If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
Diet Linked To Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 16:26:07 +0100, "pearl"
posted: "jpatti" wrote in message om... "Moosh" wrote in message . .. Where did you see this? The local newspaper? No reputable nutritionist has ever advocated this. They all advocate a balanced diet of wholefoods. Well the reputable ones do. What "balanced" means can vary tremendously depending on individuals though. For instance, the ADA diet is *extremely* "unbalanced" for diabetics, yet is generally recommended by repoutable nutritionists in spite of the fact that high blood sugars have more serious health repercussions than any of the supposed negative effects from high dietary fat intake. Read this; http://www.rense.com/general45/bll.htm ! Rense? You must be joking, or desperate. And anyway the argument was what "balanced" meant. Try a dictionary for that. |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
Diet Linked To Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma
"Moosh" wrote in message ...
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 14:53:14 +0100, "pearl" posted: "Luna" wrote in message ... In article , "pearl" wrote: A good quality veg*n diet would be healthier and if it's weight that concerns you; A vegan diet may very well be healthy for some people, maybe even for me. I used to be semi-vegetarian, I ate fish but not too frequently. Anyway, the problem was that I ate too much pasta and bread on that diet, That can happen, and when eaten in excess, So can anything. Eating in excess is surely agreed to be a bad thing? Aren't you just be argumentative for the sake of it? can produce a craving as well as allergic response (headaches, tiredness, fuzzy-headedness, abdominal discomfort, bloating, tinnitus (referred) [especially with, wheat-bran, shredded wheat, and weetabix, .. Evidence? Or is this just personal opinion? Evidence to what? Symptoms of allergic response to wheat, or the part about tinnitus? The former is well known, the latter I learned during my training, and has been confirmed many times during almost ten years of clinical practice. Anecdotal I know, but I doubt I could do any better than that in this case, sorry. all of which are highly abrasive to the colon, especially the ileo-caecal valve, situated between the small and large intestine- just above the appendix]). Nonsense. We've evolved to eat such things. 'All-bran' and 'weetabix' bushes? (That's 'nonsense'). We haven't evolved to eat large amounts of course grain-fibre. because vegetables alone didn't fill me up. Nuts, seeds, legumes, cereals, sweet fruits, roots, leafy greens, rice? But the pasta and bread didn't fill me up either! Wholegrain or refined? I could eat unlimited quantities of starchy foods, seemingly, and never feel satiated. You may have been missing out some higher protein plant-foods. (Were you drinking 'diet' cokes, etc?). Eliminating those foods has made it a lot easier to eat less, and I feel a lot better too. For cutting out all the wheat, no doubt. Meat is a nutritionally dense food, meat eating animals don't need to eat nearly as frequently to survive as plant eating animals do. Meat is a high protein food, in fact so high that it's unhealthy for us. More nonsense! Do you regard eggs as unhealthy? Animal product consumption and mortality because of all causes combined, coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and cancer in Seventh-day Adventists. Snowdon DA. Division of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. This report reviews, contrasts, and illustrates previously published findings from a cohort of 27,529 California Seventh-day Adventist adults who completed questionnaires in 1960 and were followed for mortality between 1960 and 1980. Within this population, meat consumption was positively associated with mortality because of all causes of death combined (in males), coronary heart disease (in males and females), and diabetes (in males). Egg consumption was positively associated with mortality because of all causes combined (in females), coronary heart disease (in females), and cancers of the colon (in males and females combined) and ovary. Milk consumption was positively associated with only prostate cancer mortality, and cheese consumption did not have a clear relationship with any cause of death. The consumption of meat, eggs, milk, and cheese did not have negative associations with any of the causes of death investigated. PMID: 3046303 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Sorry. Otherwise, plant foods are far richer than meat in most nutrients, and we can obtain all the essential nutrients we require, in suitable and balanced amounts; sans all the unhealthy anti-nutrients in meat. What ARE you talking about? What part isn't clear? I think one of the things that gets missed in the debate about low-carb diets is that for the people who respond well to it, you end up eating less overall than before. The conclusion in the in-depth documentary I saw, was that protein satiates appetite very quickly. But you could just as easily eat plant foods that are high in protein, such as nuts and legumes, also rice. Potatoes are the most satiating, when you measure it scientifically. I find a diet comprised of a variety of quality plant foods very satiating. If I look at my diet now as compared to before (not the semi-vegetarian phase, but before that) I am eating less meat and dairy now, and more green veggies. I have a salad and some broccoli instead of a butter laden potato with my meat, for example, and the meat portion is usually much smaller than it was before. So even though meat may be a higher _percentage_ of my diet now, the actual quantities are _lower_. So you're eating less, all in all. Also, I'd like to see a study about moderate protein, high fat diets where sugar and starches are at a minimum, to see if any health problems come from that. Because I'd wager it's the combination of high fat AND high carb that causes health problems, not one or the other. If you study people who eat an excessive amount of meat, but they're also eating an excessive amount of sugar, then you can't know which excess is the culprit for the health problems, or if it's excessiveness in general that is the problem. Ketogenic Diets http://www.ecologos.org/keto.htm High-protein diets not proven effective and may pose health risks http://www.americanheart.org/present...entifier=11103 |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
Diet Linked To Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma
"Moosh" wrote in message ...
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 15:29:57 +0100, "pearl" posted: A gain of _60 to 80 pounds of fluid_ in *nine days* -in hospital-? That's what worried me. I couldn't imagine a hospital team allowing this. Uhuh. No way. |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
"vegan" Diet Linked To B-12 Deficiency
"Moosh" wrote in message news
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 16:04:23 +0100, "pearl" posted: From; 'The mineral content of organic food - Rutgers University USA Trace Elements. Parts per million Dry matter Vegetable: Cobalt Snap Beans Organic 0.26 Non-organic 0 Cabbage Organic 0.15 Non-organic 0 Lettuce Organic 0.19 Non-organic 0 Tomatoes Organic 0.63 Non-organic 0 Spinach Organic 0.25 Non-organic 0.2 http://www.organicnutrition.co.uk/wh...whyorganic.htm This is an extremely poor reference source. Again- you were given a reference. The cobalt in plants depends on the cobalt in the soils. Many conventional ag soils are rich in cobalt, and when grazing animals the cobalt, if low, will be ammended. 'Mineral content: This may be the most important nutritional difference between organic and regular produce since heavy use of fertilizer inhibits absorption of some minerals, which are likely to be at lower levels to begin with in soils that have been abused. This may be caused in part by the lack of beneficial mycorrhizae fungi on the roots since high levels of fertilizer tend to kill them. Standard diets tend to be low in various minerals, resulting in a variety of problems including osteoporosis. http://math.ucsd.edu/~ebender/Health...s/organic.html Organic methods preclude all of this ammendment and so, on average, organic grown will be lower in cobalt. 'The emerging nutritional crisis of B12 deficiency calls for remedial action in the macro- as well as micro-environment. Broad-spectrum remineralization of topsoils using crushed rock or dried seaweed from ocean areas known to contain sufficient cobalt can reestablish mineral balances necessary for healthy food supply able to fulfill our requirement, both direct and indirect, for B12 . The cobalt connection is especially relevant to us growing our own food, since cobalt-deficient areas likely are well-established. Beyond promoting remineralization to the farm community, we can adopt the practice in our gardens.' http://www.championtrees.org/topsoil/b12coblt.htm Try a more balanced reference like USDA or similar. It should be noted that in the UK 'organic' is the same as 'sustainable' in the US. I'm aware that 'organic' farming in the US isn't the real deal. |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
Diet Linked To Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma
"Moosh" wrote in message ...
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 16:26:07 +0100, "pearl" posted: "jpatti" wrote in message om... "Moosh" wrote in message . .. Where did you see this? The local newspaper? No reputable nutritionist has ever advocated this. They all advocate a balanced diet of wholefoods. Well the reputable ones do. What "balanced" means can vary tremendously depending on individuals though. For instance, the ADA diet is *extremely* "unbalanced" for diabetics, yet is generally recommended by repoutable nutritionists in spite of the fact that high blood sugars have more serious health repercussions than any of the supposed negative effects from high dietary fat intake. Read this; http://www.rense.com/general45/bll.htm ! Rense? You must be joking, or desperate. Oh well then... don't read it, .. your loss. And anyway the argument was what "balanced" meant. Try a dictionary for that. Nasty. |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
"vegan" Diet Linked To B-12 Deficiency
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 14:13:07 +0100, "pearl"
posted: "Moosh" wrote in message ... On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:21:14 -0000, "pearl" posted: "usual suspect" wrote in message ... Jonathan Ball wrote: .. "vegan" diets are linked with B-12 deficiency. And iron deficiency, zinc deficiency, etc. Common in the general population. The Baer report (Rutgers Univ., 1984) "Variations in Mineral Contents of Vegetables" Percentage of | Quantities per 100 Grams | Trace Elements. Parts per million Dry Weight Dry Weight Dry matter Vegetable: Mineral Ash | Calcium Magnesium | Boron Manganese Iron Copper Cobalt Snap Beans Organic 10.45 40.5 60 73 60 227 69 0.26 Non-organic 4.04 15.5 14.8 10 2 10 3 0 Cabbage Organic 10.38 60 43.6 42 13 94 48 0.15 Non-organic 6.12 17.5 13.6 7 2 20 0.4 0 Lettuce Organic 24.48 71 49.3 37 169 516 60 0.19 Non-organic 7.01 16 13.1 6 1 9 3 0 Tomatoes Organic 14.2 23 59.2 36 68 1938 53 0.63 Non-organic 6.07 4.5 4.5 3 1 1 0 0 Spinach Organic 28.56 96 203.9 88 117 1584 32 0.25 Non-organic 12.38 47.5 46.9 12 1 49 0.3 0.2 http://www.organicnutrition.co.uk/wh...whyorganic.htm Look at the amazing numbers, and then look at the URL. Bull****!!! Ipse dixit. .. Anyway, you have a reference. Maliciously misleading though. Organic produce MUST contain less minerals than conventional. Organic growing can't replace the harvested minerals, whereas conventional growing analyses and replenishes the mined minerals. Mineral content: This may be the most important nutritional difference between organic and regular produce since heavy use of fertilizer inhibits absorption of some minerals, Bull**** scare tactics!!! How can you possibly claim that crops grown on soils which are prohibited from replenishment of exported minerals in the crop, can be more mineral-rich than soils which are constantly monitored and replenished? which are likely to be at lower levels to begin with in soils that have been abused. Many virgin soils are deficient in various essential nutrients. Try organic farming in the southwest of Western Australia, and many other parts of Australia. This may be caused in part by the lack of beneficial mycorrhizae fungi on the roots since high levels of fertilizer tend to kill them. No soil organisms can produce micronutrients from thin air. No sensible farmer adds too much fert unless his aim is to go bankrupt. Standard diets tend to be low in various minerals, resulting in a variety of problems including osteoporosis. Standard diets, whatever that means are often quite poor in Westerners at least. Osteoporosis is an artifact of too little exercise. http://math.ucsd.edu/~ebender/Health...s/organic.html 'The emphasis of organic agriculture on feeding soils is the primary step in achieving products of high nutritional content. But the problem is that proper "feeding the soil" which is a silly expression for "feeding the plants" is proscribed in the general "organic" principles. An understanding of nutritional balance, What's to understand? Plants need a certain known amount of micronutrients in order to thrive. Conventional growing is allowed to supply these -- "Organic" is not permitted to do this. physical and biophysical soil composition underpins a successful organic farming system. ' As it does with ALL soil systems. Give us a break! Organic is just good farming practices hamstrung with some stupid proscriptive rules. http://www.rirdc.gov.au/pub/org5yr3.htm Results Against a background of declining mineral levels in fresh produce over the last sixty years (Mayer 1997), Not true. Unless you select some high values of organic and compare them with some low values of conventional. But is this valid? and given that many people fail to achieve the recommended daily allowance for a variety of nutrients (MAFF 1996, Clayton 2001), Coz their diets are poor. the nutrient contents of organic and non-organic produce are worthy of comparison. .. But when measured fairly, and when organic growers cheat (many examples) the higher price of organic is not worth the extra price for roughly the same produce. That original huge study comparing 60s food contents with more recent ones shows many of the opposite trends to what is selectively shown and claimed. It stands to reason, if you are allowed to replace the nutrients taken out with the crop, you will have much higher nutrient status than if you are not allowed by the "Organic" rules. While similar controlled studies in humans are difficult, clinical experience and recorded observations have suggested similar benefits in human reproductive health (Foresight), recovery from illness (Plaskett 1999) and general health (Daldy 1940) from the consumption of organically produced food. http://www.organic.aber.ac.uk/librar...%20quality.pdf More organic bull**** propaganda. Try some scientific publications. 'More research confirms organic food is better for you RESEARCH PAPER: ARCHIVED The Soil Association Organic Farming, Sorry, this organisation is a propaganda wing. They are lying hypocrites, in my experience. Food Quality and Human Health report showed that the nutritional content of organic was higher than non-organic foods. New US research shows by how much. Utter nonsense. Proper comparative studies between "optimally organically grown" and optimally hydroponically grown produce with the same growing conditions, variety and picking criteria show NO difference. Note that this "organic" model uses fully nutrient supplied soils as will not be found on unreplenished farms after just a few years. "While my review looked at the entire picture of nutritional food quality" says Shane Heaton, author of the Soil Association food quality report, "this research, by nutritionist Virginia Worthington, has looked specifically at the comparative vitamin and mineral contents, reviewing a similar collection of scientific studies. This study is so biased. Look, if you compare a wizzened little organic fruit with a fully hydrated conventionally grown one, the lack of water in the organic sample will make the overall mineral concentrations appear higher. "Her research confirms our findings that, on average, organic produce contains significantly higher levels of vitamin C, iron, magnesium and phosphorus, and how seemingly small differences in nutrients can mean the difference between getting the recommended daily allowance - or failing to." More propaganda arm waving! All 21 minerals compared were higher in organic produce. Which organic produce, and compared with which conventional produce? ..' http://www.soilassociation.org/sa/sa...s10122001.html Not worth reading! See above. Study Denying Nutritional Benefits of Organic Was Bogus And all the organic studies are bull****. When a fair comparison is made with a wide sample of available merchandise, there is insignificant difference. The organic stuff just costs more beacuse the yields are less. Zinc levels, one of the more interesting comparisons given it's importance as a trace mineral in human health and because many people are not able to obtain the recommended daily allowance, described as 'negligible', are reported as the same level in all twenty crops, which is often 100 percent higher than the conventional food table figures. Clearly the zinc levels were not properly assessed. http://www.organicconsumers.org/Orga...tudy071902.cfm Where do they think the zinc comes from? The heavens? 'According to the USDA, the calcium content of an apple has declined from 13.5 mg in 1914 to 7 mg in 1992. The iron content has declined from 4.6 mg in 1914 to 0.18 mg in 1992. And if you look at ALL the findings of this original research, some minerals have gone up. Selective quoting. And varietal differences were not taken into account. A study published in the Journal of Applied Nutrition, Vol. 45, #1, 1993 compared the nutrient content of supermarket food versus organically grown food from food stores in the Chicago area. The organic produce averaged twice the mineral content of the supermarket food http://www.drlwilson.com/articles/or...griculture.htm A baseless referenceless assertion. Propaganda. 'A study commissioned by the Organic Retailers and Growers Association of Australia (ORGAA) found that conventionally grown fruit and vegetables purchased in supermarkets and other commercial retail outlets had ten times less mineral content than fruit and vegetables grown organically. Source: Organic Retailers and Growers Association of Australia, 2000, as cited in Pesticides and You, Vol. 20, No. 1, Spring 2000, News from Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides. http://www.organicconnection.net/nutritional.html More baseless propaganda! '... chemical isolation combined with nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy revealed that the organically-grown oranges contained 30% more vitamin C than the conventionally-grown fruits - even though they were only about half the size. ' http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0603071017.htm Organic oats have much higher levels of essential nutrients than conventional .. As the chart below shows, preliminary nutritional analysis of oat plants from The Rodale Institute's Farming Systems Trial found that the organic plants had increases of up to 74 percent in nutrient content over conventionally grown plants, suggesting an answer to the perennial question, "Is organic better?" http://www.newfarm.org/columns/jeff_moyer/1003.shtml And the Rodale Institute is just another propaganda front for the "Organic" religion. No proper scientific evidence, I see, just organic propaganda. |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
Diet Linked To Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma
|
#128
|
|||
|
|||
"vegan" Diet Linked To B-12 Deficiency
pearl wrote:
From; 'The mineral content of organic food - Rutgers University USA .. http://www.organicnutrition.co.uk/wh...whyorganic.htm This is an extremely poor reference source. Again- you were given a reference. Not a good one. You chide me for posting studies funded by industry, and this is no different. From their "about us" page: We are a company that specialises in supplying the very best organic nutritional products for your health and well-being. ... Try a more balanced reference like USDA or similar. It should be noted that in the UK 'organic' is the same as 'sustainable' in the US. I'm aware that 'organic' farming in the US isn't the real deal. Organic is sustainable in the US, too, moron. |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
Diet Linked To Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma
pearl wrote:
... Read this; http://www.rense.com/general45/bll.htm ! Rense? You must be joking, or desperate. Hehe! Oh well then... don't read it, .. your loss. No, Lesley, it's not Moosh's loss. Jeff Rense is a raving kook. Then again, so are you. And anyway the argument was what "balanced" meant. Try a dictionary for that. Nasty. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Diet Soda [aspartame] Dangerous? Shari Lieberman, The O'Reilly Factor 3.19.4: Murray 3.23.4 rmforall | Rich Murray | General Discussion | 15 | March 27th, 2004 03:22 AM |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret | Diarmid Logan | General Discussion | 135 | February 14th, 2004 04:56 PM |
Low carb diets | General Discussion | 249 | January 8th, 2004 11:15 PM | |
Atkins diet may reduce seizures in children with epilepsy | Diarmid Logan | General Discussion | 23 | December 14th, 2003 11:39 AM |
Is excess sugar consumption linked to cancer? | Diarmid Logan | General Discussion | 6 | October 8th, 2003 09:01 PM |