Protein

[Guest guest]

Alot of ladies at my work almost castrated me when i todl them to

stop eating carbs and up the fat and protein.

All these women are overweight adn are always snacking on itmes

simply because they are 0 fat. I say what about the sugar. They say

oh thats just burned off.

I would like to know where.!

So in saying that get em to dump teh pasta, potatoes.

But do this gradually. not like instantly. work up to it.

--- In @y..., Carol & Ron Monzillo <monzillo@r...>

wrote:

>

> I was talking to my neighbor about diets this afternoon, trying

to

> convince him that its all the lowfat hi-carbs in our diet that are

> making us fat. He claims that we eat way more protein than other

> countries and that is why. What is the correct answer to this? Do

we

> eat more protein? I would argue we eat more carbs than other

countries.

> Anyone have any info on this?

>

> Carol

[Guest guest]

At 09:14 PM 6/1/2002 -0400, you wrote:

> I was talking to my neighbor about diets this afternoon, trying to

>convince him that its all the lowfat hi-carbs in our diet that are

>making us fat. He claims that we eat way more protein than other

>countries and that is why. What is the correct answer to this? Do we

>eat more protein? I would argue we eat more carbs than other countries.

>Anyone have any info on this?

>

>Carol

>

A statistic just released by the USDA this week said the US consumes more

meat per person than any other country. But we also eat more carbs. We eat

more of everything.

This is my theory: I shop in what would be called a " health food store "

for lack of a better definition. It is called Henry's Marketplace. They

have meat, fish, produce, fruits, nuts, vegetables, some of it organic. The

also have their own brand of sprouted grain bread and big vitamin

department, fresh raw honey and bee pollen. Stuff you won't find in the

major supermarkets. Of course they have a of vegetarian stuff too,

including Dean Ornish frozen veggie burgers. This store is small so it

does not have everything. BUT, this store was a Safeway Supermarket just 15

years ago. The Safeway moved across the street to a new larger store,

nearly twice as big, then became a Von's. 8 Months ago the Von's moved

again back across the street but a half block west to an to an even larger

store, about 50% bigger. My theory is these stores have to keep getting

bigger and bigger to carry all that sugar and chemical laden manufactured

crap they keep coming up with. Of course all these new Super Sized Super

markets have a pharmacy for your convenience. They sell you all this

poison and crap and the pharmacy is there in the store to save you from the

crap they are selling.17009b8.jpg Does anyone find this ironic?

[Guest guest]

--- In @y..., Carol & Ron Monzillo <monzillo@r...>

wrote:

> I was talking to my neighbor about diets this afternoon, trying

> to convince him that its all the lowfat hi-carbs in our

> diet that are making us fat. He claims that we eat way

> more protein than other countries and that is why.

> What is the correct answer to this? Do we eat more protein?

> I would argue we eat more carbs than other countries.

> Anyone have any info on this?

>

> Carol

Hi Carol:

Americans are fattened the same way a farmer fattens a cow. Both are

given lots of food that is lacking in nutrition. As a result, their

body, which is looking for nutrition, keeps them hungry and eating

looking for the nutrition which is missing from the food. So

Americans and cows are not fattened by what they eat, rather they are

fattened by what isn't in their food causing them to eat more. As far

as the quantity of protein anyone eats goes, it's meaningless. What

matters, as in all food, is not the amount of protein, but rather the

quality of proteins.

If you want to know why the food is lacking in nutrition, just look

at the soil fertility.

Chi

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: " soilfertility " <ynos@...>

> Americans are fattened the same way a farmer fattens a cow. Both are

> given lots of food that is lacking in nutrition. As a result, their

> body, which is looking for nutrition, keeps them hungry and eating

> looking for the nutrition which is missing from the food. So

> Americans and cows are not fattened by what they eat, rather they are

> fattened by what isn't in their food causing them to eat more. As far

> as the quantity of protein anyone eats goes, it's meaningless. What

> matters, as in all food, is not the amount of protein, but rather the

> quality of proteins.

I disagree with this. While the quality of protein is important, there is

still a minimum amount of protein and fat nececssary to maintain long-term

health.

> If you want to know why the food is lacking in nutrition, just look

> at the soil fertility.

That's part of the problem, but by far the more important issue is the

artificial refinement of our food. A person can achieve good, if not

optimal, health with foods produced on subpar soil, but no level of soil

fertility can help you when you're eating foods made of sugar, white flour,

and vegetable oils.

[Guest guest]

>>no level of soil fertility can help you when you're eating foods

>>made of sugar, white flour, and vegetable oils.

Here, here!!

ine in SC

[Guest guest]

At 08:36 PM 6/1/2002 -0700, you wrote:

>This is my theory: I shop in what would be called a " health food store "

>for lack of a better definition. It is called Henry's Marketplace. They

>have meat, fish, produce, fruits, nuts, vegetables, some of it organic. The

>also have their own brand of sprouted grain bread and big vitamin

>department, fresh raw honey and bee pollen. Stuff you won't find in the

>major supermarkets. Of course they have a of vegetarian stuff too,

>including Dean Ornish frozen veggie burgers. This store is small so it

>does not have everything. BUT, this store was a Safeway Supermarket just 15

>years ago. The Safeway moved across the street to a new larger store,

>nearly twice as big, then became a Von's. 8 Months ago the Von's moved

>again back across the street but a half block west to an to an even larger

>store, about 50% bigger. My theory is these stores have to keep getting

>bigger and bigger to carry all that sugar and chemical laden manufactured

>crap they keep coming up with. Of course all these new Super Sized Super

>markets have a pharmacy for your convenience. They sell you all this

>poison and crap and the pharmacy is there in the store to save you from the

>crap they are selling.17009b8.jpg Does anyone find this ironic?

Alec:

Funny! Last night I had a dream I was shopping at my usual market, and it had

turned into an " NT " market, and only held NT compatible stuff. It still had a

huge produce section, but most of the rest of the store had gone away. In my

dream I was thinking how much easier it was to shop now because I didn't have to

do all that walking!

Heidi Schuppenhauer

Trillium Custom Software Inc.

heidis@...

[Guest guest]

At 11:24 AM 6/2/02 -0700, Alec wrote:

>> My theory is these stores have to keep getting

>>bigger and bigger to carry all that sugar and chemical laden manufactured

>>crap they keep coming up with.  Of course all these new Super Sized Super

>>markets have a pharmacy for your convenience.  They sell you all this

>>poison and crap and the pharmacy is there in the store to save you from the

>>crap they are selling.17009b8.jpg Does anyone find this ironic?

>

As ironic as the FDA? What does food have to do with drugs other than they're

products of the same corporations. So much is absurd yet followed like in the

Emperor's New Clothes. If only it all were as harmless as that story's truth.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

< Of course all these new Super Sized Super

markets have a pharmacy for your convenience. They sell you all this

poison and crap and the pharmacy is there in the store to save you from the

crap they are selling.17009b8.jpg Does anyone find this ironic?>

I think it's akin to the companies that make pesticides which are known to cause

seizures in children and then the same company makes anti-seizure medication!

I'd love to see some big corporations make millions of dollars off of things

that are actually good for us for a change.

Barb

[Guest guest]

--- Heidi I think you know it's all planned. Amazing to me though,

now Farmland, a giant supposedly farmer owned, production (like

growing and further processing pigs, cattle, soybeans, etc) and

processing coop with their own label, is filing bankruptcy in KC, KS I

believe, so the taxpayers will be funding that loss. We

(taxpayers)are financially challenged all the way around and around.

They (farmland)have an outstanding debt over 1 billion dollars. Don't

know their assets. Dennis

In @y..., Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@t...> wrote:

> At 08:36 PM 6/1/2002 -0700, you wrote:

> >This is my theory: I shop in what would be called a " health food

store "

> >for lack of a better definition. It is called Henry's Marketplace.

They

> >have meat, fish, produce, fruits, nuts, vegetables, some of it

organic. The

> >also have their own brand of sprouted grain bread and big vitamin

> >department, fresh raw honey and bee pollen. Stuff you won't find in

the

> >major supermarkets. Of course they have a of vegetarian stuff too,

> >including Dean Ornish frozen veggie burgers. This store is small

so it

> >does not have everything. BUT, this store was a Safeway Supermarket

just 15

> >years ago. The Safeway moved across the street to a new larger

store,

> >nearly twice as big, then became a Von's. 8 Months ago the Von's

moved

> >again back across the street but a half block west to an to an even

larger

> >store, about 50% bigger. My theory is these stores have to keep

getting

> >bigger and bigger to carry all that sugar and chemical laden

manufactured

> >crap they keep coming up with. Of course all these new Super Sized

Super

> >markets have a pharmacy for your convenience. They sell you all

this

> >poison and crap and the pharmacy is there in the store to save you

from the

> >crap they are selling.17009b8.jpg Does anyone find this ironic?

>

>

> Alec:

>

> Funny! Last night I had a dream I was shopping at my usual market,

and it had turned into an " NT " market, and only held NT compatible

stuff. It still had a huge produce section, but most of the rest of

the store had gone away. In my dream I was thinking how much easier it

was to shop now because I didn't have to do all that walking!

>

>

>

>

> Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Trillium Custom Software Inc.

> heidis@t...

[Guest guest]

---Heidi, I probably should say, " I think it's all planned. " ....Anyway

we do a lot of our shopping at the chicken house and barnyard. This

means we eat lots of milk and eggs in between my wife's hauling in

that terrible sugar coated breakfast cereal from the grocery store.

It's got to be tough for the body to digest and metabolize and consume

all the processed sugar,grains and raw fats calories. Perhaps I

should do some dreaming to rid our house of those processed sugars and

grains. Nothing else has worked. My wife quite often tells me about

some dream she's had which she thinks is going to materialize. Maybe

the 'supermarkets turning NT' dream will change her selections at the

SAD grocery store. What a novel idea! Regards, Dennis

In @y..., " dkemnitz2000 " <dkemnitz2000@y...>

wrote:

> --- Heidi I think you know it's all planned. Amazing to me though,

> now Farmland, a giant supposedly farmer owned, production (like

> growing and further processing pigs, cattle, soybeans, etc) and

> processing coop with their own label, is filing bankruptcy in KC, KS

I

> believe, so the taxpayers will be funding that loss. We

> (taxpayers)are financially challenged all the way around and around.

> They (farmland)have an outstanding debt over 1 billion dollars.

Don't

> know their assets. Dennis

>

>

>

> In @y..., Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@t...> wrote:

> > At 08:36 PM 6/1/2002 -0700, you wrote:

> > >This is my theory: I shop in what would be called a " health food

> store "

> > >for lack of a better definition. It is called Henry's

Marketplace.

> They

> > >have meat, fish, produce, fruits, nuts, vegetables, some of it

> organic. The

> > >also have their own brand of sprouted grain bread and big vitamin

> > >department, fresh raw honey and bee pollen. Stuff you won't find

in

> the

> > >major supermarkets. Of course they have a of vegetarian stuff

too,

> > >including Dean Ornish frozen veggie burgers. This store is

small

> so it

> > >does not have everything. BUT, this store was a Safeway

Supermarket

> just 15

> > >years ago. The Safeway moved across the street to a new larger

> store,

> > >nearly twice as big, then became a Von's. 8 Months ago the

Von's

> moved

> > >again back across the street but a half block west to an to an

even

> larger

> > >store, about 50% bigger. My theory is these stores have to keep

> getting

> > >bigger and bigger to carry all that sugar and chemical laden

> manufactured

> > >crap they keep coming up with. Of course all these new Super

Sized

> Super

> > >markets have a pharmacy for your convenience. They sell you all

> this

> > >poison and crap and the pharmacy is there in the store to save

you

> from the

> > >crap they are selling.17009b8.jpg Does anyone find this ironic?

> >

> >

> > Alec:

> >

> > Funny! Last night I had a dream I was shopping at my usual market,

> and it had turned into an " NT " market, and only held NT compatible

> stuff. It still had a huge produce section, but most of the rest of

> the store had gone away. In my dream I was thinking how much easier

it

> was to shop now because I didn't have to do all that walking!

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Heidi Schuppenhauer

> > Trillium Custom Software Inc.

> > heidis@t...

[Guest guest]

The Schwarzbein Principle is as awesome book as well . I use it's principles

of balance with the NT methods of food prep. A couple other good ones are

" Lick the Sugar Habit " and " Sugar Blues " .

[Guest guest]

At 10:33 PM 6/3/2002 +0000, you wrote:

>--- Heidi I think you know it's all planned. Amazing to me though,

>now Farmland, a giant supposedly farmer owned, production (like

>growing and further processing pigs, cattle, soybeans, etc) and

>processing coop with their own label, is filing bankruptcy in KC, KS I

>believe, so the taxpayers will be funding that loss. We

>(taxpayers)are financially challenged all the way around and around.

>They (farmland)have an outstanding debt over 1 billion dollars. Don't

>know their assets. Dennis

I'm all for small everything. Big guys crash big. (note: Enron. We are paying

for their energy trading!). Our little 3-person company has been able to weather

a lot: we can be light on our feet, while the dot-coms crashed. What we need is

better distribution networks so small farms can stay small. (I'm really enjoying

Anselmo's. A guy bought about 100 acres of fallow land and has turned it into an

organic farm, that sells direct to the public and to farmer's markets. It's just

so EFFICIENT -- about 3 workers, his family, and top-notch produce).

Heidi Schuppenhauer

Trillium Custom Software Inc.

heidis@...

[Guest guest]

At 01:45 AM 6/4/2002 +0000, you wrote:

>---Heidi, I probably should say, " I think it's all planned. " ....Anyway

>we do a lot of our shopping at the chicken house and barnyard. This

>means we eat lots of milk and eggs in between my wife's hauling in

>that terrible sugar coated breakfast cereal from the grocery store.

>It's got to be tough for the body to digest and metabolize and consume

>all the processed sugar,grains and raw fats calories. Perhaps I

>should do some dreaming to rid our house of those processed sugars and

>grains. Nothing else has worked. My wife quite often tells me about

>some dream she's had which she thinks is going to materialize. Maybe

>the 'supermarkets turning NT' dream will change her selections at the

>SAD grocery store. What a novel idea! Regards, Dennis

Well, we DID that but I can't say it was because we have such strong wills. My

digestion was failing rapidly and once I figured out what the cause was, we

really didn't have much choice. Everything in the grocery store, besides being

bad for you and all that, either has or is contaminated with gluten. Which made

me really depressed for awhile. Right now though, life seems a whole lot simpler

without it -- I mean, I don't have to wonder what brand of Pop-tarts my kid

likes THIS week, and my shelves are sooo much emptier. I bake something gooey

and sweet once a week or so (our Sunday dessert), but it is so much more special

because we aren't eating sweets constantly (and home-baked tastes better!). " The

NT grocery " would be so much easier to shop in: you just buy beans, you don't

worry about the BRAND of beans.

You could buy her the " Schwartzbein Principle " . I'm reading it now, not done

with it enough to post anything and start a NEW controversy!

Heidi Schuppenhauer

Trillium Custom Software Inc.

heidis@...

[Guest guest]

While I have heard lots about these cycles, I have never seen anything to

document them. Have you?

>> In general, the body recycles 95% of it protein. In an effort to determine

optimal protein amounts in the diet, the WHO analyzed mother's milk of women

over the entire world. ALL mother's milk was found to be 5% protein. Since

baby's grow the fastest they ever will (except in utero) during the first year

of life, it seems that 5% protein is the optimal amount for MOST PEOPLE if

gotten as mother's milk. However, we can't nurse forever.

Theres is a mathametical problem with this information. I once wrote a long

essay on the whole issue and if I can find it i may post it or a link to it but

in short.....

What it doesnt take into account is that the 5% is a percent of calories.

However, babies caloric requirements are 2-3x that of an adult, highest in the

first 6 months and slowing down till around 5 years, than again, post teen.

So, as we age, the caloric requirements go down, the protein need per calorie,

to maintain that same minimium level must go up. That would equate to a

minimum protein need of 15% as an adult. Also, this percents are based on the

higher caloric intakes of the general population and not those practicing CRON.

What is more important in those who are intentionally restricting calories, is

to get more protein per calories.

The number for those doing hard manuel labor is also misleading because they

must also take in a much higher caloric levels. So its just not that their

protein needs go up, but their calorie needs probably go up more, which in

reality means their protein per calorie ratio goes down. I will post an article

soon that was done on the the military in boot camp training. And analyzing it

as a amount of protein in grams per kilogram body weight, they found the need of

those intesive hard working/training military recruits was still .8g/kg which is

also the RDA. So, the RDA, with all its buffers, was still adequate to meet

the need of these recruits in boot camp.

>>> protein dense plant protein (nuts and seed).

Nuts and seeds, though promoted as such, are not protein " dense " . Actually very

low in protein per calorie. Broccoli would easily win per calorie. The highest

nut in protein per calorie in my database is pine nuts at 4.24 grams per 100

calories. (14% calories from protein) Spinach is 13 grams (31%), Romaine is

11.58 (28%), Broccoli is 10.6 (26%).

>> This would imply that the largest % of caloric intake you would want to be

protein would be 15%. Assuming your protein source was not being adequately

assimilated, you still should not need more than 20% of your caloric intake as

protein.

Depends on caloric intake. If two people, one on CRON, one not, would this

still apply? Couldnt the CRON need a higher percent?

Jeff

[Guest guest]

If anyone is interested in the paper that i mentioned, The Role of Protein and

Amino Acids in Sustaining and Enhancing Performance (1999)

Institute of Medicine ( IOM <http://www.iom.edu/> )

you can read the whole paper online here.....

http://books.nap.edu/books/0309063469/html/index.html

From Chapter 11

Physical Exertion, Amino Acid and Protein Metabolism, and Protein Requirements

AUTHOR'S CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

*

Exercise stimulates amino acid catabolism but the extent of the stimulation is

too little to have a major effect in contributing to a negative nitrogen

balance.

*

Most food contains sufficient protein such that so long as energy balance is

maintained sufficient protein is delivered to meet the requirements for amino

acid oxidation and also probably for preservation and even growth of the lean

body mass.

*

There is no evidence that supplementation with individual amino acids is of

benefit to physical performance or to maintenance or growth of lean body mass,

especially muscle.

In summary, therefore, rations for military personnel engaged in a high rate of

physical activity should have the following characteristics:

*

Will be sufficient in delivery of energy.

*

Contain protein in the range of 0.8 g/kg body weight/day.

*

Need contain no extra amino acid supplements.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/10/2004 11:02:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time, marymassung@... writes:

This causes old-fashioned 'clogging'. The more clogged we are,

I do not think many in this group believe the body gets "clogged." Peg

[Guest guest]

Jeff Novick <jnovick@...> wrote:

>>While I have heard lots about these cycles, I have never seen anything to document them. Have you?

They are common sense. Elimination is cleansing. Cease eliminating and see what happens. If you sustain an injury, internal or external, your body must either heal it or suffer the consequences. Your body is continuously building new tissue. When catabolism overrides anabolism, degeneration sets in.

>>What it doesnt take into account is that the 5% is a percent of calories.

Actually, the WHO's investigation determined that mother's milk was 5% protein. Mother's milk is protein, carb and fat. The fat portion was ALWAYS 4%. The protein was ALWAYS 5% and the carb portion was always 90%.

>>So, as we age, the caloric requirements go down, the protein need per calorie, to maintain that same minimium level must go up.

This would be true only if the natural balance between anabolism and catabolism was completely 'out of whack'. If a person were taking growth hormones or steroids, for example, there would be a need for increased protein to accomodate increased anabolism. Also, if someone were trying to build mammoth muscles, more might be needed as anabolism is being pushed to the limit. However, how much is needed is also dependent upon how much of the nutrients which are consumed are assimilated. For many older people, nutrient assimilation is poor. therefore, more protein might need to be consumed in order to assimilate the necessary percentage that someone else might assimilate with a smaller percentage.

The body begins degenerating when waste cannot be effectively eliminated. This causes old-fashioned 'clogging'. The more clogged we are, the less we are able to assimilate of what we eat. If a person has chosen to insure adequate elimination (internal cleansing), more nutrients can be assimilated. If the diet is then made nutrient dense, surplus nutrients can be stored for future needs.

For many of us, absence of degenerative disease is as important as longevity. While a low calorie diet might promote longevity, a decrease in caloric intake will not automatically prevent degenerative disease. To accomplish this, the eliminative systems of the body (including the lymphatic system) must be functioning optimally. Only in such a situation can all the nutrients consumed be fully assimilated. The more nutrients the body can assimilate, the fewer calories need to be consumed...if those calories are nutrient dense. Therefore, the cleaner the body, the more nutrients the body can assimilate and less protein will be needed than in a clogged body in which fewer of the consumed nutrients are assimilated. When the body is assimilating nutrients optimally, the percentages of protein (per total caloric intake)that I gave have been determined to be

SAFE. I say SAFE because, for example, too much protein in a pregnant woman's diet can lead to eclampsia and the death of the fetus.

>> What is more important in those who are intentionally restricting calories, is to get more protein per calories.

I personally fail to see why someone on a CRON diet would NEED a higher percentage of protein than someone not on such a diet unless the body is clogged. Even in such situations, the focus should be on cleansing the body so as to not need as much protein. Why? The more protein the body takes in, the more waste products of protein must be disposed of by the body. These waste products are very acidic. If not able to be neutralized and eliminated in a timely manner, can cause gout, arthritis, and kidney problems. While some individuals might choose a high protein diet to meet some personal need (and are willing to consume the other extra alkaline nutrients needed to neutralize the by-products of high protein consumption), most are not even aware of the need to do so. Such consumption can then be dangerous.

Whether the need for a high protein diet is military boot camp, heavy manual labor, or weight lifting, total caloric intake for such individuals would generally be significantly higher than for those of us not engaged in such activity...assuming the person is eating enough carbs to provide the alkaline minerals needed to neutralize the waste by-products of high protein consumption. (Only carbs have alkaline minerals.) Of course, some might choose to get these extra nutrients from a pill instead of diet in order to reduce total calorie consumption or weight loss (Atkins diet). However this group is not suppose to be about weight loss.

Regardless of the number of calories I choose to consume (100%), I must divvy those calories up among the three groups: protein, fat, and carbs. To determine how I will divvy them up, I must evaluate what I want to be the final status of my body. If I want a very muscular body, I might choose to increase protein. However, if I do this, I would need to compensate with more plant food for its alkaline minerals. If I am very physically active, I would consume more fat to accomodate a higher metabolic rate. (Physical activity increases metabolic rate.) If I do a great deal of mental work, I would need more carbs. (Glucose is hte only food the brain can utilize.) Each must make his/her own choice based upon his/her personal lifestyle.

BTW, those who consume large amounts of protein for muscle development might be interested in knowing that potassium is an alkaline mineral that stores in muscles and facilitates the electrolytic impulses in the muscles. Therefore, as protein increases, so should potassium.

Because I have had open lung surgery and still crave more protein than before this surgery, I am consuming more protein than I otherwise would consume. This is not surprising since the surgery revealed that the formaldehyde had damaged the elasticity of my lungs. Sometimes, I can actually feel tissue tearing! Each time tissue tears, it must be repaired. this requires protein. (However, such tears are happening less and less frequently!) To accomodate this need, I have chosen to make animal food (not protein) 20% of my total caloric intake. I don't worry about the fat content of my animal food. Especially in the early months after the surgery, I needed fat (to insulate) as my body temp was actually dropping below 95 degrees on a regular basis (even in the house and wearing heavy clothing!) Hypothermia is not healthy! To offset the by-products of animal protein

consumption, fresh fruit is also 20% of my total caloric intake. Fresh fruit is very high in alkaline minerals. Since animal flesh is protein + fat, if I eat 20% animal food, I should get enough protein and fat in my diet. The remaining 80% is plant food. I also eat nuts and am learning to make almond milk yogurt. Almonds are high in fat and do have protein. they are low in carbs.

My current body temp is usually 97.3-97.4. If it got lower than 96.5, I would immediately add more fat to my diet. Fat is an insulator. Protein does not insulate.

Although my body temp is an averag of 97.5 today, I am not the least cold! When outside temp was below freezing this winter and snow was on the ground and my body temp was 97.5, I would take the trash out in my bare feet in only PJ's and a housecoat. I was not cold. In the same weather, I would go to the store without even a sweater unless it was actually snowing. Maybe I am not cold at this temp is because I have learned how to eat to insulate! The real test will be next winter...after I have been on CRON for 6 months.However, my temp can't go too much lower!

>>> protein dense plant protein (nuts and seed). Nuts and seeds, though promoted as such, are not protein "dense". Actually very low in protein per calorie. Broccoli would easily win per calorie.

Are you only evaluating food from only a caloric perspective? Broccoli is an herb. (All stems, leaves, and flowers of plants are herbs.) Herbs are fibrous and medicinal. They are generally not consumed for nutrient value but medicinal value (fiber for elimination or nutrients for healing). Nuts are a building food (anabolism). They insulate as well as build. If you are only concerned about calories, then I guess broccoli would be your choice. However, broccoli cannot build nor can it insulate. If the total function of the body is the issue, you would choose according to need. If you need to build, you don't choose herbs. If you need to insulate, you don't choose protein.

mary

owner of

Nutrition for Life

'The Fully Trained Working Dog'

'Avian Health: Holistic Approach'

'Alternative Rehab Therapies: Yoga, Tai Chi, QiQong'.__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Hi :

I think Jeff was asking you for EVIDENCE of their existence. That

they are in your opinion 'common sense' does not hold much water

around here. Do you know of any evidence?

>

>>While I have heard lots about these cycles, I have never seen

>>anything to document them. Have you?

Next: where were you taught that human milk is " ALWAYS 4% of

calories " ???? My information suggests that it varies with the number

of minutes after feeding starts, with the number of weeks after birth

and other factors. But for a number is about 55%, NOT 4%. Do you

have any EVIDENCE for your 4% number?

> Actually, the WHO's investigation determined that mother's milk was

>5% protein. Mother's milk is protein, carb and fat. The fat

>portion was ALWAYS 4%. The protein was ALWAYS 5% and the carb

>portion was always 90%.

And your idea that green leafy vegetables should not be considered

for their nutritive value must have elicited quite a bit of laughter

around here. Have you ever taken a look at the nutrient content per

calorie of leafy green vegetables? You obviously haven't or you

would never have made that statment. In my opinion you would benefit

from doing so.

> >>> protein dense plant protein (nuts and seed).

>

> Nuts and seeds, though promoted as such, are not protein " dense " .

>Actually very low in protein per calorie. Broccoli would easily

>win per calorie.

>

>Are you only evaluating food from only a caloric perspective?

>Broccoli is an herb. (All stems, leaves, and flowers of plants are

>herbs.) Herbs are fibrous and medicinal. They are generally not

>consumed for nutrient value but medicinal value (fiber for

>elimination or nutrients for healing). Nuts are a building food

(anabolism). They insulate as well as build. If you are only

>concerned about calories, then I guess broccoli would be your

>choice.

" And broccoli cannot insulate " ? I was taught that ALL excess

calories, whatever their origin, were converted by the body to fat

for storage. Is it your impression that calories derived from

broccoli cannot be? Is this what your " PHD " taught you? If so I

would be really curious to know where you got that qualification.

>However, broccoli cannot build nor can it insulate. If the total

>function of the body is the issue, you would choose according to

>need. If you need to build, you don't choose herbs. If you need to

>insulate, you don't choose protein.

Some sources for these assertions would be helpful. Thanks.

Rodney.

[Guest guest]

>>> They are common sense. Elimination is cleansing. Cease eliminating and see

what happens. If you sustain an injury, internal or external, your body must

either heal it or suffer the consequences. Your body is continuously building

new tissue. When catabolism overrides anabolism, degeneration sets in.

If this is so well known, and common sense, where is the data supporting it?

If " cleansing " is so prominent at one time than we should be able to document

this by blood tests or urine analysis. If anabolism was prominent at one time

than we should be able to document this also. As i said, I have " heard " this

for many years, though have never seen any documentation for it. So again, have

you seen any documentation

>>> Actually, the WHO's investigation determined that mother's milk was 5%

protein. Mother's milk is protein, carb and fat. The fat portion was ALWAYS 4%.

The protein was ALWAYS 5% and the carb portion was always 90%.

When I was married, my wife and I used to teach home birthing classes and my

ex-wife was a leader of la leche league. One of the advantages of breast

feeding and why it is promoted heavily by these types of organizations is that

the nutrient content, including macronutrient content, of breast milk DOES

changes to meet the changing need of the growing infant over the first year.

So, there is no constant percentages. This one article demonstrates that, and

I could post many many more.

Yield and nutrient content of milk in eight women breast-feeding twins and one

woman breast-feeding triplets.

Br J Nutr. 1986 Jul;56(1):49-58.

Saint L, Maggiore P, Hartmann PE.

Department of Biochemistry, University of Western Australia, Nedlands.

The concentration of lactose, protein and mixed fat in the milk from individual

breasts of mothers fully breast-feeding their infants ranged from 65.6 to 82.2,

7.8 to 15.7 and 16.7 to 46.2 g/l respectively. For the three mothers partially

breast-feeding 12-month-old infants the values ranged from 54.8 to 71.8, 14.2 to

19.9 and 4.7 to 40.5 g/l respectively.

Based on the above numbers the range in this study was Carbohydrate 40-60%,

Protein 6-8% and fat 33-46%. Hardly unchanging.

The numbers you give, the 5/4/90 (which by the way doesnt equal 100, so cant be

right) are the typical ratio of protein/fat/carb that is found in most common

fruits, which is often compared to mothers milk by some alternative health

advocates in trying to show fruit is adequate in protein to mothers milk, due to

the similarity of the % protein. This is also a false argument, but we can save

that for another time

>> a decrease in caloric intake will not automatically prevent degenerative

disease.

The purpose of CR-ON is calorie restriction with optimal nutrition, which so

far, has been show to be quite effective in preventing degenerative disease. I

happen to run a center where we use " lower " calorie intakes, not neccessarily

what would be defined as CR, but lower then most people are used to, and optimal

nutrient intake and we have published over 90 studies showing how effective we

are at preventing Diabetes, Heart Disease, Hypertension, Metabolic Syndrome, and

many cancers, and in addition, in those who already have these diseases, we get

about 70-80% of them off their medications and many eliminate their " diagnosis " .

>> Whether the need for a high protein diet is military boot camp, heavy manual

labor, or weight lifting, total caloric intake for such individuals would

generally be significantly higher than for those of us not engaged in such

activity..

Thats what I said. but i also said that caloric intake would rise over the

rise in protein need, so protein/calorie might actually go down and not up.

>> I needed fat (to insulate) as my body temp was actually dropping below 95

degrees on a regular basis (even in the house and wearing heavy clothing!)

Hypothermia is not healthy!My current body temp is usually 97.3-97.4. If it got

lower than 96.5, I would immediately add more fat to my diet. Fat is an

insulator. Protein does not insulate

Excess calories from any macronutrient would be stored as fat. We dont have to

eat fat to get fat, though fat is stored with a higher efficiency. Extra

protein could also be stored as fat, though not as efficiently. So can extra

carb.

>> Almonds are high in fat and do have protein. they are low in carbs.

Right, they have protein, but as i showed, they are not protein " dense " .

>>> protein dense plant protein (nuts and seed).

>> Nuts and seeds, though promoted as such, are not protein " dense " . Actually

very low in protein per calorie. Broccoli would easily win per calorie.

>> Are you only evaluating food from only a caloric perspective?

No, i am evaluating them from the perspective you raised, protein density. You

said nuts were protein dense. I showed their not. Protein density is measured

by protein per calorie. Nuts are very low.

Thanks

Jeff

[Guest guest]

>>> Actually, the WHO's investigation determined that mother's milk was 5%

protein. Mother's milk is protein, carb and fat. The fat portion was ALWAYS 4%.

The protein was ALWAYS 5% and the carb portion was always 90%.

this study showed that just with in a day, the nutrient content of breast milk

varies..

Circadian variation in fat concentration of breast-milk in a rural northern Thai

population.

Br J Nutr. 1988 May;59(3):349-63.

DA, Imong SM, Silprasert A, Ruckphaopunt S, Woolridge MW, Baum JD,

Amatayakul K.

Research Institute for Health Sciences, Chiang Mai University, Thailand.

1. Twenty-five northern Thai mothers, breast-feeding their infants on demand,

were studied in their homes for 24 h. All breast-feeds were test-weighed and

pre- and post-feed expressed breast-milk samples (0.5 ml) taken at each feed. 2.

The fat concentration of milk taken during a feed showed significant circadian

variation, with maximum values between 16.00 and 20.00 hours and minimum values

between 04.00 and 08.00 hours. Fat concentration at the start and at the end of

a feed also varied significantly over 24 h. 3. Multiple regression analysis

showed that the most important predictor of fat concentration at a feed was the

length of time elapsed since the previous feed--the longer this interval, the

lower the subsequent fat concentration. Other significant predictors were the

fat concentration at the end of the previous feed, and the milk intake at the

previous and at the current feed. 4. Fat concentration declined between feeds in

proportion to the length of time between feeds, but the decline was less between

sleep feeds than between waking feeds. This would appear to be a reflection of

the lower post-feed fat concentration and higher pre-feed fat concentration of

sleep feeds compared with waking feeds, when other variables relating to feeding

pattern are taken into account. 5. The larger the milk intake at a feed, the

greater was the increase in fat concentration from the start to the end of the

feed. The change in fat concentration was less in feeds taking place during the

sleep period than in daytime feeds.

[Guest guest]

Peg,

Do you mean this as a joke or are you serious?

maryhsanborn2@... wrote:

In a message dated 6/10/2004 11:02:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time, marymassung@... writes:

This causes old-fashioned 'clogging'. The more clogged we are,

I do not think many in this group believe the body gets "clogged." Peg

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Just to clarify human milk per SR16: (which, AFAIC, has nothing to do with my adult protein intake).

gms/ 100gms

% of calories

% of ffmilk calories

Protein

4.12

6%

13%

Total lipid (fat)

39.42

55%

Carbohydrate, by difference

27.56

39%

87%

totals gms

71.1

31.68

Fat, of course, is very high for babies.

regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Rodney

Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 3:38 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Protein

Next: where were you taught that human milk is "ALWAYS 4% of calories"???? My information suggests that it varies with the number of minutes after feeding starts, with the number of weeks after birth and other factors. But for a number is about 55%, NOT 4%. Do you have any EVIDENCE for your 4% number?

[Guest guest]

>>>However, I am not going to try and prove that our bodies cleanse, heal and

repair themselves. To me it is self-evident. I am NOT referring to the cyclic

daily schedule promoted by the book FIT FOR LIFE. I am simply stating that our

bodies operate on the premise that waste is removed, injuries are healed, and

tissue is repaired and rebuilt.

I agree. But you stated that these were three seperate cycles and also that they

happen at distinct times and that the nutrient needs during these three periods

were different, similar to that as expoused in the Fit For Life series. So if

you are not referring to what Harvey Diamond said, than how is yours different,

when they sound identical.

However, getting back to my request, I didnt ask for proof that the body heals

itself, or cleanses itself. Sure, if I cut myself, I can sit and watch as the

body commmences to heal itself. The blood will start to coagulate, then stop,

than start to form a scab, the scab will harden, eventually fall off, etc etc.

Very self evident. What I am asking for specific proof of is the 3 distinct

cycles, the seperate times, and the differing nutrient needs. The body seems

quite capable of doing all three at the same time.

>>>I think you misunderstood. I did not say that breast milk was 4% of total

caloric intake. I stated that the fat content of breast milk is 4%, the protein

content of breast milk is 5%, and the carbohydrate content of breast milk is

90%. If you want to know who in the WHO determined this, you will have to do

that research yourself. I learned it in my classes from a college accredited by

the WHO. You don't have to believe anything I say.

As i showed, this is completely wrong. Its not a matter of " beleif " , its a

matter of " what is " . If you want, I would be glad to send my data to your

professor. THe WHO data that I read, doesnt give those numbers for breast milk.

>>I did not state that leafy green veggies have no nutrient content. I stated

that they are herbs. This means their PRIMARY VALUE is medicinal.

I am not sure what this means so I looked it up and it said... " Having curative

or palliative properties; used for the cure or alleviation of bodily disorders;

as, medicinal tinctures, plants, or springs. " .

IF that is true, than broccoli may be an herb, but it is not medicinal. I dont

know of any properties in it that heals, cures or palliates. I eat it cause it

supplies my body with the nutrients it needs to go about its basic daily

operations.

>>>The medicinal value requires heating to be released.

And when I heat broccoli, exactly what is released that is medicinal?

>> If you don't believe me, go to Illinois where the winter can get down to -50

degrees. Eat broccoli one day and nuts the next. you will quickly see the

difference.

I did, and during most of that time I lived on a raw food fruitarian diet and

did quite well. Adding nuts just made me sluggish at the time. I always found

it better to " wear " any needed extra insulation that to produce it on my body.

>>When determining OPTIMAL nutrition, calories are only part of the equation.

Right, I would say nutrients per calorie is the formula. \

>>If you do not see value in anything I say, that is your privilege.

I am asking for help in understanding what you say and seeing the validity of

it. Nothing short of what they ask of everyone, including me, quite

adamantly.

BTW, you seemed to religate fiber to a small role. Fiber plays many many

important roles. It helps stabilized blood sugar and insulin levels, it helps

prevent certain cancers, it is one of the only ways the body can rid itself of

cholesterol and so it helps lower elevated cholesterol levels, it adds bulk and

contributes to satiety, and also helps in keeping the bowels regular.

jeff

[Guest guest]

>>>I did not say that breast milk was 4% of total caloric intake. I stated that

the fat content of breast milk is 4%, the protein content of breast milk is 5%,

and the carbohydrate content of breast milk is 90%. If you want to know who in

the WHO determined this, you will have to do that research yourself. I learned

it in my classes from a college accredited by the WHO. You don't have to believe

anything I say.

As i said, I did do the research myself. And here is the data. This is from

the most recent WHO report entittled ...

NUTRIENT ADEQUACY OF EXCLUSIVE BREASTFEEDING FOR THE TERM INFANT DURING THE

FIRST SIX MONTHS OF LIFE- 2002

which you can read here. See table 1 specifically which shows how the milk

changes over the first 3 months.

http://www.who.int/nut/documents/nut_adequacy_of_exc_bfeeding_eng.pdf

(emphasis mine)

The composition of human milk changes DRAMATICALLY in the postpartum period as

secretions evolve from colostrum to mature milk. The stages of lactation

correspond roughly to the following times postpartum: colostrum (0–5 days),

transitional milk (6–14 days), and mature milk (15–30 days). Changes in

human-milk composition are summarized in Table 1. The first 3 to 4 months of

lactation appear to be the period of MOST RAPID CHANGE IN THE CONCENTRATIONS OF

MOST NUTRIENTS. After that period nutrient concentrations appear to be fairly

stable as long as mammary gland involution has not begun (9, 10).

9. Garza C et al. Changes in the nutrient composition of human milk during

gradual weaning. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1983, 37:61–65.

10. Goldman AS, Garza C & Goldblum RM. Immunologic components in human milk

during the second year of lactation. Acta Paediatrica Scandinavica,

1983,72:461–462.

I am sure you have much to contribute, we just want to see the references. No

one is saying references are infallable, or all studies are accurate, but it

helps to see them so we can evaluate them ourselves.

jeff

[Guest guest]

Also, while I was at it, the article also addresses the protein issue, and, it

says what I said, about the changing needs of protein per calories as well as

the changing needs of calories. So the 5% would not work out, not only for the

baby but for an adult either.

Quoting from the same recent report by WHO....

The nature of the expected correlation can be illustrated by interrelationships

between milk composition and energy and protein requirements imposed by growth.

The protein-to-energy ratio of mature human milk is approximately 0.013 g

protein/kcalth (16).1 The energy cost of growth is approximately 19 kcalth/kg,

12 kcalth/ kg, 9 kcalth/kg and 5 kcalth/kg for the age intervals 3–4 months,

4–5 months, 5–6 months and 6–9 months, respectively (4). To the degree

that increased energy requirements imposed by growth drive increased humanmilk

consumption, the corresponding increase in protein intakes will be,

respectively, 0.25, 0.15, 0.12 and 0.06 g protein/kg for the four

above-mentioned age intervals. These values will increase to the extent that

non-protein nitrogen (NPN) in human milk is utilizable (see section 3.2.3). The

protein deposited per kg of body weight appears fairly stable, approximately

0.24 g/kg from 4 to 9 months of age (4). If we assume a net absorption rate of

0.85 for human-milk protein and an efficiency of dietary protein utilization of

0.73, the mean dietary protein requirement for growth is approximately 0.39 g

protein/kg (see section 3.2.3). Thus, although increased energy needs imposed by

growth should simultaneously drive protein intakes upward, human milk becomes

less likely to meet the infant’s need for protein unless energy requirements

for activity increase in a manner that corrects the asynchrony described above.

In the absence of such an adjustment, as long as human milk remains the only

source of protein the growing infant becomes increasingly dependent upon stable

or enhanced efficiencies in protein utilization. These types of correlations can

be dealt with, in part, by suitable statistical techniques, as was demonstrated

in the report of the International Dietary Energy Consultative Group (IDECG)

evaluating protein and energy requirements (4, 5).

So, not only would the 5% not work for an adult, it wouldnt work for an infant.

The protein needs per calorie INCREASE during the different periods, the

caloric needs per kg go down. The conclusion is that .39 gram/kg would be an

average adequate amount for a baby which is half of the .8 g/kg for adults.

Which some are now saying should be moved up to 1.2 g/kg So, while the baby may

get by on 5% for a short time, he does so only due to other contributing factors

to the equation. An adult wouldnt make it. So, the protien needs of a baby

are irrelevant in figuring out the needs of an adult, regardless of how much and

how fast the baby is growing.