Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / October 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Green salads can be a powerhouse of nutrition

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Dr. Jai Maharaj - 02 Oct 2004 22:12 GMT
Green salads can be a powerhouse of nutrition

Forwarded message from fidyl@yahoo.com

[ Subject: Green salads can be a powerhouse of nutrition
[ From: fidyl@yahoo.com
[ Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004

Green salads can be a powerhouse of nutrition

By Lynn F. Little
Wednesday, September 8, 2004

http://www.herald-mail.com/?module=displaystory&story_id=89034&format=html

Most Americans aren't getting enough fruits and vegetables in their daily
diet.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's dietary guidelines for
Americans, everyone older than 2 should eat a minimum of five servings of
fruits and vegetables every day. Yet, only about 28 percent of adults
meet this goal.

One way to increase your fruit and vegetable intake is to regularly
consume a fresh green salad. Green salads can be served as a side dish or
as a hearty main dish. They can be quick, simple and easy to prepare or
more elaborate, with complicated preparation steps. When put together
with the right ingredients, green salads can be a powerhouse of
nutrition.

o  Begin with the greens. Salad greens are a good source of many
vitamins and minerals. Darker green leafy vegetables, such as spinach,
romaine lettuce, watercress and arugula, generally contain more nutrients
than paler ones.

o  Color your plate. Different color families of vegetables provide
different nutrients as well as health-promoting plant chemicals called
phytochemicals. Be creative. Peppers, beets, broccoli, cauliflower, green
peas, onions and radishes all make tasty additions.

o  Don't forget the fruit. Adding fruit to a green salad is a great way
to add more color, taste and texture, not to mention more vitamins,
minerals and fiber. Pineapple chunks, raisins, melon balls and berries
complement any green salad.

o  Pack on the protein. If your salad is the main course, it's important
to include protein-rich ingredients. Try garbanzo beans, kidney beans or
tofu.

o  Count on calcium. Spooning on soy yogurt or 'cheeses' adds the bone-
building nutrient calcium to your salad.

o  Get a little nutty. Before you dig into your salad, toss on some
chopped nuts such as almonds, walnuts or cashews. Although nuts are high
in fat, they contain mostly heart-healthy monounsaturated and
polyunsaturated fats.

o  Go easy on the croutons and 'bacon' bits. Opt for more nutritious
extras - like ground flaxseed.

o  Dress your salad for success. Salad dressings often get a bad rap
because they can significantly increase the fat and calorie content of an
otherwise healthy salad. If you choose to use regular salad dressing,
limit the amount used on your salad to 2 tablespoons. Using low-fat or
fat-free dressings can help curb the calorie and fat content. For a low-
calorie, nonfat topping, splash your salad with lemon juice or flavored
vinegar.

The 5 A Day For Better Health program, a national nutrition campaign to
encourage Americans to eat five or more servings of fruits and vegetables
every day, is sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services and the Produce for Better Health
Foundation. For recipes and tips, the go to http://www.5aday.com on the
Web.

Lynn F. Little is a family and consumer sciences educator with Maryland
Cooperative Extension in Washington County.

End of forwarded message from 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.

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.
tcomeau - 03 Oct 2004 23:21 GMT
This most definitively goes into the "No sh.t Sherlock" pile.

That is the basis for low-carbing. Get rid of the nutritionally empty
refined carbs and go back to real food that contain real nutrition.

TC

> Green salads can be a powerhouse of nutrition
>
[quoted text clipped - 126 lines]
> your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
> copyright owner.
harmony - 04 Oct 2004 23:19 GMT
thank you and pearl for great public service.
i bet the us surgeon general does not work quite as hard to educate people.
we wouldn't need to spend all that money on bush's "no-child-left-behind"
program if children were vegetarians.
ironically enough, if a child wants veggie food at school lunch, s/he is
considered a special case, and the child has to bring in a doctor's letter!
is it any wonder american children perform poorly compared to other
countries?

> Green salads can be a powerhouse of nutrition
>
[quoted text clipped - 126 lines]
> your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
> copyright owner.
tcomeau - 05 Oct 2004 03:25 GMT
Parents who put their kids on vegetarian diets should be charged with
child abuse and sterilized.

TC

> thank you and pearl for great public service.
> i bet the us surgeon general does not work quite as hard to educate people.
[quoted text clipped - 142 lines]
> > your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
> > copyright owner.
pearl - 05 Oct 2004 10:57 GMT
> Parents who put their kids on vegetarian diets should be charged with
> child abuse and sterilized.

To the contrary..

J Am Diet Assoc. 2003;103:748-765.

The paper reviewed the latest scientific data related to
key nutrients for vegetarians, including protein, iron,
zinc, calcium, vitamin D, riboflavin, vitamin B-12,
vitamin A, n-3 fatty acids, and iodine. They concluded
'A vegetarian, including vegan, diet can meet current
recommendations for all of these nutrients. In some
cases, use of fortified foods or supplements can be
helpful in meeting recommendations for individual
nutrients.'

'Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets
are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including
during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and
adolescence. Vegetarian diets offer a number of
nutritional benefits, including lower levels of saturated fat,
cholesterol, and animal protein as well as higher levels of
carbohydrates, fiber, magnesium, potassium, folate, and
antioxidants such as vitamins C and E and phytochemicals.
Vegetarians have been reported to have lower body mass
indices than non-vegetarians, as well as lower rates of
death from ischemic heart disease; vegetarians also show
lower blood cholesterol levels; lower blood pressure; and
lower rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and prostate
and colon cancer.'

Their advice to Health professionals is "Dietetics
professionals have a responsibility to support and
encourage those who express an interest in consuming a
vegetarian diet."
. . .
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=13478
tcomeau - 05 Oct 2004 15:03 GMT
> > Parents who put their kids on vegetarian diets should be charged with
> > child abuse and sterilized.
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
>  . . .
> http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=13478

Bullshit.

TC
pearl - 05 Oct 2004 17:30 GMT
> > > Parents who put their kids on vegetarian diets should be charged with
> > > child abuse and sterilized.
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
>
> Bullshit.

Bullshit.

> TC
Dutch - 05 Oct 2004 22:28 GMT
> "tcomeau" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote

>> > Their advice to Health professionals is "Dietetics
>> > professionals have a responsibility to support and
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Bullshit.

It's bullshit for vegans to presume to give advice to health and dietetic
professionals.

If that website were responsible they would have included more of a
disclaimer when printing an opinion piece like this, which typical of
pro-vegan literature, liberally mixes fact and fiction. In this case the
tactic used is the vegan's favorite ploy of addressing a dietary deficiency
in fresh fruits and vegetables, a valid health issue, by suggesting that the
diet must be composed of ALL fruit and vegetables. And don't bother pasting
those tired studies that suggest NO meat is the ideal amount, because they
are not representative of most research on diets.
pearl - 06 Oct 2004 10:53 GMT
> > "tcomeau" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> It's bullshit for vegans to presume to give advice to health and dietetic
> professionals.

The American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada are vegans?

--restore--
J Am Diet Assoc. 2003;103:748-765.

The paper reviewed the latest scientific data related to
key nutrients for vegetarians, including protein, iron,
zinc, calcium, vitamin D, riboflavin, vitamin B-12,
vitamin A, n-3 fatty acids, and iodine. They concluded
'A vegetarian, including vegan, diet can meet current
recommendations for all of these nutrients. In some
cases, use of fortified foods or supplements can be
helpful in meeting recommendations for individual
nutrients.'

'Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets
are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including
during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and
adolescence. Vegetarian diets offer a number of
nutritional benefits, including lower levels of saturated fat,
cholesterol, and animal protein as well as higher levels of
carbohydrates, fiber, magnesium, potassium, folate, and
antioxidants such as vitamins C and E and phytochemicals.
Vegetarians have been reported to have lower body mass
indices than non-vegetarians, as well as lower rates of
death from ischemic heart disease; vegetarians also show
lower blood cholesterol levels; lower blood pressure; and
lower rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and prostate
and colon cancer.'
---

> If that website were responsible they would have included more of a
> disclaimer when printing an opinion piece like this, which typical of
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> those tired studies that suggest NO meat is the ideal amount, because they
> are not representative of most research on diets.

More BS.
Dutch - 06 Oct 2004 17:54 GMT
> "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote
> >
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> The American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada are vegans?

No dimwit, the Vegan Society are vegans. "This article comes from The Vegan
Society"

> --restore--
> J Am Diet Assoc. 2003;103:748-765.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> helpful in meeting recommendations for individual
> nutrients.'

"*Can* meet current recommendations..." Get that, dipshit? **Can meet**,
meaning might not in many cases, but **can**. Nobody disputes that.

> 'Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets
> are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> lower rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and prostate
> and colon cancer.'

Where is that particular text coming from, the ADA paper, or the Vegan
Society? It's difficult to tell, but suspect statements like "Vegetarians
have been reported to have lower body mass indices than non-vegetarians..."
beg a lot of questions, such as reported by whom, when, according to what
study, which vegetarians, compared to which non-vegetarians? It reeks of
vegan sophistry, not a scientific report.

> ---
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> More BS.

Quit promoting veganism with bullshit, you are not doing it any favours.
pearl - 07 Oct 2004 00:25 GMT
> > "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote
> > >
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> No dimwit, the Vegan Society are vegans. "This article comes from The Vegan
> Society"

Caught out in your ignorance again, dimwit.

> > --restore--
> > J Am Diet Assoc. 2003;103:748-765.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> "*Can* meet current recommendations..." Get that, dipshit? **Can meet**,
> meaning might not in many cases, but **can**. Nobody disputes that.

'Nobody'?  Suggest you review the thread, dipshit.

> > 'Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets
> > are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> study, which vegetarians, compared to which non-vegetarians? It reeks of
> vegan sophistry, not a scientific report.

Meatarian sophistry.

<..
Dutch - 07 Oct 2004 02:26 GMT
>> > "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote
>> > >
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> Caught out in your ignorance again, dimwit.

Read the damn thing.

quote

"This article comes from The Vegan Society"

unquote

>> > --restore--
>> > J Am Diet Assoc. 2003;103:748-765.
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> 'Nobody'?  Suggest you review the thread, dipshit.

OK, almost nobody.

>> Where is that particular text coming from, the ADA paper, or the Vegan
>> Society? It's difficult to tell, but suspect statements like "Vegetarians
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Meatarian sophistry.

Rubbish

Scientific observers do not use vague, passive weasel phrases like "it has
been reported", they say where and when and how.
pearl - 07 Oct 2004 02:57 GMT
> >> > "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote
> >> > >
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>
>  unquote

You should have read it,... specifically what you SNIPPED:

> >> > --restore--
> >> > J Am Diet Assoc. 2003;103:748-765.
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>
> Rubbish

That too.

> Scientific observers do not use vague, passive weasel phrases like "it has
> been reported", they say where and when and how.

http://www.eatright.org/Public/GovernmentAffairs/92_17084.cfm

Get a proper job, ditch.
Dutch - 07 Oct 2004 05:06 GMT
> "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote >>

[..]

>> Read the damn thing.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> You should have read it,... specifically what you SNIPPED:

I did read it. It starts with  "This article comes from The Vegan Society"

[..]
>> Scientific observers do not use vague, passive weasel phrases like "it
>> has
>> been reported", they say where and when and how.
>
> http://www.eatright.org/Public/GovernmentAffairs/92_17084.cfm

That's not science, it's generalities, it's just poor writing. When they say
"Vegetarians have been reported to have lower body mass indices than
non-vegetarians..." who are they talking about? Which non-vegetarians, what
exactly did the non-vegetarians in this study eat? Where is this information
coming from? These questions demand answers. Healthy vegetarian diets are
better than deficient non-vegetarian diets, of course, but are poor
vegetarian diets better than healthy non-vegetarian diets? Of course not,
not even you believe that. Well, maybe a nut like you..

This Association strongly supports including meat in a balanced diet by the
way.
pearl - 07 Oct 2004 13:04 GMT
> > "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote >>
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> I did read it. It starts with  "This article comes from The Vegan Society"

And snipped again..

> [..]
> >> Scientific observers do not use vague, passive weasel phrases like "it
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> That's not science, it's generalities, it's just poor writing.

Timewaster.

> When they say
> "Vegetarians have been reported to have lower body mass indices than
> non-vegetarians..." who are they talking about? Which non-vegetarians, what
> exactly did the non-vegetarians in this study eat? Where is this information
> coming from? These questions demand answers.

These 'answers' have been posted umpteen times in this NG.
Where were you?  Too busy spinning your webs of deceit?

> Healthy vegetarian diets are
> better than deficient non-vegetarian diets, of course, but are poor
> vegetarian diets better than healthy non-vegetarian diets? Of course not,
> not even you believe that. Well, maybe a nut like you..

There's no such thing as a 'healthy non-vegetarian diet'!

> This Association strongly supports including meat in a balanced diet by the
> way.

Either they or you are confused..

'Vegetarians have been reported to have lower body mass indices
than nonvegetarians, as well as lower rates of death from ischemic
heart disease; vegetarians also show lower blood cholesterol levels;
lower blood pressure; and lower rates of hypertension, type 2
diabetes, and prostate and colon cancer. '
http://www.eatright.org/Public/GovernmentAffairs/92_17084.cfm
Jan - 07 Oct 2004 13:58 GMT
> > Healthy vegetarian diets are
> > better than deficient non-vegetarian diets, of course, but are poor
> > vegetarian diets better than healthy non-vegetarian diets? Of course not,
> > not even you believe that. Well, maybe a nut like you..
>
> There's no such thing as a 'healthy non-vegetarian diet'!

I think that there is ample of evidence about the health benefits of
vegetarian diets. However, I think that there are benefits in fish
eating or at least supplementing with fish oils. In the studies of
vegetarian diets it has been noticed that the status of omega-3 would
improve by supplementing with direct EPA and DHA. There is also some
benefit in taking direct EPA/DHA instead of alpha linolenic acid as the
latter has been connected with increased prostate cancer risk.

Jan
Dutch - 07 Oct 2004 18:00 GMT
> "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote
> > > "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote >>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> And snipped again..

So what? I am under no obligation to requrgitate the text that YOU
copy/paste into YOUR posts.

> > [..]
> > >> Scientific observers do not use vague, passive weasel phrases like "it
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Timewaster.

To the degree that I spend time trying to reason with you, I agree.

> > When they say
> > "Vegetarians have been reported to have lower body mass indices than
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> These 'answers' have been posted umpteen times in this NG.

That fails to address the question. There are thousands of studies on
nutrition, why should we select the few that reinforce your extreme bias and
disregard all the rest?

> > Healthy vegetarian diets are
> > better than deficient non-vegetarian diets, of course, but are poor
> > vegetarian diets better than healthy non-vegetarian diets? Of course not,
> > not even you believe that. Well, maybe a nut like you..
>
> There's no such thing as a 'healthy non-vegetarian diet'!

False. Thank you for proving my point.

> > This Association strongly supports including meat in a balanced diet by the
> > way.
>
> Either they or you are confused..

The ADA is confused and you have all the answers.. yea right.

-pffft-
pearl - 07 Oct 2004 19:02 GMT
> > "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote
> > > > "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote >>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> So what? I am under no obligation to requrgitate the text that YOU
> copy/paste into YOUR posts.

Twist away, little snake.

> > > [..]
> > > >> Scientific observers do not use vague, passive weasel phrases like
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> To the degree that I spend time trying to reason with you, I agree.

You're as delusional as ever.

> > > When they say
> > > "Vegetarians have been reported to have lower body mass indices than
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> nutrition, why should we select the few that reinforce your extreme bias and
> disregard all the rest?

I challenge you to present a study abstract showing otherwise.

> > > Healthy vegetarian diets are
> > > better than deficient non-vegetarian diets, of course, but are poor
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> False. Thank you for proving my point.

'.. 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

> > > This Association strongly supports including meat in a balanced diet by the
> > > way.
> >
> > Either they or you are confused..
>
> The ADA is confused and you have all the answers.. yea right.

IF that's what *they* say.  How about you provide a cite?

> -pffft-

Of course, dodge.
-restore-
'Vegetarians have been reported to have lower body mass indices
than nonvegetarians, as well as lower rates of death from ischemic
heart disease; vegetarians also show lower blood cholesterol levels;
lower blood pressure; and lower rates of hypertension, type 2
diabetes, and prostate and colon cancer. '
http://www.eatright.org/Public/GovernmentAffairs/92_17084.cfm
Dutch - 07 Oct 2004 19:56 GMT
> "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote
> > > "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> Twist away, little snake.

As always, facts confound you.

> > > > [..]
> > > > >> Scientific observers do not use vague, passive weasel phrases like
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> You're as delusional as ever.

Your comments are become increasingly repetitive and irrelevant.

> > > > When they say
> > > > "Vegetarians have been reported to have lower body mass indices than
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> I challenge you to present a study abstract showing otherwise.

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4655

How many will it take to shut you up?

> > > > Healthy vegetarian diets are
> > > > better than deficient non-vegetarian diets, of course, but are poor
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> of these diseases.'
> http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Nov98/thermogenesis_paper.html

Yawn.. you have pasted that one quote 100's of times as it represented
revealed truth.

> > > > This Association strongly supports including meat in a balanced diet by the
> > > > way.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> IF that's what *they* say.  How about you provide a cite?

http://www.eatright.org/Public/NutritionInformation/92_13209.cfm

> > -pffft-
>
> Of course, dodge.
> -restore-
> 'Vegetarians have been reported to have lower body mass indices
> than nonvegetarians,

Reported by whom? Which vegetarians? Which non-vegetarians? The sentence is
meaningless.

> as well as lower rates of death from ischemic
> heart disease; vegetarians also show lower blood cholesterol levels;
> lower blood pressure; and lower rates of hypertension, type 2
> diabetes, and prostate and colon cancer. '
> http://www.eatright.org/Public/GovernmentAffairs/92_17084.cfm

Reporters should be more careful with their generalizations, with extremists
around to pounce and misinterpert their words..
pearl - 07 Oct 2004 22:17 GMT
> > "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote
> > > > "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> As always, facts confound you.

Wriggle wriggle..

> > > > > [..]
> > > > > >> Scientific observers do not use vague, passive weasel phrases like
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Your comments are become increasingly repetitive and irrelevant.

Projection.

> > > > > When they say
> > > > > "Vegetarians have been reported to have lower body mass indices than
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4655

Totally irrelevant.

> How many will it take to shut you up?

"Vegetarians have been reported to have lower body mass indices than
non-vegetarians..."  Present ONE study abstract that shows otherwise.

> > > > > Healthy vegetarian diets are
> > > > > better than deficient non-vegetarian diets, of course, but are poor
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> Yawn.. you have pasted that one quote 100's of times as it represented
> revealed truth.

It does..

'China Study I is now regarded as the most comprehensive study of diet,
lifestyle and disease ever completed. Data from the study was first published
in an 896-page monograph (1990) and resulted in more than 50 scientific
publications.
   Planned since 1987, China Study II was designed to resurvey the same
mainland Chinese population as China Study I, in addition to a few new
sites in mainland China and a new population of 16 counties in Taiwan. '
http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et1101/et1101s18.html

> > > > > This Association strongly supports including meat in a balanced diet
> by the
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> http://www.eatright.org/Public/NutritionInformation/92_13209.cfm

'This fact sheet is sponsored by America?s Beef Producers through
their $1-per-head beef checkoff program. This program is managed
by the National Cattlemen?s Beef Association on behalf of the
Cattlemen?s Beef Board. The contents have been reviewed by the
American Dietetic Association?s Fact Sheet Review Board. The
appearance of this information does not constitute an endorsement
by ADA of the sponsor?s products or services. This fact sheet was
prepared for the general public. Questions regarding its content and
use should be directed to a dietetics professional.'

LOL!

> > > -pffft-
> >
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Reported by whom? Which vegetarians? Which non-vegetarians? The sentence is
> meaningless.

By scientists conducting epidemiological research, dimwit.

> > as well as lower rates of death from ischemic
> > heart disease; vegetarians also show lower blood cholesterol levels;
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Reporters should be more careful with their generalizations, with extremists
> around to pounce and misinterpert their words..

.....  Like you, eh, ditch?
Dutch - 07 Oct 2004 22:55 GMT
> "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote
[..]

> > As always, facts confound you.
>
> Wriggle wriggle..

You do that well.

[..]

> > Your comments are become increasingly repetitive and irrelevant.
>
> Projection.

Observation

[..]
> > > I challenge you to present a study abstract showing otherwise.
> >
> > http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4655
>
> Totally irrelevant.

It's completely relevant.

> > How many will it take to shut you up?
>
> "Vegetarians

Which vegetarians?

have been reported

By whom?

to have lower body mass indices than
> non-vegetarians..."

Which non-vegetarians? What foods comprised the diets of the two groups?

>  Present ONE study abstract that shows otherwise.

It's a  generalization, one I don't dispute. It's also irrelevant. I can
still consume meat and have a lower body mass index than "vegetarians".
Sounds silly when you refer to an entire group in such a vague fashion
doesn't it?

[..]
> > > http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Nov98/thermogenesis_paper.html
> >
> > Yawn.. you have pasted that one quote 100's of times as it represented
> > revealed truth.
>
> It does..

It reinforces your dogmatic belief, so it rings true to you..

> 'China Study I is now regarded as the most comprehensive study of diet,
> lifestyle and disease ever completed. Data from the study was first published
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> sites in mainland China and a new population of 16 counties in Taiwan. '
> http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et1101/et1101s18.html

Another one you quote ad nauseum.

> > > > > > This Association strongly supports including meat in a balanced diet
> > by the
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
> LOL!

Exactly as your quote from that site was copied directly from The Vegan
Society. Is lack of objectivity OK when it favours your bias and funny when
it doesn't?

[..]
> > > 'Vegetarians have been reported to have lower body mass indices
> > > than nonvegetarians,
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> By scientists conducting epidemiological research, dimwit.

Inserting a multi-syllabic term does not make it more specific

It's simple thermodynamics, people who consume fewer calories and expend
more will have lower body mass indices, therefore if a given group of
vegetarians has a lower average caloric intake relative to their output they
will have lower body masses. It's very easy to see how this would be the
case, since meat is calorie *and* nutrient dense.
ta - 07 Oct 2004 20:40 GMT
> > > "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote >>

<snip>

> > Healthy vegetarian diets are
> > better than deficient non-vegetarian diets, of course, but are poor
> > vegetarian diets better than healthy non-vegetarian diets? Of course not,
> > not even you believe that. Well, maybe a nut like you..
>
> There's no such thing as a 'healthy non-vegetarian diet'!

Of course there is. A diet consisting of mostly fresh fruits,
vegetables and grains, supplemented with moderate amounts of high
quality meat, is perfectly healthy. A typical meat-centric, western
diet is not healthy at all, but to say that any and all meat eating is
unhealthy smacks of dogma.
Dutch - 07 Oct 2004 21:19 GMT
> "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote

> <snip>
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> quality meat, is perfectly healthy. A typical meat-centric, western
> diet is not healthy at all,

I could not have said it better...

> but to say that any and all meat eating is
> unhealthy smacks of dogma.

Because that's what it is.
pearl - 07 Oct 2004 22:28 GMT
> > > > "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote >>
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> diet is not healthy at all, but to say that any and all meat eating is
> unhealthy smacks of dogma.

'.. 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

How much of a disease producing 'food' is healthy?  NONE!
Dutch - 08 Oct 2004 00:10 GMT
"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote >

> How much of a disease producing 'food' is healthy?  NONE!

Nobody in their right mind could look at all the accumulated knowledge about
food and conclude that meat in any amount is poison.

Relying on isolated quotes from a couple of studies is nonsense.
ta - 08 Oct 2004 03:00 GMT
> > > > > "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote >>
> >
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> How much of a disease producing 'food' is healthy?  NONE!

Yeah, I figured you would post this one obscure study again to "prove" the
inappropriate and extreme conclusions you have drawn.

Show me one or more long-term studies that compare populations who have
eaten a healthy diet consisting of primarily organic fruits, vegetables, and
grains supplemented with moderate amounts of high quality fish and organic
meats with a vegan group, and then we'll have something.

In the meantime, she looks pretty "healthy" to me! :-)
http://milano.vinden.nl/
Dutch - 08 Oct 2004 05:14 GMT
> In the meantime, she looks pretty "healthy" to me! :-)
> http://milano.vinden.nl/

Yowsa!
pearl - 08 Oct 2004 11:40 GMT
> > "ta" <ta33@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:c5c0e6e6.0410071140.341f97e4@posting.google.com...
> > > "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> news:<ck3bgl$iie$1@kermit.esat.net>...
> > > > "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
> news:ih39d.12005$a41.11350@pd7tw2no...
<..>
> > > > There's no such thing as a 'healthy non-vegetarian diet'!
> > >
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> Yeah, I figured you would post this one obscure study again to "prove" the
> inappropriate and extreme conclusions you have drawn.

Yeah, I figured you would try to ignore a definitive study to
cling to the false and illogical conclusions you have drawn.

Again you didn't answer the question.

> Show me one or more long-term studies that compare populations who have
> eaten a healthy diet consisting of primarily organic fruits, vegetables, and
> grains supplemented with moderate amounts of high quality fish and organic
> meats with a vegan group, and then we'll have something.

You already have enough, but just to satisfy you..

'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/content/full/70/3/525S

OBSERVED-TO-EXPECTED CORONARY
HEART DISEASE MORTALITY  IN ADVENTIST MEN
Total Vegetarians                      14%
Lacto-Ovo-Vegetarians             39%
Meat Users                               56%
Phillips et al. (Amer. J. of Clinical Nutrition, 1978, 31: S191-S198)

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)

More?
Dutch - 08 Oct 2004 16:37 GMT
> "ta" <ta33@bellsouth.net> wrote

> > > How much of a disease producing 'food' is healthy?  NONE!
> >
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Yeah, I figured you would try to ignore a definitive study to
> cling to the false and illogical conclusions you have drawn.

Definitive study? Not the one you cited. It specifically has not reached the
conclusion YOU are drawing, since it groups those who eat fish and who eat
meat occasionally as non-meat eaters.

"Subjects were divided into meat eaters (who ate meat at least once a week)
and non-meat-eaters (all others). Most of the non-meat-eaters were
vegetarian or vegan, although 23% of the non-meat-eaters ate meat
occasionally but less than once a week, or ate fish, or both. "

Doesn't sound very definitive to me, not if one is attempting to conclude
that meat is toxic in ANY amount. THAT is a false and illogical conclusion.

[..]
pearl - 09 Oct 2004 12:16 GMT
> > "ta" <ta33@bellsouth.net> wrote
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Definitive study? Not the one you cited.

The cite discussed, which you sleazily snipped, was from the China Study.

'China Study I is now regarded as the most comprehensive study of diet,
lifestyle and disease ever completed. Data from the study was first published
in an 896-page monograph (1990) and resulted in more than 50 scientific
publications.
   Planned since 1987, China Study II was designed to resurvey the same
mainland Chinese population as China Study I, in addition to a few new
sites in mainland China and a new population of 16 counties in Taiwan. '
http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et1101/et1101s18.html
Dutch - 09 Oct 2004 20:01 GMT
> "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote>>
>> > "ta" <ta33@bellsouth.net> wrote
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> The cite discussed, which you sleazily snipped, was from the China Study.

The comments I made were directed at the Oxford Vegetarian Study, which YOU
cited and then snipped completely from your reply.
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/525S .

Since I have revealed that The Oxford Study included in the classification
vegetarian, people who ate meat and fish occasionally, are you now going to
ignore that study altogether, or will you continue to quote selectively from
it hoping nobody will catch on?

> 'China Study I is now regarded as the most comprehensive study of diet,
> lifestyle and disease ever completed. Data from the study was first
> published
> in an 896-page monograph (1990) and resulted in more than 50 scientific
> publications.

Did subjects classified as vegetarians in The China Study eat meat less than
once a week, or not at all, did they eat eat fish at all? Be careful.
"Plant-based diets" do not necessarily exclude animal matter altogether.

>    Planned since 1987, China Study II was designed to resurvey the same
> mainland Chinese population as China Study I, in addition to a few new
> sites in mainland China and a new population of 16 counties in Taiwan. '
> http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et1101/et1101s18.html

That page concludes that Western diets are generally too meat-centric. I
agree, so do most authorities on nutrition, just watch the nutrition segment
any night on your local evening news.

Besides, even if it were true that (near)zero meat was more conducive to
good health than a moderate amount, and that is highly debatable, so what?
(Near)zero sugar, alcohol, sodium, and saturated fats, is probably more
healthy than a moderate amount, that doesn't mean people should or will
discount the enjoyment factor when choosing to include a moderate amount of
those substances in their lifestyle. Don't eat that pie, because on paper
you will be more healthy if you don't. Enjoyment is a huge factor in human
health.
ta - 08 Oct 2004 20:05 GMT
> > > "ta" <ta33@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>  news:c5c0e6e6.0410071140.341f97e4@posting.google.com...
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>
> Again you didn't answer the question.

You must be referring to your loaded question above that contains
implicitly false premises. Shall I ask you how many times you beat
your wife today?

The problem with your classification of meat as a disease-producing
entity is that you ignore all of the beneficial aspects of meat, which
of course are well documented. Meat can be both a disease-producing
agent, as well as a health-producing agent, if used properly and in
the right form (even the meat products that come out of factory farms
have some benefits).

Your classification of meat as "disease producing", which is
conveniently created to suit your moral/religious agenda, is an
inaccurate one, and one that the vast majority of individuals, health
practitioners (traditional and non-traditional alike), and other
nutritional experts would likely reject as well.

Your "all or nothing/with us or against us" approach is not a
"healthy" one. ;-)

> > Show me one or more long-term studies that compare populations who have
> > eaten a healthy diet consisting of primarily organic fruits, vegetables, and
> > grains supplemented with moderate amounts of high quality fish and organic
> > meats with a vegan group, and then we'll have something.
>
> You already have enough, but just to satisfy you..

No, I don't actually. Your conclusions don't follow from the study you
posted. You've taken it to the extreme, which is what happens when
conclusions come first and "evidence" later.

Notice that the only information we have about the meat-eating group
in regards to the frequency and quality of meat they consumed is that
"they consumed meat at least once a week". Sorry, that's not enough
information. What kind of meat? How often specifically? What did the
rest of their diet consist of? Was their meat grass-fed or was it
factory farmed garbage? Did they eat blood sausage and fried chicken,
or did they eat small portions of organic beef with fresh greens and
fruit?

Regardless, to claim that the higher rates of heart disease witnessed
necessarily qualify as "unhealthy" is a stretch. If a meat eater lives
five years less than a vegan, does that mean the meat eater lived an
"unhealthy" life? Of course not.

In addition, you appear to not have read my post very carefully. The
above study does not fulfill the criteria I stated. What I said was:

"Show me one or more long-term studies that compare populations who
have eaten a healthy diet *consisting of primarily organic fruits,
vegetables, and grains supplemented with moderate amounts of high
quality fish and organic meats* with a vegan group, and then we'll
have something."

Is there anything in the study to indicate that this describes the
meat eating group?

<snip>

> http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/525S

An excellent study which I have referenced before. However, once
again, your conclusions do not flow logically from the evidence. See
above description.

> OBSERVED-TO-EXPECTED CORONARY
> HEART DISEASE MORTALITY  IN ADVENTIST MEN
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> (from a paper by Hirayama cited in John Scharffenberg's
> "Problems with Meat", 1989)

Ditto.

> More?

So do you think Miss Sharapova is unhealthy? Too young to tell? How
'bout my 94 year old grandmother? She's still kickin' butt! (sorry, no
pictures) ;-). Cholesterol good, no cancers, living on her own, and
yet she has eaten plenty of meat. Go figure.

Now she may live to only be 100, instead of 105 or 110, so I guess
that makes her "unhealthy" by your definition?
pearl - 09 Oct 2004 12:57 GMT
> > > > "ta" <ta33@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> >  news:c5c0e6e6.0410071140.341f97e4@posting.google.com...
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> implicitly false premises. Shall I ask you how many times you beat
> your wife today?

Obfuscation.  It's a simple question.  You just don't like the answer

> The problem with your classification of meat as a disease-producing
> entity is that you ignore all of the beneficial aspects of meat, which
> of course are well documented.

What would those be exactly, and that I couldn't get from healthy foods?

> Meat can be both a disease-producing
> agent, as well as a health-producing agent, if used properly and in
> the right form (even the meat products that come out of factory farms
> have some benefits).

'.. 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

> Your classification of meat as "disease producing", which is
> conveniently created to suit your moral/religious agenda,

What an ignorant twerp!

> is an inaccurate one,

It is supported by the research, dreamer.

> and one that the vast majority of individuals, health
> practitioners (traditional and non-traditional alike), and other
> nutritional experts would likely reject as well.

Argumentum ad populum.

> Your "all or nothing/with us or against us" approach is not a
> "healthy" one. ;-)

So when did you start eating meat, ta?

> > > Show me one or more long-term studies that compare populations who have
> > > eaten a healthy diet consisting of primarily organic fruits, vegetables, and
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> No, I don't actually.

Actually, you do.

> Your conclusions don't follow from the study you
> posted.

Yes, they do.

> You've taken it to the extreme, which is what happens when
> conclusions come first and "evidence" later.

My conclusions are based on the evidence.

> Notice that the only information we have about the meat-eating group
> in regards to the frequency and quality of meat they consumed is that
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> or did they eat small portions of organic beef with fresh greens and
> fruit?

Whatever people normally eat.  Were the veg*ns all eating organic?

> Regardless, to claim that the higher rates of heart disease witnessed
> necessarily qualify as "unhealthy" is a stretch. If a meat eater lives
> five years less than a vegan, does that mean the meat eater lived an
> "unhealthy" life? Of course not.

Good grief, ta.  Do yourself a favour, and read this article;
www.organichealthandbeauty.com/optimumhealth.html .

> In addition, you appear to not have read my post very carefully. The
> above study does not fulfill the criteria I stated. What I said was:
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> quality fish and organic meats* with a vegan group, and then we'll
> have something."

'Data pertinent to the issue of energy balance and body weight
control obtained in a comprehensive study of diet, lifestyle and
disease mortality in 65 counties (130 villages, 6500 adults) of
rural China (Chen et al. 1990) were used for the analysis. ..

.. 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.
..
An ideal epidemiological setting was available to investigate, with
sensitivity, a multitude of diet and disease associations because
1) of the wide ranging disease mortality rates, 2) of the very stable
residency patterns of the cohort subjects over their entire lifetimes
(90-94% were born in the counties where they were surveyed),
3) of the consumption of locally produced food, and 4) of the
remarkable consistency of dietary patterns for each survey site
over time (Piazza 1986).
..
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Nov98/thermogenesis_paper.html

'Not good enough', do I hear you moan?

> Is there anything in the study to indicate that this describes the
> meat eating group?

What magical properties do you ascribe to organic meats, that
can disappear saturated fat, cholesterol, uric acid, and the rest?

> <snip>
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> again, your conclusions do not flow logically from the evidence. See
> above description.

False.  See above question.

> > OBSERVED-TO-EXPECTED CORONARY
> > HEART DISEASE MORTALITY  IN ADVENTIST MEN
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> So do you think Miss Sharapova

Get real.
ta - 09 Oct 2004 18:23 GMT
>>>>> "ta" <ta33@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>>  news:c5c0e6e6.0410071140.341f97e4@posting.google.com...
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
>
> Obfuscation.  It's a simple question.  You just don't like the answer

Your "black and white/with us or against" mentality is not productive. Your
question is clearly a loaded one. How many times did you beat your wife
today? It's a simple question. Perhaps you just don't like the answer.

>> The problem with your classification of meat as a disease-producing
>> entity is that you ignore all of the beneficial aspects of meat,
>> which
>> of course are well documented.
>
> What would those be exactly,

Surely you are familiar with them. They have been well-documented on this
ng, which you seem to religiously follow, and the internet is of course an
endless resource.

> and that I couldn't get from healthy
> foods?

Very sneaky. First, your statement implies that meat is not healthy, which
of course is the very question at hand. Obviously your question assumes too
much (how many times have you beat your wife today?).

Second, you are tagging on a qualifier to your original claim that any and
all meat eating is unhealthy. Does meat contain things that are healthful
for humans or not? Are omega 3 efa and vitamin b12 healthful things for
humans, and does meat contain these items? If the answer is yes, which it
obviously is, then meat sure contains some benefit, does it not? That you
refuse to acknowledge this very simple fact does not bode well for your
credibility, imo.

>> Meat can be both a disease-producing
>> agent, as well as a health-producing agent, if used properly and in
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> of these diseases.'
> http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Nov98/thermogenesis_paper.html

That's nice. :-)

>> Your classification of meat as "disease producing", which is
>> conveniently created to suit your moral/religious agenda,
>
> What an ignorant twerp!

Ladies and gentleman, meet the real "pearl".

>> is an inaccurate one,
>
> It is supported by the research, dreamer.

If you believe it, it must be true?

>> and one that the vast majority of individuals, health
>> practitioners (traditional and non-traditional alike), and other
>> nutritional experts would likely reject as well.
>
> Argumentum ad populum.

The fact that your views are so extreme and isolated does not necessarily
mean that they are false, of course, but it certainly does offer some
perspective, and makes them largely irrelevant in the overall discussion
about meat eating. Which is why, as is becoming increasingly obvious,
there's not a whole lot of good that come out of engaging extremists like
you (or your cohorts on the "other side"). I'll pass on the dogma, thank you
very much.

>> Your "all or nothing/with us or against us" approach is not a
>> "healthy" one. ;-)
>
> So when did you start eating meat, ta?

(laugh)!!! So anyone who possesses views that conflict with your own must be
"one of THEM", eh? Anyone who parts ways with pearl's dogma, must be one
those evil meat eaters, eh? You're just itching to affix that label, place
me in that box, with all the rest of the evil meat eaters, aren't you? And
wouldn't that make you feel good and superior and just.

It's interesting to note that you would assume that though - very revealing.

Enough said.

p.s. Granny says "Hi". :-)

<snip
pearl - 09 Oct 2004 21:03 GMT
> >>>>> "ta" <ta33@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> >>>  news:c5c0e6e6.0410071140.341f97e4@posting.google.com...
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
> question is clearly a loaded one. How many times did you beat your wife
> today? It's a simple question. Perhaps you just don't like the answer.

And again.

> >> The problem with your classification of meat as a disease-producing
> >> entity is that you ignore all of the beneficial aspects of meat,
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> ng, which you seem to religiously follow, and the internet is of course an
> endless resource.

Your claim; surely you can support it?

> > and that I couldn't get from healthy
> > foods?
>
> Very sneaky. First, your statement implies that meat is not healthy, which
> of course is the very question at hand. Obviously your question assumes too
> much (how many times have you beat your wife today?).

Ad hominem evasion.

> Second, you are tagging on a qualifier to your original claim that any and
> all meat eating is unhealthy. Does meat contain things that are healthful
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> refuse to acknowledge this very simple fact does not bode well for your
> credibility, imo.

For the zillionth time;

Enteric microflora in the ileum produce B12- as long as
they are provided with the trace mineral cobalt (see below).

Nature 1980 Feb 21;283(5749):781-2
Vitamin B12 synthesis by human small intestinal bacteria.
Albert MJ, Mathan VI, Baker SJ.

In man, physiological amounts of vitamin B12 (cyanocobalamin) are
absorbed by the intrinsic factor mediated mechanism exclusively in
the ileum. Human faeces contain appreciable quantities of vitamin
B12 or vitamin B12-like material presumably produced by bacteria
in the colon, but this is unavailable to the non-coprophagic individual.
However, the human small intestine also often harbours a considerable
microflora and this is even more extensive in apparently healthy
southern Indian subjects. We now show that at least two groups
of organisms in the small bowel, Pseudomonas and Klebsiella sp.,
may synthesise significant amounts of the vitamin.
PMID: 7354869 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://tinyurl.com/80o6

From;  The Bacterial Flora of Humans

(8) While E. coli is a consistent resident of the small intestine,
many other enteric bacteria may reside here as well, including
Klebsiella, Enterobacter and Citrobacter.

1. The normal flora synthesize and excrete vitamins in excess
of their own needs, which can be absorbed as nutrients by the host.
For example, enteric bacteria secrete Vitamin K and Vitamin B12,
and lactic acid bacteria produce certain B-vitamins.
http://www.bact.wisc.edu/Bact303/Bact303normalflora

(Antibiotics
Antibiotics of all classes disrupt normal bowel flora which
synthesize some B vitamins and Vitamin K; probiotic
supplementation needed.

Oral Contraceptives
Deplete, especially B1, B6, B12, folate.
http://www.interactionreport.org/depletion.html )

The B12-Cobalt Connection
..
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 .

'Mineral content: This may be the most important nutritional difference
between organic and regular produce since heavy use of fertilizer inhibits
absorption of some minerals, which are likely to be at lower levels to
begin with in soils that have been abused.  This may be caused in part
by the lack of beneficial mycorrhizae fungi on the roots since high levels
of fertilizer tend to kill them.  Standard diets tend to be low in various
minerals, resulting in a variety of problems including osteoporosis.
http://math.ucsd.edu/~ebender/Health%20&%20Nutrition/Foods/organic.html

The Baer report (Rutgers Univ., 1984) "Variations in Mineral Contents of Vegetables"

                 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 researchers found no association between plasma B12 and
meat, poultry, and fish intake, even though these foods supply the
bulk of B12 in the diet. "It's not because people aren't eating
enough meat," Tucker says. "The vitamin isn't getting absorbed." '
..........

Are You Vitamin B12 Deficient?

Nearly two-fifths of the U.S. population may be flirting with
marginal vitamin B12 status-that is, if a careful look at nearly
3,000 men and women in the ongoing Framingham (Massachusetts)
Offspring Study is any indication. Researchers found that 39
percent of the volunteers have plasma B12 levels in the "low
normal" range-below 258 picomoles per liter (pmol/L).

  While this is well above the currently accepted deficiency level
of 148 pmol/L, some people exhibit neurological symptoms at the
upper level of the deficiency range, explains study leader Katherine
L. Tucker. She is a nutritional epidemiologist at the Jean Mayer
USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts
University in Boston.

 "I think there's a lot of undetected vitamin B12 deficiency out there,"
says Tucker. She noted that nearly 9 percent of the study population
fell below the current deficiency level. And more than 16 percent fell
below 185 pmol/L. "Many people may be deficient at this level," she
says. "There is some question as to what the clinical cutoff for
deficiency should be."

 Deficiency can cause a type of anemia marked by fewer but larger
red blood cells. It can also cause walking and balance disturbances,
a loss of vibration sensation, confusion, and, in advanced cases,
dementia. The body requires B12 to make the protective coating
surrounding the nerves. So inadequate B12 can expose nerves to
damage.

 Tucker and colleagues wanted to get a sense of B12 levels spanning
the adult population because most previous studies have focused on
the elderly. That age group was thought to be at higher risk for deficiency.
The researchers also expected to find some connection between dietary
intake and plasma levels, even though other studies found no association.
Some of the results were surprising. The youngest group-the 26 to 49
year olds-had about the same B12 status as the oldest group-65 and
up. "We thought that low concentrations of B12 would increase with age,"
says Tucker. "But we saw a high prevalence of low B12 even among the
youngest group."

  The good news is that for many people, eating more fortified cereals
and dairy products can improve B12 status almost as much as taking
supplements containing the vitamin. Supplement use dropped the
percentage of volunteers in the danger zone (plasma B12 below 185
pmol/L) from 20 percent to 8. Eating fortified cereals five or more times
a week or being among the highest third for dairy intake reduced, by
nearly half, the percentage of volunteers in that zone-from 23 and 24
percent, respectively, to 12 and 13 percent.

 The researchers found no association between plasma B12 and meat,
poultry, and fish intake, even though these foods supply the bulk of B12
in the diet. "It's not because people aren't eating enough meat," Tucker
says. "The vitamin isn't getting absorbed." The vitamin is tightly bound to
proteins in meat and dairy products and requires high acidity to cut it
loose. As we age, we lose the acid-secreting cells in the stomach. But
what causes poor absorption in younger adults? Tucker speculates that
the high use of antacids may contribute. But why absorption from dairy
products appears to be better than from meats is a question that needs
more research. Fortified cereals are a different story. She says the vitamin
is sprayed on during processing and is "more like what we get in
supplements."

-By Judy McBride, Agricultural Research Service Information Staff.
This research is part of Human Nutrition, an ARS National Program
(#107) described on the World Wide Web. Katherine L. Tucker is at
the Jean Mayer USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research Center on
Aging at Tufts University, 711 Washington St., Boston, MA 02111;
phone (617) 556-3351, fax (617) 556-3344.
"Are You Vitamin B12 Deficient?" was published in the August 2000
issue of Agricultural Research magazine.

As for Omega 3,- requirements |safely| satisfied, eating certain seeds
and nuts, specifically: walnuts, pumpkin seeds, linseeds, and hemp.

> >> Meat can be both a disease-producing
> >> agent, as well as a health-producing agent, if used properly and in
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> That's nice. :-)

That's foolish.

> >> Your classification of meat as "disease producing", which is
> >> conveniently created to suit your moral/religious agenda,
> >
> > What an ignorant twerp!
>
> Ladies and gentleman, meet the real "pearl".

Jut stating a fact, twerp.

> >> is an inaccurate one,
> >
> > It is supported by the research, dreamer.
>
> If you believe it, it must be true?

Look up the word 'research', timewaster.

> >> and one that the vast majority of individuals, health
> >> practitioners (traditional and non-traditional alike), and other
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> The fact that your views are so extreme and isolated

Ipse dixit, and false.  Look at the research.

> does not necessarily
> mean that they are false, of course, but it certainly does offer some
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> you (or your cohorts on the "other side"). I'll pass on the dogma, thank you
> very much.

blah blah blah.

> >> Your "all or nothing/with us or against us" approach is not a
> >> "healthy" one. ;-)
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> me in that box, with all the rest of the evil meat eaters, aren't you? And
> wouldn't that make you feel good and superior and just.

Evasion noted.

> It's interesting to note that you would assume that though - very revealing.

You wrote; 'Your "all or nothing/with us or against us" approach is not a
"healthy" one. ;-)'  Thus, either you follow your own 'healthy' approach,
and eat meat, or you follow my 'unhealthy' one.  So which is it, silly ta?

> Enough said.

Indeed.

> p.s. Granny says "Hi". :-)

Hi Granny.

> <snip>

Predictably.
tcomeau - 05 Oct 2004 03:26 GMT
Parents who put their kids on vegetarian diets should be charged with
child abuse and sterilized.

TC

> thank you and pearl for great public service.
> i bet the us surgeon general does not work quite as hard to educate people.
[quoted text clipped - 142 lines]
> > your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
> > copyright owner.
pearl - 05 Oct 2004 10:57 GMT
> Parents who put their kids on vegetarian diets should be charged with
> child abuse and sterilized.

To the contrary..

J Am Diet Assoc. 2003;103:748-765.

The paper reviewed the latest scientific data related to
key nutrients for vegetarians, including protein, iron,
zinc, calcium, vitamin D, riboflavin, vitamin B-12,
vitamin A, n-3 fatty acids, and iodine. They concluded
'A vegetarian, including vegan, diet can meet current
recommendations for all of these nutrients. In some
cases, use of fortified foods or supplements can be
helpful in meeting recommendations for individual
nutrients.'

'Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets
are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including
during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and
adolescence. Vegetarian diets offer a number of
nutritional benefits, including lower levels of saturated fat,
cholesterol, and animal protein as well as higher levels of
carbohydrates, fiber, magnesium, potassium, folate, and
antioxidants such as vitamins C and E and phytochemicals.
Vegetarians have been reported to have lower body mass
indices than non-vegetarians, as well as lower rates of
death from ischemic heart disease; vegetarians also show
lower blood cholesterol levels; lower blood pressure; and
lower rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and prostate
and colon cancer.'

Their advice to Health professionals is "Dietetics
professionals have a responsibility to support and
encourage those who express an interest in consuming a
vegetarian diet."
. . .
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=13478
harmony - 07 Oct 2004 17:58 GMT
it's a great surprise that the dept of education, charged with school lunch
programs, is totally uneducated or out of sync with the dept of public
health or the surgeon general. well, may be not since this administration is
always short on intellegence and long on "leading".

> > Parents who put their kids on vegetarian diets should be charged with
> > child abuse and sterilized.
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
>  . . .
> http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=13478
pearl - 07 Oct 2004 19:20 GMT
> it's a great surprise that the dept of education, charged with school lunch
> programs, is totally uneducated or out of sync with the dept of public
> health or the surgeon general. well, may be not since this administration is
> always short on intellegence and long on "leading".

"mis".  .. Pertinent info' here; http://www.rense.com/general45/bll.htm .

<.
Dutch - 07 Oct 2004 21:28 GMT
>> it's a great surprise that the dept of education, charged with school
>> lunch
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> "mis".  .. Pertinent info' here; http://www.rense.com/general45/bll.htm .

LOL! Jeff Rense is professional conspiracy theorist and nutcase. You two are
the perfect dupes for charlatans like him.
pearl - 07 Oct 2004 22:30 GMT
> >> it's a great surprise that the dept of education, charged with school
> >> lunch
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> LOL! Jeff Rense is professional conspiracy theorist and nutcase. You two are
> the perfect dupes for charlatans like him.

Ad hominem nonsense.
Dr. Jai Maharaj - 05 Oct 2004 05:55 GMT
> thank you and pearl for great public service.
> i bet the us surgeon general does not work quite as hard to educate people.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> is it any wonder american children perform poorly compared to other
> countries?

Dhanyavvad for your encouragement. What you write about
American kids is indeed true for most of them. I have
observed that a healthy body and a healthy mind go together.

Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti

> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>
[quoted text clipped - 135 lines]
> > your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
> > copyright owner.
pearl - 05 Oct 2004 10:53 GMT
> > thank you and pearl for great public service.
> > i bet the us surgeon general does not work quite as hard to educate people.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> American kids is indeed true for most of them. I have
> observed that a healthy body and a healthy mind go together.

Very true.  Thanks harmony, and thank you Jai.
ta - 05 Oct 2004 16:04 GMT
<snip>

> is it any wonder american children perform poorly compared to other
> countries?

"The effect of vitamin-mineral supplementation on the intelligence of
American schoolchildren: a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled
trial.

Schoenthaler SJ, Bier ID, Young K, Nichols D, Jansenns S.

Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice, California State
University, Stanislaus, Turlock 95380, USA. stephens@volcano.net

CONTEXT: Many medical, nutrition, and education professionals have
long suspected that poor diet impairs the academic performance of
Western schoolchildren; academic performance often improves after
improved diet. However, others have suggested that such academic gains
may be due to psychologic effects rather than nutrition. To resolve
this issue, two independent research teams conducted randomized trials
in which children were given placebos or low-dose vitamin-mineral
tablets designed to raise nutrient intake to the equivalent of a
well-balanced diet. Both teams reported significantly greater gains in
nonverbal intelligence among the supplemented groups. The findings
were important because of the apparent inadequacy of diet they
revealed and the magnitude of the potential for increased
intelligence. However, none of the ten subsequent replications, or the
two original trials, were without limitations leaving this issue in
controversy. OBJECTIVES: To determine if schoolchildren who consume
low-dose vitamin-mineral tablets will have a significantly larger
increase in nonverbal intelligence than children who consume placebos
in a study that overcomes the primary criticisms directed at the
previous 12 controlled trials. DESIGN: A double-blind,
placebo-controlled trial using stratified randomization within each
teacher's class based on preintervention nonverbal intelligence.
SETTINGS AND SUBJECTS: Two "working class," primarily Hispanic,
elementary schools in Phoenix, Arizona, participated in the study.
Slightly more than half the teachers in each school distributed the
tablets daily to 245 schoolchildren aged 6 to 12 years. INTERVENTION:
Daily vitamin-mineral supplementation at 50% of the U.S. daily
recommended allowance (RDA) for 3 months versus placebo. OUTCOME
MEASURES: Post-test nonverbal IQ, as measured by the Wechsler
Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised (WISC-R), while controlling
for pretest nonverbal IQ as a covariate. FOUR MAIN RESULTS: First, a
significant difference of 2.5 IQ points (95% CI: 1.85-3.15) was found
between 125 children given active tablets and 120 children given
placebo tablets (p = 0.038). Second, this finding is consistent with
the mean 3.2 IQ point net gain found in the 12 similar but less
rigorous studies. Third, a significantly higher proportion of children
in the active group gained 15 or more IQ points when compared to the
placebo group (p < 0.01). Fourth, although 81 matched pairs produced
no difference at all in nonverbal IQ gain, the modest 2.5 IQ point net
gain for the entire sample can be explained by the remaining 24
children who took active tablets, and had a 16 point higher net gain
in IQ than the remaining 19 placebo controls. CONCLUSIONS: This study
confirms that vitamin-mineral supplementation modestly raised the
nonverbal intelligence of some groups of Western schoolchildren by 2
to 3 points but not that of most Western schoolchildren, presumably
because the majority were already adequately nourished. This study
also confirms that vitamin-mineral supplementation markedly raises the
non-verbal intelligence of a minority of Western schoolchildren,
presumably because they were too poorly nourished before
supplementation for optimal brain function. Because nonverbal
intelligence is closely associated with academic performance, it
follows that schools with children who consume substandard diets
should find it difficult to produce academic performance equal to
those schools with children who consume diets that come closer to
providing the nutrients suggested in the U.S. RDA. The parents of
schoolchildren whose academic performance is substandard would be well
advised to seek a nutritionally oriented physician for assessment of
their children's nutritional status as a possible etiology."

http://tinyurl.com/5xayc

<snip>

In addition, the nutritional quality of food in the grocery stores in
American cities is often significantly lower in the poorer sections of
town as compared to those stores in the more well-to-do sections. It's
interesting to note that in Louisville, KY, for example, the most
profitable section of the grocery stores in the wealthier
neighborhoods is the fresh cut flowers section. In the poorer
neighborhoods, the pharmacy outgains all other departments.

You'll have to search mighty hard for anything resembling fresh greens
in these poorer neighborhoods, and if you do find them, their quality
is likely to be bottom of the barrel.
magnulus - 10 Oct 2004 15:00 GMT
>  o  Begin with the greens. Salad greens are a good source of many
> vitamins and minerals. Darker green leafy vegetables, such as spinach,
> romaine lettuce, watercress and arugula, generally contain more nutrients
> than paler ones.

  Of course, Romaine lettuce and arugula costs more than iceberg.  Salad
might be a good way to lose weight, but
it's definitely not cheap.   Salad is also time consuming to prepare.

>  o  Pack on the protein. If your salad is the main course, it's important
> to include protein-rich ingredients. Try garbanzo beans, kidney beans or
> tofu.

 Tofu?  Yuck, not on a salad, no thanks.    I like tofu occasionally but I
like it fried and soft in the middle ,not spongey like too many places sell
(Mori-nu silken is the best, too).

Almond slices taste alot better on a salad.
tintinet - 10 Oct 2004 20:13 GMT
> >  o  Begin with the greens. Salad greens are a good source of many
> > vitamins and minerals. Darker green leafy vegetables, such as spinach,
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> might be a good way to lose weight, but
> it's definitely not cheap.   Salad is also time consuming to prepare.

Quite expensive, but quick, is buying mixed spring greens or similar
prepared high quality salad green mix from which to prepare a salad.

> >  o  Pack on the protein. If your salad is the main course, it's important
> > to include protein-rich ingredients. Try garbanzo beans, kidney beans or
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>  Almond slices taste alot better on a salad.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.