nutrition and physical degeneration (was: Heidi's hierarchy/low-nutrient diets)

[Guest guest]

I'm re-titling this thread since it's morphing into a discussion about

exactly what the subject line says.

> Heidi's hierarchy/low-nutrient diets/was Re: Holy Organic

>

>

>@@@@@@@@@ Suze:

>> I don't disagree with your breakdown. But I was making the point

>that the

>> cow on low brix grass and the SAD dieter are both on low nutrient

>diets.

>> Which is true. And they will both suffer health consequences as a

>result.

>> When you break it down into all the different *types* of low

>nutrient diets

>> that you've outlined (the gray areas) I agree that that the

>> species-appropriate low quality diets are MORE comparable. But

>still, in a

>> broader sense, all the low nutrient diets will result in negative

>health

>> effects ultimately.

>@@@@@@@@@@@

>

>I don't think low-nutrient diets entail health problems,

Huh?

Low nutrient-diets, below a certain level, most certainly do entail health

problems. For example, too little of this or that nutrient that's required

for function " x " or function " y " and " x " and " y " stop functioning properly,

ergo - health problems. I'm sure I don't need to mention the volume of

research that shows such. Further, poorly nourished (low brix) plants are

highly prone to health problems, (pests, uptaking toxic elements where

essential elements are missing, susceptible to diseases, etc) and high brix

(well nourished) plants are pest-resistant, disease-resistant and produce

excellent yields. What makes you think mammals are any different?

And what do you define as a low nutrient diet? When I use that term I'm

talking about one that doesn't contain sufficient nutrients to maintain

long-term health (I thought I'd mentioned that in a previous post?). SAD

certainly fits into this category as well as a " species-appropriate " low

nutrient diet.

and that the

>health problems due to SAD are not just from low nutrient-density,

>but rather actively harmful aspects, like refined sugars (giving

>hormonal imbalances), trans fats (giving omega 3 deficiencies),

>toxins, etc.

No doubt these things do harm, but a well-nourished body is far better

equipped to effectively deal with them and may prevent some of these things

from being absorbed in the first place. Case in point and a reiteration of

what I wrote above:

" high-brix food grown in toxic-laden soil will have LESS pesticide than

low-brix Holy Organic food grown in pristine pesticide-free soil. " (From the

post that started this thread

/message/51694)

WOW! Think about that for a minute....and apply it to mammals...

According to Dr. Andersen (soil scientist, soil consultant) there is a

direct correlation between the health of a plant and the insect, disease and

weed pressure - the healthier it is, the less the pressure. I think the same

goes for mammals (and I believe there is evidence of this as well, aside

from Price's work) - the better nourished we are, the more resistant we are

to disease and to taking up toxins. I think Andy Cutler talks about mercury

and other toxic elements taking the place of essential elements in the human

body WHEN those essential elements are missing (just as in Andersen's plant

example).

So, on a low nutrient diet you are more likely to take up toxins and less

likely to ward of disease.

As Chi is fond of saying, we should be far more worried about what's NOT in

our food (nutrients) than what's in it (toxins).

A low-nutrient diet

>might just give " enough " nutrients, and that might be all that

>matters.

Enough nutrients for what? Disease-prevention? These are gray areas we're

talking about then. You need to *define* what you mean when you say

" low-nutrient diet " . Otherwise we are talking around each other.

I think once you get enough nutrients to ward off disease, then just like

plants, the diet at that point is nutrient-rich/high brix. Low brix plants

have much greater disease and pest pressure as noted above, I don't see why

low brix humans or cows would be any different.

A major variable would be caloric intake. A high-calorie

>diet (i.e. physically active person) with low nutrient-density can

>give the same amount of net nutrients as a low-calorie diet with high

>nutrient-density.

Then it's no longer a *low* nutrient diet since the person or cow is eating

more and thus getting much more nutrition from the larger quantity of food.

This is a similar idea to what Heidi said about

>cows eating so darn much grass they get what they need from it even

>if it's low-quality grass.

Right, but again, there's a quantitative and qualitative difference between

a low quality grass diet in which the animal is not getting enough nutrients

to be disease-resistant as opposed to eating enough to ward off disease.

It's no longer a low-nutrient *diet* when the cow eats large portions of

low-nutrient *grass* - enough to ward off disease, in any case.

To me, the logic behind eating HA is to

>stack the odds in my favor. I don't believe my quality of health

>will be proportional to the quality of my diet beyond some threshold

>of nutritional adequacy, but the simple fact is that we don't know

>what this threshold is, so it's sensible to eat the highest quality

>diet possible.

That threshold IS known for plants, though. Not every last one, but those

that soil scientists such as Andersen, Reams and several others have been

working with for decades. And again, I think the plant situation is

analogous to ours. Of course we don't know what our precise threshold is,

but I think it's clearly evident that that threshold is well above a

" low-nutrient " diet (by most definitions). Which again, is what Price taught

us.

(Plus, my diet is not high-calorie, so nutrient-

>density is logically more relevant to me.) In practice, tons of

>organisms from ours and other species eat subpar diets with no health

>consequences.

What evidence do you have of this?

Needless to say, health is only partially determined

>by nutrition, other determinants including genetics, environmental

>toxicity, accidents/luck (not just " getting hit by a truck " types,

>but consider the existence of subcellular accidents and microscopic

>indeterminancy), etc.

Several of these things you listed are *impacted* by nutrition, both the

individual's and the mother's. Genetic expression is influenced by

nutrition, as noted above toxicity is impacted by nutrition, subcellular

" accidents " are impacted by nutrition. So when you say " health is

only_partially determined by nutrition " I would counter that it's rather

*substantially* affected by nutrition, just as it is with plants. You can't

expect to grow a healthy plant in unhealthy soil, so " only partially

determined by nutrition " to me is a gross underrating of the impact of

nutrition on health.

So I dispute Suze's viewpoint and suggest that

>it collapses an important distinction between " mediocre but good

>enough " and " dangerous " diets.

Then you are also disputing Weston Price and his thesis in " Nutrition and

Physical Degeneration " since the thesis was that nutrient-dense diets

sustain vibrantly healthy bodies and prevent degeneration, whereas

low-nutrient diets do not. The book wasn't titled " Toxins and Physical

Degeneration " after all. It was the lack_of_nutrients that Price ascribed to

the degeneration of the tribal/village members who displaced their more

nutrient-dense foods with " the foods of modern commerce " . True, these

imported foods likely had other ill effects as you noted above, (especially

since the diets became low-nutrient enough that disease couldn't be warded

off) but that's not what Price attributed to the people's degeneration, and

in his subsequent research he found that it was indeed the lack of nutrients

responsible for degeneration (ie; mission kids, pigs and vit. A, etc).

AND you are disputing what is already known about the effects of a low

nutrient diet on plants - including those on a " species-appropriate " diet!

BTW, I never used terms like " mediocre but good enough " and " dangerous " . You

are projecting what you *think* I meant by " low-nutrient diet " and arguing

against a strawman, it seems to me. If you were unclear by what I meant by

" low nutrient diet " I think this email should clear it up! :-)

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------