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.

"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

"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.

"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.

"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.

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.

On 30 Mar 2004 08:20:22 -0800, (jpatti) posted:

"Moosh" wrote in message . ..

Yes, but as I don't know where different participants are reading
from, I'm loathe to trim them. Just gotta see it out I'm afraid

Yes, I was just clarifying why I'm writing such "basic" stuff on the
low-cabr newsgroup.

Howsabout giving us ignorami on sci.med.nutrition a definition of "Low
Carb".

When low-carbers talk about the piles of vegetables they eat, we
usually aren't referring to potatoes. Starchy vegetables are avoided
on low-carb.

I realise this. That's what I'm questioning.

Energy requirements are easily fulfilled with protein and fat, carbs
are not necessary for calories.

Neither are protein and fat. I'm interested in the advantages of
restricting one particular energy source for a normal healthy human.

There are archeological studies indicating humans were much healthier
prior to the development of agriculture...

Some were, some weren't. Archeological evidence is very sparse and
often contradictory in my experience

on a much lower-carb diet.

Whoa! Some ate a lot of meat and some ate little. Some ate lots of
fish some ate little or none. Most gathered seeds and fruits and
juices and tubers....

Larger skeletons, better tetth, stuff of that sort.

In some, and not in others.

Of course, with
no soft tissue studies, it's a limited indicator of health.

Just a WAG really.

I don't know if the benefits are there for normal human beings. My
SIL is on a low-fat diet and exercising and seems to be growing both
slimmer and stronger.

That's the normal physiological response to reducing calorie intake
and increasing exercise. The difficult part is to actually achieve
this. But achieve it you must. No magic bullets.

I think the only major benefit for her might be
that fat and protein tend to be more filling than carb, and thus
easier to restrict calories.

Umm, how so more filling? Potatoes are the most satiating food and fat
is the most calorie concentrated. Doesn't make sense.

But... many of the posters from the low-carb newsgroup are not "normal
healthy humans."

Agreed, but some of them seem to have an evangelistic zeal to convert
the rest of the World to their way of eating.

I am diabetic myself. Many are not diagnosed
diabetics, but their success on low-carb when low-fat was not
successful indicates insulin resistance.

Yep, seems entirely reasonable, despite some of them being in denial.

Protein can be metabolized as
glucose, so starch or sugar is not needful even for production of
glucose for blood sugar.

Well gluconeogenesis is not generally very fast, but of course you can
get glucose from part of fat and excess protein. Doesn't explain why
you would go for this contortion.

Stabilizing blood sugar... fat has the slowest effect, protein the
next slowest effect on blood sugar.

For type 2 diabetics, of course, and I would think you might find some
disagreement with what you have just said from many experienced type 2
diabetics.

Thus the "glycemic index" of fat
and protein is better than even the best carbs.

But then they have other effects that must be accounted for.
The worst thing for a diabetic is to gain weight, and exacerbate their
blood fat profiles.

This provides a
longer-term source of energy, thereby reducing hunger for longer
periods.

So how come when measured scientifically, potatoes are the most
satiating of foods?

There are futher benefits... mostly based on the differences in
insulin-mediated biochemistry versus glucagon-mediated biochemistry.
Aside from fat-burning benefits of glucagon,

Glucagon will NOT burn fat unless the body is short of energy.

and controlling blood
sugar, lowered insulin/raised glucagon raised HDL and lwers
triglycerides. There's a host of good health benefits to limiting
carbs.

Not in the normal-weight individual with moderate regular exercise.
These problems occur only with frank DM2 and overweight.

I recommend the book "Protein Power" for more details and references
to the relevant research.

I recommend biochem and physiol texts for an overview.

But carb gives more "bang for the buck" nutritionally than fat.
And what about all the micronutrients from apples that don't occur in
cabbage. See, I would eat both, and cut a tiny bit of empty fat
calories.

Fat is not entirely empty calories, some fat is necessary.

A negligable amount and when a varied, wholefood diet is eaten, this
EFA is unavoidable.

There are
"good" fats and "bad" fats just as there are "good" carbs versus "bad"
carbs.

Yes, but an important point is that these are not relevant when normal
weight with regular moderate exercise and eating a varied wholefood
diet is followed. "Bad" foods tend to be only "bad" when eaten in
excess.

As for me... an apple sends my blood sugar well over 200. That
overwhelms any micronutrients in the apple.

Of course, even when apples have a relatively low GI.
But then you must restrict your carbs for health reasons.
You can't handle them.

Are you sure? They often have more fructose, and therefore have lower
GI.

Overall carbs (excluding fiber) is mostly what we measure. The thing
is... to *some* degree, glycemic index is irrelevant. It's not just
about how fast blood sugar rises, but also about how much insulin is
prodced, and how much effect there is overall.

And some proteins raise insulin considerably

Fructose has a poor glycemic inex, no doubt. But we are talking about
fruit - which pretty much comes with fructose. Berries and melon are
fairly low-carb as fruits go and are thus more "bang for your buck"
than most other fruits.

Berries are quite average sugar for fruits. Some berries are up to
14.4% (raspberries) but others are around the 11, 12 mark.
they are low GI because of all the fructose.
Apple/pear juice has more frucose in it than an equal volume of HFCS
sweetend Coke. Go figure. Coke is only around 10% sugar IIRC.

As to whether low-carb is a healthy diet, this depends on how the
individual chooses to do it. Some get virtually all their carbs from
vegetables and fruit. Others do low-carb by eating "low carb" junk
food. Obviously, there's a big difference in how healthy those diets.

But my question is what is the advantage of "low carb" in the first
place. That refined food should be avoided is a given

Primarily reducing insulin, blood sugar and hunger. Since both high
and low blood sugar results in *ravenous* levels of hunger, it's
pretty pleasant to get off the blood sugar rollercoaster.

So how come the insulin spike from certain proteins doesn't do this to
you? BTW, how does high blood sugar increase hunger? (Unless you have
grossly insufficient insulin effect)

For more info, see the book recommended above.


I am personally sort of intermediate, I eat a lot of vegetables, some
fruit, but probably more dairy than I strictly need. My diet would be
improved by getting more of my carbs from veggies and fewer from
cheese and cream.

Cheese and cream have negligible carbs, I would have thought.

What is negligible depends on one's goals. My personal eating plan is
to stay within the ange of 30-50 grams of carb per day. I use up a
good 10 gram of that just on creaming my coffee (I drink a *lot* of
coffee).

Since I *love* dairy, I use up a lot of carbs on it, which could
frankly better be spent with more veggies and even a bit more fruit.

But cream has about half the carbs of celery, and cheese about half of
this or even less.

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.

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.

On 31 Mar 2004 00:03:25 -0800, (jpatti) posted:

"Moosh" wrote in message . ..
On 27 Mar 2004 09:05:31 -0800, (jpatti) posted:

"Moosh" wrote in message . ..

What "balanced" means can vary tremendously depending on individuals
though.

Nope. Look it up in the dictionary. It means "providing all the
necessary nutrients for a healthy body"

Which comes to the same thing since the necessary nutrients for a
healthy body vary depending on individual biochemistry.

Rubbish. Howsabout an example of this.

For instance, the ADA diet is *extremely* "unbalanced" for diabetics,

Hopefully not, or diabetics would become malnourished on it.

Diabetics *die* on it.

On what? A balanced diet suitable for thier condition?

Maybe it is not ideal for an impaired glucose metabolism.

The ADA diet is intended *for* diabetics, that's what the "D" is.

But which diabetics? Those taking insulin are diametrically different
from those trying to control blood glucose levels with diet and
exercise.

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.

All sane advice to diabetics (several different diseases) is designed
to keep their blood glucose levels within normal range. Apparently
much institutional advice from UK and USA is insane.

Agreed.