Sunberry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> banana who, Fruit Faery
>
> You are right, it may fruitless to argue even
> though he seems to want to talk about it because
> he got disillusioned after his cholesterol went up
> after following his doctor's advice. But I have a
> faint hope he will consider some of the things I
> have told him. I am no match for him
> intellectually, he would be right in there with
> Chris and Paul.

Hi Sunberry

You have obviously planted some seeds! just give the situation some time & space. Perhaps its time to take a step back if its causing you discomfort.

Have you considered that an introductory role was the only role you were meant to play?
Allow nature to take its course. Not everything is resolved intellectually!
Maybe this is the lesson here for both you and your friend.
Love & respect x

loeve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sunberry Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > If you have any good articles bookmarked pls
> share
> > them.
> > My friend has very high cholesterol.
>
> There's a recent study out of Giessen, Germany,
> Long-Term Consumption of a Raw Food Diet (70%
> plus) Is Associated with Favorable Serum LDL
> Cholesterol and Triglycerides but Also with
> Elevated Plasma Homocysteine and Low Serum HDL
> Cholesterol in Humans1,2
> [jn.nutrition.org]
> 72
>
> [jn.nutrition.org]
> 72/T2
>
> The diet table shows the raw vegans eating about
> 75% fruit, 25% vegetables and almost no grains
> which qualifies the average participant as a
> frugivore. Some of the cholesterol numbers are
> good and could be better if they were getting
> their B12, seems to me.

I might add, the low HDL levels in these Giessen "frugivores" is part of an "overall low health risk" --

"When the cardioprotective effects of HDL cholesterol are attributed to its role in reverse cholesterol transport, this finding is less relevant for raw food diet adherents, considering the overall low health risk and the low total cholesterol concentrations in this specific population. Nevertheless, there is increasing evidence that the severity of the formation of atherosclerotic lesions in humans is inversely related to HDL cholesterol concentrations (56). HDL particles stimulate endothelial nitric oxide synthase. In this process, the presence of apolipoprotein A-I and the scavenger receptor, class B, type I is also essential (57). The endothelium-derived NO is a key mediator of vasomotor tone and an important protective molecule, which also modulates platelet and leukocyte adherence to the endothelium as well as endothelial cell proliferation and migration (58,59). Therefore, the very low HDL cholesterol observed in the present study may be of special importance considering the accompanying high concentrations of tHcy observed in the raw food diet adherents."

[jn.nutrition.org] (Discussion section)

pborst Wrote:

> I'm a raw vegan Chris.

For moral reasons, you told me... Who is minimizing the deadly effect of the average, mixed diet, which is the biggest killer of humans and animals together.

> my
> health is fine.

Good. The topic is the health of those who haven't tried a biochemically compatible diet that is inversely related to diseases.

> Your supposition about feeling
> healthier on a frugivorous diet is just that.

In order to understand it, contrast the studies testing the benefits of low protein diets to high protein. Then try it. It is not based on 'supposition' but experience and scientific research and understanding. The health benefits of reducing protein intake to biochemically compatible levels are REAL for humans and meat is NOT natural/biochemically compatible/healthy food for humans.

> restricting food choice beyond
> a certain point is counterproductive.

Vague claim that isn't falsifiable, absolutely meaningless. Nobody is advocating to restrict 'food'. I suggested to restrict unhealthy food products. There are thousands of exotic fruits most people don't bother trying. Omniconfused people consume less than half the species of some great apes in their regular diets. A human frugivore can easily double the intake of different species of food in his/her diet while shedding the scavenging diets of meat/cooked beans/grains/refined sugar/cow dairy/ alcohol, etc.

> you have got the data to back your
> claim, so your making an ad hominem attack
> instead.

Data was provided, you blithely ignored it. The observation was not an 'ad hominem attack' as I explained why your behavior was blithe, considering the importance of the rampant gout epidemic. It is DANGEROUS to downplay the preventable diseases and that minimization is what maintains the status quo, sick society, who doesn't think they can improve their states with a raw, frugivorous diet. I clearly and repeatedly hammered away at the fact that the scavengers examples you tried to compare to humans and their diets are vastly different in many ways to the human, biochemically compatible diet but you denied and minimized the data presented, in spite of this, instead posting off topic wiki articles, then just claiming the risks for gout and other diseases were just so low that it didn't matter. This is blithe behavior. I didn't say you were blithe but that your behavior was blithe. There is a big difference and I pointed out your BEHAVIOR, not character, which demonstrated information-intolerance, clearly. No need to assume a victim role by claiming you were attacked after your dangerous advice.

> Why not support your claim?

Because you'll just say the risk for gout, etc is so low after I support the point with scientific evidence anyway. I've seen this type of behavior before and we just did the circuit here...



> Gout is only a
> problem for people who experience excessively high
> levels of uric acid. Otherwise, uric acid is ok.

'uric acid is ok'
This is a dangerous and blithe statement, based on information intolerance as the available scientific evidence does not support your claim, even though most people consume meat, anyway.

Humans produce uric acid- this is 'ok'. Is this what you're talking about?
Uric acid in the diet is unnecessary and DANGEROUS, as is cholesterol, Heme Fe, NeuG5c, excess protein, fat, etc= this is not 'ok'.
Dietary uric acid (in raw or cooked meat) does NOT go through oxidative degradation by humans and although it adds to the uric acid pool, it is TOXIC for humans. It is another case where toxins within meat are merely absorbed and not properly digested.

Gout is NOT 'ok' for those interested in biochemically compatible diets."Men in the highest quintile of meat intake had a 41% higher risk for gout compared with the lowest quintile, and men in the highest quintile of seafood intake had a 51% higher risk compared with the lowest quintile. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2005 Oct;143(7):502.

Risk of gout with meat consumption is linear, unnecessary and no safe minimium amounts have been established. The mode of action has been provided and is biologically plausible. But you say 'it's ok'.

Other animals just don't get the kidney stone, CHD and gout rates commonly found in humans and resulting from dietary uric acid. But then other animals don't let cultural influences dictate their diets as much either. Humans are subject to secondary reinforcers that shape their cultural diets and consume meat without the ability to digest it.

'Since there are no enzymes capable of degrading uric acid in man, the disappearance in the pulmonary system must be ascribed to degradation by chemical oxidation. Indeed, we have recently detected a net release of oxalic acid, one of the possible products of uric acid oxidation, from the lung of patients not receiving anti-inflammatory treatment' Role of Uric Acid as Endogenous Radical Scavenger and Antioxidant. Becker et al. Chest 1991;100'176S-181S

In contrast, consuming raw fruit (not alcohol) is NOT associated with increased risk of gout. And go down the list to verify fruit is negatively correlated with diseases caused by meat consumption. But an empasse is reached when one is information-intolerant and there is no way to cover 100 diseases or even 1 disease when someone just denies basic diet research with a knee-jerk reaction, in spite of available scientific data, then claims the gout risk is low (in spite of the fact that it is an epidemic in humans and only humans and linked to diet) and claims some imaginary amount of meat 'in moderation' can be consumed and advises it based on creative thinking.

Fantastic individual cases of someone obsessed with eating a banana doesn't matter either because potassium is the nutrient that was overdosed on and that is in higher concentrations in other foods and irrelevant because it is not a nutrient specific to bananas, so nothing inherent in bananas causes gout, so the banana example was as good as your vulture example in advocating a scavenger diet for humans.


Chris

pborst Wrote:


> When early hominids left the jungle and moved onto
> the savannah or other fruit poor environments, how
> could they retain their frugivore status?

The 'early humans' beyond their ecological niche just couldn't shake their digestive system with the trees. Humans are free to wonder about in the savannah and drink blood. This has nothing to do with biochemically compatible food for humans.

How
> could they avoid adapting to eat a broader set of
> foods while living in environments that would not
> support a frugivore diet?

How could one eat healthy/natural food when it isn't available or left behind???


> million years ago, early hominids used fire and
> tools and ate meat.

And still haven't adapted to digest meat safely (cooked, especially).


Humans digest raw fruit best with opposing digestive processes to meat consumption.

With fruit,
Chris

The Fruit Faery Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sunberry Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > banana who, Fruit Faery
> >
> > You are right, it may fruitless to argue even
> > though he seems to want to talk about it
> because
> > he got disillusioned after his cholesterol went
> up
> > after following his doctor's advice.

As you can see, you can have some answers but if someone has been upset in the past, it is hard to break through. Friends and family rarely listen to each other's advice. You can be there to gently remind him if he seeks to discuss the topic with you and you can express your genuine concern but people eat for emotional reasons, not much for intellectual reasons unless they have worked through their emotional and social issues surrounding food. I don't debate others with the expectation that I will convert them in particular or convince them of the health benefits of natural/raw vegan diets but I do it because others who are standing on the fence, wondering by, not reacting emotionally can objectively look at the available evidence when they are ready and they come along later and curious about initiating an exclusionary diet.

With fruit,
Chris

Hfructos Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pborst Wrote:
>
> > I'm a raw vegan Chris.
>
> For moral reasons, you told me... Who is
> minimizing the deadly effect of the average, mixed
> diet, which is the biggest killer of humans and
> animals together.

For moral reasons, ecological reasons and health reasons. As to minimizing you knocking down strawmen, I will just reiterate that I am doing nothing of kind. I am simply not taking time to respond to something widely known and agreed on this forum.

> > my
> > health is fine.
>
> Good. The topic is the health of those who haven't
> tried a biochemically compatible diet that is
> inversely related to diseases.

That's ok, then you can refrain from making unsolicited comments about my health.
>
> > Your supposition about feeling
> > healthier on a frugivorous diet is just that.
>
> In order to understand it, contrast the studies
> testing the benefits of low protein diets to high
> protein. Then try it. It is not based on
> 'supposition' but experience and scientific
> research and understanding. The health benefits of
> reducing protein intake to biochemically
> compatible levels are REAL for humans and meat is
> NOT natural/biochemically compatible/healthy food
> for humans.

Reducing protein intake isn't a frugivorous diet but rather an aspect of it. But your general statement about the optimality of frugivorous diet for all humans certainly remains supposition in the absence of evidence to support your claim.


> > restricting food choice beyond
> > a certain point is counterproductive.
>
> Vague claim that isn't falsifiable, absolutely
> meaningless. Nobody is advocating to restrict
> 'food'.

>
> > you haven't got the data to back your
> > claim, so your making an ad hominem attack
> > instead.
>
> Data was provided, you blithely ignored it. The
> observation was not an 'ad hominem attack' as I
> explained why your behavior was blithe,
> considering the importance of the rampant gout
> epidemic.

Data related to proving that humans are frugivores? That a fruitarian diet is optimal for humans relative to other plant-based diets, as opposed to knocking down your strawman? No, you haven't provided a shred of evidence. And you hope to use an ad hominem attack by false accusing me of supporting an animal based diet when I have done no such thing. Just not agreeing with your false statements like "humans can't digest meat" does not mean I'm supporting an animal based diet. You are just hoping to create a diversion to avoid living up to your responsibility to back up your claim. Unfortunately, it won't work. Provide your data.

> It is DANGEROUS to downplay the
> preventable diseases and that minimization is what
> maintains the status quo, sick society, who
> doesn't think they can improve their states with a
> raw, frugivorous diet. I clearly and repeatedly
> hammered away at the fact that the scavengers
> examples you tried to compare to humans and their
> diets are vastly different in many ways to the
> human, biochemically compatible diet but you
> denied and minimized the data presented, in spite
> of this, instead posting off topic wiki articles,
> then just claiming the risks for gout and other
> diseases were just so low that it didn't matter.

What's dangerous is filling people's head with nonsense like fruit contains all nutrients, that people cannot digest meat as opposed to what the risk are of meat and understanding the difference. I will let readers judge for themselves judge whether or not the links I posted are off-topic.

> This is blithe behavior. I didn't say you were
> blithe but that your behavior was blithe. There is
> a big difference and I pointed out your BEHAVIOR,
> not character, which demonstrated
> information-intolerance, clearly. No need to
> assume a victim role by claiming you were attacked
> after your dangerous advice.

Ad hominem is ad hominem. It's not going to work Chris. Making false accusations about my position isn't going to improve your poor position of failing to substantiate your claims about human's status as frugivores or the optimality of a fruitarian diet relative to other plant based diet.
>
> > Why not support your claim?
>
> Because you'll just say the risk for gout, etc is
> so low after I support the point with scientific
> evidence anyway. I've seen this type of behavior
> before and we just did the circuit here...

There you go again mistating my position. Noone said the risk of gout was low. I said to correct your mistatement that gout was a spontaneous risk upon meat ingestion rather than a dose-response risk. It's the dose that makes the poison. Excess meat consumption can create risks. I will stipulate to it. But its misleading to imply that it's an inherent risk from every ingestion of an animal product.
>
>
> > Gout is only a
> > problem for people who experience excessively
> high
> > levels of uric acid. Otherwise, uric acid is
> ok.
>
> 'uric acid is ok'
> This is a dangerous and blithe statement, based on
> information intolerance as the available
> scientific evidence does not support your claim,
> even though most people consume meat, anyway.

No Chris. It's the truth. [en.wikipedia.org]
"In human blood plasma, the reference range of uric acid is between 3.6 mg/dL (~214µmol/L) and 8.3 mg/dL (~494µmol/L) (1 mg/dL=59.48 µmol/L).[16] This range is considered normal by the American Medical Association. Uric acid concentrations in blood plasma above and below the normal range are known, respectively, as hyperuricemia and hypouricemia. ...
Reference ranges for blood tests, comparing blood content of uric acid (shown in yellow) with other constituents...

Gout
Excess serum accumulation of uric acid can lead to a type of arthritis known as gout.[17] This painful condition is the result of needle-like crystals of uric acid precipitating in joints and capillaries.

Elevated serum uric acid (hyperuricemia) can result from high intake of purine-rich foods, and/or impaired excretion by the kidneys."

So, uric acid in blood has a reference range which does not impair health. My point.

>
> Gout is NOT 'ok' for those interested in
> biochemically compatible diets."Men in the highest
> quintile of meat intake had a 41% higher risk for
> gout compared with the lowest quintile, and men in
> the highest quintile of seafood intake had a 51%
> higher risk compared with the lowest quintile.
> Annals of Internal Medicine. 2005 Oct;143(7):502.

Your cite proves my point. It high meat intake, not all intake. It's just comparing high and low meat intake. Anyway, enough of this red herring. Prove your claim Chris.

> Risk of gout with meat consumption is linear,
> unnecessary and no safe minimium amounts have been
> established. The mode of action has been provided
> and is biologically plausible. But you say 'it's
> ok'.

Risk of gout is tied to serum uric acid and reference range, not specific meat consumption. Someone with a poorly functioning kidney can't eat as much meat as a person using a normal functioning one. So, it's serum uric acid, not meat intake that a doctor will look at. So your point is kind of irrelevant because it's not what a medical professional would look at any way.

[continued on next post]

> Other animals just don't get the kidney stone, CHD
> and gout rates commonly found in humans and
> resulting from dietary uric acid. But then other
> animals don't let cultural influences dictate
> their diets as much either. Humans are subject to
> secondary reinforcers that shape their cultural
> diets and consume meat without the ability to
> digest it.

Proves nothing since noone is debating risks from high meat intake.

> 'Since there are no enzymes capable of degrading
> uric acid in man, the disappearance in the
> pulmonary system must be ascribed to degradation
> by chemical oxidation. Indeed, we have recently
> detected a net release of oxalic acid, one of the
> possible products of uric acid oxidation, from the
> lung of patients not receiving anti-inflammatory
> treatment' Role of Uric Acid as Endogenous Radical
> Scavenger and Antioxidant. Becker et al. Chest
> 1991;100'176S-181S

What point are you trying to make here. Uric acid is the final breakdown product and is excreted through urine in humans and primates. [en.wikipedia.org]

continued on next post

> Fantastic individual cases of someone obsessed
> with eating a banana doesn't matter either because
> potassium is the nutrient that was overdosed on
> and that is in higher concentrations in other
> foods and irrelevant because it is not a nutrient
> specific to bananas, so nothing inherent in
> bananas causes gout, so the banana example was as
> good as your vulture example in advocating a
> scavenger diet for humans.
>
>
> Chris
Getting desperate are we?? Your analogy apart from not being what I said misses the point entirely. Overconsumption of fruit in the case cited can and did cause risks. Risk from deficiencies on a fruitarian diet can and has cause risks. I've cited this in two prior posts. You've spent the majority of this most response dwindling on uric acid concentration instead of proving your point and said nothing except unreferenced denials about the articles I provided you earlier demonstrating that early humans ate meat and may not even have been frugivores. Moreover the adapatations of eating meat and/or starch are believed to be what contributed to larger brain size. [news.nationalgeographic.com]
[www.ivu.org]
[news.discovery.com]
[news.harvard.edu]

[news.softpedia.com]
[scitizen.com]

Add to that data that demonstrates that the comparative energy level of humans to other animals as well as the comparative gi tract size is more similar to carnivores relative to other primates. [www.springerlink.com]

So, where does that leaves us Chris. You've failed for two days now provide a single study or reference supporting you claim about humans as frugivores or the optimality of frutarianism compared with other plant based diets. I've provided a great deal of data which you've either ignored or dismissed to the contrary. Instead you spend a great deal of time focused on a red herring on uric acid that proves at most high meat consumption poses risks, never denied and widely believed and known before this thread. Or you make outlandish ad hominems in hopes of diverting attention from your failure to make your case.

Either way, I'm moving on. I've given you ample opportunity to prove your point and you have failed utterly to do so. This being a support forum for people eating raw food, and I'm going to do my best to return to supporting rather than debating. Apologies to forum, Chris excepted, for the length of this. I'm going to return to trying provide helpful input where I can. Best.

Paul

Sunberry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> banana who, Fruit Faery
>
> You are right, it may fruitless to argue even
> though he seems to want to talk about it because
> he got disillusioned after his cholesterol went up
> after following his doctor's advice. But I have a
> faint hope he will consider some of the things I
> have told him. I am no match for him
> intellectually, he would be right in there with
> Chris and Paul.

What I have found is that many so-called intellectuals, particularly if they are in the science/math fields, have limits to their reason. For one thing, they are so sure of themselves regarding an afterlife or Divinity. They have a fetish for "proof" when some things transcend that need. For instance, I had a professor who mentioned that it was shown via research that sugar did not cause hyperactivity when consumed by children! They "surmise" that the reason that kids bounce off walls after eating it is because they are usually at parties! Have you ever heard such nonsense? And I had already had someone else say the same thing to me in another class. And this professor says that this is why they stopped doing research on the effects of sugar; because the case had been closed. Um...perhaps the sugar lobby is one of the most powerful lobbies in the world? We enslaved people to harvest sugar! So the point is that some people refuse to acknowledge anything outside their narrow view and yet they are deemed intelligent. Don't sell yourself short. But I believe that one's diet is a private matter. If someone asks about your diet, that's one thing. But you don't have to broadcast it. If you are glowing on raw, people will know something has changed and ask you what you did. This is when disclosing your diet will meet with the most positive response, I think. As for this guy's health problems, if he is putting down your diet, then allow him to learn the hard way. You have nothing to prove.

pborst Wrote:
> the
> comparative energy level of humans to other
> animals as well as the comparative gi tract size
> is more similar to carnivores relative to other
> primates.


Humans do NOT burn more calories than chimps. Chimps have higher energy requirements than humans in terms of protein, this is why they naturally produce 2.7 times the amount of protein in breast milk. Fruit provides all the energy necessary and is digested best. There is no energy shortage.

There is NOTHING about the gi tract size of humans that prevents them from digesting fruit best, only that they aren't as herbivorous as gorillas for instance. NO adaptation to meat has been made. Just because chimps have a relatively longer gi tract does NOT mean humans are adapting to meat. The volume and surface area of human instestines qualify them as herbivorous and if it weren't the case that humans are natural plant eaters then humans wouldn't get so many digestive diseases (putrefaction dysbiosis, widespread chronic/functional constipation, hemorrhoids- that is otherwise rare in nature, acid reflux, etc) when including meat, yet digestion suddenly and drastically improves on a fruit based diet. These digestive conditions, so popular among humans are not problems for other animals/chimps or those consuming frugivorous diets. But by consuming meat, it degrades the human digestive system.

Humans are NOT 'omnivores'. 'Omnivore' is an ego-syntonic euphemism for 'scavenger' so that those consuming meat can feel more sophisticated and those vegan socialites can feel morally superior, polarizing others by claiming they are consuming an extra-ordinary diet/sacrifice, rising above the natural people who can't quite overcome their natural cravings of flesh...

If vegan culturists, who claim humans are 'omnivores' yet deny themselves the scavenging, they make themselves out to be martyrs and further polarize those who erroneously believe they are natural 'omnivarians'.

'vegan', 'omnivore', 'fruitarian' and 'vegetarian' are NOT dietary classifications. And if 'omnivore' was a legitimate dietary classification with some semblance of criteria to measure one, then H. sapiens certainly wouldn't qualify.

Technically 'omnivore' means food from more than one class. Well, that covers every mammal so this is not a useful 'status' as you call it... 'Omnivore' is not a taxon, recognized scientifically. Animals are more strictly divided into folivores or faunivores. Frugivores (great apes, including humans) is a subcategory of folivore.

A scavenger is an organism that consumes dead animals, killed by others. This more specifically reflects many human customs. So, customarily one could say humans are cultural scavengers but they aren't natural scavengers.

With fruit,
Chris

pborst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Fantastic individual cases of someone obsessed
> > with eating a banana doesn't matter either
> because
> > potassium is the nutrient that was overdosed on
> > and that is in higher concentrations in other
> > foods and irrelevant because it is not a
> nutrient
> > specific to bananas, so nothing inherent in
> > bananas causes gout, so the banana example was
> as
> > good as your vulture example in advocating a
> > scavenger diet for humans.

> early humans ate
> meat

And some do today still. Humans still can't digest meat. Address the rampant diseases one by one that are caused by the contents of meat, which are toxic for humans, beginning with gout-which is almost non-existent in wild animals since most animals usually eat their natural foods...


> the adapatations of eating meat and/or
> starch are believed to be what contributed to
> larger brain size.

What a bunch of fake-scavenger propaganda... Who still believes this???

Human brain size is the result of genetic instructions to continue to grow, not a specific type of food product, recently incorporated out of ecological niche. Human brains grow at the same rate as chimps! The only difference is that human brains continue to grow for a longer time after chimps mature earlier. Humans just grow slower, that's it! And the nutrients needed for the full development of human brain growth are all included in human breast milk. You don't need to feed your baby meat.

"0.6 grams of daily brain growth, we can see that in terms of nutrient makeup, this would consist of 0.47 grams of water, 0.059 grams of protein, 0.056 grams of fat, and 0.0084 grams of ash. This trivial nutrient requirement is, of course, easily met by human breast milk during the period of maximum growth rate-Debunking A Popular Meat Eating Theory by J S Coleman

The growth of the brain is not because of consuming meat.

With fruit and health,
Chris

pborst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Uric acid
> is the final breakdown product and is excreted
> through urine in humans and primates.


Why not just drink piss too?

The fact that most uric acid (from meat) along with most other toxins are excreted as humans are unable to break it down safely, in addition to the fact it is not required in diet and it causes gout and humans already synthesize uric acid, is a clue for those interested in natural diets for humans.

'Since there are no enzymes capable of degrading uric acid in man, the disappearance in the pulmonary system must be ascribed to degradation by chemical oxidation. Indeed, we have recently detected a net release of oxalic acid, one of the possible products of uric acid oxidation, from the lung of patients not receiving anti-inflammatory treatment' Role of Uric Acid as Endogenous Radical Scavenger and Antioxidant. Becker et al. Chest 1991;100'176S-181S

In summary, there are numerous xenobiotics in meat that cause humans to get sick, this is why so many humans are in fact sick, compared to other animals.

But culturists are uncomfortable talking about the diseases associated with meat. They just minimize them.

With fruit,
Chris

Thanks for the links all.

Bananawho I do look and feel a lot better than most 55yr olds around me though being thin, my bmi is probably under 20, people judge me to be sickly even though I can outrun any of them by a mile lol.

My friend used to study anthropology and is elegantly countering with what great hunters humans are, our special arms are great at throwing spears and we can run great long distances and tire out prey and sweat too cool off. Chimps eat meat etc.

The original intent of the discussion was lost so I started it over and I told him that a plant based diet is better for us and that our arms probably rotate the way they do because we had to climb trees and pick fruit. I suggested that if he upped the bananas, papaya, blueberries and romaine etc. his health would improve.

He believes we can't digest romaine or other greens, it's "roughage" and it slows the passage of food through the gut which allows intestinal bacteria to workd on things that would otherwise be mild toxins and suggested I try Allbran lol! I can't blame him of course, when I first stumbled upon the raw way of eating I could not concieve of it either. You really have to be motivated to try it.

Any good links to how much better we digest raw foods vs cooked? Given the right science he could be moved. His sister died of cancer years ago and he also has the fruit has too much sugar bias.

Sorry that is he believes bran slows the passage of food with good benefits.

I would give him my copy of 80/10/10 but it's already out on loan with someone else.

Sunberry Wrote:

> He believes we can't digest romaine or other
> greens, it's "roughage" and it slows the passage
> of food through the gut which allows intestinal
> bacteria to workd on things that would otherwise
> be mild toxins

Nonsense.

J Nutr 1975 Jul;105(7):878-84
Effects of high risk and low risk diets for colon carcinogenesis on fecal microflora and steroids in man.
Reddy BS, Weisburger JH, Wynder EL.
We investigated the effects of a high meat mixed Western diet and a nonmeat diet, representing the dietary pattern of high and low risk areas for colon cancer, respectively, on fecal microflora dn on bile acid and neutral sterol patterns in man. The total anaerobic microflora as well as the count of Bacteroides, Bifidobacterium, Peptococcus, and anaerobic Lactobacillus were significantly higher during the period of consumption of a high meat mixed Western diet comparted with the nonmeat-diet consumption period. The difference in total fecal bile acid excretion was not significant between the two dietary periods. Fecal excretion of microbially modified bile acids and neutral sterols was decreased when subjects eating a high meat diet transferred to a nonmeat diet. These results support the fact that diet plays a modifying role on the composition of intestinal microflora, bile acids, and neutral sterols.

Acta Physiol Hung 1999;86(3-4):171-80
Vegan diet in physiological health promotion.
Hanninen O, Rauma AL, Kaartinen K, Nenonen M. Department of Physiology, University of Kuopio, Finland.
We have performed a number of studies including dietary interventions and cross-sectional studies on subjects consuming uncooked vegan food called living food (LF) and clarified the changes in several parameters related to health risk factors. LF consists of germinated seeds, cereals, sprouts, vegetables, fruits, berries and nuts. Some items are fermented and contain a lot of lactobacilli. The diet is rich in fiber. It has very little sodium, and it contains no cholesterol. Food items like berries and wheat grass juice are rich in antioxidants such as carotenoids and flavonoids. The subjects eating living food show increased levels of carotenoids and vitamins C and E and lowered cholesterol concentration in their sera. Urinary excretion of sodium is only a fraction of the omnivorous controls. Also urinary output of phenol and p-cresol is lowered as are several fecal enzyme levels which are considered harmful. The rheumatoid arthritis patients eating the LF diet reported amelioration of their pain, swelling of joints and morning stiffness which all got worse after finishing LF diet. The composite indices of objective measures showed also improvement of the rheumatoid arthritis patients during the intervention. The fibromyalgic subjects eating LF lost weight compared to their omnivorous controls. The results on their joint stiffness and pain (visual analogue scale), on their quality of sleep, on health assessment questionnaire and on general health questionnaire all improved. It appears that the adoption of vegan diet exemplified by the living food leads to a lessening of several health risk factors to cardiovascular diseases and cancer. Rheumatoid patients subjectively benefited from the vegan diet which was also seen in serum parameters and fecal analyses.

F Kassie, EF Lhoste, A Bruneau, M Zsivkovits, F Ferk, M Uhl, T Zidek, and S Knasmuller
Effect of intestinal microfloras from vegetarians and meat eaters on the genotoxicity of 2-amino-3-methylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoline, a carcinogenic heterocyclic amine.
J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci, March 25, 2004; 802(1): 211-5.
Institute of Cancer Research, University of Vienna, Borschkegasse 8A A-1090 Vienna, Austria.
Aim of this study was to investigate the impact of intestinal microfloras from vegetarians and non-vegetarians on the DNA-damaging activity of 2-amino-3-methyl-3H-imidazo[4,5-f]quinoline (IQ), a carcinogenic heterocyclic amine that is found in fried meats. Floras from four vegetarians (Seventh Day Adventists [who tend not to be vegan - ljf]) and from four individuals who consumed high amounts of meats were collected and inoculated into germfree F344 rats. The rats were kept on isocaloric diets that either contained animal derived protein and fat (meat consumers group) or proteins and fat of plant origin (vegetarian groups). IQ (90 mg/kg bw) was administered orally, after 4 h the extent of DNA-damage in colon and liver cells was determined in single cell gel electrophoresis assays. In all groups, the IQ induced DNA-migration was in the liver substantially higher than in the colon. In animals harbouring floras of vegetarians, the extent of damage was in both organs significantly (69.2% in the liver, P<0.016 and 64.7%, P<0.042 in the colon, respectively) lower than in the meat consumer groups. Our findings show that diet related differences in the microfloras have a strong impact on the genotoxic effects of IQ and suggest that heterocyclic amines are less genotoxic and carcinogenic in individuals that consume mainly plant derived foods.


Am J Clin Nutr 2000 Dec;72(6):1488-94
Contribution of dietary protein to sulfide production in the large intestine: an in vitro and a controlled feeding study in humans.
Magee EA, Richardson CJ, Hughes R, Cummings JH. Dunn Clinical Nutrition Centre, Hills Road, Cambridge, United Kingdom. e.magee@dundee.ac.uk
BACKGROUND: Hydrogen sulfide is a luminally acting, bacterially derived cell poison that has been implicated in ulcerative colitis. Sulfide generation in the colon is probably driven by dietary components such as sulfur-containing amino acids (SAAs) and inorganic sulfur (eg, sulfite).
OBJECTIVE: We assessed the contribution of SAAs from meat to sulfide production by intestinal bacteria with use of both a model culture system in vitro and an in vivo human feeding study.
DESIGN: Five healthy men were housed in a metabolic suite and fed a sequence of 5 diets for 10 d each. Meat intake ranged from 0 g/d with a vegetarian diet to 600 g/d with a high-meat diet. Fecal sulfide and urinary sulfate were measured in samples collected on days 9 and 10 of each diet period. Additionally, 5 or 10 g bovine serum albumin or casein/L was added to batch cultures inoculated with feces from 4 healthy volunteers. Concentrations of sulfide, ammonia, and Lowry-reactive substances were measured over 48 h.
RESULTS: Mean (+/-SEM) fecal sulfide concentrations ranged from 0.22 +/- 0.02 mmol/kg with the 0-g/d diet to 3.38 +/- 0.31 mmol/kg with the 600-g/d diet and were significantly related to meat intake (P: < 0.001). Sulfide formation in fecal batch cultures supplemented with both bovine serum albumin and casein correlated with protein digestion, as measured by the disappearance of Lowry-reactive substances and the appearance of ammonia.
CONCLUSION: Dietary protein from meat is an important substrate for sulfide generation by bacteria in the human large intestine.

Possible associations of dietary residues with growth of the large gut. Am. J. Physiol. 197, 903-911).... Discussion: Fiber in the diet seemed to have a growth enhancing effect on the small intestin

The decreased fecal volume 80-120 grams/day of Western Man and prolonged intestinal transit time of over 72 hours compared to the 300-500 grams/day fecal volume and under 40 hours transit time of the Third World countries, is obviously diet/fiber related. The increased intestinal retention of the waste products of putrefaction, from meats and animal fats, with prolonged exposure of the intestinal mucosa to their toxins and carcinogens is responsible for the emergence and prevalence of many disease states.
Burkitt, D.P. et al. Dietary Fiber and disease. Journal of the American Medical Association. 229:1068, 1974

Red and white meat increased colonocyte DNA single-strand breaks (SS and double-strand breaks (DSdose dependently. Resistant starch (RS), a dietary fibre component, prevented this damage. Apoptotic cells were increased dose dependently by red meat irrespective of RS. Red meat induced greater colonic mucus layer thinning than white meat. Dietary RS protects against this damage and against loss of the mucus barrier through increased butyrate production. Carcinogenesis. 2007 Nov;28(11):2355-62.

Cancer Biol Ther. 2006 Mar;5(3):267-74.
High dietary protein result in increased colonic DNA damage by thinning of colonic mucus layer. Dietary casein caused a 2-fold increase in colonic DNA damage and reduced thickness of colonic mucus layer by 41%. Cooked meat caused 26% greater DNA damage than casein. Cecal and fecal short chain fatty acid pools were increased by inclusion of resistant starch, RS. DNA damage due to high protein could increase colorectal cancer but RS could reduce the risk.


Proc Nutr Soc. 2003 Feb;62(1):31-6.
Colonic diverticula.
Diverticula are a herniation through the wall of the sigmoid colon and are likely to be a consequence of a weakness in the colonic wall or prolonged exposure to increased intracolonic pressure consequent on a low dietary fibre intake. Adult Africans living in Africa eat a high-fibre diet and are free from diverticulosis. Their colons are stronger, wider and thinner than those Scottish adults of the same age.

In conclusion, the higher CRC (colorectal cancer) risk and mucosal proliferation rates were associated with higher dietary intakes of animal products and higher colonic populations of potentially toxic hydrogen and secondary bile-salt-producing bacteria. This supports our hypothesis that CRC risk is determined by interactions between the external (dietary) and internal (bacterial) environments. J. Nutr. 137:175S-182S, January 2007

Undigested protein is fermented by the colonic microflora with the resultant end-products of SCFAs, branched-chain fatty acids (e.g.,isovalerate, isobutyrate, and 2-methylbutyrate), and potentially harmful metabolites –ammonia, amines,phenols, sulfide, and indoles. Altern Med Rev 2004;9(2):180-197
"animals harbouring floras of vegetarians, the extent of damage was in both organs significantly lower than in the meat consumer"J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci, 2004; 802(1): 211-5.

Dietary factors protecting women from urinary tract infection.
Because urinary tract infections (UTIs) are caused by bacteria in the stool, dietary factors may affect the risk of contracting a UTI by altering the properties of the fecal bacterial flora.
Frequent consumption of fresh juices, especially berry juices.. was associated with a decreased risk of recurrence of UTI: the OR for UTI was 0.66 (95% CI: 0.48, 0.92) per 2 dL juice.


>
> Any good links to how much better we digest raw
> foods vs cooked? Given the right science he could
> be moved. His sister died of cancer years ago and
> he also has the fruit has too much sugar bias.

Sunberry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks for the links all.
>
> Any good links to how much better we digest raw
> foods vs cooked? Given the right science he could
> be moved. His sister died of cancer years ago and
> he also has the fruit has too much sugar bias.

Here is just the article you need Sunberry. It's a review of cancer protection and raw vs. cooked vegetables from 1994 to 2003. The review concluded that 9 out of 11 inverse relationships between raw food intake and cancer but only 4 out 11 for cooked food. [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov] In addition, they have the full version of the original article for free rather than just the abstract. [cebp.aacrjournals.org]In anticipation of his objection that correlation doesn't equate to causation, I'd actually agree. The problem for him is Bradford Hill's criteria for causation makes a pretty powerful case for raw vegan food. [www.drabruzzi.com].

Briefly, Hill was a medical statistician who tried to set out the minimal conditions to satisfy causation from correlation. And some have had a bone to pick with him, no denying it. But he's authoritative and widely quoted. More to the point the nine factors: 1) temporal relationship, 2) strength of association, 3) dose-response relationship, 4) consistency, 5) plausibility, 6) consideration of alternate explanations, 7) experiment, 8) specificity (weakest of the criteria) and 9) coherence tend to play well to the weight of evidence provided in the Link/Potter article. In plain english, people eat food before it's effects are realized (temporal relationship), strength of relationship is established in 9 of 11 studies and is statistically significant (meaning it's not likely due to chance), 3) dose-response means than if people eat more vegetables they will be more protected, than those eating lower quantities. This criteria isn't directly addressed in the review but has been in other research, 4) consistency -- that's the strength of a review It's 9 out of 11 for raw veggies and only 4 out 11 for cooked veggies, where statistically significance is found (in plain english ruling out chance as a factor, within a statistical limit, probably 5%). 5) plausibility is addressed in the article though caveat on balance though raw is better, it doesn't mean every time or in every circumstance, but overall yes, 6) consideration of alternative explanations, this is related to what other factors affecting cancer have been controlled for, e.g. if people who eat more meat also smoke, you'd expect to see more cancers. Because this article is a "review" meaning it's a look at a lot of studies, what was controlled for in the analysis varies from study to study. The purpose of the review is to conduct a weight of evidence approach. So you have to look at individual studies to see what was controlled for and what wasn't. 7) is experiment meaning the condition e.g. "cancer" can be influenced by experimentation. Doesn't apply here because most of these are case-control or cohort studies rather than randomized controlled trials. 8) specificity, in plain english if you can find a specific cause for a specific effect, and 9) coherence our ability to explain the empirical results based on present knowledge. These last two Hill criteria are discussed at length in the original article linked above.

Bottom line Sunberry, the Potter/Link review is a good article for showing the benefits of raw vegetable intake over cooked vegetables and cancer protection. Also see [www.diseaseproof.com] and [www.drfuhrman.com] particularly for cruciferous vegetables like kale, collards and brocolli for which the evidence is twice as strong (40% cancer reduction vs. 20% for veggies overall). Best to you and yours.

Paul



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2010 09:55PM by pborst.

Thanks Paul and Chris for all the info and links! I have used them and will continue to use them when I am asked or challenged in the future.


I thought this article - www.ivu.org - seemed balanced re animal matter in humans diets at 1 or 2%.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Biological Comparisons with Higher Primates

Human teeth are omnivorous in design, yet more closely resemble primate teeth whose possessors live largely on fruit and plants. Carnivorous jaws swing vertically while herbivorous and human jaws swing vertically to tear and laterally to crush, suggesting we are more akin to herbivores.

Carnivores have a bowel length about 3 times the trunk length, in herbivores it is about 15 times longer and in humans 10 times longer, again suggesting we are closer to herbivores.

The DNA difference between gorillas, chimpanzees and humans are reported as being under one percent, less than between different species of horse. The digestive tracts are almost identical. Dr Ryde told an amusing anecdote of an occasion when he showed a surgeon specialising in alimentary surgery an illustration of a gorilla's digestive tract and asked if it belonged to a man or woman. The surgeon replied "It's difficult to tell!" and was very surprised to hear the answer was neither. These high primates, gorilla and chimpanzee, are described as herbivores and opportunist carnivores, i.e., they eat mainly fruits and vegetables but will take eggs, insects, lizards and other small creatures if easily available or when very hungry.

Hamilton and Busse in 1978 showed that among 21 primates animal food consumption is inversely related to body weight, i.e., the smaller the primate, the more meat eaten. The smallest weighed 65g and ate 70% dietary animal matter, the largest, the gorilla weighed 126kg and ate 1 or 2% animal matter, as does the orangutan at 58kg. Humans on this scale stand between gorillas and orangutans, likewise indicating a diet with only 1 or 2% animal matter.

Walker, as reported by Briben and Cherfas in 1982, has been studying minute abrasions on the teeth of fossils and living species with an electron microscope. He has shown that the marks on the teeth of Australopithecus robustus (ancestral man of 4 million years ago) indicate he was a fruit eater.

It seems reasonable to speculate that one higher primate was able, several million years ago when the climatic chips were down and the forests receding, to increase its food repertoire by applying its knowledge and skills to hunting away from tree cover. He speculates that Homo sapiens is a more efficient herbivore than carnivore, but crushing and cooking makes meat more digestible and also makes it easy to consume amounts in excess of needs. Pliocene climatic changes of ice age and drought rendered food less plentiful and to survive, early man began to adapt towards a gatherer-hunter existence about 3.5 million years ago. Probably humans slowly migrated from Africa and adapted to temperate regions by consuming more high fat foods. The discovery of how to harness fire about half a million years ago further increased alimentary options and proved to be a great social and nutritional revolution, as was agriculture, established only about 10,000 years ago.

Health and Endurance
Dr Ryde then went on to quote reports from the scientific press of degenerative diseases which seem to be linked to a high consumption of animal foods, such as obesity, gall stones, late-onset diabetes, colon cancer, hypertension, strokes, heart disease, diverticulosis, tooth decay, piles, peptic ulcers and varicose veins.
In his own practice, he found obese people who had not been helped by traditional advice on dieting, achieved good results by changing to a vegetarian diet and a patient with a 15 year history of angina was put on vegan diet and after a month felt "marvellous". His angina disappeared, he lost 20lbs in weight, his blood pressure dropped 55 points and he was able to walk 4 miles without trouble.

One argument against a vegan diet is the reported deficiencies of vitamins B12 and D and the minerals calcium and iron. Gorillas are coprophageous (eat their own stools) and this may allow B12 synthesised in the hind gut, where it cannot be absorbed, to be passed to the foregut, where it can be assimilated.

Vitamin D deficiency would not be a problem if we didn't wear clothes. Supplements are a socially acceptable alternative to coprophagy and nudity.

Pritikin (1985) writes that "The high protein intake which is common in the developed nations causes a negative mineral balance, drawing calcium from bone to neutralise the acid products of protein metabolism." It is those who eat meat who need extra calcium.

Menstruation in gorillas recurs about 2 years after parturition but may be delayed a further two years by continued breast-feeding (Fossey 1985). In the Kung people, one of the few remaining gatherer-hunter societies, childbirth also occurs about once every four years and breast-feeding continues two and a half years at least. Since menstruation whilst breast-feeding is rare, a major cause of iron deficiency is removed. Gorillas also eat the placenta to recover minerals.

Modern carnivorous society then imposes abnormal conditions on vegetarians and vegans and it is realistic for them to compensate with supplements.

"Human teeth are omnivorous in design, yet more closely resemble primate teeth whose possessors live largely on fruit and plants. Carnivorous jaws swing vertically while herbivorous and human jaws swing vertically to tear and laterally to crush, suggesting we are more akin to herbivores."

The "humans are herbivores" theory might be easier to sell to an "omnivore", and it could be backed up by World Health Org. statistics that show the world population eating on average about 3/4 plant based foods and 1/4 animal based foods (by calorie).

"Modern carnivorous society then imposes abnormal conditions on vegetarians and vegans and it is realistic for them to compensate with supplements."

What does this mean?

Sunberry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> One argument against a vegan diet is the reported
> deficiencies of vitamins B12

This is a red herring fallacy. Vitamin B12 is absorbed in and on wild plants in rich soil.

Mozafar, A.
Enrichment of some B-vitamins in plants with application of organic
fertilizers.
Plant and Soil 167:305-311, 1994.

It is by turning the soil (diminishing cobalt in particular) and processing, cleaning, cooking, irradiating, aging, curing food, etc that bacteria for B12 is destroyed along with other nutrients.

Meat consumers also need to take B12 vitamins.
"15.3% of participants were deficient in cobalamin"
Garcia, Angela, et al. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, Vol. 50, August 2002, pp. 1401-04
+
"moderate animal product consumption was not enough to restore normal B12 status for 21% of these children (based on MMA levels)."
van Dusseldorp M, Schneede J, Refsum H, Ueland PM, Thomas CM, de Boer E, van Staveren WA. J Clin Nutr. 1999 Apr;69(4):664-71.
etc...

Reeter said soil bacteria, comprising 20 percent of soil biomass, is destroyed or inactivated by ag chemicals, inhibiting uptake and metabolism of cobalt and other trace elements. Reeter directly traces this problem to increasing presence and proportion of B12 analogues ("false" B12). Reeter reports his extensive tests at Bio-Systems demonstrate plants grown in organically managed soil make significantly higher levels of usable B12.

According to "Trace Elements in Agriculture," the cobalt range for U.S. soils in 1969 was 30 and 50 ppb—well below the ruminant requirement and "possibly enough to slow legume growth and turn leaves yellow prematurely," says Maurice Cook, PhD, professor of Soil Science at North Carolina State Univ. In Micronutrients in Agriculture, Drs. Kubota and Allaway state, "Forage grasses and cereal grains frequently lack required concentrations of cobalt, and ruminant diets based on grasses or grains require cobalt supplements in most areas of the U.S.
reprinted from SOLSTICE magazine #34, Feb. '90
[neurotalk.psychcentral.com]

> Since
> menstruation whilst breast-feeding is rare, a
> major cause of iron deficiency is removed.

According to anecdotal reports, menstruation symptoms are permanently reduced or eliminated with raw plant diets. Can anyone confirm or deny this from experience?

With fruit,
Chris