Nourishing Traditions by Sally Fallon

[Guest guest]

Eventually people just fall apart if they don't die of cancer, heart disease

etc. My mother who died at almost 98 didn t have any afflications. She

just got frailer over a period of months and then stopped eating. This is

another common way that people die. Dying happens inevitably even if

there's no disease; CR just postpones it.

on 8/14/2003 6:33 PM, Gifford at gifford@... wrote:

>> What do these Inuit people die of, though?

>> Perhaps it's environmental factors and such?

>

> Now? Suicide, cancer, heart disease... My point was that they had no

> reduction in the aging process due to ketosis (*very* low carb diets). A

> diet with good fat content may help stabilize blood sugar, insulin response,

> and could lead a host of general health benefits, but it won't make you live

> longer than normal. That nutrition and disease prevention, not maximum

> life-span extension.

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

I'm not aware of any alternate day feedings studies where CR mice ate the

same as ad lib mice with regard to total calorie intake for both days

(though perhaps they did eat just as much on the days they actually ate,

which is still 50% CR) where the maximum lifespan extension effect was

found...

Insulin is definitely a factor, but it's not the whole picture. Try taking

a look at Walford's _Beyond the 120 Year Diet_, which has a good overview of

the literature.

Cheers,

> -----Original Message-----

> From: paultheo2000 [mailto:paultheo2000@...]

> Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 5:36 PM

>

> Subject: [ ] Re: Nourishing Traditions by Sally Fallon

>

>

> But mice fed only every second day had the very same benefits and they

> ate the same as mice ad lib.

>

> What did Inuit people die of previously? Perhaps they didn't actually

> live longer (due to environmental factors, I really have no idea) but

> they had the potential to live longer.

>

> Thanks for the info, cheers!

>

> -

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

The study in question was, IIRC:

1.) Ad lib mice die young

2.) CR mice live longer

3.) Fasting/Feasting mice live as long as CR mice even though they

compensate by eating double on days when they do eat thus not being

calorically restricted at all!

I'm definitely trying to get a hold of Walford's book. Pity

interlibrary loan isn't yielding anything.

-

[Guest guest]

I went looking on google and found this...

http://www.gene.ch/genet/2003/Jan/msg00100.html

-Zulu

[Guest guest]

The fasting study:

http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/906310.asp?cp1=1

-

[Guest guest]

Andy: thanks for your impressive insights. Also we DO have some evidence

that this works on humans. We have the Okinawans. See our " links " section

for Okinawan studies.

on 8/15/2003 12:36 AM, Andy at endofthedream@... wrote:

> However, if the overarching goal is to extend one's lifespan so that

> one can be functionally capable well into his/her 80's and 90's, from

> all that I have read and studied, it seems that the CRON diet is the

> only one that has persistent and consistent success with EVERY

> species it was tested on.

[Guest guest]

Hi :

You wrote:>Whole, non pasteurized milk is extremely healthy she says and backs this up with data from various tribes around the world (research by Weston Price, mainly). Pasteurized milk, she says, has killed away all the beneficial enzymes in milk and most of the nutrition. Her suggestions are to get raw milk if possible and if not, get milk that is NOT ultra-pasteurized or homogenized and NOT skim milk.

I believe her recommendation to eat raw milk may be suspect. At the very least there seems to be dissent among the scientific community about this point. Take a look:

"Meaningful differences in nutritional value between pasteurized and unpasteurized milk have not been demonstrated, and other purported benefits of raw milk consumption have not been substantiated. Conversely, the role of unpasteurized dairy products in the transmission of infectious diseases has been established repeatedly. To effectively counsel patients attracted by the health claims made for raw milk, practicing physicians must understand both the rationale used by proponents of raw milk and the magnitude of the risk involved in drinking raw milk" [1].

"Unpasteurized milk is an important vehicle for transmission of pathogens including Campylobacter spp., Brucella spp., Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (e.g., E. coli O157), Corynebacterium diphtheriae, Salmonella spp. (including multidrug-resistant strains), Mycobacterium bovis, and Listeria monocytogenes... Persons who drink unpasteurized milk and milk products might believe that these products taste better, provide greater nutrition than pasteurized products, and/or decrease the risk for various medical conditions. However, the benefits of consuming unpasteurized milk and milk products have never been validated scientifically" [2].

- It's another matter of "he said, she said," who are you going to believe, the mainstream scientific community or a few radicals of the bunch? My advice is to proceed with caution. Until these supposed health benefits can be irrefutably demonstrated to the rest of the scientific community (i.e. other researchers, PhD's), and that the benefits outweigh the risks, I'd suggest that you proceed with caution and take some comfort in knowing that you have forgone a few potential benefits (which may or may not really exist, i.e. hold up to scientific scrutiny) for a little extra security against infectious diseases (which is a very real concern).

Take Care,

Mark

Sources:[1] JAMA. 1984 Oct 19;252(15):2048-52. Unpasteurized milk. The hazards of a health fetish.Potter ME, Kaufmann AF, Blake PA, Feldman RA.PMID: 6481912

[2] "Outbreak of Campylobacter jejuni infections." _Medscape_. 15 Aug. 2003 <http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/437381_2>.

[Guest guest]

Isn't it possible that the way Okinawins eat affects their health

instead of how much they eat? In any case, I think CR works but

perhaps only because it's tied to another factor.

-

> Andy: thanks for your impressive insights. Also we DO have some

evidence

> that this works on humans. We have the Okinawans. See our " links "

section

> for Okinawan studies.

[Guest guest]

Hi again,

The reason why modern animals contain saturated fat is because they

are now fed grains. That should tell us something. From what I've

read, it's true that saturated fat is a relatively new phenomenon.

Fallon doesn't base her arguments on ancient evolutionary themes but

more modern primitive societies.

" Basically, I think there is SUBSTANTIAL evidence that having a low

level of body fat is HIGHLY protective against cardiovascular disease

as well as cancer. "

Agreed. But fat does not make you fat. I've seen a study where people

fed 1200 calories on a low fat diet (something walford would suggest)

lost 3X LESS calories than those eating 50% more (1800 calories) on a

high fat diet! Obviously, a calorie is NOT a calorie, which I think

changes everything...

" Again, there have been studies done in this area ~ please

> don't ask me to quote them!! :-)) ~ which have convinced me that her

> argument is not correct. That it is something in the nature of sat

> fat which is basically unhealthful when eaten in sufficient quantity.

> Perhaps this is because hormones and pesticides reside in the fatty

> tissue and when we consume fatty flesh, we consume more of those

> nasty toxic substances? "

You read my mind. ;-) She also specifies that the fat should come from

organic, unrefined (no pasteurization, homogenization) sources. One

quirky piece of anecdotal evidence she mentioned and I found

interesting was the low cholesterol levels of a man who ate 24 eggs a

day (6000mg of cholesterol) and was 88 and in good health. I'm also

going to read 'The Cholesterol Myths' but I'm already convinced that

the anti saturated fat/cholesterol propaganda is false.

" *****No disagreement here: we NEED saturated fat. The only questions

are (1) how much is required for optimal health and ( is more than

than that amount in some way or ways injurious to health? And the

jury is CLEARLY still out on definitive answers to these questions "

It's also a question of opportunity cost. Everyone agrees about

vegetables, fruit and fish (not everyone, but anyway), mono fat. Then

you've got grains or sat fat to get the rest of your calories.

Currently I think sat fat is a better alternative to most grains.

Your eating habits are quite similar to what Fallon suggests,

actually. Do you soak your grains overnight?

Thanks for the info about the Insulin index; it's definitely something

to take into consideration.

" *****Perhaps not. BOTH mechanisms may work well. The fact that one

> is effective doesn't rule out another " technique " for achieving the

> same goal. Why assume there is only a single " correct " answer.

> There very well may be multiple " avenues " for achieving both health

> and longevity. Many of us adopt, quite unconsciously, a mindframe

> which says " either-or. " Another part of the " religion " of health and

> nutrition: creating a belief system impervious to attack and built on

> a need for certainty and security. Arising from a (quite human)

> desire to have the " one and correct " answer (and everyone else is

> wrong). I'm not suggesting that *you* are doing this; just

> commenting on a human predliction towards this need for security

> (what religions are based on). "

Oh, I'm not disputing that CR works. What I'm disputing is that the

action of limiting calories is what causes increased lifespan. This

study illustrates the contrary. I think I might feel more comfortable

with alternated fasting and more fats in my diet...and if it offers

the same benefits then why should I stick to CR? I guess what I'm

saying is that perhaps there are more options out there which might

suit people better.

" *****Again, it may be that CR is ONE solution. Not the ONLY one,

however. "

I see we agree then. Seems like Walford doesn't, from this book " The

Anti Aging Plan "

" *****Yes, there are lots of unanswered questions out there (as you

> just posed). From all that I have read/researched, I fall into the

> Walford camp. Low sat fat, mild fat intake (no more than 20% cal)

> and HIGH ingestion of low-density fruits and vegetables (which supply

> a plethora of vitamins, minerals, and micro-nutrients) along with

> moderate amounts of UNrefined whole grains (that require substantial

> chewing: e.g., whole oat groats as opposed to oatmeal). "

I obviously don't have the background you do being a layman in this

area, but what I've read leads me to the opposite conclusion

concerning sat fats vs. grains. Do you have any literature to recommend?

------

As an aside, I'm finding Walford's book The Anti Aging Plan a major

dissapointment. Probably because I've just read Fallon's book. I'd

recommend to anyone that they read both these books as they're

practically polar opposites. You get both sides of the story. But I

know I find one side more convincing than the other.

What I really don't understand is that he advocates things like Canola

oil and Sesame seed oil over butter?? That seems like a ludicrous

proposition. He's basically fallen into the fat-phobia trap. He even

recommends buying no cholesterol cookies (god knows what kind of junk

is in there!). Not to mention powdered milk. 2 eggs per week?? I also

don't like the entire notion of over analyzing mega meals. How about

this: take some fish or meat, add a ton of vegetables, olive

oil/butter/flax oil, some fermented milk or whole grains and then eat

a piece of fruit every meal while snacking on a few nuts and dried

fruits? Seems a lot simpler to me. There's a complete analysis about

nutrients in each meal without taking into account that:

1.) Many foods have phytic acids in them if not fermented

2.) Some foods disrupt absorption of vitamins and minerals. For

example, the B vitamins you're getting from non-meat sources are not

really as good.

3.) Vitamin and mineral interactions.

4.) You won't absorb any minerals/vitamins without sufficient fat present!

Overall Walford's book is feeling like a major dissapointment. My

uneducated feeling is that if Fallon and Walford were to debate it

publically she would come out on top. Perhaps I'm not justified in

feeling this way, but that's my gut feeling.

Cheers all!

-

[Guest guest]

Ultrapasturized milk may be the really healthy way to go:

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/08/08/Consumers/Crohns_030808

>From: " Mark S " <senorsuave@...>

>Reply-

>< >

>Subject: [ ] Re: Nourishing Traditions by Sally Fallon

>Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 09:13:58 -0800

>

>Hi :

>

>You wrote:

> >Whole, non pasteurized milk is extremely healthy she says and backs this

>up with data from various tribes around the world (research by Weston

>Price, mainly). Pasteurized milk, she says, has killed away all the

>beneficial enzymes in milk and most of the nutrition. Her suggestions are

>to get raw milk if possible and if not, get milk that is NOT

>ultra-pasteurized or homogenized and NOT skim milk.

>

>I believe her recommendation to eat raw milk may be suspect. At the very

>least there seems to be dissent among the scientific community about this

>point. Take a look:

>

> " Meaningful differences in nutritional value between pasteurized and

>unpasteurized milk have not been demonstrated, and other purported benefits

>of raw milk consumption have not been substantiated. Conversely, the role

>of unpasteurized dairy products in the transmission of infectious diseases

>has been established repeatedly. To effectively counsel patients attracted

>by the health claims made for raw milk, practicing physicians must

>understand both the rationale used by proponents of raw milk and the

>magnitude of the risk involved in drinking raw milk " [1].

>

> " Unpasteurized milk is an important vehicle for transmission of pathogens

>including Campylobacter spp., Brucella spp., Shiga toxin-producing

>Escherichia coli (e.g., E. coli O157), Corynebacterium diphtheriae,

>Salmonella spp. (including multidrug-resistant strains), Mycobacterium

>bovis, and Listeria monocytogenes... Persons who drink unpasteurized milk

>and milk products might believe that these products taste better, provide

>greater nutrition than pasteurized products, and/or decrease the risk for

>various medical conditions. However, the benefits of consuming

>unpasteurized milk and milk products have never been validated

>scientifically " [2].

>

>- It's another matter of " he said, she said, " who are you going to believe,

>the mainstream scientific community or a few radicals of the bunch? My

>advice is to proceed with caution. Until these supposed health benefits

>can be irrefutably demonstrated to the rest of the scientific community

>(i.e. other researchers, PhD's), and that the benefits outweigh the risks,

>I'd suggest that you proceed with caution and take some comfort in knowing

>that you have forgone a few potential benefits (which may or may not really

>exist, i.e. hold up to scientific scrutiny) for a little extra security

>against infectious diseases (which is a very real concern).

>

>Take Care,

>

>Mark

>

>Sources:

>[1] JAMA. 1984 Oct 19;252(15):2048-52.

>Unpasteurized milk. The hazards of a health fetish.

>Potter ME, Kaufmann AF, Blake PA, Feldman RA.

>PMID: 6481912

>

>[2] " Outbreak of Campylobacter jejuni infections. " _Medscape_. 15 Aug. 2003

><http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/437381_2>.

_________________________________________________________________

Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.

http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

[Guest guest]

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the information, although like you said it's someone's word

versus another. I'm still inclined to side with the raw milk camp.

In this CR group we often point to the success of the Okinawins. What

about all the primitive socities that lived off raw milk without any

problems? I would not at all be surprised that heating milk at

hundreds of degrees celcius would be dangerous. Even Mel Siff

advocated against pasteurized milk. I think this is an area where the

tide is turning. Milk has no shown to offer little to not benefits in

terms of osteoporosis (scary thought, IMHO), probably because the

vitamins in milk which aid calcium absorption have been destroyed.

I personally don't favor listening to the common orthodoxy which has

declared the benefits of breads and pastas, vegetable oils and

hydrogenated margarines.

I've seen many studies already illustrating the benefits of raw milk.

It should be reminded that there is a risk of disease but this would

be limited if proper measures were taken.

I guess the only way to resolve it is to actually examine all the

evidence, and I'd be interesting in having a look at any studies

you've seen.

Like every other layman, I read the info and take the best educated

guess I can make.

Cheers,

-

[Guest guest]

http://www.dolfzine.com/page185.htm

-

> Ultrapasturized milk may be the really healthy way to go:

>

> http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/08/08/Consumers/Crohns_030808

>

>

> >From: " Mark S " <senorsuave@h...>

[Guest guest]

Probably best to avoid milk altogether. Unpasteurized is a documented health

risk; pasteurized might be. Why mess with the stuff. As Arnold said in

Pumping Iron, the Movie, " I don't drink milk. Milk is for babies. I drink

beer! " Gets my vote!

>From: " paultheo2000 " <paultheo2000@...>

>Reply-

>

>Subject: [ ] Re: Nourishing Traditions by Sally Fallon

>Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 18:09:30 -0000

>

>http://www.dolfzine.com/page185.htm

>

>-

>

>

> > Ultrapasturized milk may be the really healthy way to go:

> >

> > http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/08/08/Consumers/Crohns_030808

> >

> >

> > >From: " Mark S " <senorsuave@h...>

>

>

_________________________________________________________________

The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*

http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

[Guest guest]

Is there any evidence that unpasteurized raw milk is dangerous if

necessary sanitary precautions are taken?

-

> > > Ultrapasturized milk may be the really healthy way to go:

> > >

> > > http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/08/08/Consumers/Crohns_030808

> > >

> > >

> > > >From: " Mark S " <senorsuave@h...>

> >

> >

>

> _________________________________________________________________

> The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*

> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

[Guest guest]

Hi,

" What did cows eat before? Pasture fed beef, mutton & poultry are not

very hard to find... "

" But fat does not make you fat.--->

Calories do. "

Why is it that coconut oil actually makes you lose weight by

increasing your basal metabolism? Calories is not the only thing to

consider. I must tell you that from what I have read you are

incorrect. You will probably lose weight eating 5000 cals of broccoli

but gain weight eating 3000 cals from sugar. It hasn't only to do with

fiber, but thermic effect, effect on basal metabolism, source of

energy used, insulin response, etc, etc.

"

> Were the eggs raw, lightly cooked, or hard boiled? This degree to

which the

> yolk is cooked *greatly* alters the bioavailability of cholesterol... "

Boiled. But the point is that dietary cholesterol is not a bad thing.

"

> Grains are not the be all end all, but what do you mean we only have

" grains

> or sat fat " after veg/fruit/fish/mono fat? What about carbs, protein,

> etc... "

1.) Sat fat sources have protein usually. Fish has protein.

2.) Carbs are not necessary.

I've not read the most recent books by Walford, yet, unfortunately.

I'm hoping they're more poignant than 'The Anti-Aging Plan'

Cheers,

-

[Guest guest]

There are plenty of studies on that issue on pubmed. I'll have a look

to see if I can find it again.

Well, the egg thing was just anecdotal evidence. There are loads of

evidence which show that dietary cholesterol has no negative health

side effects.

It has nothing to do with being rebel, and I take offence to that

statement. I'd say the whole idea of calorie restriction is very

controversial amongst conventional doctors. I'm just looking at the

evidence like every one else. I'm not in the business of convincing

you or converting you; what you do is your problem.

-

> My uneducated feeling is that if Fallon and Walford were to debate it

> publically she would come out on top.

>

> Sounds like you're more a rebel type, cause Fallon is far more a

rebel than

> Walford is! So, you should focus now on more traditional " hard

science " and

> seriously check it against Fallon's more radical ideas. Until you

take the

> time to verify in a serious way, you'll just be a rebel camper in

Fallon's

> camp. JMHO. YMMV.

>

>

>

>

>

>

> .

[Guest guest]

Gandhi, the studies I quoted illustrated the opposite. I'm aware of

the positive correlatoin between calorie restriction and a lengthened

lifespan.

-

> > Well, I've been doing a lot of thinking and I'm no longer sure about

> > anything. It seems that ~insulin~ is the common denominator, not

> > calories consumed. The tests on mice and monkeys are done with

> > unnatural foods and experiments with GM mice have shown insulin to be

> > the key determinant of health.

> :

> What *really* matters are the Calories!

> This works at the full range of nature, from unicelular to

pluricelular.

> From rats, gumpies and monkes (and humans).

> Be sure to count the calories (only).

> Do you have a precision ballance?

> This is a good investiment for your whole life.

> I would sugest you buy one. I have one at my house that weight in the

> range 0-3000 g. It costed R$ 220,00 ($ 73,00 at USA). You weight

> what you eat and use DWIDP or other nutrition software (like DietPower)

> to calculate the calories and nutrients).

>

> >

> > So I'm not sure anymore. CR does work, but perhaps only because it's

> > cutting carbs. I don't know what to think currently. I'd be pretty

>

> What maters in the release of insulin (specially IGF-1 and IGFBP) are

> the calories, calories, calories (mantra). These two molecules

controls

> aging (the binding of IGF-1 to IGF-1R is suposed to acelerate aging).

> Other homones (GH, T, Cortisol) are mediated by CR. Of course

> hormonal regulation do not makes sense for unicelular (they don't have

> glads). In the unicelular the only thing that maters are the calories

> consumed by

> the cell: in protozoa the molarity of glucose in of water solution

is the

> determinant

> of their longevity. So keep your eyes open. Another thing that

> influences

> longevity is body temp. CR decreases body temp from 37 to 36. ONLY

> CALORIC RESTRICTION is able to do this. In other words this is not

> obtained by restriction of fat, proteins or carbs. 1 C decreases

leads to

> 10% increase in life because of Arrhenius Equation. So beyond mediating

> insulin, CR acts in ** ALL ** aging process.

> Hope to this helps to clarify things to you.

>

> -- Gandhi.

[Guest guest]

Documented cases of transmission of infectious organisms have occurred due

to the ingestion of unpasteurized milk. Obviously, whatever sanitary

precautions were taken in those cases were not sufficient. Perhaps there may

be a safe way to provide unpasteurized milk, but I wouldn't feel safe doing

so. As I have stated, I'd rather just not drink milk at all. I don't see a

compelling reason to drink it.

>From: " paultheo2000 " <paultheo2000@...>

>Reply-

>

>Subject: [ ] Re: Nourishing Traditions by Sally Fallon

>Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 23:03:02 -0000

>

>Is there any evidence that unpasteurized raw milk is dangerous if

>necessary sanitary precautions are taken?

>

>-

>

>

> > > > Ultrapasturized milk may be the really healthy way to go:

> > > >

> > > > http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/08/08/Consumers/Crohns_030808

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >From: " Mark S " <senorsuave@h...>

> > >

> > >

> >

> > _________________________________________________________________

> > The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*

> > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

>

_________________________________________________________________

Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*

http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

[Guest guest]

The enzymes in it, are apparantly very beneficial.

-

> > > > > Ultrapasturized milk may be the really healthy way to go:

> > > > >

> > > > > http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/08/08/Consumers/Crohns_030808

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >From: " Mark S " <senorsuave@h...>

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > _________________________________________________________________

> > > The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*

> > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

> >

>

> _________________________________________________________________

> Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*

> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

[Guest guest]

Which enzymes?

>From: " paultheo2000 " <paultheo2000@...>

>Reply-

>

>Subject: [ ] Re: Nourishing Traditions by Sally Fallon

>Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 23:41:32 -0000

>

>The enzymes in it, are apparantly very beneficial.

>

>-

>

>

> > > > > > Ultrapasturized milk may be the really healthy way to go:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/08/08/Consumers/Crohns_030808

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > >From: " Mark S " <senorsuave@h...>

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > _________________________________________________________________

> > > > The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*

> > > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

> > >

> >

> > _________________________________________________________________

> > Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*

> > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

>

_________________________________________________________________

MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.

http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

[Guest guest]

I'm afraid I can't tell you what enzymes, but I suggest you read

Fallon's book...it's a good read.

-

> > > > > > > Ultrapasturized milk may be the really healthy way to go:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/08/08/Consumers/Crohns_030808

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >From: " Mark S " <senorsuave@h...>

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

_________________________________________________________________

> > > > > The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*

> > > > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

> > > >

> > >

> > > _________________________________________________________________

> > > Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*

> > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

> >

>

> _________________________________________________________________

> MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.

> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

[Guest guest]

Yeah, I'll have to check it out. Meanwhile, I'm still avoiding milk. Some

more food for thought links below:

http://www.notmilk.com/kradjian.html

http://www.notmilk.com/

>From: " paultheo2000 " <paultheo2000@...>

>Reply-

>

>Subject: [ ] Re: Nourishing Traditions by Sally Fallon

>Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 00:04:24 -0000

>

>I'm afraid I can't tell you what enzymes, but I suggest you read

>Fallon's book...it's a good read.

>

>-

>

>

> > > > > > > > Ultrapasturized milk may be the really healthy way to go:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/08/08/Consumers/Crohns_030808

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >From: " Mark S " <senorsuave@h...>

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

>_________________________________________________________________

> > > > > > The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*

> > > > > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > _________________________________________________________________

> > > > Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*

> > > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

> > >

> >

> > _________________________________________________________________

> > MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.

> > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

>

_________________________________________________________________

Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.

http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

[Guest guest]

Thanks, I'll have a look at those links.

-

> > > > > > > > > Ultrapasturized milk may be the really healthy way

to go:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/08/08/Consumers/Crohns_030808

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >From: " Mark S " <senorsuave@h...>

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> >_________________________________________________________________

> > > > > > > The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2

months FREE*

> > > > > > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

_________________________________________________________________

> > > > > Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*

> > > > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

> > > >

> > >

> > > _________________________________________________________________

> > > MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.

> > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

> >

>

> _________________________________________________________________

> Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.

> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail