read if you have a mind to.




[www.huffingtonpost.com]



Green Smoothies vs. Juicing


Over the past five years I have introduced thousands of people to green smoothies, demonstrating their simplicity and deliciousness. It always comes as a surprise to attendees of my classes and workshops how good they actually taste; even children are fans of blended green drinks.

While there is no medical evidence to prove that juicing and green smoothies improve one's health over eating whole foods and vegetables, according to Dr. Glenn Braunstein, juicing or blending can be an effective way to consume the recommended nine servings (4.5 cups) per day. He references a 2009 survey by the Centers for Disease Control, where it is revealed that less than a third of adults are getting the recommended amounts of fruits and vegetables in their daily diets. A great way to think about starting your day with these tasty blended drinks is that you are getting some of your required servings in a painless, brainless way!

A common question I get is to explain the difference between juicing and blending.

Most people don't have the equipment, time or patience to juice every morning. Blended green drinks take only moments to prepare and leftovers can be stored in a covered container in the fridge for up to three days. Fresh juices are better consumed immediately lest the nutrients become diminished through oxidation. The fiber in the blended drinks keeps them from oxidizing as quickly. I have made green smoothies effectively in a variety of blenders while on the road, from the least inexpensive to the most sophisticated, and while the texture varies a bit, they still taste great.

Another benefit to blending over juicing is having less waste. When I juice I always have to figure out what creative thing I can do with the pulp (short of putting it on the compost pile) which feels like a lot of extra expense and bother.

Less is More

My formula is very simple for a blended green drink:
40 percent leafy greens (any green, lettuce or herb, although I tend to avoid iceberg)
60 percent fruits and/or vegetables (can be fresh or frozen or combination)
Filtered water or coconut water (several inches to break down the ingredients)
Ice (this is optional but most people feel that it makes them very pleasant and easy to drink)

I tend to be a purist with my green smoothies -- along the lines of Victoria Boutenko, author of Green Smoothie Revolution -- and stay away from adding things like milk (dairy or nut-based) or protein powders, as I prefer them to be simple and unprocessed. For variety I may sometimes add hemp, chia or flax seeds, bee pollen or coconut oil, as those are mainly unrefined. Think of your green smoothie essentially as a juice but with more fiber and less waste. You wouldn't be adding almond milk or protein powder to your juice, so no need to with a smoothie. Simple is a good thing.

Many people express concern that they have limited time in the morning but these take only moments to throw together and you can sip them on-the-go or while you are getting ready. Since the fiber is intact you can even make the green smoothie the night before and keep it covered and refrigerated.

You can also prep for the week ahead by dividing up the ingredients into plastic zip lock bags or containers and freeze them, so in the morning you just throw them in your blender with some added liquid.

Smoothies can be sweet or savory


[www.huffingtonpost.com]

Blending is an excellent way to get started on a raw vegan diet, but to me blending is doing the raw food vegan diet at one of the lowest levels. I still blend due to being busy, but l see it as a great compromise, and sometimes l tell myself l really need to get my act together and do raw foodism at a much higher level. I want to eat all my food and juice my greens to do my diet justice, but not so easy to do. I used to eat all my food once, but l would be eating for half my waking hours, but boy oh boy did l feel amazing!!!! I used to be so disciplined and was on such a high level, and l hope l can get back to that one day, but l feel l really need to pull my finger out and stop the blending. I still feel really good, but the level l used to be at was beyond belief almost, but l used to run every morning also and was 20 years younger and hadn't suffered a burn out. When you work too hard and burn out you are never the same regardless of how good you do things, but l have bounced back beyond my wildest dreams. I used to work in my office 12 hours a day for 7 days per week, and it got to the stage where l used to cry my eyes out on the way to work because l knew l was on the wrong path because l desired materialism and knew l had the potential for so much more than seeking the lowest level stuff. A balanced lifestyle is so important.

I have strong ideas on blending and will likely never change them, but l understand many see blending as something very desirable so l have no intentions on entering into any debates on this subject.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/18/2015 12:33AM by The Sproutarian Man.

I think the only justification for juicing is to get the greens in. I am not comfortable with removing all that fiber. A lot of the goodness is in the fiber.

Blending is a great way to make lowfat salad dressings. It's also a way to sneak in even more greens.

I usually do a large leafy salad and a medium sized fruit salad every day. I feel that if I get a glass of green juice and a green smoothie in on top of that, I am doing very well.

I do not do superfoods but I do use fortified milk alternatives and cooked legumes. I'd rather sprout my legumes but I am lazy to put in even more time than I already do.

"I feel that if I get a glass of green juice and a green smoothie in on top of that, I am doing very well."

Add in the algae's and you'll be doing even better

arugula Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think the only justification for juicing is to
> get the greens in.

My experience has shown that when l blended lots of greens l never was able to heal my organs internally and my skin was always bad regardless of how good my diet was. As soon as l switched over to juicing my skin greatly improved after 6 weeks and my digestion and organs were able to function much better. The juicing made me a whole new person that blended greens never got close to. Dr Brian Clement also reports that the deepest healing will never occur with blended food, he says juicing is essential for the deepest healing, and this is my experience exactly!



> I am not comfortable with
> removing all that fiber. A lot of the goodness is
> in the fiber.


Many people say that, but:

1). is there anything in the fiber that is not in the juice, and how important is it? And does blending destroy any things unique in the fiber?

2). what are we missing by having the juice (besides plain fiber), and in what amounts are we missing it?

See...lots of theories, but hard to get facts.

In my experience...juicing does raise the level on one's well being, and blending a whole plant food with fiber is a poor trade in terms of feeling good and deep internal healing. But...some people find juices cause blood sugar spikes, and not everyone seems to need to juice because they have good functioning organs and seem to thrive on less nutritious diets.

Juicing greens is such a great way to increase nutrition levels.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/18/2015 01:50AM by The Sproutarian Man.

1). is there anything in the fiber that is not in the juice, and how important is it? And does blending destroy any things unique in the fiber?

Yes. A lot of the phytochemicals, vitamins, and minerals are bound to the fiber. When you remove the fiber you remove a lot of the phytochemicals, vitamins, and minerals as well. There have been very few studies on which juicers do the best job of retaining antioxidant activity. Michael Donaldson of Hallelujah Acres has attempted to do this. I don't think he claims that juicing is superior to eating the whole plant food. It's inferior. But most of us do not have the capacity to eat 155 g of fiber or more per day so this is a way to sneak in a bit more than what we could eat as whole plant foods.

It should in no way substitute for whole plant foods. First, eat the whole plant food. Then, if you want extra, juice or blend. Blend, preferabbly.


2). what are we missing by having the juice (besides plain fiber), and in what amounts are we missing it?

You can weigh the original plant, then weigh the juice, then weigh the pulp. You will be missing whatever is in the pulp. That will be the entire spectrum of vitamins, minerals, and protective phytochemicals bound in the fiber as well as the fiber itself that is eliminated.


In my experience...juicing does raise the level on one's well being, and blending a whole plant food with fiber is a poor trade in terms of feeling good and deep internal healing. But...some people find juices cause blood sugar spikes, and not everyone seems to need to juice because they have good functioning organs and seem top thrive on less nutritious diets.

I think people feel that sugar spike and liken it to a spiritual high. I personally do not care for that sugar spike. I just want to get more greens in my body.

But if you consider people who eat garbage, yes, they will do better if they have green juice.


Generally whole food > blending > juicing. You can do all three, but if you want the most benefit, eat the whole plant.

I do this:

huge vegetable salad
medium sized fruit salad
blended greens smoothie mostly green some fruit
juiced greens: 1/3 greens, 1/3 nonsweet fruit, 1/3 sweet fruit by volume
handful of nuts/seeds/fatty fruit

I have a lot of different goals. One is to get as many greens in as I can. The other is to maximize variety. Another is to meet RDAs. Another is to max out on fiber. Another is to spend as little as possible. Another is to avoid processed and packaged foods. Another is to not take in excess calories.

It can get very complicated but it does not have to be. Most people would do ok with 20 bananas and 2 heads of romaine. But that gets boring.

arugula Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1). is there anything in the fiber that is not in
> the juice, and how important is it? And does
> blending destroy any things unique in the fiber?
>
> Yes. A lot of the phytochemicals, vitamins, and
> minerals are bound to the fiber. When you remove
> the fiber you remove a lot of the phytochemicals,
> vitamins, and minerals as well.


Sure, the juicing will take out some of these things, but the questions l would ask is....

1). does removing the fiber increase the bioavailability of the nutrients when juicing, and if so, by how much?

2). does blending destroy the phytochemical and vitamin contents?


Lots and lots of theories on blending, but no real solid answers. We know so little about anything. We only have the ability to scratch the surface on the blending v's juice issue because we largely have generalised ideas.

1). does removing the fiber increase the bioavailability of the nutrients when juicing, and if so, by how much?

It removes the nutrients in the fiber. Your best measure of this is to compare 100 kcal of whole food with 100 kcal of juiced food in the USDA nutrient database.

2). does blending destroy the phytochemical and vitamin contents?

Every time the blade strikes the plant, there will be some destruction. How much, I can't say. USDA nutrient database does not provide data for blended foods.

The best guess so far is the Hallelujah Acres diet study. Those people tended to be deficient in B12 (an easy fix--take a supplement or use fortified foods) and zinc (pick more zinc-rich foods).

"Those people tended to be deficient in B12 (an easy fix--take a supplement or use fortified foods) and zinc (pick more zinc-rich foods)."

Where do you get enough zinc on your low-fat diet?


In regards to juicing versus blending, I think concerns about fiber are overblown. Obviously fiber is an important nutrient, but most people who juice are not liquidarians - they are still getting plenty of fiber. When it comes to grasses, you have to juice them. Do you have any information on phytochemicals being bound to fiber?

Zinc: best whole-food plant sources tend towards mushrooms and legumes, which is one reason why I am still eating cooked legumes.

[nutritiondata.self.com]?


What you lose when you juice:

The video is better than the transcript because it includes graphs from the cited papers:
[nutritionfacts.org]

Transcript: Juicing Removes More Than Just Fiber

Studies like this, in which Harvard researchers found the consumption of whole fruits such as blueberries, grapes, and apples was significantly associated with a lower risk of type 2 diabetes, whereas greater fruit juice consumption was associated with a higher risk, highlight the dramatic difference between eating whole fruits and just drinking fruit juice.

If you eat apples, your cholesterol drops, compared to drinking apple juice, but leave just a little of the fiber behind—cloudy apple juice—and it makes a difference.

We used to just think of fiber as just a bulking agent that help with bowel regularity. In fact you can get the same laxative effect with indigestible plastic particles.

Feed people a couple spoonfuls of sliced polyvinyl tubing and you can increase stool bulk, frequency and consistency, so fiber was viewed as a similarly inert, indigestible substance.

But now we know fiber is digestible, by our gut bacteria, who make short chain fatty acids out of it, which have a number of health promoting effects, such as inhibiting the growth of bad bacteria, increasing mineral absorption—for example, experimentally infused into the rectum of the human body, they can stimulate calcium absorption. So much so you can improve the bone mineral density of teenagers just by giving them the fiber naturally found in foods like onions, asparagus, and bananas.

Our good bacteria also use fiber to maintain normal bowel structure and function, preventing or alleviating colonic-based diarrhea, and stimulating colonic blood flow up to five-fold, as well as fluid and electrolyte uptake. The major fuel for the cells that line our colon is butyrate, which our good bacteria make from fiber. So we feed them and they feed us right back.

But if the only difference between fruit and fruit juice is fiber, why can’t the juice industry just add some fiber back to the juice, sprinkle in a little Metamucil. Why can’t juice with added fiber be equated with whole fruit? The reason is because we remove a lot more than fiber when we juice fruits and vegetables. We lost all the nutrients that are bound to the fiber.

Way back in the 80’s a study found a discrepancy as to the amount of fiber in carob using two different methods. There was a gap of 21.5% that was identified not as fiber but nonextractable polyphenols, a class of phytonutrients thought to have an array of health-promoting effects. In the light of these results, it is worth noting that some of the effects associated with the intake of dietary fiber in plants may actually be due to the presence of these polyphenols.

Nonextractable polyphenols, usually ignored, are the major part of dietary polyphenols. Most polyphenol phytonutrients in plants are locked to the fiber.

These so-called missing polyphenols make it down to our colon and are then liberated by our friendly flora, and can then get absorbed into our system. The phytonutrients in fruit and vegetable juice may just be the tip of the iceberg.

Sources:

F Saura-Calixto. Effect of Condensed Tannins in the Analysis of Dietary Fiber in Carob Pods. Journal of Food Science. Aug 2006; 53(6):1769 - 1771.

L Bravo, R Abia, F Saura-Calixto. Polyphenols as Dietary Fiber Associated Compounds. Comparative Study on in Vivo and in Vitro Properties. J. Agric. Food Chem., 1994, 42 (7), pp 1481–1487.

S Arranz, J M Silván, F Saura-Calixto. Nonextractable polyphenols, usually ignored, are the major part of dietary polyphenols: A study on the Spanish diet. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2010 Nov;54(11):1646-58.

V Kumar, A K Sinha, H P Makkar, G de Boeck, K Becker. Dietary roles of non-starch polysaccharides in human nutrition: a review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2012;52(10):899-935.

F Saura-Calixto. Concept and health-related properties of nonextractable polyphenols: the missing dietary polyphenols. J Agric Food Chem. 2012 Nov 14;60(45):11195-200.

G Ravn-Haren, L O Dragsted, T Buch-Andersen, E N Jensen, R I Jensen, M Nemeth-Balogh, B Paulovicsova, A Berstrom, A Wilcks, T R Licht, J Markowski, S Bugel. Intake of whole apples or clear apple juice has contrasting effects on plasma lipids in healthy volunteers. Eur J Nutr. 2013 Dec;52(8):1875-89.

I Muraki, F Imamura, J E Manson, F B Hu, W C Willett, R M van Dam, Q Sun. Fruit consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes: results from three prospective longitudinal cohort studies. BMJ. 2013 Aug 28;347:f5001.

J M Wojcicki, M B Heyman. Reducing childhood obesity by eliminating 100% fruit juice. Am J Public Health. 2012 Sep;102(9):1630-3.

S A Abrams, I J Griffin, K M Hawthorne, L Liang, S K Gunn, G Darlington, K J Ellis. A combination of prebiotic short- and long-chain inulin-type fructans enhances calcium absorption and bone mineralization in young adolescents. Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Aug;82(2):471-6.

J Tomlin, N W Read. Laxative properties of indigestible plastic particles. BMJ. Nov 5, 1988; 297(6657): 1175–1176.

H Alexiou, A Franck. Prebiotic inulin-type fructans: nutritional benefits beyond dietary fibre source. Nutrition Bulletin: 33: 227–233, 13 Aug 2008.

"Where do you get enough zinc on your low-fat diet? "

you personally have no idea of the zinc requirements of a particular person. and especially on a particular diet, whether high or low fat, as you have no idea how the diet impacts nutrient absorption.

specifically...

1. you do not know the zinc content of your diet or anyone else's diet
2. you do not know the absorption percent of your body or anyone else's

so your question is moot, as is your assumption that you personally are "getting enough" zinc, or any other nutrient. other than observing symptoms.

all this fearmongering is silly (even though it will continue), as it only impacts those on poor limited diets, not raw foodists with access to a variety of fruits and veg. (no ALGAE needed)

however, as an estimate, zinc requirements for an example female are 1 mg per day
taking into consideration 50% absorption... that's an intake of 2mg per day.

now you can certainly make the claim that a particular person's diet is lower in zinc, and/or their absorption is lower than 50%.

however, the example above is reasonable, and is EASILY achievable on a SIMPLE FRUIT AND VEGETABLE DIET. as i have been saying ad nauseum.

now of course you will point to the absurd 5mg+ levels that "they" claim are necessary, thereby driving nutrient seekers to "nutrient dense" foods which harm more than help.

but of course that does not suit some people who think they are very smart, and wish to involve themselves in things that they have no real accurate knowledge of, since diet and the body is wild guesswork at best. and in fact the nutrient seekers tend to eat NON OPTIMAL foods and DRIED "foods" in their endless quest for "nutrients".

cheers!

Fresh, I agree.

They don't really know.

We don't really know, either.

But it seems prudent to meet with their best guess for expectations, which is generally produced with good faith albeit in the context of an absolutely garbage diet.

This does not mean that their pronouncements are completely garbage. What it does me, to me, is that it might be worthwhile to see what other countries are promoting, such as Japan, where the diet tends to be not as junky.

US RDA for females is 8 mg zinc
It is also 8 mg zinc in Japan.

So maybe there is something to it.

"which is one reason why I am still eating cooked legumes. "

this is exactly what i am talking about above. prindl and the nutrient "experts" promote non foods and cause decreased health in their loyal followers.


>But it seems prudent to meet with their best guess for expectations, which is generally produced with good faith albeit in the context of an absolutely garbage diet.

no it is not produced with good faith.
it is part and parcel of the more is better nonsense, as well as animal product producers, even whilst MORE is what causes all of the organic dysfunction.


>US RDA for females is 8 mg zinc
It is also 8 mg zinc in Japan.

everyone is free do follow the us RDA. here is some real science below.
following the RDA will GUARANTEE the illnesses of gluttony and excess and dehydration.

"The lack of specific and sensitive indexes for zinc status limits the possibilities for evaluating zinc requirements from epidemiologic observations. In the FAO/IAEA/WHO 1996 report (32), zinc requirements were estimated by using the factorial technique (i.e., by adding the requirements for tissue growth, maintenance, metabolism, and endogenous losses). Experimental zinc repletion studies with low zinc intakes have clearly shown that the body has a pronounced ability to adapt to different levels of zinc intakes by changing the endogenous zinc losses through the kidneys, intestine, and skin (5-9,33). The normative requirement for absorbed zinc was defined as the obligatory loss during the early phase of zinc depletion before adaptive reductions in excretion take place and was set at 1.4 mg/day for men and 1.0 mg/day for women. To estimate the normative maintenance requirements for other age groups, the respective basal metabolic rates were used for extrapolation. In growing individuals the rate of accretion and zinc content of newly formed tissues were used to obtain the data required for tissue growth. Similarly, the retention of zinc during pregnancy and the zinc concentration in milk at different stages of lactation were used to estimate the physiologic requirements in pregnancy and lactation (32).

The translation of these estimates of absorbed zinc to requirements for dietary zinc involves several considerations. First, the nature of the diet (i.e., its content of promoters and inhibitors of zinc absorption) determines the fraction of the dietary zinc that is potentially absorbable. Second, the efficiency of absorption of potentially available zinc is inversely related to the content of zinc in the diet. The review of available data from experimental zinc absorption studies of single meals or total diets resulted in a division of diets into three categories - high, moderate, and low zinc bio-availability - as detailed in Table 54 (32). It was then discovered that the relationship between efficiency of absorption and zinc content differed for these diets (32). Algorithms were developed (32) and applied to the estimates of requirements for absorbed zinc to achieve a set of figures for the average individual dietary zinc requirements (Table 55). The fractional absorption figures applied for the three diet categories were 50 percent, 30 percent, and 15 percent, respectively. From these estimates and from the evaluation of data from dietary intake studies, mean population intakes were identified which were deemed sufficient to ensure a low prevalence of individuals at risk of inadequate zinc intake (32)."

Fresh, you seem a bit upset, sounds like you could really use some AFA blue-green algae.

i don't eat it, i swim in it. absorb it through the skin.
it's the only way i can get those hard to get nutrients.
oh , yes, you are so right, prindl, i am just so upset!!!
i am just red in the face and crying here!
jumping up and down and screaming!

or maybe not

Arugula wrote:
I think the only justification for juicing is to get the greens in. I am not comfortable with removing all that fiber. A lot of the goodness is in the fiber.

Tai:
Regardless of preference, if you have an overgrown garden, juicing is perfect to consume massive quantities of food and not waste the produce or let it go to seed. Let's take fennel. It not only is a delicious juice and so healing, but the tops are too fibrous to eat or blend, so they are perfect for juicing. I always save the tender bulb for eating. When my cactus grows too big and gets really stringy, I have to juice it. Blending is not an option.
But when cactus is very tender, it is too mucilaginous to juice and so blending is best.
SOmetimes the food item itself dictates whether juicing is best, like TSM's sprouts are better juiced because he can take in more enzymes and extract the vital nutrients more versus blending. But sometimes blending is the better method. It all depends on the item. I think the more tools, the better...that's the characteristics of humans.

I have some studies tucked away about bioavailability of phytochemicals in various foods, so l will have to re-read them properly and try to post some stuff. And lets not forget that sprouts can have up to 100 times the amount of certain phytochemicals over vegetables, so juicing sprouts will more than makes up for lost phytochemicals lost in juicing, and when ferments are had the bioavailability is enhanced. Various phytochemicals are poorly absorbed too, so a good level from sprouted foods will serve a person very very well.

Like Tai said, juicing greens allows me to fit a lot more greens in and leaves room to eat the more dense foods to get calories up. The system works perfectly for me, but l can see how it might not work so well for different vegan diets. I can't blend a bucket of green sprouts because l wouldn't be able to fit it all in and leave room for the higher calorie foods, but l can consume a bucket of greens when l juice. I get plenty of phytochemicals from many foods....far more than any other diet can possibly give (a scientific fact), so l need not worry.

That's another issue l have with the Hippocrates diet, they teach people to eat big salads, but these salads are full of low calorie foods and it makes it hard to sustain weight. I say to eat more substancial foods like sprouted seeds, fermented nuts, lentils and grains and to juice the greens so there is room to boost the calories, but also to explore the option of higher fat with various protection stategies in place. I try to promote a sprout diet that is more flexible and workable for the average person. If a person wants to eat a salad of low calorie foods they might want to have a small seaweed/algae and green salad, but keep it small and keep the juices to do much of the heavy lifting. Eating high calorie desnse foods is not dangerous/unhealthy like many raw vegans have been lead to believe IF we construct the diet well to balance out any possible negative effects of these dense foods.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/18/2015 07:11AM by The Sproutarian Man.

let's review what is in ferments:


-Lactic acid
-Carbonic acid
-Alcohol
-Ammonia
-Vinegar

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> let's review what is in ferments:
>
>
> -Lactic acid
> -Carbonic acid
> -Alcohol
> -Ammonia
> -Vinegar


There is more to the story behind ammonia, carbonic acid, vinegar and lactic acid than many are lead to believe, but l don't wish to go into that now. The key to getting health effects of these substances is to consume them in low quantities. Seeing these things as soley a waste product and poisen is to not see the full picture.


(sprout study on bioavailable phytochemicals has been deleted).

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> here is
> some real science below.
> following the RDA will GUARANTEE the illnesses of
> gluttony and excess and dehydration.
>
> "The lack of specific and sensitive indexes for
> zinc status limits the possibilities for
> evaluating zinc requirements from epidemiologic
> observations. In the FAO/IAEA/WHO 1996 report
> (32), zinc requirements were estimated by using
> the factorial technique (i.e., by adding the
> requirements for tissue growth, maintenance,
> metabolism, and endogenous losses). Experimental
> zinc repletion studies with low zinc intakes have
> clearly shown that the body has a pronounced
> ability to adapt to different levels of zinc
> intakes by changing the endogenous zinc losses
> through the kidneys, intestine, and skin (5-9,33).
> The normative requirement for absorbed zinc was
> defined as the obligatory loss during the early
> phase of zinc depletion before adaptive reductions
> in excretion take place and was set at 1.4 mg/day
> for men and 1.0 mg/day for women. To estimate the
> normative maintenance requirements for other age
> groups, the respective basal metabolic rates were
> used for extrapolation. In growing individuals the
> rate of accretion and zinc content of newly formed
> tissues were used to obtain the data required for
> tissue growth. Similarly, the retention of zinc
> during pregnancy and the zinc concentration in
> milk at different stages of lactation were used to
> estimate the physiologic requirements in pregnancy
> and lactation (32).
>
> The translation of these estimates of absorbed
> zinc to requirements for dietary zinc involves
> several considerations. First, the nature of the
> diet (i.e., its content of promoters and
> inhibitors of zinc absorption) determines the
> fraction of the dietary zinc that is potentially
> absorbable. Second, the efficiency of absorption
> of potentially available zinc is inversely related
> to the content of zinc in the diet. The review of
> available data from experimental zinc absorption
> studies of single meals or total diets resulted in
> a division of diets into three categories - high,
> moderate, and low zinc bio-availability - as
> detailed in Table 54 (32). It was then discovered
> that the relationship between efficiency of
> absorption and zinc content differed for these
> diets (32). Algorithms were developed (32) and
> applied to the estimates of requirements for
> absorbed zinc to achieve a set of figures for the
> average individual dietary zinc requirements
> (Table 55). The fractional absorption figures
> applied for the three diet categories were 50
> percent, 30 percent, and 15 percent, respectively.
> From these estimates and from the evaluation of
> data from dietary intake studies, mean population
> intakes were identified which were deemed
> sufficient to ensure a low prevalence of
> individuals at risk of inadequate zinc intake
> (32)."


Hi Fresh,

now that is quite a reasonable post you have quoted about zinc, and not all vegans are low in zinc according to Dr Coisens, but it is always important to remember that people metabolise nutrients very very differently, in fact, people (a married couple) eating almost identicle diets can be extremely low in certain nutrients while the other partner have high levels of those nutrients, so always best to assume that the above science quoted will not apply to everyone. Yes, bodies do have the ability to utilise more nutrition when one is low in nutrients, but we need to be careful not to use this and other ideas to explain away low nutrient diets as safe for everyone.

Fruit and veggie diets don't work for everyone Fresh, so we need to be careful when promoting diets as a one fits all. The fruit and veggie diet is a very narrow scope to be working with because it will always be low fat and high carb, but we know those ratios don't work for everyone, so it's always a good idea to broaden our ideas on diet so we can best tailor a diet for one's needs. The raw movement is very well known for it's narrow ideas on diet and it has not done us any favours, so l hope to see the movement move past that stag on the road so we can grow and blossom and become adults of the raw food world. Raw food 101 = the childrens world. Raw food 404 = the adults world of raw. We don't want to be like children anymore Fresh, we want to shine in the sun and lead the way to great dietary thinking. Raw food 101 did well for many years, but now it is time to use current information to have the movement shine brighter than ever before (these last 5 - 6 lines are said in a very theatrical voice with abundantly high spirits and emphasis on certain worlds like in a shakesphere play). .

Fresh - do you believe we originated from apes/chimps etc?

arugula Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Zinc: best whole-food plant sources tend towards
> mushrooms and legumes, which is one reason why I
> am still eating cooked legumes.
>
> [nutritiondata.self.com]
> 0000000-3w.html?
>
>
> What you lose when you juice:
>
> The video is better than the transcript because it
> includes graphs from the cited papers:
> [nutritionfacts.org]
> re-than-just-fiber/
>
> Transcript: Juicing Removes More Than Just Fiber
>
> Studies like this, in which Harvard researchers
> found the consumption of whole fruits such as
> blueberries, grapes, and apples was significantly
> associated with a lower risk of type 2 diabetes,
> whereas greater fruit juice consumption was
> associated with a higher risk, highlight the
> dramatic difference between eating whole fruits
> and just drinking fruit juice.
>
> If you eat apples, your cholesterol drops,
> compared to drinking apple juice, but leave just a
> little of the fiber behind—cloudy apple
> juice—and it makes a difference.
>
> We used to just think of fiber as just a bulking
> agent that help with bowel regularity. In fact you
> can get the same laxative effect with indigestible
> plastic particles.
>
> Feed people a couple spoonfuls of sliced polyvinyl
> tubing and you can increase stool bulk, frequency
> and consistency, so fiber was viewed as a
> similarly inert, indigestible substance.
>
> But now we know fiber is digestible, by our gut
> bacteria, who make short chain fatty acids out of
> it, which have a number of health promoting
> effects, such as inhibiting the growth of bad
> bacteria, increasing mineral absorption—for
> example, experimentally infused into the rectum of
> the human body, they can stimulate calcium
> absorption. So much so you can improve the bone
> mineral density of teenagers just by giving them
> the fiber naturally found in foods like onions,
> asparagus, and bananas.
>
> Our good bacteria also use fiber to maintain
> normal bowel structure and function, preventing or
> alleviating colonic-based diarrhea, and
> stimulating colonic blood flow up to five-fold, as
> well as fluid and electrolyte uptake. The major
> fuel for the cells that line our colon is
> butyrate, which our good bacteria make from fiber.
> So we feed them and they feed us right back.
>
> But if the only difference between fruit and fruit
> juice is fiber, why can’t the juice industry
> just add some fiber back to the juice, sprinkle in
> a little Metamucil. Why can’t juice with added
> fiber be equated with whole fruit? The reason is
> because we remove a lot more than fiber when we
> juice fruits and vegetables. We lost all the
> nutrients that are bound to the fiber.
>
> Way back in the 80’s a study found a discrepancy
> as to the amount of fiber in carob using two
> different methods. There was a gap of 21.5% that
> was identified not as fiber but nonextractable
> polyphenols, a class of phytonutrients thought to
> have an array of health-promoting effects. In the
> light of these results, it is worth noting that
> some of the effects associated with the intake of
> dietary fiber in plants may actually be due to the
> presence of these polyphenols.
>
> Nonextractable polyphenols, usually ignored, are
> the major part of dietary polyphenols. Most
> polyphenol phytonutrients in plants are locked to
> the fiber.
>
> These so-called missing polyphenols make it down
> to our colon and are then liberated by our
> friendly flora, and can then get absorbed into our
> system. The phytonutrients in fruit and vegetable
> juice may just be the tip of the iceberg.
>
> Sources:
>
> F Saura-Calixto. Effect of Condensed Tannins in
> the Analysis of Dietary Fiber in Carob Pods.
> Journal of Food Science. Aug 2006; 53(6):1769 -
> 1771.
>
> L Bravo, R Abia, F Saura-Calixto. Polyphenols as
> Dietary Fiber Associated Compounds. Comparative
> Study on in Vivo and in Vitro Properties. J.
> Agric. Food Chem., 1994, 42 (7), pp 1481–1487.
>
> S Arranz, J M Silván, F Saura-Calixto.
> Nonextractable polyphenols, usually ignored, are
> the major part of dietary polyphenols: A study on
> the Spanish diet. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2010
> Nov;54(11):1646-58.
>
> V Kumar, A K Sinha, H P Makkar, G de Boeck, K
> Becker. Dietary roles of non-starch
> polysaccharides in human nutrition: a review. Crit
> Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2012;52(10):899-935.
>
> F Saura-Calixto. Concept and health-related
> properties of nonextractable polyphenols: the
> missing dietary polyphenols. J Agric Food Chem.
> 2012 Nov 14;60(45):11195-200.
>
> G Ravn-Haren, L O Dragsted, T Buch-Andersen, E N
> Jensen, R I Jensen, M Nemeth-Balogh, B
> Paulovicsova, A Berstrom, A Wilcks, T R Licht, J
> Markowski, S Bugel. Intake of whole apples or
> clear apple juice has contrasting effects on
> plasma lipids in healthy volunteers. Eur J Nutr.
> 2013 Dec;52(8):1875-89.
>
> I Muraki, F Imamura, J E Manson, F B Hu, W C
> Willett, R M van Dam, Q Sun. Fruit consumption and
> risk of type 2 diabetes: results from three
> prospective longitudinal cohort studies. BMJ. 2013
> Aug 28;347:f5001.
>
> J M Wojcicki, M B Heyman. Reducing childhood
> obesity by eliminating 100% fruit juice. Am J
> Public Health. 2012 Sep;102(9):1630-3.
>
> S A Abrams, I J Griffin, K M Hawthorne, L Liang, S
> K Gunn, G Darlington, K J Ellis. A combination of
> prebiotic short- and long-chain inulin-type
> fructans enhances calcium absorption and bone
> mineralization in young adolescents. Am J Clin
> Nutr. 2005 Aug;82(2):471-6.
>
> J Tomlin, N W Read. Laxative properties of
> indigestible plastic particles. BMJ. Nov 5, 1988;
> 297(6657): 1175–1176.
>
> H Alexiou, A Franck. Prebiotic inulin-type
> fructans: nutritional benefits beyond dietary
> fibre source. Nutrition Bulletin: 33: 227–233,
> 13 Aug 2008.

So interesting arugula! Thanks for taking the time.

Drink green juices and eat fruits. Fruits and sprouts have a lot of fiber.
The problem is not lack of nutrients but nutrient absorption.
Fiber is not an issue.

I wonder if the writer, LindaJoy Rose, is related to John Rose. Is she John?

Anon 102 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wonder if the writer, LindaJoy Rose, is related
> to John Rose. Is she John?


I doubt it very much. John is very fit and handsome.

But this woman is obese and out of shape. I doubt she is a vegan.
She looks like she eats garbage most of the time and a smoothie
now and then maybe.

>
> Fruit and veggie diets don't work for everyone
> Fresh, so we need to be careful when promoting
> diets as a one fits all. The fruit and veggie diet
> is a very narrow scope to be working with because
> it will always be low fat and high carb, but we
> know those ratios don't work for everyone, so it's
> always a good idea to broaden our ideas on diet so
> we can best tailor a diet for one's needs. The raw
> movement is very well known for it's narrow ideas
> on diet and it has not done us any favours, so l
> hope to see the movement move past that stag on
> the road so we can grow and blossom and become
> adults of the raw food world. Raw food 101 = the
> childrens world. Raw food 404 = the adults world
> of raw. We don't want to be like children
> anymore Fresh, we want to shine in the sun and
> lead the way to great dietary thinking. Raw food
> 101 did well for many years, but now it is time to
> use current information to have the movement shine
> brighter than ever before (these last 5 - 6 lines
> are said in a very theatrical voice with
> abundantly high spirits and emphasis on certain
> worlds like in a shakesphere play). .
>

i don't agree with the above. which is perfectly fine.

> Fresh - do you believe we originated from
> apes/chimps etc?

I have studied evolution for many years. I find that people to want to discuss evolution do not understand it and make statements like you have above, which appears to be making a rather strange claim. so it's rather pointless to get into a conversation without the requisite understanding. to answer your question, no. i accept the common evolutionary thought which is quite well accepted and documented , that humans are descendants of a long line of hominid ancestors, not "apes/chimps". those ancestors were shrewlike at one point and later lived in trees to some extent. regardless of our evolution, my personal experimentation is more important and provides clear indicators of optimal diet, just as it has for others. so for example, we clearly have eaten many foods throughout history, including tubers, meat, nuts, fruit, leaves, etc, yet only some of those are metabolized cleanly and provide the ability of my body to have the most energy, which is my primary goal. others may have other goals.

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "which is one reason why I am still eating cooked
> legumes. "
>
> this is exactly what i am talking about above.
> prindl and the nutrient "experts" promote non
> foods and cause decreased health in their loyal
> followers.

Fresh, do you have any evidence that I am promoting nonfoods?
Last time I checked, legumes were edible when cooked. In addition
they are associated with longevity and may be the single most
important aspect of a healthy diet in the elderly.

[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

There is no need to promote magical thinking when seeking out a
healthy diet. If you don't want them fine, but to say they are
not food that causes decreased health is nonsense.

You have no evidence of that.



> no it is not produced with good faith.
> it is part and parcel of the more is better
> nonsense, as well as animal product producers,
> even whilst MORE is what causes all of the organic
> dysfunction.
>

> everyone is free do follow the us RDA. here is
> some real science below.
> following the RDA will GUARANTEE the illnesses of
> gluttony and excess and dehydration.

Actually there is no conflict between what you and I
posted. Your WHO/FAO citation provides best guesses
for dietary needs with low, moderate, and high bioavailablity
diets and they are not all that different from US RDA.

US RDA is a bit more paranoid with a higher safety factor
but not a bad aim. it is absolutely not a guarantee of
gluttony and excess and dehydration.

John Kohler, who founded this forum, aims to meet his RDAs
with his diet. So does Dean Pomerleau, who is part of Luigi
Fontana's optimal longevity studies.

There is no need for hysteria. If you are certain that you
have better answers, that's fine, and by all means provide
evidence (here you have only confirmed that there is some
doubt which can be erased by aiming for somewhat higher intakes)
but be careful with your language. One can lose credibility
when one makes fantastic claims and uses fantastic language.

I think you have a great deal to offer in many ways, though.

"i don't agree with the above"

Is that because you're simplistic and close-minded and entrenched in dogmatic beliefs?

"If you don't want them fine, but to say they are
not food that causes decreased health is nonsense."

You're talking to someone who primarily eats dates and lettuce, his cognitive functioning isn't all there. He likes to pretend he knows what he's talking about but can never really back it up, it's always just his opinion based upon his dogmatic beliefs. He also likes to pretend that he knows other people's intentions and knows what's going on in their heads. He seems paranoid and a bit delusional. He also seems to think not having any signs of chronic disease equates to optimal health. Hard to have a conversation with close-minded people who have religious, dogmatic views on diet.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/18/2015 04:06PM by jtprindl.

arugula Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fresh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "which is one reason why I am still eating
> cooked
> > legumes. "
> >
> > this is exactly what i am talking about above.
> > prindl and the nutrient "experts" promote non
> > foods and cause decreased health in their loyal
> > followers.
>
> Fresh, do you have any evidence that I am
> promoting nonfoods?

was not referring to you and not referring to legumes.
referring to prindl as you can see, and more to algae and powders and extracts, etc.

> Last time I checked, legumes were edible when
> cooked. In addition
> they are associated with longevity and may be the
> single most
> important aspect of a healthy diet in the
> elderly.
>


1.whether something is edible or not is not the best question when it comes to cooking. that's the whole point of the raw diet. that we can thrive on all raw. there is no evidence that we cannot, other than the incessant nutrient concerns which have no validity based on science or experience.

2. associations between foods and health outcomes are extremely weak as genetics has a large role, as well as other factors. and longevity is not the primary goal - you can live long not very healthfully.



> [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
>
> There is no need to promote magical thinking when
> seeking out a
> healthy diet. If you don't want them fine, but to
> say they are
> not food that causes decreased health is
> nonsense.
>
> You have no evidence of that.
>

again i was not referring to beans. with respect to beans what i meant was that in the search for nutrients that are allegedly low in a raw plant diet, people eat cooked items or other things that would not be eaten if one did not have the wrongheaded notion about alleged nutrient deficiency based on flawed rdas.

i ask you what would you eat if you knew nothing about nutrients?
do you believe in that we can thrive on all raw or not?
can every other animal but we cannot?
our foods are not so poor in nutrients as is claimed.

when i say decreased health here is what i mean, and JR has spoken about this.
there are 2 requirements for the highest level of physical and mental energy and well being in my opinion. one is cleansing the body. two is eating all raw fresh whole plants. animal products and ALL cooked foods in my experience will cause a drop in energy as well as other health factors. you cannot feel the difference, however, if you have not done the requisite cleansing for a long enough period of time.

now nobody knows about longevity and diet for sure. So I am only speaking about short term sense of well being and energy and elimination , skin , etc.



>
>
> > no it is not produced with good faith.
> > it is part and parcel of the more is better
> > nonsense, as well as animal product producers,
> > even whilst MORE is what causes all of the
> organic
> > dysfunction.
> >
>
> > everyone is free do follow the us RDA. here is
> > some real science below.
> > following the RDA will GUARANTEE the illnesses
> of
> > gluttony and excess and dehydration.
>
> Actually there is no conflict between what you and
> I
> posted. Your WHO/FAO citation provides best
> guesses
> for dietary needs with low, moderate, and high
> bioavailablity
> diets and they are not all that different from US
> RDA.
>
> US RDA is a bit more paranoid with a higher safety
> factor
> but not a bad aim. it is absolutely not a
> guarantee of
> gluttony and excess and dehydration.

fair enough. however Generally speaking, taking all nutrients into consideration, following the rdas will send one down the wrong path, including overeating and wrong foods, and certainly eating anything cooked leads to dehydration that is not so easily corrected.
>
> John Kohler, who founded this forum, aims to meet
> his RDAs
> with his diet. So does Dean Pomerleau, who is part
> of Luigi
> Fontana's optimal longevity studies.
>

ok. i will check out dean. thank you. although i am not certain what it means that X person follows the rdas



> There is no need for hysteria. If you are certain
> that you
> have better answers, that's fine, and by all
> means provide
> evidence (here you have only confirmed that there
> is some
> doubt which can be erased by aiming for somewhat
> higher intakes)
> but be careful with your language. One can lose
> credibility
> when one makes fantastic claims and uses fantastic
> language.
>

i am not the only being hysterical, it is the nutrient paranoia that is being hysterical..

the body does not like excess, and with some nutrients there is a clear detriment to excess.

excess decreases the efficiency of assimilation and low amounts increases the efficiency. so you really don't know if going for higher amounts as insurance will help or not and it can certainly harm- and you may end up at the same place nutritionally.


> I think you have a great deal to offer in many
> ways, though.

you are kinder than most.

4 heads of romaine and 30 dates plus a reliable source of B12 and sunshine might work for a while. Selenium is missing, though. Also that would get very very boring.

Personally I crave variety.

I like to have 30-40 different foods every day. And I am quite religious about both variety and content. There is strength in diversity. Some people think mono meals are the way and that would be fine as long as it was a different mono meal every meal every day every month. I like to have a bite full of different flavors, textures, and colors, though. It keeps my interest high.

I believe in very high F+V and high greens. I am "nutty" myself in that way.

Also, I don't see the need to deny myself legumes. Maybe the most important reason why legumes "seem" to be protective in the elderly is that they are not meat.

Sure I can understand why some consider them to be less than ideal. Generally they need cooking.

On the other hand, I have issues with either too much fat or too much fruit and adding legumes seems to be a way to avoid either of these issues.