Gorillas is some of the most muscular animal in the planet...yet they are 99 percent vegetarian.

Buut they eat MAD amounts of food that are NOT nutritionally devoid like our food in generic society(organic or not).Key thing is they eat ALOT though!!

Hit it HARD!!

See you at the top!!

Utopian Life Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sunlight, everything has protein, and yes, we do
> need it, but not from meat, dairy, or eggs.
>
> Rat studies don't mean @#$%& when it comes to
> humans, except that we're selfish and cruel.

Of course data from studying animals is applicable to humans. Some animal studies are indeed cruel but they exist so we should learn from them.


solitude bird Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gorillas is some of the most muscular animal in
> the planet...yet they are 99 percent vegetarian.

Tigers are very strong too & they eat lots of raw meat. Cows are strong too just from grass & weeds. We can learn from other animals but human beings are unique and have unique needs. We can't break down vegetable matter nearly as well as gorillas. If you forced a man to eat what a gorilla eats in a day his stomach would probably rupture.

communitybuilder Wrote:

> Of course data from studying animals is applicable
> to humans. Some animal studies are indeed cruel
> but they exist so we should learn from them.

non-coincidental proof, please, then, to back up your claim.

Here, UL:

Some experiments that have led to an improvement in the quality of life of human beings--a couple where the researchers used themselves as subjects, a couple where the researchers used other humans as subjects, and a couple that used animals:

The Journal of Nutrition Vol. 127 No. 5 May 1997, pp. 1017S-1053S
Copyright ©1997 by the American Society for Nutritional Sciences

Experiments That Changed Nutritional Thinking
Kenneth J. Carpenter2, Alfred E. Harper*, and Robert E. Olson

[jn.nutrition.org]

It's a great paper to provide a bird's eye view of how we got to where we are today. We owe a great debt to these works.

That is not to say that the work on animals should continue.

Raw Power Protien powder, awesome stuff and available on RawPower.com I just had a smoothie with that and Acai and frozen cantelope chunks, yummmy...........

..yes, researchers, humans and animals have given their all, especially the animals who do not have a say, and we have learned a lot, including on low protein diets in 1904 in the Experiments That Changed Nutritional Thinking paper, concluding humans needed less protein than previously thought.


Studies on "undernourished" animals were found to have uncertain relevance to human cognitive development:

"NUTRITIONAL PROGRAMMING IN ANIMALS
"Extensive animal data, largely on rats, show that nutrition at a vulnerable period of brain development may have permanent effects on brain size, brain cell number, behavior, learning and memory (Dobbing and Sands 1971, Smart 1986). In Smart's review of 165 animal studies (1986) on early undernutrition and later learning, the number of studies in which undernourished animals fared worse than controls greatly outweighed those that favored the controls. The extent to which these animal data have relevance to human cognitive development, however, is uncertain...

"Data from such animal models have importance in suggesting human interventions and in defining underlying programming mechanisms (see below). However, public health policy for early nutrition in humans must ultimately depend on human studies."
[jn.nutrition.org]

..I view past animal studies where they were harmed to be in a similar category with products that used animal testing, ideally to be avoided or at least treated with sensitivity of the animals, and agree not to say they should continue.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/24/2009 12:11AM by loeve.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/24/2009 12:25AM by Utopian Life.

scientifically sounding information seems to be accepted uncritically here.

arugula Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, Shane, it's two reasons:
>
> 1. better amino acid profile for higher
> utilization

taking such a narrow minded view misses so much.

animal souces do NOT have a "Better" amino acid profile.

the statement is made as if in a vacuum.
better for who? for what?

a food should not be evaluated relative to its amino acid profile or its supposed utilization.
a food should be evaluated relative to its physiological/biological/digestive suitability for a particular organism ingesting it.


> 2. lack of dietary fiber for higher utilization

based on what?
why not eat purified protein derivatives?
why eat food/fiber at all?


> 3. antinutrients in plants that bind up some of
> the aminos but are otherwise protective

antinutrients are minimal in suitable primate foods.
could there be anything in animal food sources that presents any problems for primates?


>
> Even when you combine plant proteins to make a
> more "meat-like" amino profile with (grains +
> beans for example), comparing net aminos gram for
> gram what gets used still won't be as much with
> the plant case even if they are the same before
> you put them in your mouth.

who Needs AS MUCH ?

we need the right amount

nobody knows truly how much protein we need.

why do you not consider that ingesting animal products results in excessive protein consumption?

>
> So if you want to be high protein on a plant only
> diet you have to aim higher.
>
> But I feel that lower protein is more protective,
> especially raw (please don't eat raw animal
> products, they are disease vectors and the protein
> is not as usable as in the cooked case)

raw protein is not as Usable?
those tigers better get a stove.


> The best source of protein is the cooked whole
> egg.

why is protein of interest?
why is More protein deemed important ?
why is cooked whole egg the best?
i would question those assumptions.


> You can do
> well with only plants.

what a relief!!

> When I was in the gym a lot
> I used rice protein powder (nutribiotic) along
> with my normal raw foods, just 1-2 tbsp per day on
> top of my usual diet.

interesting how i have good results without rice protein powder.

do you have some evidence that this regimen showed better results somehow than a raw whole foods plant diet? or that is was as healthful overall?

> .

..what relevance indeed I also question the value of some of these studies that have been designed to test a hypothesis, sometimes using unnatural diets for questionable durations etc.

Yeah, I didn't feel like responding anymore, but I mean, come on, let's use logic here. Every single human is different and responds differently to different diets, etc., let alone different species who were bred to have certain diseases and are fed in a vacuum, in an unnatural environment. I love how "scientists" use the excuse that it's okay to test on non-humans [without permission] because they are so different from us, yet they try to act like the results of different tests will somehow apply to us. Makes perfect sense [sarcasm]!

But whatever. I don't want to argue with people who have an agenda. No use.

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> scientifically sounding information seems to be
> accepted uncritically here.

What is this supposed to mean?

>
> arugula Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yes, Shane, it's two reasons:
> >
> > 1. better amino acid profile for higher
> > utilization
>
> taking such a narrow minded view misses so much.

It's not a narrow minded view and it misses nothing.
When the amino profile most closely resembles what is
needed for the body, the utililzation is highest. This
means that the absolutely LOWEST quantity of protein
would be needed for the body.

When the amino profile is less than optimal, MORE
protein will be needed to achieve the same result.

This is not a narrow minded view, it is a fact.


>
> animal souces do NOT have a "Better" amino acid
> profile.
>
> the statement is made as if in a vacuum.
> better for who? for what?
>

It is not a vacuum, it is a fact. You can read the
net nitrogen utilization papers and see for yourself.
I very often provide references but not in this case.
Google them if you wish.



> a food should not be evaluated relative to its
> amino acid profile or its supposed utilization.
> a food should be evaluated relative to its
> physiological/biological/digestive suitability for
> a particular organism ingesting it.

Well, if you did use only the highest quality proteins
you would need a lot less protein. And it would work
well.


>
> > 2. lack of dietary fiber for higher utilization
>
> based on what?

Any fiber means less of the food value is utilized. This
I have provided references for on several occasions.


I am not going to respond to the rest, it feels like I
am being abused by an elementary school student.

As a counterpoint, I believe that elementary students are more likely than adults to believe things just because they are told it's so and not to question that there is another way, a better way, a different way, and quicker way to find information (accurate and relevant info, at that).

arugula Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> When the amino profile most closely resembles what
> is
> needed for the body, the utililzation is highest.
> This
> means that the absolutely LOWEST quantity of
> protein
> would be needed for the body.
>
> When the amino profile is less than optimal, MORE
> protein will be needed to achieve the same
> result.

your error is that you think you know something about a amino acid profile in its relation to food and humans, and you don't. your false assumption causes you to draw incorrect conclusions about which foods are "optimal" for "protein"

>
> Well, if you did use only the highest quality
> proteins
> you would need a lot less protein. And it would
> work
> well.

i have no idea what your point is or how this applies to foods recommended


>
> Any fiber means less of the food value is
> utilized. This
> I have provided references for on several
> occasions.

we do not need More, or Less, we need whatever foods provide in their natural state.

why eat fiber?
why eat food?
i didn't see your answer. remember, i'm in the sixth grade - -one of those smart alecky kids in the back row.

What is going on?

arugula Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Another Fontana study:
>
> Aging Cell. 2008 Oct;7(5):681-7.
> Long-term effects of calorie or protein
> restriction on serum IGF-1 and IGFBP-3
> concentration in humans.
>
> Fontana L, Weiss EP, Villareal DT, Klein S,
> Holloszy JO.
> Division of Geriatrics & Nutritional Sciences,
> Washington University School of Medicine, St
> Louis, MO 63110, USA. lfontana@dom.wustl.edu
>
>
> Reduced function mutations in the insulin/IGF-I
> signaling pathway increase maximal lifespan and
> health span in many species. Calorie restriction
> (CR) decreases serum IGF-1 concentration by ~40%,
> protects against cancer and slows aging in
> rodents. However, the long-term effects of CR with
> adequate nutrition on circulating IGF-1 levels in
> humans are unknown. Here we report data from two
> long-term CR studies (1 and 6 years) showing that
> severe CR without malnutrition did not change
> IGF-1 and IGF-1 : IGFBP-3 ratio levels in humans.
> In contrast, total and free IGF-1 concentrations
> were significantly lower in moderately
> protein-restricted individuals. Reducing protein
> intake from an average of 1.67 g kg(-1) of body
> weight per day to 0.95 g kg(-1) of body weight per
> day for 3 weeks in six volunteers practicing CR
> resulted in a reduction in serum IGF-1 from 194 ng
> mL(-1) to 152 ng mL(-1). These findings
> demonstrate that, unlike in rodents, long-term
> severe CR does not reduce serum IGF-1
> concentration and IGF-1 : IGFBP-3 ratio in humans.
> In addition, our data provide evidence that
> protein intake is a key determinant of circulating
> IGF-1 levels in humans, and suggest that reduced
> protein intake may become an important component
> of anticancer and anti-aging dietary
> interventions.
> PMID: 18843793

..this report of two long term studies on humans concludes that humans practicing severe (without malnutrition) CR appear not to benefit quite in the same way as animals in past CR studies.. however lower protein intake may play a role in "anticancer and anti-aging" diets.

..thanks, arugula, for another cool study.

Utopian Life Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> non-coincidental proof, please, then, to back up
> your claim.


Not sure what that sentence means but I trust arugula answered your question.

And fresh, what on Earth are you talking about? It seems anyone who threatens your worldview gets an earfull.

Objectivity is a virtue. Arugula is not perfect, nor am I but at least we're not afraid of data that might rub us the wrong way (instead of saying "bah, who cares what "cooked food scientists" think?).

Yes, Tim VanOrden says it best. We need Amino Acids. We don't need Protein!!!! It is a myth to just sell products. We get enough nutrients from plants/fruits/and raw nuts and seeds.

-Eric

communitybuilder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> And fresh, what on Earth are you talking about?
> It seems anyone who threatens your worldview gets
> an earfull.
>
> Objectivity is a virtue. Arugula is not perfect,
> nor am I but at least we're not afraid of data
> that might rub us the wrong way (instead of saying
> "bah, who cares what "cooked food scientists"
> think?).

cb,

ah, yes, Objectivity.

this is what i'm talking about....

i have posted various things over the years here. some ostensibly helpful, some posts questioning other views.

i am well aware that i could be construed as being annoying, critical, etc...

the problem as i see it (and the reason that i question) is that while there are many here that put forth objective truth as demonstrated by the many successes of a real raw diet, there are others who are

1. intellectually dishonest through rationalizing/justifying personal behavior
2. thinking that fragmented "science" points to truth

and then
recommend or justify supplements, superfoods, cooked as a result of the above

and they can't even see the irrationality or destructiveness of it.

i do not feel that the above activities are helpful to newbies or to the forward progress of the raw diet.

when i was transitioning, i did not say, oh, its so hard, raw must be flawed, we all must need supplements, superfoods, meats, eggs, rice protein, etc
i trusted in the sound raw science and continued on my journey

what is done here to promote ACV, wheatgrass, cooked food, fragmented protein food sources, eggs, supplements
is (it finally occurred to me)
Intellectually Dishonest through justification and rationalization of personal behavior.

This is shown by the fact that
every person who engages in such rationalizations is Not Raw .

Nothing wrong with not being RAW, but when it is demonstrably true that raw succeeds, and that people still take personal behavior and extrapolate distorted recommendations from it, it's dishonest and destructive.

it's like Galileo who was labeled as a heretic

ezrider, bryan, flipperjan and others seem to be like galileo on this Rawfoodsupport Supplementation superfood Board, trying to buck the voices of moderation and compromise .

..studies are still being done on animals and insects.... this excerpt from the Vegan Society:

Bees are also victims of vivisection and a vast number of experiments are carried out worldwide on these creatures. Unfortunately their generally quiet nature makes the honeybee easily manipulated and it has been claimed that they make an ideal laboratory animal. Many experiments are conducted for research and development into colonies that will produce more honey and thus make more money. [www.vegansociety.com]

..according to PETA, insects are not protected anywhere.. mice, rat and bird studies are mostly if not entirely unregulated

..it takes more effort to tract down relevant human scientific studies but they are more meaningful

The Luigi Fontana studies, cited on "low-protein" and "lower protein" diets, are of humans and distinguish the results from those of animal studies.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/26/2009 02:26AM by nik.

fresh Wrote:

> i trusted in the sound raw science and continued
> on my journey
>
> Nothing wrong with not being RAW, but when it is
> demonstrably true that raw succeeds, and that
> people still take personal behavior and
> extrapolate distorted recommendations from it,
> it's dishonest and destructive.

What is "sound raw science"? What do you mean by "it is ... true that raw succeeds"? What is success, and when, where, and in whom does it happen? How is this success measured so we can all repeat it in order to verify the claims?

solitude bird Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gorillas is some of the most muscular animal in
> the planet...yet they are 99 percent vegetarian.

I was in the National Zoo this week, watching captive gorillas and orangutans. I watched them for hours, and they perform a behavior that made most of their human watchers leave the exhibit in disgust. After eating, all of the gorillas and orangutans throw up, then re-eat their vomit. They do this all day long, and they do it with delight. They even protect their own vomit from others who would also like to eat it. They re-eat both plant material and their specifically formulated ape chow.

The docent at the zoo's ape house repeated the same explanation over and over to the zoo's visitors. She kept saying that the gorillas and orangs re-eat the vomit so "they can absorb all the nutrients" in their exclusively vegetarian diet.

shane Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> >
> What is "sound raw science"?

What do you mean by
> "it is ... true that raw succeeds"?

What is
> success, and when, where, and in whom does it
> happen?

How is this success measured so we can
> all repeat it in order to verify the claims?


observations inferences studies and logic indicating that a simple raw fresh food diet works - that supplements/treatments/ are illogical destructive and/or unhelpful/unnecessary

with very few exceptions, humans are the same physiologically. humans that are raw and thriving provide evidence that raw unsupplemented diets are doable, and that the application of the diet is what should be modified and analyzed, instead of trying to justify the inclusion of so called foods/supplements/practices.
just as the fact that a seal can swim would be an indication that all seals can swim. one example is proof of concept, clear exceptions (born without flippers) notwithstanding.

define your own success quantitatively - i'm not getting into numbers. point is that humans and other animals thrive on a simple raw diet long term . look around.

measured by all normal indicators of healthful existence. i'm sure you can think of a few.