[ndb.nal.usda.gov] (USDA Nutrient Database)

Wheatgrass isn't even in the database at all.

powerlifter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually i have to correct myself there, the USDA
> information is in regards to broccoli and spinach
> only sorry, not the wheatgrass it seems.
>
> However it is referenced as by the USDA at the
> bottom 2006, it only leads to there database.
>
> Doesn't change my point of view however because
> the nutrition data site wheatgrass data you linked
> is just self edited, anyone can change it and it
> has no scientific backing either.
>
> I have viewed the analysis's for fresh and raw
> powdered wheatgrass for a number of years for
> supplement manufacturers and whilst they are
> nutrient dense and great superfoods, they don't
> contain 3000% worth of zinc via 28g worth of plant
> material. No chance.


Lol the link I posted isn't "self-edited" and nobody can change it. They can change the AMOUNT of what is being measured (4g, 100g, 1oz), but they cannot edit the nutritional information.

So again... Where are your other nutrient analysis' of wheatgrass that contradict the nutritional data I posted?

Where is your information to prove there nutrient analysis is correct lol, no different from what you ask me.

Provide the study or science where they are pulling there information from ?

Else your link is no better than mine was.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/31/2013 07:56PM by powerlifter.

I think we need to start a new Thread so we can list all of the POINTS that we have made that Chris aka powerlifter aka powerlifer has intentionally avoided because he either knows he is WRONG or just Shuts Down his Frontal Lobe so he can Run to Denial to Protect his Pleasures [ [www.rawfoodsupport.com] ] or so he can Collect his Check as an Internet Shill [ [www.rawfoodsupport.com] : [consciouslifenews.com] ]!

In this thread, we have a Post by fresh aka Gary where Gary clearly PROVES that the so-called Science Chris uses for Protein Needs is TOTALLY BOGUS [ [www.rawfoodsupport.com] ] and what does Chris do? He IGNORES it!!! We also have a Post in this thread by jtprindl where he made the mistake of actually numbering his Points [ [www.rawfoodsupport.com] ] and we all know how Chris hates it when anyone makes it difficult for him to Change the Subject, so what does Chris do? He IGNORES it!!!. And then, there’s the Loma Linda Vegans [ [www.rawfoodsupport.com] : [www.rawfoodsupport.com] : [www.rawfoodsupport.com] ] and the fact that for 99% of our existence we Ate our FOOD RAW just like all of the other Animals on this Planet and when we started COOKING our Food with FIRE, that was the Fall of Mankind and that’s when we LOST our Golden Age and created FOOLS like Chris who REFUSE to come out of Plato’s Cave [ [www.rawfoodsupport.com] : [www.rawfoodsupport.com] : [www.rawfoodsupport.com] ]. And then, there are those 5 Main Points that I have enumerated where Chris to this date has still NOT addressed [ [www.rawfoodsupport.com]]!!! And what does Chris do? He IGNORES ALL of it!!!

Peace and Love..........John

Haha none of this thread was about raw veganism but actually 80/10/10.

So don't try to pull the usual BS card.

powerlifter wrote…

<<<That being said have you ran 2000-2500 calories of a typical 80/10/10 diet into any nutrient calculator ? It comes short on an number of vital nutrients, protein, fats, certain micronutrients such as zinc, B vitamins etc either aren't met or are low. 2500 calories from 80/10/10 your looking at about 15-35g of protein if you are very lucky, which is too low to be healthy for the majority, especially active individuals and males.>>>

Let’s first look at the Protein.

2500 X 10% = 250 / 4 = 62.5 versus “15-35”

Just out of curiosity Chris, how did you come up with only “15-35g of protein” when Protein is supposed to be 10%? Could this be where you went wrong?

Once again, here are my stats for the last salad I ate (which I told you about on 12-13-13) if I had not added the Sesame Seeds and the Avocado:

387 Calories - 30.67 gm Protein (31.7%) - 5.38 gm Fat (12.93%)

Now let’s look at those other vital nutrients, which, of course, are based on the RDAs - some of which are too high and some of which are too low.

“The RDAs are levels set by our government for various nutrients considered to be desirable for good health. But are they correct? Are these levels appropriate, and will even higher levels of certain nutrients benefit us? Difficult questions to answer, but first we must consider how the RDAs were derived.” -Joel Fuhrman, M.D., “Eat to Live” p. 140

“The RDAs were first developed when the government began questioning the nutritional value of military rations distributed to our soldiers during World War II. Later, our government’s Food and Nutrition Board looked at what foods they expected most people to eat. By analyzing the average diet, they came up with a suggested minimum and then added an upward adjustment to theoretically ensure optimal health.” -Joel Fuhrman, M.D., “Eat to Live” p. 140

“The RDAs are biased in favor of the conventional level of intake. They are not based on how people should eat to maintain optimal health; rather, they have been formulated to represent how we do eat. They characterize the conventional diet: high in animal products; lots of dairy products and fat; and low in fiber, antioxidants, and other nutrients, such as vitamin C, that are rich in plant foods. The RDAs reflect a diet that caused all the problems in the first place.” -Joel Fuhrman, M.D., “Eat to Live” p. 140

“The government must hold the RDA ridiculously low because it would be inconsistent with the other absurd dietary suggestions and make it impossible to achieve levels without supplementation.” -Joel Fuhrman, M.D., “Eat to Live” p. 141

“...thousands of phytonutrients lack RDAs.” -Joel Fuhrman, M.D., “Eat to Live” p. 141

“Even the dietary menus for 1,200 calorie and 1,600 calorie diets published in the National Institutes of Health’s recent guide for physicians do not meet the RDAs, because the traditional American food choices are too low in nutrients. The NIH diets are too low in important nutrients such as chromium, vitamin K, folate, and magnesium, whereas the Eat to Live diet plans and suggested menus more than meet all RDAs within the NIH’s caloric limits.” -Joel Fuhrman, M.D., “Eat to Live” p. 190

Once again, “The RDAs reflect a diet that caused all the problems in the first place.”

The above quotes from Dr. Joel Fuhrman reflect those RDAs that are too low, now let’s look at the ones that are too high.

“The US RDAs for Protein, Calcium, and Zinc have all been elevated due to influence from the beef and dairy lobbyists and because of our poor diets using WHO standards is much better for all nutrients. They recommend about 35 grams per day in protein or .5g/kg ideal body weight, For calcium, it is around 550 mgs (JR - S/B 450, see Jeff N. & WHO on p.37), for Zinc it is about 7-9. The RDA for calcium was raised in the US to compensate for the excess intakes of animal protein (which can negtively effect calcium "balance", and 2) because the primary source of calcium in the US is dairy products, which have a very low absorbtion rate (Around 32%). Dark green leafies have an absorbtion rate of around 55-65%. So, a health diet will fallshort on US targets for Protein, Calcium and maybe Zinc. Dont worry.” -Jeff Novich

Once again, “The RDAs are biased in favor of the conventional level of intake. They are not based on how people should eat to maintain optimal health; rather, they have been formulated to represent how we do eat. They characterize the conventional diet: high in animal products; lots of dairy products and fat; and low in fiber, antioxidants, and other nutrients, such as vitamin C, that are rich in plant foods. The RDAs reflect a diet that caused all the problems in the first place.”

Peace and Love..........John

Actually the RDA's tend to be pretty solid for the minimum needed nutrition to sustain health.

If you can't achieve the RDA for most nutrients daily, then theres probably something wrong with your diet or an imbalance somewhere, lack of variety etc.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/02/2014 01:01PM by powerlifter.

<<<2500 calories from 80/10/10 your looking at about 15-35g of protein if you are very lucky>>>

2500 X 10% = 250 / 4 = 62.5 versus “15-35”

Once again Chris, how did you come up with only “15-35g of protein” when Protein is supposed to be 10%? Could this be where you went wrong?

In my Post above, I made 3 Points.

1) You made a Mistake in your Protein calculations and I quered whether this might be where you went wrong.

2) The RDAs are too low in some Nutrients - the ones found in Plants.

3) The RDAs are too high in some Nutrients - the ones found in Animals.

Your response was to Ignore your Mistake and Deny that the RDA is too low in some Nutrients and that thousands of phytonutrients lack RDAs, all of which are found in Plant Foods and Deny that the RDA is too high in some Nutrients, all of which are found in Animal Products.

Once again, the RDAs are NOT based on how people should eat - they have been formulated to represent how we do eat.

powerlifter is not interested in facts, JR.
you are feeding the troll.

Except it doesn't work like that when you break it down nutritionally, show me the food breakdown of 2500 calories of a typical 80/10/10 menu and you will see its nowhere near that amount of protein.

Lets use 20 banana's for example the staple of many 80/10/10ers, which is around 2000 calories and provides about 1g of protein per banana, so thats 20g of protein.

the other 500 calories usually coming from some greens and a small amount of nuts and seeds, so lets be generous here and say that 500 calories worth of these greens/nuts would give you another 20g-25g of protein. Still a long way short of the 60g your quoting at 2500 calories.

Anyway protein is fairly easy to get even as a vegan pending you eat variety, balance and enough calories.

Like i say again if your struggling to achieve the RDA for many nutrients, which are often on the low end of the spectrum, then theres probably something wrong with your diet.

Also fresh you asked why jtprindl would want to include the likes of sea vegetables in there diet.

The number 1 reason would be so you could get a bio-available source of iodine, another important nutrient completely lacking in the 80/10/10 and many other diets.

Fruits and most land plant vegetables contain little to no iodine. So this is another potential pitfall.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 01/02/2014 02:26PM by powerlifter.

time to eat, troll?

iodine is not stored and they claim 150 ug is requirement.

so where am i getting enough iodine?
why no symptoms?

"What foods are naturally high in iodine? Iodine is a component of almost every living plant and animal. No standard measurements of iodine in food exist because iodine concentrations vary across the world"

<<<Except it doesn't work like that when you break it down nutritionally, show me the food breakdown of 2500 calories of a typical 80/10/10 menu and you will see its nowhere near that amount of protein.>>>

Sure it does if you want to make it work and you’re not challenged mathematically.

From a Protein Point of View only, let’s take your example of 20 Bananas or 2000 Calories of Bananas, which has 25.88 grams of Protein and 4.71 grams of Fat and add to that the Salad I’ve told you about above and on 12-13-13 which does not include the Sesame Seeds and the Avocado and has 387 Calories - 30.67 gm Protein (31.7%) - 5.38 gm Fat (12.93%) and when we add the Salad to the Bananas, the overall stats would be:

2387 Calories - 56.55 gm Protein (9.48%) - 10.09 gm Fat (3.9%)

Now let’s go back and add the Avocado to my Salad which now has 576 Calories - 33.05 gm Protein (22.95%) - 23.98 gm Fat (38.72%).

Now when we add the Avocado, we have:

2576 Calories - 58.93 gm Protein (9.15%) - 28.69 gm Fat (10.36%)

So without the Avocado she’s getting 56.55 grams of Protein and with the Avocado she’s getting 58.93 grams of Protein and these calculations would be for a 120 pound woman and even according to the exaggerated RDA recommendations using .8 (instead of a more realistic number like .5), her Protein need is only 43.64 grams, so she’s getting 30 to 35% more Protein than she needs based on this exaggerated RDA recommendation.

And then, if we wanted to create a Diet based on her Protein need alone using the RDA recommendations, all this woman needs to eat to get all of her Protein is to eat the Salad I mentioned and ~10 bananas or 1002 Calories, which will provide another 12.97 grams of Protein [12.97 + 30.67 = 43.64].

So it’s not that hard to get the Protein you need, as long as you know how to do it (keeping in mind we don’t need as much as we’ve been lead to believe).

To Recap:

120 / 2.2 X .8 = 43.64 grams of Protein

1 Salad and 10 Bananas = 43.64 grams of Protein

1 Salad and 20 Bananas = 56.55 grams of Protein (130% of RDA)

1 Salad with an Avocado and 20 Bananas = 58.93 grams of Protein (135% of RDA)

Once again, it’s not that hard to figure out, unless you’re challenged mathematically.

Peace and Love..........John

I think you should re-check your calculations.

1 avocado which is about 322 calories only contains 4g of protein. How much sesame seeds are you sprinkling on this salad lol.

An ounce of sesame seeds would provide the remaining 180 calories and only again provides 5g of protein. So in total the 500 calories not coming from banana's only yielded about 9g of protein in the end. Even if we were to be generous and add a huge plateful of greens ontop, take another 10g of protein generously, it still falls miles short for a 2500 calorie intake.

Add that to the 2000 calories coming from 20 bananas and like i said in my original post you only have about 35g of protein maximum in the end. Which isn't enough for most adult individuals by a long shot.



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 01/02/2014 03:32PM by powerlifter.

If I were asked to eat 20 bananas I would consider that a punishment.

JR is patiently refuting powerlifters contention with a real example that people do all the time, and powerlifter still can't get the math right (JR is only showing 2.5 g of protein for the avo, powerlifter), and then we have people saying, why would i want to eat 20 bananas, that's crazy! and next it will be, MOST people won't eat that much salad, and on and on. hilarious.
(hint -it's not about YOU, rawpracticalist, it's about proving a point - you see that has nothing to do with your personal preferences?)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/02/2014 03:39PM by fresh.

OK good point

People do that all the time. Someone puts up an example, using bananas (JUST TO KEEP THE EXAMPLE SIMPLE! - it could be ANY variety of fruits! - SEE?) and people focus on the bananas.
One could just as easily substitute 10 different fruits including persimmons, berries, dates, mangos, sapote, - whatever- in equal caloric amount.

And after all this, after powerlifter sees that JR is correct, and when powerlifter is unable to explain why I and many others are showing no thyroid problems while seemingly having no iodine in my diet, or no zinc deficiency symptoms, etc, etc, he will STILL continue to come on this board tomorrow and say, BUT IODINE IS a problem, and zinc is a problem! because the RDA's are accurate! and diet is so hard and raw foods are deficient!
Further confusing people in the endless unnecessary debate here, when things could be better focused on what works for people or many other things.

<<<1 avocado which is about 322 calories only contains 4g of protein. How much sesame seeds are you sprinkling on this salad lol. An ounce of sesame seeds would provide the remaining 180 calories and only again provides 5g of protein.>>>

Chris, do you really think that all Avocados have 322 Calories? It’s quit ironic that you rely so much on Science and yet, you actually think all Avocados have 322 Calories. The Avocado I added to my Salad of mostly Leafy Greens only weighed 4 oz., as I mentioned to you in my Post dated 12-13-13 and I did NOT include the Sesame Seeds in the stats provided in this Post, although I gave you 3 examples in my Post dated 12-13-13.

In the 27 years that I have documented everything that I have eaten, I have always used the actual net weight minus the pits, skins and peels instead of using just 1 Avocado or 1 Banana, for example. Perhaps if you were more Scientific in your approach to analyzing Nutrition, you might NOT be making so many Mistakes.

<<<JR is patiently refuting powerlifters contention with a real example that people do all the time, and powerlifter still can't get the math right …and next it will be, MOST people won't eat that much salad, and on and on.>>>

Great point Gary, thanks for illustrating how PREDICTABLE some people can be. It sort of reminds me of Truman's Law: If You Cannot Convince Them, Confuse Them. This goes back to what I’ve said before about people who do NOT have the Truth and they are NOT interested in learning the Truth and that is that there are only 2 things that they can do and that is 1) Lie or 2) Change the Subject.

Peace and Love..........John

<<<Further confusing people in the endless unnecessary debate here, when things could be better focused on what works for people or many other things.>>>

Gary, I just read your Post after I Posted mine and my reference to Truman's Law was quit serendipitous. Interestingly, the first thing I thought of when I woke up this morning was something I thought of a long time ago and how it applies with some people on this message board and it has to do with how naysayers want to try to Prove our Diet does NOT work and they don’t put any effort into Proving that it does work and serendipity strikes again.

Peace and Love..........John

Classic Tom Billings Syndrome shown by PL

<<<powerlifter is not interested in facts, JR.
you are feeding the troll.>>>

Hey Gary,

I didn’t see this Post earlier since it came through at the same time powerlifter’s Post came through and I agree with you - “powerlifter is not interested in facts” and that’s why I pointed out earlier that he is a Dis-Honest Skeptic and probably an Internet Shill [consciouslifenews.com] .

<<<Classic Tom Billings Syndrome shown by PL >>>

Hey anon,

I get a chuckle every time I think of Tom Billings Syndrome. It’s too bad Tom doesn’t know just how funny he can be.

Peace and Love..........John