Re: Re: Tracking Diet

[Guest guest]

I would ask you the same question. Products such as you mentioned are designed to make someone (else) wealthy, not to make you healthy :-)) Don’t fall for the nonsensical claims they make.

From: Rodney <perspect1111@...>

Reply-< >

Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 01:52:35 -0000

< >

Subject: [ ] Re: Tracking Diet

Incidentally, why would you be eating these weird things? ; ^ )))

[Guest guest]

Hi Adam

The numbers on Chlorella are misleading at best. The reason why is the

numbers you give (and they tout) are percentages based on dry weight

analysis and the numbers are given based on 100 grams. However, most

people do not consume more than a gram or two, maybe 3-4 at most. So,

while 60% protein may sound great, 60% of even 4 grams is just 2.4

grams of protein. And, the fact that is has 203 mgs of calcium per 100

grams sounds great, but no one is going to consume 100 grams. If you

consume 4 grams you are only getting in 8 mgs of calcium. The same goes

for virtually all the other nutrients listed. In addition, if I do the

analysis on a cost basis, it is an extremely expensive way to get any

nutrient.

In 2005, the FDA ordered Dr Mercola and his Optimal Wellness Center to

stop making illegal claims for Chlorella, which he claimed to fight

cancer and normalize blood pressure.

In regard to B12, even the vegan community does not recognize Chlorella

as a reliable source of B12.

http://www.veganhealth.org/b12/plant#chlorella

In regard to Spelt, it is in the wheat family and still contains gluten.

Maybe less that whole wheat but it still contains a significant amount.

Anyone who is gluten intolerant can not consume spelt. However, there

are many gluten free whole grains that are readily available and

inexpensive such as those based on rice and/or corn.

In regard to Bee Pollen there is really no true evidence supporting its

benefit but just the opposite.

Steben RE, Boudroux P. The effects of pollen and pollen extracts on

selected blood factors and performance of athletes. Journal of Sports

Medicine and Physical Fitness 18:271-278, 1978.

Larkin T. Bee pollen as a health food. FDA Consumer 18(3):21 22, 1984.

Maughan RJ, SP. Effects of pollen extract upon adolescent

swimmers. British Journal of Sports Medicine 16:142-145, 1982.

And it is associated with several cases of serious allergic reactions

including asthma, hives, neurologic and gastrointestinal reactions and

anaphylaxis

Thien FC and others. Asthma and anaphylaxis induced by royal jelly.

Clinical and Experimental Allergy 26:216-222, 1996.

Shaw D and others. Traditional remedies and food supplements. A 5-year

toxicological study (1991-1995). Drug Safety 17:342-356, 1997.

Prichard M, KJ. Acute hypersensitivity to ingested processed

pollen. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Medicine 15:346-347, 1985.

Yonei Y and others. Case report: Haemorrhagic colitis associated with

royal jelly intake. Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology

12:495-499, 1997.

Geyman JP. Anaphylactic reaction after ingestion of bee pollen. Journal

of the American Board of Family Practice 7:250-252, 1994.

Mansfield LE, Goldstein GB. Anaphylactic reaction after ingestion of

local bee pollen. ls of Allergy 47:154-156, 1981.

Lombardi C and others. Allergic reactions to honey and royal jelly and

their relationship with sensitization to compositae. Allergologia et

Immunopathologia 26:288-290, 1998.

Leung R and others. Royal jelly consumption and hypersensitivity in the

community. Clinical and Experimental Allergy 27:333-336, 1997.

Lin FL and others. Hypereosinophilia, neurologic, and gastrointestinal

symptoms after bee pollen ingestion. Journal of Allergy and Clinical

Immunology 83:793-796, 1989.

Puente S and others. Eosinophilic gastroenteritis caused by bee pollen

sensitization. Medicina Clinica 108:698-700, 1997.

Cohen SH, Yunginger JW, Rosenberg N, et al. Acute allergic reaction

after composite pollen ingestion. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1979;64:270-274.

Geyman JP. Anaphylactic reaction after ingestion of bee pollen. J Am

Board Fam Pract. 1994;7:250-252.

Fortunately CR-ON can be practiced optimally without any of the above 3

mentioned misleading and overly priced (and hyped) products. In fact, I

would not recommend these products to anyone who was interested in

optimal nutrition.

Regards

Jeff

[Guest guest]

I might add that one of the studies Adam posted was based on a sample of only 35 people. Studies of large numbers of subjects are needed to be able to assess any true benefits.

But even so, as Jeff posted here recently, one does not need to micro-manage nutrients or buy/take expensive supplements to live long and healthy (perhaps with rare exceptions such as Vit D in northern latitudes). If someone can dig up that post, (within the last 6 months IIRC) that would be helpful to this discussion. It involved centenarians who upon physical examination and despite some deficiencies were healthy and enjoying life.

We do appreciate, Adam, your trouble of digging up all those studies you posted.

From: Novick <jnovickrd@...>

Reply-< >

Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 10:58:38 -0400

< >

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: Tracking Diet

Hi Adam

The numbers on Chlorella are misleading at best. The reason why is the

numbers you give (and they tout) are percentages based on dry weight

analysis and the numbers are given based on 100 grams. However, most

people do not consume more than a gram or two, maybe 3-4 at most. So,

while 60% protein may sound great, 60% of even 4 grams is just 2.4

grams of protein. And, the fact that is has 203 mgs of calcium per 100

grams sounds great, but no one is going to consume 100 grams. If you

consume 4 grams you are only getting in 8 mgs of calcium. The same goes

for virtually all the other nutrients listed. In addition, if I do the

analysis on a cost basis, it is an extremely expensive way to get any

nutrient.

In 2005, the FDA ordered Dr Mercola and his Optimal Wellness Center to

stop making illegal claims for Chlorella, which he claimed to fight

cancer and normalize blood pressure.

In regard to B12, even the vegan community does not recognize Chlorella

as a reliable source of B12.

http://www.veganhealth.org/b12/plant#chlorella

In regard to Spelt, it is in the wheat family and still contains gluten.

Maybe less that whole wheat but it still contains a significant amount.

Anyone who is gluten intolerant can not consume spelt. However, there

are many gluten free whole grains that are readily available and

inexpensive such as those based on rice and/or corn.

In regard to Bee Pollen there is really no true evidence supporting its

benefit but just the opposite.

Steben RE, Boudroux P. The effects of pollen and pollen extracts on

selected blood factors and performance of athletes. Journal of Sports

Medicine and Physical Fitness 18:271-278, 1978.

Larkin T. Bee pollen as a health food. FDA Consumer 18(3):21 22, 1984.

Maughan RJ, SP. Effects of pollen extract upon adolescent

swimmers. British Journal of Sports Medicine 16:142-145, 1982.

And it is associated with several cases of serious allergic reactions

including asthma, hives, neurologic and gastrointestinal reactions and

anaphylaxis

Thien FC and others. Asthma and anaphylaxis induced by royal jelly.

Clinical and Experimental Allergy 26:216-222, 1996.

Shaw D and others. Traditional remedies and food supplements. A 5-year

toxicological study (1991-1995). Drug Safety 17:342-356, 1997.

Prichard M, KJ. Acute hypersensitivity to ingested processed

pollen. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Medicine 15:346-347, 1985.

Yonei Y and others. Case report: Haemorrhagic colitis associated with

royal jelly intake. Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology

12:495-499, 1997.

Geyman JP. Anaphylactic reaction after ingestion of bee pollen. Journal

of the American Board of Family Practice 7:250-252, 1994.

Mansfield LE, Goldstein GB. Anaphylactic reaction after ingestion of

local bee pollen. ls of Allergy 47:154-156, 1981.

Lombardi C and others. Allergic reactions to honey and royal jelly and

their relationship with sensitization to compositae. Allergologia et

Immunopathologia 26:288-290, 1998.

Leung R and others. Royal jelly consumption and hypersensitivity in the

community. Clinical and Experimental Allergy 27:333-336, 1997.

Lin FL and others. Hypereosinophilia, neurologic, and gastrointestinal

symptoms after bee pollen ingestion. Journal of Allergy and Clinical

Immunology 83:793-796, 1989.

Puente S and others. Eosinophilic gastroenteritis caused by bee pollen

sensitization. Medicina Clinica 108:698-700, 1997.

Cohen SH, Yunginger JW, Rosenberg N, et al. Acute allergic reaction

after composite pollen ingestion. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1979;64:270-274.

Geyman JP. Anaphylactic reaction after ingestion of bee pollen. J Am

Board Fam Pract. 1994;7:250-252.

Fortunately CR-ON can be practiced optimally without any of the above 3

mentioned misleading and overly priced (and hyped) products. In fact, I

would not recommend these products to anyone who was interested in

optimal nutrition.

Regards

Jeff

[Guest guest]

See Message #27065 for Jeff’s post that I am referencing below. Or

/message/27065

From: Francesca Skelton <fskelton@...>

Reply-< >

Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 11:45:48 -0400

support group < >

Conversation: [ ] Re: Tracking Diet

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: Tracking Diet

I might add that one of the studies Adam posted was based on a sample of only 35 people. Studies of large numbers of subjects are needed to be able to assess any true benefits.

But even so, as Jeff posted here recently, one does not need to micro-manage nutrients or buy/take expensive supplements to live long and healthy (perhaps with rare exceptions such as Vit D in northern latitudes). If someone can dig up that post, (within the last 6 months IIRC) that would be helpful to this discussion. It involved centenarians who upon physical examination and despite some deficiencies were healthy and enjoying life.

We do appreciate, Adam, your trouble of digging up all those studies you posted.

From: Novick <jnovickrd@...>

Reply-< >

Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 10:58:38 -0400

< >

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: Tracking Diet

Hi Adam

The numbers on Chlorella are misleading at best. The reason why is the

numbers you give (and they tout) are percentages based on dry weight

analysis and the numbers are given based on 100 grams. However, most

people do not consume more than a gram or two, maybe 3-4 at most. So,

while 60% protein may sound great, 60% of even 4 grams is just 2.4

grams of protein. And, the fact that is has 203 mgs of calcium per 100

grams sounds great, but no one is going to consume 100 grams. If you

consume 4 grams you are only getting in 8 mgs of calcium. The same goes

for virtually all the other nutrients listed. In addition, if I do the

analysis on a cost basis, it is an extremely expensive way to get any

nutrient.

In 2005, the FDA ordered Dr Mercola and his Optimal Wellness Center to

stop making illegal claims for Chlorella, which he claimed to fight

cancer and normalize blood pressure.

In regard to B12, even the vegan community does not recognize Chlorella

as a reliable source of B12.

http://www.veganhealth.org/b12/plant#chlorella

In regard to Spelt, it is in the wheat family and still contains gluten.

Maybe less that whole wheat but it still contains a significant amount.

Anyone who is gluten intolerant can not consume spelt. However, there

are many gluten free whole grains that are readily available and

inexpensive such as those based on rice and/or corn.

In regard to Bee Pollen there is really no true evidence supporting its

benefit but just the opposite.

Steben RE, Boudroux P. The effects of pollen and pollen extracts on

selected blood factors and performance of athletes. Journal of Sports

Medicine and Physical Fitness 18:271-278, 1978.

Larkin T. Bee pollen as a health food. FDA Consumer 18(3):21 22, 1984.

Maughan RJ, SP. Effects of pollen extract upon adolescent

swimmers. British Journal of Sports Medicine 16:142-145, 1982.

And it is associated with several cases of serious allergic reactions

including asthma, hives, neurologic and gastrointestinal reactions and

anaphylaxis

Thien FC and others. Asthma and anaphylaxis induced by royal jelly.

Clinical and Experimental Allergy 26:216-222, 1996.

Shaw D and others. Traditional remedies and food supplements. A 5-year

toxicological study (1991-1995). Drug Safety 17:342-356, 1997.

Prichard M, KJ. Acute hypersensitivity to ingested processed

pollen. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Medicine 15:346-347, 1985.

Yonei Y and others. Case report: Haemorrhagic colitis associated with

royal jelly intake. Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology

12:495-499, 1997.

Geyman JP. Anaphylactic reaction after ingestion of bee pollen. Journal

of the American Board of Family Practice 7:250-252, 1994.

Mansfield LE, Goldstein GB. Anaphylactic reaction after ingestion of

local bee pollen. ls of Allergy 47:154-156, 1981.

Lombardi C and others. Allergic reactions to honey and royal jelly and

their relationship with sensitization to compositae. Allergologia et

Immunopathologia 26:288-290, 1998.

Leung R and others. Royal jelly consumption and hypersensitivity in the

community. Clinical and Experimental Allergy 27:333-336, 1997.

Lin FL and others. Hypereosinophilia, neurologic, and gastrointestinal

symptoms after bee pollen ingestion. Journal of Allergy and Clinical

Immunology 83:793-796, 1989.

Puente S and others. Eosinophilic gastroenteritis caused by bee pollen

sensitization. Medicina Clinica 108:698-700, 1997.

Cohen SH, Yunginger JW, Rosenberg N, et al. Acute allergic reaction

after composite pollen ingestion. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1979;64:270-274.

Geyman JP. Anaphylactic reaction after ingestion of bee pollen. J Am

Board Fam Pract. 1994;7:250-252.

Fortunately CR-ON can be practiced optimally without any of the above 3

mentioned misleading and overly priced (and hyped) products. In fact, I

would not recommend these products to anyone who was interested in

optimal nutrition.

Regards

Jeff

[Guest guest]

A " food " is generally defined as something that can sustain life and provide the

needed energy and nutrients/substance.

In regard to energy or calories, our primary need, 1 gm of chlorella provides 5

calories. To supply 1800 calories I would need 360 grams. At $75 for 250

grams, I would have to spend around $150 to get my calories. That's $4500 a

month. A poor and VERY expensive choice.

I regard to protein & essential amino acids, another important and essential

nutrient, 1 gram of chlorella supplies around .7 grams of protein. To meet the

RDA of 55 grams, I would need 78 grams which would cost me around $25. That's

$750 a month. A poor and expensive choice. Many CRONies think they need and

take in more protein so the cost would be more expensive.

The last I checked I could eat real food and supply all my nutrients @ 1800

calories for around $6-8 dollars. It is probably slightly higher in this

economy now.

If you want, I can choose other supplements & easily beat all the prices you

posted for chlorella but it is not a fair comparison as we are not comparing

real foods.

Chlorella is not a " food " . It is a supplement and is sold as a supplement. If

someone chooses to use it as such, that is fine but it is not a " food " The

supplement industry is poorly regulated at best & we have no guarantee of

quantity or quality on what we buy.

BTW, have you ever tried to consume 360 grams let alone 75 grams of chlorella??

That's like 375 to 1800 " pills " . The " food " I eat and recommend does not come

in " pills " .

The primary clinical reason for avoiding wheat is gluten. However, regardless

of that issue, Spelt is in the wheat family & would not be recommended for

anyone having to avoid wheat. While it is being marketed unfortunately by food

companies as being safe for wheat allergies, as someone who works with this in a

clinical setting, I can assure you that people with wheat allergies react to

spelt. All allergists & allergy organizations will tell you the same.

These are novelties at best and unlike real foods, are expensive and unnecessary

and IMHO take the focus off the true principles of CR-ON and how to optimize

nutrients while reducing calories from real " food " .

Regards

Jeff

[Guest guest]

If I might ask Adam: how/why did you start taking these supplements you’re referring to? On whose advice and on what books/articles? That might help us to determine more about them.

For example you mentioned Mercola in one of your posts; and as Jeff said, he’s being investigated for false claims; we here at CR Support Group don’t put any stock in him either.

From: Jeff Novick <jnovickrd@...>

Reply-< >

Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 15:03:27 -0400

< >

Subject: RE: [ ] Re: Tracking Diet

A " food " is generally defined as something that can sustain life and provide the needed energy and nutrients/substance.

In regard to energy or calories, our primary need, 1 gm of chlorella provides 5 calories. To supply 1800 calories I would need 360 grams. At $75 for 250 grams, I would have to spend around $150 to get my calories. That's $4500 a month. A poor and VERY expensive choice.

I regard to protein & essential amino acids, another important and essential nutrient, 1 gram of chlorella supplies around .7 grams of protein. To meet the RDA of 55 grams, I would need 78 grams which would cost me around $25. That's $750 a month. A poor and expensive choice. Many CRONies think they need and take in more protein so the cost would be more expensive.

The last I checked I could eat real food and supply all my nutrients @ 1800 calories for around $6-8 dollars. It is probably slightly higher in this economy now.

If you want, I can choose other supplements & easily beat all the prices you posted for chlorella but it is not a fair comparison as we are not comparing real foods.

Chlorella is not a " food " . It is a supplement and is sold as a supplement. If someone chooses to use it as such, that is fine but it is not a " food " The supplement industry is poorly regulated at best & we have no guarantee of quantity or quality on what we buy.

BTW, have you ever tried to consume 360 grams let alone 75 grams of chlorella?? That's like 375 to 1800 " pills " . The " food " I eat and recommend does not come in " pills " .

The primary clinical reason for avoiding wheat is gluten. However, regardless of that issue, Spelt is in the wheat family & would not be recommended for anyone having to avoid wheat. While it is being marketed unfortunately by food companies as being safe for wheat allergies, as someone who works with this in a clinical setting, I can assure you that people with wheat allergies react to spelt. All allergists & allergy organizations will tell you the same.

These are novelties at best and unlike real foods, are expensive and unnecessary and IMHO take the focus off the true principles of CR-ON and how to optimize nutrients while reducing calories from real " food " .

Regards

Jeff

[Guest guest]

Just because a supplement is pimped by Mercola doesn't guarantee that it's bad. That's just a money thang. :-)I would ask a different question. What are your expectations from eating this? Is this a crucial component in covering your daily nutrient intake or just some extra good stuff under the premise that more good stuff is better?If it does no harm and you are getting an otherwise complete diet, no harm no foul. It's too expensive to get fat on, and Mercola needs to eat too.I am not inclined to search for some obscure nectar of the gods, or magical foods. The magic if any seems to be in balance and moderation, especially in the less is more kind of energy intake moderation.One final question for the OP. do you personally perceive (feel) some benefit from consuming this, other than peace of mind? Of course mental serenity is good as long as you have tagged all your nutrition bases and this is just a little something-something extra. JR  On Jun 2, 2008, at 2:53 PM, Francesca Skelton wrote:If I might ask Adam: how/why did you start taking these supplements you’re referring to?  On whose advice and on what books/articles?  That might help us to determine more about them.For example you mentioned Mercola in one of your posts; and as Jeff said, he’s being investigated for false claims;  we here at CR Support Group don’t put any stock in him either.From: Jeff Novick <jnovickrd >Reply-To: < >Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 15:03:27 -0400To: < >Subject: RE: [ ] Re: Tracking Diet Messages in this topic (11)Reply (via web post) | Start a new topicMessages | Files | Photos | Database | MembersMARKETPLACEBlockbuster is giving away a free trial of Blockbuster Total Access to smart movie lovers like you. Change settings via the Web ( ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional Visit Your Group |  Terms of Use | UnsubscribeRECENT ACTIVITY12New MembersVisit Your GroupMeditation andLovingkindnessA Groupto share and learn. HealthEarly DetectionKnow the symptomsof breast cancer.Family PhotosLearn how to bestcapture yourfamily moments.. 

[Guest guest]

Thanks Jeff,

Just a thought, has anyone ever considered say eating one of the

" superfoods " (those that can afford it) and do a blood test to check

elevated enzymes?

I'm thinking it might be a good way for the individual to check the effects.

Regards

RE: [ ] Re: Tracking Diet

A " food " is generally defined as something that can sustain life and provide

the needed energy and nutrients/substance.

In regard to energy or calories, our primary need, 1 gm of chlorella

provides 5 calories. To supply 1800 calories I would need 360 grams. At $75

for 250 grams, I would have to spend around $150 to get my calories. That's

$4500 a month. A poor and VERY expensive choice.

I regard to protein & essential amino acids, another important and essential

nutrient, 1 gram of chlorella supplies around .7 grams of protein. To meet

the RDA of 55 grams, I would need 78 grams which would cost me around $25.

That's $750 a month. A poor and expensive choice. Many CRONies think they

need and take in more protein so the cost would be more expensive.

The last I checked I could eat real food and supply all my nutrients @ 1800

calories for around $6-8 dollars. It is probably slightly higher in this

economy now.

If you want, I can choose other supplements & easily beat all the prices you

posted for chlorella but it is not a fair comparison as we are not comparing

real foods.

Chlorella is not a " food " . It is a supplement and is sold as a supplement.

If someone chooses to use it as such, that is fine but it is not a " food "

The supplement industry is poorly regulated at best & we have no guarantee

of quantity or quality on what we buy.

BTW, have you ever tried to consume 360 grams let alone 75 grams of

chlorella?? That's like 375 to 1800 " pills " . The " food " I eat and recommend

does not come in " pills " .

The primary clinical reason for avoiding wheat is gluten. However,

regardless of that issue, Spelt is in the wheat family & would not be

recommended for anyone having to avoid wheat. While it is being marketed

unfortunately by food companies as being safe for wheat allergies, as

someone who works with this in a clinical setting, I can assure you that

people with wheat allergies react to spelt. All allergists & allergy

organizations will tell you the same.

These are novelties at best and unlike real foods, are expensive and

unnecessary and IMHO take the focus off the true principles of CR-ON and how

to optimize nutrients while reducing calories from real " food " .

Regards

Jeff

[Guest guest]

Hello Adam: I notice my query below has gone unanswered. And although JR doesn’t care where you first heard about these supplements, I (and perhaps others) would be interested. I am always searching for new/better ways to improve my health and if I could be convinced, might add these items to my regimen.

You can respond off-list if you’d rather. Of course no response is also “a response”.

Thanks in advance.

From: Francesca Skelton <fskelton@...>

Reply-< >

Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:53:04 -0400

support group < >

Conversation: [ ] Re: Tracking Diet

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: Tracking Diet

If I might ask Adam: how/why did you start taking these supplements you’re referring to? On whose advice and on what books/articles? That might help us to determine more about them.

For example you mentioned Mercola in one of your posts; and as Jeff said, he’s being investigated for false claims; we here at CR Support Group don’t put any stock in him either.

From: Jeff Novick <jnovickrd@...>

Reply-< >

Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 15:03:27 -0400

< >

Subject: RE: [ ] Re: Tracking Diet

A " food " is generally defined as something that can sustain life and provide the needed energy and nutrients/substance.

In regard to energy or calories, our primary need, 1 gm of chlorella provides 5 calories. To supply 1800 calories I would need 360 grams. At $75 for 250 grams, I would have to spend around $150 to get my calories. That's $4500 a month. A poor and VERY expensive choice.

I regard to protein & essential amino acids, another important and essential nutrient, 1 gram of chlorella supplies around .7 grams of protein. To meet the RDA of 55 grams, I would need 78 grams which would cost me around $25. That's $750 a month. A poor and expensive choice. Many CRONies think they need and take in more protein so the cost would be more expensive.

The last I checked I could eat real food and supply all my nutrients @ 1800 calories for around $6-8 dollars. It is probably slightly higher in this economy now.

If you want, I can choose other supplements & easily beat all the prices you posted for chlorella but it is not a fair comparison as we are not comparing real foods.

Chlorella is not a " food " . It is a supplement and is sold as a supplement. If someone chooses to use it as such, that is fine but it is not a " food " The supplement industry is poorly regulated at best & we have no guarantee of quantity or quality on what we buy.

BTW, have you ever tried to consume 360 grams let alone 75 grams of chlorella?? That's like 375 to 1800 " pills " . The " food " I eat and recommend does not come in " pills " .

The primary clinical reason for avoiding wheat is gluten. However, regardless of that issue, Spelt is in the wheat family & would not be recommended for anyone having to avoid wheat. While it is being marketed unfortunately by food companies as being safe for wheat allergies, as someone who works with this in a clinical setting, I can assure you that people with wheat allergies react to spelt. All allergists & allergy organizations will tell you the same.

These are novelties at best and unlike real foods, are expensive and unnecessary and IMHO take the focus off the true principles of CR-ON and how to optimize nutrients while reducing calories from real " food " .

Regards

Jeff

[Guest guest]

Adam

I am glad to see that the change you made away from wheat has helped

your headaches, however you probably could have had the same results

without the inclusion of Spelt if you just eliminated wheat and/or

switched to rice, or corn. So, while you may have chosen to include

Spelt, it is not necessary or required in anyones diet, nor is it a

unique food in anyway (outside of the marketing it is receiving). There

is no unique form or combination or nutrients in it. And, because of

its marketing, it is more expensive than other wheat and gluten free grains.

In regard to your experiment (of a n=1), of which I respect, I would be

curious as to the form you consumed the wheat in when you reacted and if

you react to any other gluten containing foods. Can you consume rye,

oats or barley without headaches? Wheat can also have molds on it that

people react to.

I think many of us today are confused about the definition of food,

mostly because of the influence of food companies and supplements

companies that are trying to sell us their wares for profit. While we

may disagree and may say some of this is semantics, a food really needs

to be something that can safely contribute a considerable amount of our

energy and nutrient needs (together), be palatable, taste great, be

economic, etc etc In addition, IMHO (which may be way off-base), foods

for CR-ON should also be low in calorie density, and high in satiety (so

we can eat lots of it and not go hungry) and also high in nutrient

density (so we get lots of nutrients for those few calories). Bee

pollen and Chlorella fail these guidelines.

Ginger is not a food. It is a condiment and/or a spice. Sugar is not a

food but more of a " sweetener " (and/or condiment) and at best (or worst)

a junk food, and just like junk science is not real science, junk food

is not real food. Same with French Fries. Nori is also more of a

condiment as no one is going to try and get a substantial amount of

their calories from nori. It may be " edible " but I would not consider

nori a real food. More of a condiment. Something we consume in small

amounts to add flavor, texture, to our food.

Yesterday I was at the Green Cay Nature preserve in S Florida.

http://www.pbcgov.com/parks/nature/green_cay_nature_center/

Around all the water beds, which were full of turtles, birds, snakes,

and even alligators, there was algae growing. Until the recent

marketing of these algae as " Super foods, " i always referred to this as

" pond scum " and in no way ever found it attractive, appetizing or

desirable. Because someone has now chosen to freeze dry it and stick

it in capsules and sell it as a super food (because of legal loopholes

and poorly regular industries), does not make it a food, let alone a

super food. Also, many forms of algae can produce powerful toxins

and other forms can be contaminated. Fortunately, because of the way

they are grown, Chlorella and Spirulina appear to be toxin free.

There is no such thing as a " whole food supplement " outside of the

marketing creation of the supplement world. It was a clever marketing

response a while back as people tried to move away from junk food and to

more whole foods (Apples instead of apple pie) that the supplement

industry invented. Now, you could get your " whole foods " in pills!

Something is a food, or it is a supplement. When I take fruits and

vegetables and dry them out and grind them up and stick them in a pill

(ie, juice plus), is this now a food or a supplement, or a whole food

supplement. Whole means whole. The FDA does not recognize it as a food

and it is sold, like Algae, as a supplement.

Now, in regard to B12 you said...

>>>> " BTY the article you referred to about B12 in chlorella was

interesting and educational (thank you for the reference) but it

states plainly in the conclusion that the results were inconclusive and

further study would need to be done to see it is a valid source of B12

or not. "

I think you have the proverbial " cart " before the proverbial " horse " . A

vegan (or someone looking for a reliable source of B12) would need to

know a proven reliable source of B12, not an item that would need

further study to see if it is. Many vegans have had problems in the

past because they counted on foods that made similar claims and turned

out not to be true. We should err on the side of caution, not

marketing. And, as I said, none of the vegan leaders (MDs, PhDs, RDs,

researchers) recommend Chlorella as a reliable source of active B12. If

one day it turns out to proven to be so, then I would stand with you on

it. But, it would be recommended as a " supplement " and not a " food. "

My same comment apply to bee pollen. There are many substances that

have nutrients in them, but this does not make them food. Tobacco and

coca leaves are nutrient rich, but no one would consider tobacco or coca

leaves foods. Nor is this what CR-ON is about.

Unless, somehow, the leading researchers, and scientists in the CRON

field (And the long lived populations) just missed this issue over the

last few decades.

Welcome to the group!

Regards

jeff

adamdrapkin wrote:

>

> Jeff,

>

> I'm not sure on the technical definition of " food " but as far as I

> know ginger, nori (seaweed), sugar, and Mc's french fries (and

> I could list hundreds of others) are considered foods, but they would

> not " sustain life and provide the needed energy and nutrients/substance. "

>

> No one is discussing mono-dieting, especially not on a supplement.

>

> The reason chlorella is considered to be a food is because it is an

> edible algea that grows in nature. It is not fabricated in a

> laboratory like most vitamins that we buy. It is, as you say, a

> supplement, but it's a " whole food supplement "

>

> I used to get low-grade headaches that interfered with my

> ability to think. Someone suggested it may be an allergy. I did

> an allergy elimination diet and found out that I reacted to wheat. I

> switched to spelt and rye and the symptoms went away. When I would

> eat wheat the symptoms would return. No peer-reviewed double-blind

> study, or allergist's opinion can change my experience.

>

> I understand clearly that you believe " These are novelties at best and

> unlike real foods, are expensive and unnecessary " but that is

> opinion, not science.

>

> Adam

>

>

[Guest guest]

The source is important. Walford starts his book (our bible here) by stating his credentials. Why listen to a source that is not well known or respected by the scientific establishment when with the internet at our disposal we can heed the advice of giants? The names I am thinking of are: Walford, Pritiken, Ornish and the like whose credentials are impeccable.

But even more important -I have never heard of Dr Klinghardt, but upon seeing your post I went to his website. He has a link to products he sells, one of which is Chlorella. That excludes him from a credible source as far as I am concerned (since he has a conflict of interest - namely enriching himself).

From: adamdrapkin <adamd@...>

Reply-< >

Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 21:41:26 -0000

< >

Subject: [ ] Re: Tracking Diet

Francesca,

I'm not sure why the source that I learned about chlorella from has

any bearing, but since you are interested, it was originally from

Dietrich Klinghardt, MD, PhD. I have learned more about it from other

books, including Healing With Whole Foods: Oriental Traditions and

Modern Nutrition: by Pitchford and various other sources. In

case you're wondering, and since you brought up his name in another

post, I started using chlorella before I knew that Dr. Mercola existed.

I have no idea where first heard of bee pollen.

Hope that helps you and good luck improving your health.

sincerely,

Adam

>

> Hello Adam: I notice my query below has gone unanswered. And

although JR

> doesn’t care where you first heard about these supplements, I (and

perhaps

> others) would be interested. I am always searching for new/better

ways to

> improve my health and if I could be convinced, might add these items

to my

> regimen.

>

> You can respond off-list if you’d rather. Of course no response is

also “a

> response”.

>

> Thanks in advance.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Touche..When investigating the credibility of specific claims about anything, seeing a commercial interest is always a red flag that there may be distortions or bias on the part of the observer due to self interest. I even see self interest in posts here when people look for reinforcement of their personal guesses or choices.Walford encouraged suspicion of reporter bias for any number of reasons.I think I've said before, having a commercial interest is not definitive proof that claims are fallacious  only reason we should be suspicious. If that is the only supporting claim(s) for a supplement or food.Vetting health claims and supplements is difficult.Good luck, I suspect you underestimate the difficulty of sorting the wheat from the chaff.JR On Jun 4, 2008, at 11:05 PM, adamdrapkin wrote:Dr. Pritiken sells food (not cheap mind you) books, cd's and sessionsat his institute. Dr walford sells books and software. By your owncriterea they are no longer credible sources. At least we still haveDr. Ornish.Cheers,Adam> >> > Hello Adam: I notice my query below has gone unanswered. And> although JR> > doesn¹t care where you first heard about these supplements, I (and> perhaps> > others) would be interested. I am always searching for new/better> ways to> > improve my health and if I could be convinced, might add these items> to my> > regimen. > > > > You can respond off-list if you¹d rather. Of course no response is> also ³a> > response².> > > > Thanks in advance.> > > > > >>

[Guest guest]

I would agree that a commercial interest does not always make the

information suspect, but in most cases it does.The exceptions are far

and few between.

In fact, most major health professionals including the AMA, ADA, APA etc

have formal positions on the " ethics " of the sale of products and/or

supplements. Most all recommended against it. There is not only a

conflict of interest but a huge potential to take advantage for the

health professional to take advantage of their position of power. The

main point it makes is that it discourages all sales except that a MD,

if they do recommend a product (i.e., Vit D) that it is OK to recommend

where to get the product for the best price. (i.e Costco) Or, if they

do make it available for sale, they should do it as a service and offer

it and the lowest possible price (even for cost), and have full

disclosure of their financial arrangements available if requested. I

am happy to post the AMA one if anyone is interested.

But, I see a different and bigger issue in this discussion. Neither

the program recommended by Walford or Pritikin (who was not a doctor)

were " dependent " on any of the products or foods they sold. Both

recommended a program where you could get all you needed at the local

grocery store. Their products were not required in order to follow

their recommendations and guidelines. Often , they were just offered as

a convenience.

Yet, many of these products being sold (i.e. Chlorella, Bee Pollen, etc)

but these other organizations are the " key " or a " key " ingredient to the

following their recommendations and guidelines.

Regards

Jeff

wrote:

>

> Touche..

>

>

> When investigating the credibility of specific claims about anything,

> seeing a commercial interest is always a red flag that there may be

> distortions or bias on the part of the observer due to self interest.

> I even see self interest in posts here when people look for

> reinforcement of their personal guesses or choices.

>

> Walford encouraged suspicion of reporter bias for any number of reasons.

>

> I think I've said before, having a commercial interest is not

> definitive proof that claims are fallacious only reason we should be

> suspicious. If that is the only supporting claim(s) for a supplement

> or food.

>

> Vetting health claims and supplements is difficult.

>

> Good luck, I suspect you underestimate the difficulty of sorting the

> wheat from the chaff.

>

> JR

>

>

>

>

>

>

> On Jun 4, 2008, at 11:05 PM, adamdrapkin wrote:

>

>> Dr. Pritiken sells food (not cheap mind you) books, cd's and sessions

>> at his institute. Dr walford sells books and software. By your own

>> criterea they are no longer credible sources. At least we still have

>> Dr. Ornish.

>>

>> Cheers,

>> Adam

>>

>>

>> > >

>> > > Hello Adam: I notice my query below has gone unanswered. And

>> > although JR

>> > > doesn¹t care where you first heard about these supplements, I (and

>> > perhaps

>> > > others) would be interested. I am always searching for new/better

>> > ways to

>> > > improve my health and if I could be convinced, might add these items

>> > to my

>> > > regimen.

>> > >

>> > > You can respond off-list if you¹d rather. Of course no response is

>> > also ³a

>> > > response².

>> > >

>> > > Thanks in advance.

>> > >

>> > >

>> > >

>> >

>>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I agree that Adam has a point. Thank you Adam for pointing that out.

But.........Pritikin and Walford are also leaders in the field of nutrition. Dr Klinghardt from what I can see is a pain management specialist.

So let’s say I needed medical advice about my heart or an open heart surgery operation. Should I seek the advice and services of a top heart surgeon, well known in the field, like a Dr. Debakey or a Dr Dean Ornish ? Or should I seek someone whose specialty was in a different area?

To me the answer seems clear. But as the french say “ to each his own”.

From: Novick <jnovickrd@...>

Reply-< >

Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 10:06:33 -0400

< >

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: Tracking Diet

I would agree that a commercial interest does not always make the

information suspect, but in most cases it does.The exceptions are far

and few between.

In fact, most major health professionals including the AMA, ADA, APA etc

have formal positions on the " ethics " of the sale of products and/or

supplements. Most all recommended against it. There is not only a

conflict of interest but a huge potential to take advantage for the

health professional to take advantage of their position of power. The

main point it makes is that it discourages all sales except that a MD,

if they do recommend a product (i.e., Vit D) that it is OK to recommend

where to get the product for the best price. (i.e Costco) Or, if they

do make it available for sale, they should do it as a service and offer

it and the lowest possible price (even for cost), and have full

disclosure of their financial arrangements available if requested. I

am happy to post the AMA one if anyone is interested.

But, I see a different and bigger issue in this discussion. Neither

the program recommended by Walford or Pritikin (who was not a doctor)

were " dependent " on any of the products or foods they sold. Both

recommended a program where you could get all you needed at the local

grocery store. Their products were not required in order to follow

their recommendations and guidelines. Often , they were just offered as

a convenience.

Yet, many of these products being sold (i.e. Chlorella, Bee Pollen, etc)

but these other organizations are the " key " or a " key " ingredient to the

following their recommendations and guidelines.

Regards

Jeff

wrote:

>

> Touche..

>

>

> When investigating the credibility of specific claims about anything,

> seeing a commercial interest is always a red flag that there may be

> distortions or bias on the part of the observer due to self interest.

> I even see self interest in posts here when people look for

> reinforcement of their personal guesses or choices.

>

> Walford encouraged suspicion of reporter bias for any number of reasons.

>

> I think I've said before, having a commercial interest is not

> definitive proof that claims are fallacious only reason we should be

> suspicious. If that is the only supporting claim(s) for a supplement

> or food.

>

> Vetting health claims and supplements is difficult.

>

> Good luck, I suspect you underestimate the difficulty of sorting the

> wheat from the chaff.

>

> JR

>

>

>

>

>

>

> On Jun 4, 2008, at 11:05 PM, adamdrapkin wrote:

>

>> Dr. Pritiken sells food (not cheap mind you) books, cd's and sessions

>> at his institute. Dr walford sells books and software. By your own

>> criterea they are no longer credible sources. At least we still have

>> Dr. Ornish.

>>

>> Cheers,

>> Adam

>>

>>

>> > >

>> > > Hello Adam: I notice my query below has gone unanswered. And

>> > although JR

>> > > doesn’t care where you first heard about these supplements, I (and

>> > perhaps

>> > > others) would be interested. I am always searching for new/better

>> > ways to

>> > > improve my health and if I could be convinced, might add these items

>> > to my

>> > > regimen.

>> > >

>> > > You can respond off-list if you’d rather. Of course no response is

>> > also “a

>> > > response”.

>> > >

>> > > Thanks in advance.

>> > >

>> > >

>> > >

>> >

>>

>

>