Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / October 2004
Green salads can be a powerhouse of nutrition
|
|
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.
|
|
|