Guest guest Posted September 20, 2002 Report Share Posted September 20, 2002 I agree. I don't even know what the RDA's are. I just try to get heaps of nutrition. If anybody is interested, you might try to hunt down a good Live Blood Analyst in your area, and use that as a guide as to what MIGHT be missing in your diet, though even thats not entirley accurate, chris >From: " Dr. Marasco " <mmarasco@...> >Reply- > >Subject: RDA's >Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 16:36:29 -0000 > >The conversation regarding what quantities the eskimos were eating >nutrient wise is a very worthwhile conversation. Just as an aside >and my own two cents on the RDA's is this, the best policy on the >RDA's are simply to ignore them, they don't even work as baselines, >these are just arbitrary numbers, put together by defective folk who >work for the US gov't. I don't mean to be harsh here, well yes I do >on second thought. My best thoughts on RDA is ignore them completely. >They just make the issue that much more confusing especially >considering they have no merit whatsoever. > >DMM > _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2002 Report Share Posted September 20, 2002 >>>>The conversation regarding what quantities the eskimos were eating nutrient wise is a very worthwhile conversation. Just as an aside and my own two cents on the RDA's is this, the best policy on the RDA's are simply to ignore them, they don't even work as baselines, these are just arbitrary numbers, put together by defective folk who work for the US gov't. I don't mean to be harsh here, well yes I do on second thought. My best thoughts on RDA is ignore them completely. They just make the issue that much more confusing especially considering they have no merit whatsoever. ---------->don't beat around the bush, dr. mike - tell us how you *really* feel...<g> I really question how useful they are for the vast majority of people. I'd like to know how the NRC came up with them at all. Even just reading a few chapters of ' " Biochemical Individuality " clearly illustrates why a standard RDA would be meaningless for a large number of people...maybe all. but maybe just by happenstance, some people's needs *do* fit with the current RDA. but i think none of us can assume *our* nutrient requirments fit, as it's a bit of a crap shoot whose might and whose might not. found such a VAST difference in nutrient requirments amoung individuals of the same species, and, IIRC, even among closely related individuals. I think most of us are aware of differences just from sharing our own stories on this list, and perhaps intuitively. what i find fascinating is the idea that WAP's primitives/traditional groups may *not* have had such *vast* differences in nutrient requirements. I can't recall if price himself or wharton, author of " 10,000 years from eden, " originated this idea. i'm also not sure what to make of it. i do recall wharton discussing the fact that each group ate more or less the exact same diet as everyone else in their group and he remarked on how price noted a striking similarity in *appearance* between individuals in a group who were not even related. i recall price comparing the photos of 3 unrelated girls in NAPD somewhere and remarking how similarly they appeared. I don't recall exactly what wharton said on this issue, but i think he implied that eating the same diet results in physical similarities and similar nutrient requirements. (also the environmental factors of folks in the same regional group were similar.) this issue stuck in my mind as peculiar, and i wonder if there's any validity to it? wharton *does* discuss the fact that most americans are amalgams of various cultures (and hence gene pools) which makes it quite difficult to determine what an *optimal* diet is for each of us. for WAP's groups, they KNEW what their ancestors ate and thrived on, so there was no guessing, testing, failing, trying something new, playing around with macronutrient ratios incessantly, as many of us have to do to find what works for us. (or, if they did have to play around with ratios - it would've been with the same regionally-limited group of foods). does anyone have any thoughts on the notion that traditional/primitive groups prior to having contact with 'civilization' and its' foods and 'foreign' genes, might have had less diverse nutrient requirements, and perhaps not as vastly different biochemical individuality as is seen among modern people today? Suze Fisher Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/ mailto:s.fisher22@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2002 Report Share Posted September 20, 2002 In a message dated 9/20/02 10:39:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time, s.fisher22@... writes: > does anyone have any thoughts on the notion that traditional/primitive > groups prior to having contact with 'civilization' and its' foods and > 'foreign' genes, might have had less diverse nutrient requirements, and > perhaps not as vastly different biochemical individuality as is seen among > modern people today? Maybe since we are all 3rd or 4th-generation nutritional derelicts our systems are just so wildly out of whack as to produce the incoherency in the nutritional requirements Chris ____ " What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion, which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for those who do them wrong. " --Saint Isaac the Syrian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2002 Report Share Posted September 20, 2002 Yes I'd have to agree with that statement about us being 3rd and 4th generation nutritional derelicts LOL! piimaman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2002 Report Share Posted September 20, 2002 Suze, this is such an interesting topic and i think it explains why we Americans are so confused about what to eat when other cultures never give it a thought. I have learned a lot about traditional Germanic and alpine ways from my German tutor, who is very knowledgeable. Your post reminded me how she said vegetables have never played a big factor in people's diets here and that the primary vegetables are cabbage, cabbage and cabbage. And a few onions and carrots. Having come from California and having been indoctrinated with the 'you must eat a truck load of leafy greens every day' theory, it was hard for me to wrap my mind around this. But as WAP found, there are some very healthy people here. That is just an example from my corner. Elaine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2002 Report Share Posted September 21, 2002 Suze What's IIRC? I don't see it on our acronym list. The RDA's really weren't intended to tell an individual what his nutrient requirements are, since it was recognized that needs vary a lot. But they enabled to government to evaluate the food supply for adequacy, if I remember correctly from graduate school 25 years ago. Or to give an idea of the adequacy of the food intake of populations of people. I would be misusing them if I used them to determine my exact nutrient requirement, but unfortunately determining individual requirements is difficult! I'm sure it make great sense that requirements of members of an isolated tribal group would be much more homogeneous than for Americans today. Peace, Kris , gardening in harmony with nature in northwest Ohio If you want to hear the good news about butter check out this website: http://www.westonaprice.org/know_your_fats/know_your_fats.html ----- Original Message ----- From: " Suze Fisher " <s.fisher22@...> < > Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 10:39 AM Subject: RE: RDA's > >>>>The conversation regarding what quantities the eskimos were eating > nutrient wise is a very worthwhile conversation. Just as an aside > and my own two cents on the RDA's is this, the best policy on the > RDA's are simply to ignore them, they don't even work as baselines, > these are just arbitrary numbers, put together by defective folk who > work for the US gov't. I don't mean to be harsh here, well yes I do > on second thought. My best thoughts on RDA is ignore them completely. > They just make the issue that much more confusing especially > considering they have no merit whatsoever. > > ---------->don't beat around the bush, dr. mike - tell us how you *really* > feel...<g> > I really question how useful they are for the vast majority of people. I'd > like to know how the NRC came up with them at all. Even just reading a few > chapters of ' " Biochemical Individuality " clearly illustrates > why a standard RDA would be meaningless for a large number of people...maybe > all. but maybe just by happenstance, some people's needs *do* fit with the > current RDA. but i think none of us can assume *our* nutrient requirments > fit, as it's a bit of a crap shoot whose might and whose might not. > > found such a VAST difference in nutrient requirments amoung > individuals of the same species, and, IIRC, even among closely related > individuals. I think most of us are aware of differences just from sharing > our own stories on this list, and perhaps intuitively. what i find > fascinating is the idea that WAP's primitives/traditional groups may *not* > have had such *vast* differences in nutrient requirements. I can't recall if > price himself or wharton, author of " 10,000 years from eden, " originated > this idea. i'm also not sure what to make of it. i do recall wharton > discussing the fact that each group ate more or less the exact same diet as > everyone else in their group and he remarked on how price noted a striking > similarity in *appearance* between individuals in a group who were not even > related. i recall price comparing the photos of 3 unrelated girls in NAPD > somewhere and remarking how similarly they appeared. I don't recall exactly > what wharton said on this issue, but i think he implied that eating the same > diet results in physical similarities and similar nutrient requirements. > (also the environmental factors of folks in the same regional group were > similar.) this issue stuck in my mind as peculiar, and i wonder if there's > any validity to it? > > wharton *does* discuss the fact that most americans are amalgams of various > cultures (and hence gene pools) which makes it quite difficult to determine > what an *optimal* diet is for each of us. for WAP's groups, they KNEW what > their ancestors ate and thrived on, so there was no guessing, testing, > failing, trying something new, playing around with macronutrient ratios > incessantly, as many of us have to do to find what works for us. (or, if > they did have to play around with ratios - it would've been with the same > regionally-limited group of foods). > > does anyone have any thoughts on the notion that traditional/primitive > groups prior to having contact with 'civilization' and its' foods and > 'foreign' genes, might have had less diverse nutrient requirements, and > perhaps not as vastly different biochemical individuality as is seen among > modern people today? > > > > Suze Fisher > Web Design & Development > http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/ > mailto:s.fisher22@... > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2002 Report Share Posted September 21, 2002 --- In @y..., " Kris " <kris.johnson@a...> wrote: > What's IIRC? I don't see it on our acronym list. IIRC = " If I recall correctly " martha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2002 Report Share Posted September 21, 2002 I think that's a great point about environmental toxins and the need for anti-toxins in the diet. And you're right that a Swiss diet wouldn't work in the US for many reasons -- toxins, environment, availability, etc. Elaine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2002 Report Share Posted September 21, 2002 I think I missed some posts in this thread, but aren't cabbage in the " leafy green " family, or, aren't they in the same _species_ as broccoli? There was an article on WAPF website, I think posted recently, that was saying that there's something in cruciferous veggies that needs to be destroyed by cooking or fermenting, but even light cooking destroys a lot of the anti-carcinogens in them, so the most potent anti-carcinogenic veggie from this family is raw saurkraut. Chris In a message dated 9/21/02 8:03:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time, s.fisher22@... writes: > Suze, this is such an interesting topic and i think it explains why we > Americans are so confused about what to eat when other cultures never give > it a thought. I have learned a lot about traditional Germanic and alpine > ways from my German tutor, who is very knowledgeable. Your post reminded me > how she said vegetables have never played a big factor in people's diets > here and that the primary vegetables are cabbage, cabbage and cabbage. > > -------------->LOL. according to a Chinese acquaintance - it's the same in > china. at least for the poor. cabbage heads are ubiquitous throughout the > streets and homes. IIRC, she said it's eaten at most meals. > > > Having come from California and having been > indoctrinated with the 'you must eat a truck load of leafy greens every day' > theory, it was hard for me to wrap my mind around this. But as WAP found, > there are some very healthy people here. That is just an example from my > corner. > > > -------------->this is true. but i think we have to be careful not to assume > that the exact same diet WAP's groups ate *within the context of their > lifestyles and environment* will work equally as well *within the context of > ours.* I don't mean that you are saying this, but your description of what > the swiss eat reminded me of it. I think that for most americans our ROS > load is probably MUCH higher than WAP's groups' was. ROS are reactive oxygen > species (free radicals) that are generated from either normal bodily > functions, or come from man-made chemicals - in which case they're referred > to as 'xenobiotics.' with the level of toxins from industry that we have > over here in the states, i'm speculating that the ROS load many of us have > from xenobiotics is extraordinarily high - and since it's a recent > historical phenomenon, much higher than our bodies have evolved to deal > with. for this reason, i think we probably require a lot more anti-oxidants > in response to *our* ROS load, than did WAP's groups needed for theirs. they > likely had more endogenous ROS - generated from physical activity, but i > doubt the load, as a whole, was nearly as high as the ROS load many of us > have as a result of food, water and air pollution. for that reason, a > truckload of leafy greens might be indicated for american's with a high ROS > load, but less so for someone living in a somewhat more pristine corner of > the planet. (i'm not say switzerland is pristine - i have no idea what your > xenobiotic load might be over there). > > > anyway, just some thoughts on factors that may result in unique dietary > needs for those of us living in industrialized nations. ____ " What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion, which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for those who do them wrong. " --Saint Isaac the Syrian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2002 Report Share Posted September 21, 2002 >>>What's IIRC? I don't see it on our acronym list. --------> " If I Recall Correctly. " The RDA's really weren't intended to tell an individual what his nutrient requirements are, ---------->then why are they called " Recommended Daily Allowance " ? Who are they recommended for? and what's the newer version - RDI? recommended daily intake? they're recommending a nutrient intake to *someone* aren't they? since it was recognized that needs vary a lot. But they enabled to government to evaluate the food supply for adequacy, ------------->how could they possibly do that without know *what* foods in *what combination* each of us is consuming daily? how could they know if the foods *i* select daily contain the RDA for my gender and age group? Suze Fisher Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/ mailto:s.fisher22@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2002 Report Share Posted September 21, 2002 Suze, this is such an interesting topic and i think it explains why we Americans are so confused about what to eat when other cultures never give it a thought. I have learned a lot about traditional Germanic and alpine ways from my German tutor, who is very knowledgeable. Your post reminded me how she said vegetables have never played a big factor in people's diets here and that the primary vegetables are cabbage, cabbage and cabbage. -------------->LOL. according to a Chinese acquaintance - it's the same in china. at least for the poor. cabbage heads are ubiquitous throughout the streets and homes. IIRC, she said it's eaten at most meals. Having come from California and having been indoctrinated with the 'you must eat a truck load of leafy greens every day' theory, it was hard for me to wrap my mind around this. But as WAP found, there are some very healthy people here. That is just an example from my corner. -------------->this is true. but i think we have to be careful not to assume that the exact same diet WAP's groups ate *within the context of their lifestyles and environment* will work equally as well *within the context of ours.* I don't mean that you are saying this, but your description of what the swiss eat reminded me of it. I think that for most americans our ROS load is probably MUCH higher than WAP's groups' was. ROS are reactive oxygen species (free radicals) that are generated from either normal bodily functions, or come from man-made chemicals - in which case they're referred to as 'xenobiotics.' with the level of toxins from industry that we have over here in the states, i'm speculating that the ROS load many of us have from xenobiotics is extraordinarily high - and since it's a recent historical phenomenon, much higher than our bodies have evolved to deal with. for this reason, i think we probably require a lot more anti-oxidants in response to *our* ROS load, than did WAP's groups needed for theirs. they likely had more endogenous ROS - generated from physical activity, but i doubt the load, as a whole, was nearly as high as the ROS load many of us have as a result of food, water and air pollution. for that reason, a truckload of leafy greens might be indicated for american's with a high ROS load, but less so for someone living in a somewhat more pristine corner of the planet. (i'm not say switzerland is pristine - i have no idea what your xenobiotic load might be over there). anyway, just some thoughts on factors that may result in unique dietary needs for those of us living in industrialized nations. Suze Fisher Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/ mailto:s.fisher22@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2002 Report Share Posted September 22, 2002 Thanks, Martha. I updated my list. Kris > > > What's IIRC? I don't see it on our acronym list. > > IIRC = " If I recall correctly " > > > martha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2002 Report Share Posted September 22, 2002 Suze, I should keep my mouth shut if I'm too lazy to go look things up! According to my RDA book from 1974, " From their original function as a guide for advising " on nutrition problems in connection with national defense, " RDA have come to serve in other areas as a guide: for planning and procuring food supplies for population groups; for interpreting food consumption records; for establishing standards for public assistance programs; for evaluating the adequacy of food supplies in meeting national nutritional needs; for developing nutrition education programs; for the development of new products by industry; and for establishing guidelines for nutritional labeling of foods.... The Recommended Dietary Allowances are the levels of intake of essential nutrients considered, in the judgement of the Food and Nutrition Board on the basis of available scientific knowledge, to be adequate to meet the known nutritional needs of practically all healthy persons. " Maybe Liz has the latest version to compare with. Kris > The RDA's really weren't intended to tell an individual what his nutrient > requirements are, > > > ---------->then why are they called " Recommended Daily Allowance " ? Who are > they recommended for? and what's the newer version - RDI? recommended daily > intake? they're recommending a nutrient intake to *someone* aren't they? > > > since it was recognized that needs vary a lot. But they > enabled to government to evaluate the food supply for adequacy, > > > ------------->how could they possibly do that without know *what* foods in > *what combination* each of us is consuming daily? how could they know if the > foods *i* select daily contain the RDA for my gender and age group? > > Suze Fisher > Web Design & Development > http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/ > mailto:s.fisher22@... > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2005 Report Share Posted August 17, 2005 Jeff, Some of the original rat studies that were done in relation to CRON required vitamin supplimentation to achieve the extended lifeline. It was found that the typical rat or person if you will, can't maintain a restricted diet, and not be clinically deficient in some of the nutrients, and for the restricted diet, there was a need to exceed the RDA to achieve the extended lifeline. Don White Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2005 Report Share Posted August 17, 2005 Jeff, Some of the original rat studies that were done in relation to CRON required vitamin supplimentation to achieve the extended lifeline. It was found that the typical rat or person if you will, can't maintain a restricted diet, and not be clinically deficient in some of the nutrients, and for the restricted diet, there was a need to exceed the RDA to achieve the extended lifeline. Don White Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2005 Report Share Posted August 17, 2005 >> Some of the original rat studies that were done in relation to CRON required vitamin supplimentation to achieve the extended lifeline. This is an entirely seperate arguement than the earlier one. besides, what percent restriction were these rats on? There is published data on chimps/monkeys, that were followed around and the researchers tracked what they ate. These 15 lb chimps dietary intake of nutrients, far surpassed the RDAs for humans. I am included an article on the topic from a few years back. See below.. >>It was found that the typical rat or person if you will, can't maintain a restricted diet, and not be clinically deficient in some of the nutrients, and for the restricted diet, there was a need to exceed the RDA to achieve the extended lifeline. If you dont mind, i wont. first, I am not willing to extract the extreme rat studies to humans when we dont recommend the extreme. We also know that other aspects of the rat studies, while highly informative, dont directly apply to humans but only give us " insight " to consider. Second, it is very easy to far surpass the RDAs, on a CR-ON diet and i would much rather promote that, than the simple conclusion that we " must " supplment. What I find is the problem, is that people stray away from the principle of CR-ON and in evaluating food choices based on CR-ON philosophy, for whatever reason, usually mostly to support some personal idea of what an ideal diet is (zone, hi protein, hi fat, etc etc). But, when you evaluate food choices based on nutrients per calorie, and also calories per pound, its not hard to create an more optimal diet. To me, that is where I would want to direct my energies, cause once again, the data for supplements in humans, is very limited and or inconclusive, yet the data for nutrients for food, is more comprehensive and conclusive. Regards jeff Going Ape!! A article recently published in " Nutrition: The International Journal of Basic and Applied Nutritional Sciences " (1999; 15[6]:488-498), reports that the vegetarian diet of monkeys in the wild is far more nutritious than our own diets and far exceeds the government's recommended daily allowances (RDA) for humans. The suprising new study shows that monkeys are pickier eaters then humans and they easily find fruits and leafy foods that are far more nutritious than most of those in our supermarkets. Katharine Milton, a University of California anthropologist, studied the eating habits of four species of monkeys (Cebus, howler, spider and tamarin) that live in a research station maintained by the sonian Institution on Barro Colorado Island in Panama. Milton, who has been studying primates there for 25 years, tracked the monkeys through the forest of the Panamanian nature preserve, picking up the food they dropped or threw from the trees. By looking at the eating habits of these four species of monkeys (whose average weight was about 15 pounds) she discovered that the wild monkeys consumed about 600 milligrams of vitamin C per day, which is 10 times the RDA for a 150-pound human. For calcium, she found that the monkeys consumed 4,571 milligrams per day which is almost 6 times the human RDA of 800 milligrams. For potassium, the monkeys ate 6,419 milligrams, while humans consume from 1,600 to 2,000 milligrams per day. Besides consuming more then 3-10 times the vitamin C, calcium, and potassium than is recommended for an adult man 10 times larger then the monkeys, the monkeys also consumed far more magnesium, iron and phosphorous then most humans. The diet of these monkeys (which is also considered the common diet among monkeys and apes worldwide) consisted of berries, figs, grapes, palmfruits, plum-like fruits, and many different leaves. " We know people are not monkeys, and most people don't eat wild plants " says Milton. " But I was still surprised that their diet is so much more nutritious than our own. " The fruits that the monkeys ate contained higher levels of calcium, potassium and iron than the cultivated varieties found in American supermarkets. Milton also found that monkeys ate a high content of alpha-linolenic acid(the short chain omega-3 fatty acid), a nutrient that is lacking in the diets of most humans. Not only are wild varieties of fruits and leaves generally more nutritious than grocery store versions, but the monkeys also tended to eat the most nutritious parts, gobbling up, for instance, only the tip of a young, tender leaf and discarding the rest. " Young leaf tips have the same profile of essential amino acids as meat, although in lower concentrations. I had always assumed leafy material was deficient in some amino acids, but it is not, " she says. Although scientists don't really know how the monkeys do it, they apparently use smell to figure out which are the ultra-nutritious morsels, she says. " A monkey can sniff a wild leaf and know instantly if the leaf is worth eating. Even when they're hungry, they'll shun leaves they deem not to be worth their while. " Today, and throughout our history, humans have suffered from all sorts of diet-related disease. Milton suggests that if we pay more attention to what our wild primate relatives are eating, and studied these wild plants more closely, and the ability of primates to assimilate vitamins and minerals, perhaps we could learn more about our own dietary needs, reduce health problems and benefit people worldwide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2005 Report Share Posted August 17, 2005 >> Some of the original rat studies that were done in relation to CRON required vitamin supplimentation to achieve the extended lifeline. This is an entirely seperate arguement than the earlier one. besides, what percent restriction were these rats on? There is published data on chimps/monkeys, that were followed around and the researchers tracked what they ate. These 15 lb chimps dietary intake of nutrients, far surpassed the RDAs for humans. I am included an article on the topic from a few years back. See below.. >>It was found that the typical rat or person if you will, can't maintain a restricted diet, and not be clinically deficient in some of the nutrients, and for the restricted diet, there was a need to exceed the RDA to achieve the extended lifeline. If you dont mind, i wont. first, I am not willing to extract the extreme rat studies to humans when we dont recommend the extreme. We also know that other aspects of the rat studies, while highly informative, dont directly apply to humans but only give us " insight " to consider. Second, it is very easy to far surpass the RDAs, on a CR-ON diet and i would much rather promote that, than the simple conclusion that we " must " supplment. What I find is the problem, is that people stray away from the principle of CR-ON and in evaluating food choices based on CR-ON philosophy, for whatever reason, usually mostly to support some personal idea of what an ideal diet is (zone, hi protein, hi fat, etc etc). But, when you evaluate food choices based on nutrients per calorie, and also calories per pound, its not hard to create an more optimal diet. To me, that is where I would want to direct my energies, cause once again, the data for supplements in humans, is very limited and or inconclusive, yet the data for nutrients for food, is more comprehensive and conclusive. Regards jeff Going Ape!! A article recently published in " Nutrition: The International Journal of Basic and Applied Nutritional Sciences " (1999; 15[6]:488-498), reports that the vegetarian diet of monkeys in the wild is far more nutritious than our own diets and far exceeds the government's recommended daily allowances (RDA) for humans. The suprising new study shows that monkeys are pickier eaters then humans and they easily find fruits and leafy foods that are far more nutritious than most of those in our supermarkets. Katharine Milton, a University of California anthropologist, studied the eating habits of four species of monkeys (Cebus, howler, spider and tamarin) that live in a research station maintained by the sonian Institution on Barro Colorado Island in Panama. Milton, who has been studying primates there for 25 years, tracked the monkeys through the forest of the Panamanian nature preserve, picking up the food they dropped or threw from the trees. By looking at the eating habits of these four species of monkeys (whose average weight was about 15 pounds) she discovered that the wild monkeys consumed about 600 milligrams of vitamin C per day, which is 10 times the RDA for a 150-pound human. For calcium, she found that the monkeys consumed 4,571 milligrams per day which is almost 6 times the human RDA of 800 milligrams. For potassium, the monkeys ate 6,419 milligrams, while humans consume from 1,600 to 2,000 milligrams per day. Besides consuming more then 3-10 times the vitamin C, calcium, and potassium than is recommended for an adult man 10 times larger then the monkeys, the monkeys also consumed far more magnesium, iron and phosphorous then most humans. The diet of these monkeys (which is also considered the common diet among monkeys and apes worldwide) consisted of berries, figs, grapes, palmfruits, plum-like fruits, and many different leaves. " We know people are not monkeys, and most people don't eat wild plants " says Milton. " But I was still surprised that their diet is so much more nutritious than our own. " The fruits that the monkeys ate contained higher levels of calcium, potassium and iron than the cultivated varieties found in American supermarkets. Milton also found that monkeys ate a high content of alpha-linolenic acid(the short chain omega-3 fatty acid), a nutrient that is lacking in the diets of most humans. Not only are wild varieties of fruits and leaves generally more nutritious than grocery store versions, but the monkeys also tended to eat the most nutritious parts, gobbling up, for instance, only the tip of a young, tender leaf and discarding the rest. " Young leaf tips have the same profile of essential amino acids as meat, although in lower concentrations. I had always assumed leafy material was deficient in some amino acids, but it is not, " she says. Although scientists don't really know how the monkeys do it, they apparently use smell to figure out which are the ultra-nutritious morsels, she says. " A monkey can sniff a wild leaf and know instantly if the leaf is worth eating. Even when they're hungry, they'll shun leaves they deem not to be worth their while. " Today, and throughout our history, humans have suffered from all sorts of diet-related disease. Milton suggests that if we pay more attention to what our wild primate relatives are eating, and studied these wild plants more closely, and the ability of primates to assimilate vitamins and minerals, perhaps we could learn more about our own dietary needs, reduce health problems and benefit people worldwide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2005 Report Share Posted August 17, 2005 Hi All, As I understand the situation, CR via reduction of food without getting the same goodies as are in an ad lib diet is not good. Most CRers get the RDA. There is, in my view, no reason to exceed RDAs for CR effects. --- Don White <white69@...> wrote: > Jeff, > Some of the original rat studies that were done in relation to CRON > required > vitamin supplimentation to achieve the extended lifeline. It was found > that the > typical rat or person if you will, can't maintain a restricted diet, and > not be > clinically deficient in some of the nutrients, and for the restricted > diet, there > was a need to exceed the RDA to achieve the extended lifeline. > > Don White > Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@... ____________________________________________________ Start your day with - make it your home page http://www./r/hs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2005 Report Share Posted August 17, 2005 Hi All, As I understand the situation, CR via reduction of food without getting the same goodies as are in an ad lib diet is not good. Most CRers get the RDA. There is, in my view, no reason to exceed RDAs for CR effects. --- Don White <white69@...> wrote: > Jeff, > Some of the original rat studies that were done in relation to CRON > required > vitamin supplimentation to achieve the extended lifeline. It was found > that the > typical rat or person if you will, can't maintain a restricted diet, and > not be > clinically deficient in some of the nutrients, and for the restricted > diet, there > was a need to exceed the RDA to achieve the extended lifeline. > > Don White > Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@... ____________________________________________________ Start your day with - make it your home page http://www./r/hs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2005 Report Share Posted August 17, 2005 Jeff, Two things, first, I agree with your efforts to maximize nutrient per calorie. With my schedule, it is difficult to do. Second, I wish I could eat like the Apes in the study. The study doesn't speak of the other nutrients that we are dependent upon. I also refer back to my earlier statement concerning RDA's. I think I would be supremely healthy if I could live like an Ape, instead of just looking like one. I supplement. I have yearly indepth blood screenings for HAZMAT, and my three pages of results are better if I do, than if I don't. Interesting point is that among the things checked is Arsenic. We aren't supposed to eat fish for a week before the blood draws. I eat fish, specifically salmon, a couple of times per week to as much as 5 times or so. I don't fish fast per their instructions. My Arsenic levels are almost non-existant, as well as some of the other readings that eating contaminated fish would indicate. So the store bought fish that I eat can't be too bad. Don White Seguin, Tx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2005 Report Share Posted August 17, 2005 Jeff, Two things, first, I agree with your efforts to maximize nutrient per calorie. With my schedule, it is difficult to do. Second, I wish I could eat like the Apes in the study. The study doesn't speak of the other nutrients that we are dependent upon. I also refer back to my earlier statement concerning RDA's. I think I would be supremely healthy if I could live like an Ape, instead of just looking like one. I supplement. I have yearly indepth blood screenings for HAZMAT, and my three pages of results are better if I do, than if I don't. Interesting point is that among the things checked is Arsenic. We aren't supposed to eat fish for a week before the blood draws. I eat fish, specifically salmon, a couple of times per week to as much as 5 times or so. I don't fish fast per their instructions. My Arsenic levels are almost non-existant, as well as some of the other readings that eating contaminated fish would indicate. So the store bought fish that I eat can't be too bad. Don White Seguin, Tx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.