3 and health If you eat sufficient omega-3 FAs, you will be protected against the following diseases and conditions: * Heart disease - omega-3 FAs lower the risk of developing heart disease and can reduce the risk of dying from a heart attack by 30% * Blood clots - omega-3 FAs make blood less sticky and prevent blood clots * Hypertension - omega-3 FAs lower blood pressure * High blood fat levels - omega-3 FAs lower 'bad' cholesterol and triglyceride levels in the blood * Breast cancer - high omega-6 and low omega-3 FA levels may predispose women to develop breast cancer * Colon and bowel cancer - omega-3 FAs may prevent colon cancer * Rheumatoid arthritis - research results indicate that omega-3 FAs may help to prevent this crippling disease * Crohn's disease - there is some indication that the omega-3 FAs may help to alleviate chronic inflammatory bowel disease I believe (and this is just my opinion) that soon you will see studies providing evidence that saturated fat wasn't the reason for all of the diseases we've come to associate it with. Rather, we'll start to see that it was 1) man made saturated fats, or trans-fats and 2) the high omega 6 PUFAs (polyunsaturated fatty acids) that will always accompany saturated fat in an animal foods from improperly fed animals. Well, that's enough. The info is out there. Feel free to research on your own, though I doubt you will. You seem too attached to your current beliefs. > > You're quoting someone who died in 1832? Humans were just getting in to > > the internal working of the body at that point. Why in the world would > > this guy's opinion have any weight with anyone? > "Without a doubt, Georges Cuvier possessed one of the finest minds in > history. Almost single-handedly, he founded vertebrate paleontology as [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > invertebrate zoology and paleontology, and also wrote and lectured on > the history of science." Sorry, never heard of him. It really doesn't matter what his qualifications were, though. The fact still remains that in the early 1800's, we just didn't know enough about human anatomy (much less the anatomy of primates) to make comparisons. If you're really interested in finding a non-biased, amazingly detailed comparison of the human digestive tract with those of our closest cousins, the link I provided will give you that info. > > The most abundant source of Vitamins D and F are animal fats. Dr. > > Weston Price found, without exception, that primitive tribes valued the > > fatty parts of their kills. Liver was especially prized, and often > > considered sacred. > Those parts do indeed have more valuable nutrients in them than the > bland and empty muscle meats so often consumed by fools. It *is* a shame that Americans have developed an aversion to organ meats. When coming from healthy animals, they are life-giving. However, the fat surrounding those organ meats was also highly prized. Fat from properly fed animals, although found in a diminished supply (because the animal wasn't artificially fattened before the slaughter) is still a very healthy food. If you don't already, you really should "Know Your Fats" http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/skinny.html Max. > > Discussed in detail below where? What evidence is there that no B-12 > > is produced by the large variety of bacteria in our "fermenting [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > produces acids that our bodies aren't designed to handle, thus causing > heart burn or "acid reflux disease." We certainly do have fermenting chambers! Your food stays there as long as it needs to for chemical changes to take place, facilitated by the huge numbers of diverse bacteria that live in your stomach. http://textbookofbacteriology.net/normalflora.html E. Coli and his buddies keep you alive. > You can't take inorganic cobalt and expect to absorb it. It just > doesn't work. Why not try clicking on some of the links I provided [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > it must be chelated to very specific organic compounds. Those compounds > are only found in animal foods. Read the link. The "beyondveg" link? I understand we only absorb chelated or otherwise organically bound elements. I also understand that animals concentrate trace elements (along with toxins). But saying they are -only- found in animal foods? I don't buy it. > > > ***That alone can account for the increase in cancer in your posted > > > numbers.*** I emphasize that with *** because it's important. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > address below) and who ate fried foods... which, by the way, are > usually fried in *vegetable oil.* Sorry, I only read the abstract. Did you find the full article? I'd comment more substantively if you sent a url. > Want to know more about beef and disease, see here: > http://www.westonaprice.org/mythstruths/mtbeef.html [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > make the cow fat and unhealthy... and unnaturally skew the > polyunsaturated fat ratio that I will be talking about below. Read on. My evidence comes from talking to some portenos around some asados, and some gauchos in mendoza. They pride themselves on it, but I wouldn't be surprised if you found some grain especially in the south where it gets awfully cold. > > > If you don't believe me, try Googling the terms omega 3 omega 6 ratio > > > and cancer. The first result when I did said the following: [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > your own, though I doubt you will. You seem too attached to your > current beliefs. Thanks for the info, I did learn some from your posts. > > > You're quoting someone who died in 1832? Humans were just getting in to > > > the internal working of the body at that point. Why in the world would [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Fats" > http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/skinny.html Thanks for the info. No real chemistry in there, but he touched on the basics. Homogenization has always pissed me off. What a total waste of time and energy. As for hydrogenation, don't even mention that bullshit around me. Just to make it "spreadable"? Pitiful. -shevik > We certainly do have fermenting chambers! Your food stays there as > long as it needs to for chemical changes to take place, facilitated by > the huge numbers of diverse bacteria that live in your stomach. Bacteria do not live in a healthy human stomach. The environment is far too acidic. If you have bacteria living in your stomach, more than likely you're ill. Do a search on Google for "bacteria in the stomach" and you'll find almost nothing but articles talking about how bad it is to have bacteria in the stomach. Sure, a lot of humans have bacteria in their stomachs, but they're not supposed to. Here's an example: http://www.umm.edu/digest/helicoba.htm Actually, this is VERY interesting... while looking for links for you, I found this: http://www.flat-d.com/ve.html It's an article for vegans on B12. It says "Excess bacteria in the stomach and small intestine also can decrease vitamin B12 absorption." It also confirms the only natural foods you can get B12 from are animal foods. I don't consider fortified cereal a natural food. > http://textbookofbacteriology. net/normalflora.html I'm a little confused. Where in that link does it talk about our fermenting chamber? Furthermore, the link below talks specifically about primates with fermenting chambers. You'll notice that the ones with fermenting chambers are those with large guts and extra long colons. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search/download?pub=infobike%3a%2f%2fcabi% 2fpns%2f1998%2f00000057%2f00000002%2fart00022&mimetype=application%2fpdf We don't have extra long colons or capacious guts. In respect to size and capacity, our digestive tracts are closer to those of obligate carnivores than those of obligate herbavores. I've already posted links for that info. Humans may use bacteria to break down parts of their foods, but don't confuse that with the "fermenting chambers" of obligate herbivores like cows. We also have very specific chemicals and enzymes that do a LOT of thework. As you may or may not be aware, the only food that ferments is carbohydrates. Fats rancidify and proteins putrefy. Carbohydrates begin their digestion the second they enter our mouths. The enzyme amylase is secreted in our saliva and acts on the carbs in the food. The food then goes into our upper stomach where it sits for up to 1 hour. The purpose of this, according to Dr. Edward Howell, is to allow the metabolic enzymes that are supposed to be in our food (because it's supposed to be raw) to begin breaking down the food. It's then delivered into the lower stomach where protein digestion begins. The stomach (more specifically the parietal cells) secretes hydrochloric acid to activate pepsinogen into pepsin, another enzyme designed to break proteins down into amino acids. As you can see from this link: http://arbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/digestion/stomach/secret ion.html if digestion is working properly, no bacteria will survive in the stomach. That's not to say that bacteria won't survive if HCl production is insufficient... but the point is, bacteria aren't supposed to survive past the stomach. From there it's on to the duodenum where most chemical digestion by enzymes made by the pancreas takes place. It's also where bile is released from the gall bladder to aid in breaking down fats. Feel free to use the link above to review the human digestive process. The bottom line is, won't don't have fermenting chambers. Don't confuse the short amount of bacterial aid with fermentation. Plus, in the context of our discussion, which is B12 assimilation, it's irrelevant. Our bodies don't produce the "intrinsic factors" required to assimilate B12. Those factors MUST come from the food... and that food can ONLY be animal food. > The "beyondveg" link? I understand we only absorb chelated or > otherwise organically bound elements. I also understand that animals > concentrate trace elements (along with toxins). But saying they are > -only- found in animal foods? I don't buy it. First, I never said it was only *FOUND* in animal foods. If you had read the link I posted, you'd see that B12 certainly *IS* found in some plant foods. What I said was, the only B12 our bodies can assimilate is the B12 found in animals foods. That's because of the very specific intrinsic factors that must go along with the B12 in order for our bodies to absorb it. Second, it's not for sale. It's a fact. That's like saying "Gravity? I don't buy it." If you would actually GO to the beyondveg link I provided or the flat-d.com I just posted above, you'd see a perfectly reasonable explanation why B12 can only be absorbed from animal foods. Cobalamin by itself, or even chelated in plant foods is not absorbable. Just because a nutrient is found in a food you eat doesn't mean your body can use it. Plus, like I said... if it WERE absorbable in a plant food, Dr. Royal Lee, being a vegetarian, would have found a way to put that in one of his supplements. > Sorry, I only read the abstract. Did you find the full article? I'd > comment more substantively if you sent a url. No. Everything I posted was from the abstract. I used the same material you did and came to a completely different conclusion. > My evidence comes from talking to some portenos around some asados, and > some gauchos in mendoza. They pride themselves on it, but I wouldn't > be surprised if you found some grain especially in the south where it > gets awfully cold. That's hearsay... so I'm sorry I can't take your word for it. Still, the study you provided spells it out. Beef was not a significant risk factor for breast cancer. > Thanks for the info, I did learn some from your posts. This one line has gained you more of my respect than everything else posted in this topic (not that my respect amounts to a hill of beans to you, but still.) It shows that you're not arguing just for the sake of arguing, like I encounter with most vegans (I'm still trying to figure out if you're a vegan or not.) I debate here because I've already been through a multitude of dietary advice, and yes, there was a time when I considered veganism. I chose against it when I dug in and learned the facts I'm presenting here. I'm still learning, and hope I never quit, but I feel that if the info I've already amassed over the years can help people it makes the debating all worth it. > Thanks for the info. No real chemistry in there, but he touched on the > basics. Homogenization has always pissed me off. What a total waste > of time and energy. As for hydrogenation, don't even mention that > bullshit around me. Just to make it "spreadable"? Pitiful. Nice to know we can still agree on some things. :-) > > We certainly do have fermenting chambers! Your food stays there as > > long as it needs to for chemical changes to take place, facilitated by [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > http://www.umm.edu/digest/helicoba.htm An example of a harmful bacteria. THank you. Your claim that "bacteria do not live in a healthy human stomach" is of course preposterous! Thankfully, it is clear you don't really think that by continuing to read your post. Without any bacteria in your stomach you will not live very long. > Actually, this is VERY interesting... while looking for links for you, I > found this: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It also confirms the only natural foods you can get B12 from are animal > foods. I don't consider fortified cereal a natural food. Your flatulence website confirms nothing of the sort. It doesn't even claim that! It says B12 is naturally present in animal foods, you added the word "only". > > http://textbookofbacteriology. net/normalflora.html > > I'm a little confused. Where in that link does it talk about our > fermenting chamber? Here's an excerpt: "The proximal small intestine has a relatively sparse Gram-positive flora, consisting mainly of lactobacilli and Enterococcus faecalis. This region has about 105 - 107 bacteria per ml of fluid. The distal part of the small intestine contains greater numbers of bacteria (108/ml) and additional species including coliforms and Bacteroides, in addition to lactobacilli and enterococci. The flora of the large intestine (colon) is qualitatively similar to that found in feces. Populations of bacteria in the colon reach levels of 1011/ml feces. Coliforms become more prominent, and enterococci, clostridia and lactobacilli can be regularly found, but the predominant species are anaerobic Bacteroides and anaerobic lactic acid bacteria in the genus Bifidobacterium (Bifidobacterium bifidum). These organisms may outnumber E. coli by 1,000:1 to 10,000:1. " > Furthermore, the link below talks specifically about primates with > fermenting chambers. You'll notice that the ones with fermenting [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > As you may or may not be aware, the only food that ferments is > carbohydrates. Perhaps you need to try dict: ferment. Sure, carbs are the only foods which yeast will turn to alcohol, but fermentation is used in a broader context. You started the context btw, when you called cow stomachs "fermenting chambers". > Fats rancidify and proteins putrefy. Carbohydrates > begin their digestion the second they enter our mouths. The enzyme [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > if digestion is working properly, no bacteria will survive in the > stomach. LOL!! If no bacteria survive in your stomach, digestion will not work properly. Perhaps you should read about how gut fauna/flora is established in infants: http://tinyurl.com/9uwbw > That's not to say that bacteria won't survive if HCl production is > insufficient... but the point is, bacteria aren't supposed to survive > past the stomach. Actually, their density -increases- past the stomach. The stomach evolved specifically to host the bacteria it must contain to digest. To do so also requires killing off other bacteria species which would try to take over. > From there it's on to the duodenum where most chemical digestion by > enzymes made by the pancreas takes place. It's also where bile is > released from the gall bladder to aid in breaking down fats. > Feel free to use the link above to review the human digestive process. > The bottom line is, won't don't have fermenting chambers. Don't confuse > the short amount of bacterial aid with fermentation. Well then, which chemical process are you reffering to when you say "fermentation" ? When you answer that, good luck trying to be consistent with your previous use of the word as applying to cow stomachs. > Plus, in the context of our discussion, which is B12 assimilation, it's > irrelevant. Our bodies don't produce the "intrinsic factors" required > to assimilate B12. Those factors MUST come from the food... and that > food can ONLY be animal food. Your claim does not make it so. From your flatulence website: "Vitamin B12 is naturally found in animal foods including fish, milk and milk products, eggs, meat, and poultry." Notice that there is nothing about "only". I found a much more thorough account of the history of B12 here: http://www.lifesave.org/VitaminB12Continued.htm > > The "beyondveg" link? I understand we only absorb chelated or > > otherwise organically bound elements. I also understand that animals [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > provided or the flat-d.com I just posted above, you'd see a perfectly > reasonable explanation why B12 can only be absorbed from animal foods. -Absorption- of B12 is not even addressed in the flatulence article! Generally speaking, plant-based nutrients are more readily absorbed than those processed into animal flesh. There is evidence that an animal food diet will decrease the absorbability of B12! > Cobalamin by itself, or even chelated in plant foods is not absorbable. > Just because a nutrient is found in a food you eat doesn't mean your > body can use it. Plus, like I said... if it WERE absorbable in a plant > food, Dr. Royal Lee, being a vegetarian, would have found a way to put > that in one of his supplements. Why bother? Take it from pig stomachs or whatever, if that is a easier way to concentrate it. I'm sure modern chemists would have no trouble at all giving you a synthesis of B12 from bacterial/plant sources, but it would probably be more expensive. Anyway, I doubt there is any need for these supplements even for vegans, provided they are getting the minerals they need. [..] > > Thanks for the info, I did learn some from your posts. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > but I feel that if the info I've already amassed over the years can help > people it makes the debating all worth it. I must admit I'm not a vegan, certainly not by some of the definitions of that word I hear around here. I almost never buy meats or dairy products however and encourage my family members to avoid them whenever possible. > > Thanks for the info. No real chemistry in there, but he touched on the > > basics. Homogenization has always pissed me off. What a total waste > > of time and energy. As for hydrogenation, don't even mention that > > bullshit around me. Just to make it "spreadable"? Pitiful. > > Nice to know we can still agree on some things. :-) Ditto. Cheers - shevek I'm going to make this my last reply to this topic. I think there is enough data from both sides of the argument for anyone interested to make an informed decision on the subject. Certainly there are enough references for anyone to spend weeks reviewing. > An example of a harmful bacteria. THank you. Your claim that > "bacteria do not live in a healthy human stomach" is of course > preposterous! Thankfully, it is clear you don't really think that by > continuing to read your post. I'm thinking (hoping?) that's you're using the terms stomach and gut interchangeably. That's the only thing I can think of that would make you say there are beneficial bacteria in our stomachs that aid in digestion. Just on the off chance that the idea of beneficial bacteria living in the stomach was something I hadn't heard, I tried to find something anywhere providing information on it. I found nothing, and I looked pretty hard. If you have such info, I'd love to see it. Personally (and I believe this is the case with most people) I don't use those 2 words interchangeably. I use them defined as such: Stomach - The enlarged, saclike portion of the alimentary canal, one of the principal organs of digestion, located in vertebrates between the esophagus and the small intestine. Gut - The alimentary canal or a portion thereof, especially the intestine. Everything you've said about bacteria is true of the gut, but I can't find any evidence supporting such statements for the stomach. > Your flatulence website confirms nothing of the sort. It doesn't even > claim that! It says B12 is naturally present in animal foods, you > added the word "only". I don't think you're going to win any support from a technicality. I've reviewed at least 2 dozen web sites during this debate looking for sources of B12. I found no sites at all that mentioned any plant foo |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message